'l'b'e Attorne;: b General atairsVered dirif9lisieitiestbystleacling from the Act a proviso, that.it should not, he necessary. to •.prove the Deptity.a Conintissioner•orOificer. •-• • . •;. • Lord ,ELLENBCHLOUGS svould . 'assume froth lie coy •of the affidavit produced ; that the a ffi davit itself , Waii Orniini because lie .was directed to do soby the• Act: but that was-not enough ; it. .must be sworn eitlier Were a Confivissioner, or a person ail , thorised by the C o mmissioners. The Act' did"ii6t. Vel .b l aore • h a t t the authority should 'be Proved; bt th6••Offidavit .t Court ran " sworn before. me, Whitaker, *distributor." The Alt did not state that a distributor, qicoad distributor, had any authority to take the affidavit. • The Attorney-General called Mr. •Whitaker, who proved that he had received from the Stamp-office,. in 1803, an authority in writing to take such affidavits; but he had mislaid it. Mr. E. Lours rising to cross-examine this witnestr— Lord ELIANBOROUGH Itatd; he would not have what was meant for lenity quoted as precedent.. The Counsel must put his client upon examining the witness: he might suggest the questions to him. Mr. Garrow, for the prosecution, said , that th is was not a new doctrine. It h ad been decided in Virestiniusier Hall; and Mr. Clifford had left the Court in consequence the decision. Mr. W itaker produced the letter from Mr. 13ereSforil, late Secr , ..taly to the Commi sinners, which enclosed his Aninlaid *intro! y. It mentioned the authority enclosed. Friel iocornelettness of this evidence, the fact of the pl. e, in (plead -4i being bought at the office of The Independent Whig, 140 23., wolvick-square, was proved; and Mr. Samuel pf t!‘e Stamp-office, produced the original affidavit. -Mr. E. Laves 01),Wed that the evidence was now, more in complete du,: More. Lund ELLE au stounn.—They are not proceedingutider the statute law; they have proved what they are not required by the Act to do—the buying of the publication. • Mr. E. ',awes proceeded •to state that, the affithivit was a nullity. Lord F.0.,x si wtoup H.—The certificate is now only supple tory evidence;. an if the affidivit, was not 'kvy(lril Before the proper officer, it i:. void. But if thr defendant. had only written a, letter, saying, I shall carry on such a printing busiqess at such g place, a parer had heen produced boug ht at Iti f it place, it would he e fellable evittenee,tO gq to a Jury, that the 'defeudinit was the ;)uhllslier of the paper. f • Mr. E. Luwesiaict, that his übjection..was, that the affidtait 'as a pert , ct nullity, unless' authorised by tine Act of mem. litre the affidavit had been sworn before a -person riot appointed it.. Lord Et.l.E;t4l Butt VG .•-•rjt it againi:i you, both ways. if they g tom the Act of earlianolt, the affitlavitwiLl be .left to the y with such observations.o.pe prodqc.edenvelope, sug in tavour of itsAutliority,.. 3t.it, at any rate, they have a d claratiou under the di•leinlinit's hand, that he is the printer, p:!•.lisher, ands ile proprietor of a paper intended to lie publiihed at No. -43, Warwick-square, on the lath of May; ankon the 23d of,Seetember following, a paper is purchased three.. .It is competent to you to w, that in the intermediate time he ceased to carry fai the Outing business there. titherwise the evidence: is competent to go to a ./ury,.as to the fact of Ihet. fendant being the publisher ofshe-paper in question. Mr, fi, rc;quested that a note Might be taken of hie objection. Lord F.l.l.esaoßotlnli.-...1 have already anticipated your wishes. The libel was then read . by the proper o ff icer, Mr. lowten , . published by, iind fur the were not ytt pnesessiop coUI4 t* Mad foy was rna4l4- • hcard your sit4ittioige.4l4;* M111M1NP..............." , -rule it—and now we will go t 4.) 34 underwent a long cross-examination by the purpose. asEtd the Attorney-General if he went upon third count; as he wished to know which the: applicable to ; for, having only the common had compared it only with the first in tho roes,_As applicable to any. If it is stated counts, it was your business to discover you came here. in and proved; it being an allegation that in it as the libel quoted. there had been no proof where The Ga- Joll.—Your paper admits it. The produce evidence in all cases of bankruptcy. . proceeded to read his defence. He had chcisen to commit it to writing, mistrustful of the effect of his, feelings, and desirous not to waste the time of the Court. In thus digesting his thoughts, he was following the e xam p le of, that great literary genius, iN;11. Gilbert Wakefield, who was long immured within the very walls from which he bad just emerg ed. Mr. Wakefield did bur live to taste of liberty atter his Con finement in Dorchester goal, and died. For the defendant was, erhaps; reserved even a worse calamity, from end t had )o prospect of escape but in the truth and mercy of his Jury ; and these he trusted he should obtain, notwithstanding All past transactions and offences • which, as far as relat ed to him, ke trus ted would be completely effazed from the minds of the Jury. in the first place, he took an objection that the place of publication, as set forth in the information, was erroneus. The libel was there stated to have been published in the parish of St. Mary-le-bow, in the ward of Cheap; whereas, it was in fact published in the parish of Christ Church, in the ward of Far ringdon Within. He should be told that proof in London was sufficient. If so, why introduce a . positive falsehood in the re cord ? The information charged a fact which had been dis proved in evidence and, however the Court might rule it, the Jury had a right to say that the defendant had not published the libel as alleged in the information; especially as it waa the criminal intention which constituted the crime ; and as no criminal intention could be proved upon the defendant in p.ablisto; ing the alleged libel, which he never saw till it was printed; and which, being then confined at Dorchester, a distance of 120 n ., es from London, it was impossible he should have seen. But he should be told, that the law imputed to him the respon sibility for every thing which appeared in a newspaper of whic h he swore himself proprietor. N o twithstanding all that profes sional ingenuity should maintain, the Jury would still decide from their consciences; and, a+ to the libel in question, the de fendant was aA one who was told that he had done an act in his sleep. Hr could call witnesses to prove that the libel was not his; that the article was written so close upon its publication, as to preclude the possibility of its being previously inspected by him and that when it did reach him, in the paper in which it had been published, he disclaimed all knowledge of it. He was biirne away from the scenes of his employment by the heavy ientence of the law, with the only alternative of continuing the public,,tion of his paper, or embracing immediate ruin by reliti . - quishing his only support.. He took God to witness he never saw the article till it was published, or counselled or sanctioned its appearance. The actual writer of it, and bona fide publi , her, was willing to answer fur it; but had been rejected, for the sake of bringing the defendant once more to punishment. He did not impute to the Attorney-General any other motive for this conduct than a sense of duty : but here the defendant stod4 after having been three years a solitary prisoner at the distance of 120 miles froin his business, which he was either compelled to renounce, or to entrust to the management of another. This deputy had eflered to surrender himself, provided the Attorney-General would prosecute him, and not the defendant; butle had refuse:rto do so. Surely, however, the Jury would not confound the innocent with the • guilty; and where was that justice' whi , sh rejected the Utter, and prosecuted the former io The .lefend4it was aware that he might have been spared this trial. if lie had suffered judgment to go against Nat he default ; whereby he would have confessed what he was utterly unconscioes r.f,.--the wicked intent charged by ,this information: For resisting so mean a proposal, be trusted he shoult3 : meet with the approbation, rather than the censure, of the )ury; and should nut place himself in their hands with the leas : safety- for titat conduct. The law took him to a distant place. It could nut be supposed that it ther e by meant to de p rive him of his prop of life; and it was from the optration Of its sentence alonethafte was brought to answer for this offence. It .might be urged that this was no defence • the allowance of it in his case Would open a precedent which w ould set wide the gates of Judie% and reduce her to a mere mockery. • But would not • .• • . 692 THE ZONAL REGISTER. , , ,•.. ••• • ... -. . - cliw to Filo ''Qi dissil i uati:teshall. him& no foundation--a mt., t..: i , ,. :Loy t i tleattliUll li • . , , bave the benefit of your assiitancel4frbbuld; o . bate thing else. such a cainplication of spartVluil • `li YOuipfi4 a him Mr. Whitaker uncle] about what , Questions to aikki ats •=ittbeite toe Ally in4fier , lir Chile defendant, to no purpc upon, them., 1 will hear •you'isib elaw.': - : ~ .. s , .. , "., ~ the M fi r. E. Laws asEtd Mr. Z. Laufer the 9 rceriii ' Weilidilt.P..Atta,..tatt..fa„49;4ft: i i w rs as t or the third read as a pl tion as to the copy of 111 c. - ;.% r t. .. Al ' , faculties of man, he P hi prove the respousihility'nfiA ..cligiV4-04t tc.lll.a6whawmvaaieler,‘r,i;s. .7,, tuned iii the Sunday Nei** .1 A., St• ;Or* . • Lard ELLENBOILOIIC The Act of t 1,4 SlitWoi the '4 . ...,. ia. ,, ,... T hs . 1 , 1141444.- . ruk awiji 4 aa i i,Vi; ' --,i.` re co rd. . cient proof, directed chef * -,-- ,•. 0 • - - eineteilir . differently in different ship shJuld be sworn .before . i ."•,.%'-':?....s r.• t 4 . egeC2br-vr%le-w .. that difference before 1 0 'amilti: l3l4).-- . The Gazette was put whom the Commissiowa s s fio t . .. ?!..3tii . , .4‘,.i n e,,gor HA out, • " ii, Such an order existed i pole. ihe present affidavit•aPpear . 1 . , Ile beert - AWOE 23 ' . - The defendant said, before the Distribut9r of Otgnlps far .?- i • tivitiiroiclitrkt,.} side was obtained.. defendant, being, at f)le. time alit* being niade, a . priaoner in ri *veil pircneAter gaol; and nu aut.boxity aitptaodlo have treed. Lord ELLENIOROUC tion of the paper is evi to hint for that purpose. . - 1.• t.f.,...nif •••• 1 • The defendant then • ... • . le.:_!-1k.i....•:..., Ilhes.i ff iiintt from ". _,....:_.... •- .ntirwil i•it tr 4tr a riper y; its said to be rain ti Led azi4 p , • 4 . 4 1 1 . !it i 4 ., , ,was afraid the Court w A,4 111%. 71 r1„ t fr,---, . _- .> wa4 , that . thp glithii P/ g :i it.,:, , 6 " l";,*' . that for which it t ( C. ' I T: i & :1:' -.- . 0 "t Ve. I s . •1• • . 02.-1 have heat ti V -. ! - 4•t i1ia. ,;:f4 6 14 114 ;,": • ... • • .•.• • i ..e1.7 t40. : 4). 4 ` • ' :11111". •- 4 411 e 1.4 vp\i: sett. , !fd) l . •. • t - .'' , e' i', \)•• - 'i4JA! --- '.. . . : ;1 , . : ,• ,