LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S RENCH, MONDAY, BUY `2N. LI BELS. THE KING V. JOHN HUNT. On the first sitting of the court this morning the So . licitor General move c 'd for judgment on this derriitia.lt, who was tried the sittings alter last term before the Lord Chief Justice, at We3uninsier, and conviated of pub lishing in The Examiner, a libel on the House of Coin- mons. The defendant put in no affidavits, but addressed the coon, from a written paper, in mitigation of punish mem. lie urged the purity of his intentions in 01H:sit ing the matter cumplaiocd of, alleging that he had stated nothing more than what necessarily followed from the opinion expressed even by one of the speakers of that house, which he was charged with villilyurg. lie was about to address their lordships in reprobation of the special jury system, but was stopped by the court, who informed tom it was entirely irrelevant to enter upon such a topic, the system hieing established by act of parlia ment, and consequently was placed without their juris. diction. The defendant hail HO intention to libel the House of Commons. That house, in his opinion,could not be libelled by any writer, because its character would depend upon its public acts. if those acts were for the public good, it was of slight importance whether the editor of a paper wrote ill or well of its proceedings. The Solicitor General briefly addressed their lordships --and whilst he conceded to public writers the utmost freedom of political discussion, lie contended it should be exercised in decent and 171011erll language. After a short consultation on the beach, Mr. J ustice Bayley orotiouticed the sentence of the court, which was, " That the defendant be imprisoned for one year in the house of correction, Volrlhatliftelds, and at die elm of that period enter recognizances, him self in 5001. and two sureties in f25(11. each. TUB 16.1)161 U. THOMAS PLYNDALL.. The Solicitor General moved the court for judgment upon Thomas Flyndall, of the Wester* Luminary, who was convicted at the last assizes for the county of Devote, held at Exater, el a false, scandalous, and degrading libel upon her Majesty the Qoeen 1 The defendant put in a long affidavit, slating, that he has twelve children, nine of whom were dependant upon hint for support, and that if he was imprisoned for any length of time at a place uistant from that where he carried on his business. (Exeter), it would be ruinous to himself and family.— The affidavit coutained nothing of moment-Imin read— the defendant addressed the court at sonic length from a manuscript which he held in his hand; he stated, that the publication in question occurred in the regular dis charge of his boututen duty, as a conductor of a news paper, which re q uired the notice of public events. That his attention had been called to the subject by the pub lication of the report of the committee of the House of Lords, appointed to iiivestigate charges against the Queen ...which report impunged her Majesty's conduct in se verer terms than he hadjused in commenting upon it defendant then (after expressions of his poverty) reiterated the min which must befal hunt and his affairs, if he was imprisoned at any distance front his usual placa of residence, and also called the attention of the court to the injury he had already sustained by assault and popular violence, in consequence of this prosecution.— Ile submitted, that he had already suffered enough for his offence, which he repeated was not intentional.— Ile had uniformly been the supporter of the royal family, the laws, and the government of his country; and the jury before whom he was tried, who knew his character in the country, had most earnestly and particularly re commended, that he should suffer the most lenient pu nishment which the law could possibly inflict. He was now extremely sorry for the offence lie had committed. The Solicitor General, in reply, denied the peculiar right claimed by the defendant of acting upon, or even publishing the report of the House of Lords. As a journalist he (the defendant) contended Mr his right to comment upon public events. It was true that he had this right—certainly not peculatily, but in common with all the subjects of this tree country. Bit it was not for the free exercise of such a right he stood there for judgment this day, hut Mr a foul and infamous libel upon tier Majesty the Queen, and which was published at a period calculated more than any °thee to aggravate the offence. It was true lie had been recommended by a jury of his neighbours to great mercy and lenity. lie (the Solicitor General) had no desire to reduce the value of that recommendation, which, he presumed, was given by vasons well qualified to form a proper judeinant of his general character and conduct. Ile had also sworn that tie had a family of twelve children, nine of whom were dependent upon hun for support. These were circumstances upon which the court would ex ercise their discretion; and as the defendant had expressad his contrition for the offence, lie had no wish to aggravate the circumstances of the case. AI ter the j s had eousulted about let minutes on the lit nen. Mr.Justiee 11:yley ruse to proliaUlice jialainetit. He said, that the delvuiiant had Leen Immo guilty of what was truly descrii.ed as being a Mul awl infamous libel on her Majesty the Queen—a libel too, which was pub lished at a period well calculated to aggravate the cha racter of the (deuce. Titere was nothing inure important to the due administration of justice, than the party whose conduct was imptimtwil, should go unprejudiced before a constitutional tribunal —lt was the wisest and titOst leading maxim of the laws of this kingdom, that a person should be presumed • at •l the contrary appeared in due course of law. The defendant had not only disregarded . this maxim o f l aw , w h ic h i t oug h t to have been his first duty to have obeyed, but had added other charges against her Majesty, which were properly destanated in the loill,:tnietit as beingealculated to defame and slander the character of . tier Majesty the Queen.- Ihe defendant had said, that he bad uniformly sup ported the reigning family upon the throne ; he shoul d h . ave recollect e d tha t h er Majesty tv ss the Consort of the king who Sat vu the tltrulle , and that She Was, manly THE NATIONAL REGISTER allied to the Royal Family for which he professed so devoted an attachment. The learned Judge in con clusion %aid, that the Court had taken seriously into its consideration the very strong recommendation of the Jury, who must have known the defendant's character in his neighbourhood, and that that recommendation had materially weighed with them hi pronouncing their judgment, which was—that the defendant should be imprisoned in the county jail of Devon, at Exeter, for the space of eight calendar months, and that at the expiration of that term he should give sureties to keep the peace for three years, himself to 5001. and two suffi cient sureties in 2501. each. The defendant then withdrew, in the custody of the tipsta(Y of the Court of King's Bench. THE JUNO V. BELL AND OTHERS. Mr. Scarlett said, in this case a rule for a criminal information for a libel had been obtained against The Times newspaper. He had now to skew cause against that rule. The libel was contained in an account, published in that paper, relating to the proceedings at a public meeting in Denbighshire, which cast some reflec tion on the character of the individual who was prose cutor in the present case. The defeudatits acknowledged that the article, which was the subject of proaecution, was unfounded; but the fact was, the defendants re ceived it from a correspondeut, and believed it correct. As soon as they discovered their error, they took every means in their power to trace out the person who had thus deceived them, but without success. They were now anxious to express their regret that they should in advertently hate been guilty of this injustice towards the prosecutor. Mr. Sergeant Parke said, his clients were ready to accept this public explanation. All the object they had in view was a justification of character. He was in structed to consent to the rule being discharged ou pay mem of costs. The rule was accordingly discharged. The Court disposed of several revenue cases, pronoun cing judgment on the affidavits. REMOVAL OF PAUPRRS.—THE BING V. THE INBAIII. TANTS OF LEEDS. This was an application to the judges to set aside the decision of the court of sessions which quashed the order of the magistrates for removing a pauper from Leeds to Scotland, where lie was settled. The question arose on the power vested in justices of the peace to remove four persons from one part of the kingdom to another. It appeared that a Scotcliman, with his wile and children, had become chargeable on tile parish of Alverdiston, Leeds, and the magistrates, under the act of parliament, which empowers them to remove persons born in Scot ! land, Ireland, and the Isle of Man, to those place! respectively with their children chargeable on parishes, made an order of removal of the lather, a Scotchutan, in this case, to Scotland, leaving the mother and children, who had obtained by birth a settlement in the parish. On appeal to the sessions the order was quashed. Alter arguments pro a con, the Lord Citief Justice lamented the necessity which the court had been under, upon sonic occasions, of saying the wife might be sent to one place and the husband to another. In the presc•to case, without considering the former law of settlement, it was impossible not to say the magistrates had the power of sending the whole family together, and if so, they ought not to exercise the compulsory mode of se paration. The decision of the court of sessions, quash ing the order of the magistrates fur separation of the husband front the wife, and ought to stand. The other judges were of the same opinion, and the order of the court of sessions was affirmed. FRIDAY, JUNE I. THE KING V. CARTWRIGHT, WOOLER, &C. At the re-commencement of this case to-clay, Mad docks stated to the Court that he would address a pew words to their Lordships. Alter sonic introductory words he was proceeding to "make some reflections out the manner in which Special Juries were constituted. when he was interrupted by the Court, and told that he could not be allowed to make any observations of that nature. He went on, but was again interrupted, and told that he could not be permitted to asperse all the persons who had been concerned in supporting the indicuttent. If he had not any thing to offer in mitigation of punish ment, be had better be silent. The Court was oidi.ged to interfere repeatedly, and the defendant then said, he would pass over nearly all he had to say, as he found tie should he should nut be allowed to speak freely. lie then concluded by asking the Court, if they would Cause him to be locked up for conduct which he could justify on the principle that he had been only exercising his benevolent feelings. A person of the name of Mills attempted to address the Court in the behalf or Lewis, who was then in pri son. The Court told hint that he could not be heard, as the defendant was not before :.;e Court. Mr. Denman addressed the Court in behalf of Major Cartwright. He wished to spew that the Major had taken but a vet y sown part in the proceedings fur w hien he was now to tie punished. Besides, part of the offence ch irged oti Wooler and ERllOll'l5 was what they had publist:ed in their respective newspapers, am; conse quently the Major was not at all itnpl,cated iu that p.r of the crime, lie then contended that the lucre act of electing a legislatorial attorney was of itself no ofLiice. If the defendauts merely assembled to petition fur a re dress of grievances ; and if they had in some degree over-stretcned the proper bounds, their meeting with good intentions ought to have its weight in punishment. He then alluded to the publications of the Major, and concluded by repeating ttiaLtltotigli no abuses in the Legislature existed, if the parties met fur a iminufide ;impose, they were justifiable. At all events the criaracter and conouct of the Major were very dif ferent from those who were with hint. He hoped use sentence of the Couit would bear a reference to the Nlajor's particular case, and be fully in unison with the prsociples of freedom. Great espressiutis of admiration honoured the close of Mr. Deninan's speech. Mr. lfoolsr tlicu aChllcalh.ci the coon at cOliSiderahic lettoth. IFS The Solicitor-Ceneral then rose to reply in aggravation of the offence. He was not desirous of pressing the weight of punishment upon one more than the other of the defendants. They were all implicated in the un constitutional act, which he expressed a hope might be the last attempt ul the sort. Titere was every reason to believe it would never again occupy public attention, or come before the court. - The court took a considerable time to deliberate on the punishment to be passed on the defendants. Mr. Justice Bayley then said, it was his painful duty to pronounce the sentence of the Court. The charge 116 in the indictment was, that the defendants conspired to raise discontent against the government, as by law established, and to produce hatred and contempt of the House of Commons. In pursuance of their object they met to elect and appoint a person to be the representative of the inhabitants of Birmingham in the Commons Housg of Parliament. The learned Judge then adverted to the evidence. it was proved that Major Cartwright was not within the hearing of the resolutions. He made no address on the olOect of the meeting but re turned thanks to them. 'I o judge of the con duct of all the defendants, it was proper to look at their conduct. Maddocks, Wooler, and Lahnonds made speeches, to excite disinfection in the minds of the meeting, which proved at their trial, the Jury found them guilty by a conscientious verdict. The affidavit of Major Cart wright exhibited the feelings of an extremely good heart, strong principles of religion, and of great attachment to the country to which he belonged. He (the learned Judge) lamented to see that upon one subject, and per haps upon only one, there was to a certain degree in the mind of that gentleman a delusion, an unfortunate de lusion as to the rights of adult men to vote fur their own representatives. The major's preference of imprison ment to tine was a preference which deserved to weigh, and would weigh, with every well constituted mind; but the court was bound to look at the major s age, and to judge mole prudently than lie had done for I • self. — The Court, taking all these circumstances into consider ation, did order and adjudgethat the defendant Ed monds should be imprisoned fur nine months; the defendant Maddox, for eighteen ; and the defendant Wooler, for fifteen months, in the jail of Warwick i to find sureties fur their good behaviour during five years, themselves in 4001. each, and two securities in 2001. each :—the sentence of the Court upon Major Cart wright was—that he should pay a fine of 1001. to the King, and be imprisoned until that fine was paid. Major Cartwright paid the fine and left the court.— The other delendauts were taken into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench. RIMMBR IP. SIR ROBERT PLAT, CLERE. This was a nisi obtained by Mr. Denman to discharge a cog,nouit, which the defendant, as he said, had unwit tingly signed. The affidavit upon which the rule was grained was made by the defendant himself, and was to the following effect :—that he hati received no consider ation from itimmer for the bill ; that un proceedings being taken against him upon it in the year 1810, he had sieved a !taper upon accidentally at the office of calling Messrs Cooper and Lowe, the atturneysof Mr. Riuner, which he did not know to be a copses* ; and that he 112ard no inure of the matter from toe year 1811 to the year 1819, and that, if the cognonis was discharged, he (deponent) bylined he had a pod defence to the action.. The Solicitor General, in showing calm against the rule, produced an affidavit from the plaintili Runnier, swearing to the consideration given to the bill (tool.), and accounting for the non insertion of it in his schedules, by stating that it was in the hands of Messrs. Cooper and Lowe, who had a lien upon it .(beyond its value for the piyinetu of costs due to them. A second affidavit fron► Messrs. Cooper and Lowe, set forth a letter written by Mr. llantiam, the defendant's attorney, a kw days before the signature of the corm& proposing that.cognu vit, and promising that his cheat siloald call to execute it. The affidavit further stated that there was an affi davit upon the tiles of the court by which Sir Robert Peat, in the year 1814, to exonerate his bail in the action set up the eognavii which he had given. —(Sur Robert having sworn that he heard nothing of the maim be tween the years 1811 and 1819.) It conciiitled by stating, as a reason for the delay in proceeding, that the defendant had for a lung time been in prison, and that for another long time he had been privileged as in the suite of• a foreign ambassador. The Court thought tic defendant's affidavit in 1814 decisive as to the nature of the else, and discharged toe rule with costs., estraordisary Colyiagration—A great quantity of clean straw being spread in the street before a gentleman's house in Nottingham -street, St. Pan cras, to prevent the noise of carriages, on account of the lady's illness, the fineness of Friday caused a multitude of children to collect on the spot, who amused themselves by tunthling and playing in the straw, which from being laid down three ur four days, was as dry as chaff: on a sudden the straw caught tire (supposed to be caused from the sparks of a pipe, where a woman sat smoking), and burnt with such rapidity that several of the children were severely scorched; some escaped with their little frocks and pinafores ou tire, and one was: nearly falling a victim to the clauses, from which it was rescued by a hackney-coachman wrapping it up in his great coat. The entire of the straw con sumed beibre the conflagration could be stopped; it spread considerable alarm in the neighbourhood. A ground rattan cane was presented at the last meeting of the Aladras Literary S.,exty, .'216 feet in length ; being 2.:; fact higher t:t.,.1 the monument at Landon. 3 # ~ t ~ . ~~ ~"~ •l I . . 7 Y N • '~ I 1 3 •-,.. ; , 1 1 . . .. . . . . _. ..-. . ---", .----•_. • - • f tl4 : .