i 1 0 ' [i 30 - - - iiio.ll TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. BANKRUPTS. 1~ I L 4 IV INTELLIG EXCH. I t. 1: r A Jo !, ~' ...:., COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MIISDAY, JAN. 20. •-• . • ' 11. Smith, Tooting, Surrey, victualler. Solicitor, Mr. Plai.ted. last Place, Lambeth. • J. Witlinms, Pinner.' Hall. Old Broad Street, merchants. Sole. Views. Swain and Co. Old Jewry. J. atalk. Blaeckfriats Road, coach maker Sole. Messrs. Voting awl Co. St. NI Weed's Court. Poultry. W. cad T. Kel.ey. Hackdyke. Nottinghamshire, hemp deal ers. Sol. Mr. Hicks. Gray's Inn Squarg, It. Stinson. Ilud'.ey. Woicesterslitre, grocer. Sols. Messrs. Collett and Co. Chancery Lane. S. Brecknell, Whiatimel, Woreestershira, hop merchant. Sols. Messrs. Carclale and Co. Gray's Inn. J. Child. Bristol, grocer. Suls. Mesas. Visaed and Co. Lin coln's Inn Fmlds. .1. Wright. Star. wick. Northamptonshire, horse dealer. So!. 111 r. .Pete,. ClV 4 .:icery Lone. J. Salim,. Meitingham. sura, fa mer. Sols. Messrs. C arke and Cu Chancery Lane. YHVH/ENDS. Feb. 96. H. Clarke and F. Guntlry, Liverpool, merchants— W. T. Edmunds, Castle Bugged, Cimligamhire. Pinner- if. R. Ball. Bridge Hotel, Lambeth, linen draper-1 t, W. Nicholson, • Kingston noon Hull, merchant. CERTIFICATES ro be meted Feb. 11. J. 11 ill. lkover. rwldler—H. Crockett, sen. Haddenham, Bucks, grocer—J. Halington, jun. York, grocer—T. Cheethatn. Stock . port, surgeum—G. French, Whiiechapel Road, provision agent. I.IDEL—PALMER'S PRINCIPLES or NATURE. THE KING O. 111NRRIDRE. The Solicitor Central elated, that this was a prosecution for a blaspliepous libel, against the defendant, one of Carlile's litsripiain. The learned gentleman referred to the machinery by which these publications were covertly sold, in the case of Wethlin.rion, Ste. the publication by the defendant took place in a similar way. He contended if even the defendant was Net the secret agent, yet if acting in concert with the secret a 1 .t. as the servant or slic;Paan, lie was equally guilty. Welli-on smith, a Butv•street °dicer, went to a shop, No. b, • Water-lane, Fleet-street, on the 3Jth of August last---Barton and Duke went with him. W irises* went deem on the right hand side, Barton and Duke on the left. The ether two officers wcnt lo the public-house nearly opposite the shop —saw the defendant, Tuittiridge, at the door, looking up Fleet etreet.— The witness looked in, and saw as you enter the door that there is a partition, and you torn into the door to get into the shop, but as to the hack room, or part of the shop where wit ness remised the publication, witness spoke to the defendant for • copy of The Black Dwarf," which lie received from bins, price Gd. Witness then raked for " Palmer'. Principles of Nature." Defendant slid lie did not sell it, hat pointing to e dial with the names of books and prices affixed, lie said -•• You can get it there." There was a spout from the door alcove. The defendant went from behind the counter, and .counter, and turning round to the left behind the partition, went into the passe e behind the partition. Witness saw upon the list before the defendant went out or the shop, the name of Palmer's Principles of Nature," the number and the price.— The dial was against a partition as you enter the shop. He then went to the hand, and prayed the number next the hook— the book then came down. Witness turned round to a boy, who said "It won't stsmill there." Witness saw the stfined priors, and put the money in, and thee Ilia book. came down the spout throng's the partition from a back room, nut thrptieh the ceiling. Witness put into the spout two half crowns, which was the price of the book. It was Palmer's Principles oi o Nature." Witness then went out of the shop, • .„ up the ine towards Flee(-street—he looked back, and saw the d leutlant Tunbridge at the door, looking the way witness us* going. the produced is the hook which witness marked before tic parted with it. The name of Carlile was on the door. Cross-examined by the defendant—Has belonged to Bow etreet three or four years ; was before a calico drawer, has been in the post•ollice, and then went into the velvet fancy trade. Defendant—You say you purchased it of me, and I told yor where you would get it ? Witness answered in the affirmative. Asked for the p•mptilet 'about the Bishop of Clo_her and the soldier, and also a book published by Colibett ; purchased it for Pui ton, who belongs to the Bow-street ollioe ; will swear that the mark 'on the book is his hand writing ; purchased the book 'because lie knew there was a conviction on it before ; will not swear that the de:en-Ant sold it him, but that lie told hint where to get it; does nut know the defendant would have sold it if be bail known him to he a police-ullicer, ; Into read " Palmer's Principles." luaus 21. Defendant—Did it induce you to feel contempt for the Holy Scriptures ithess—lt certainly did. On being asked to explain, witness said he felt a contempt for the book.—(A laugh.) On a further explanation witness said it produced no effect on him whatever. Defendant—Did it cause you to break the public peace 1 Witness—Nn. Tile Lord Chief Justice observed, that it was not necessary or usual to read the whole of the information ; the attention of the Jury would be directed to the substioice, as it would occupy unnecessary time to read the whole. The brat count in t ale information was here read, setting forth that defendant being • wicked and evil disposed person, published the libel in question. The Defendant then rose and addressed the Jury. He said the author of the work, for which he was prosecuted, was one of the greatest philosophers of the este in which be lived lie had laboured incessantly to rust out the growth of supersti stition, and sow the seeds of philosophic wisiltion and divine truth thieve, the eye of science and nature. Ile would show that to siopport this doctrine of libel the law hail been perverted by Jadgea and Juris a. There was no standard of uniformity in theological opinions among men : as woll stiLlit you restrain the tides or the turbulence of the ocean; as well might you • change or alter the aeasunv, as to stem public opinion and public discussion on these subjects. lie meant to defend every sen tence, and he show that not one of thou was at •ariatiee with the principles of the ostahlislied laws of the land. If the Jury were not **tidied that there ass no direct ev *Aimee of his having published this book, lie must proceed with • very long defence. He mast pat it to the Jury to *ay whether their own libraries . were . (Re from every book of this description. lie would pravillitt he was free, from every thing that could bear the ortlestilh . f intake. *old defend the publication upon this geouso, that " Pal " :Ales" was a book free from ev.ry (:"; : • i • 4, • •"• - " ‘`. • • . ~~. g :NATTONAL4rig.ittit. Inference or motive. Rd mtiald altsw from every aentence that it was a book of the highest mind ohmmeter; and, ad •erting to the act paused to relieve the ennscienoes of Unita riatm, lie amid the Legislature hut sanctioned the denial of the godhead of the Trinity. The act was espressly entitled, An art to relieve those who denied or impugned the troth of the Hi.ly trinity." Lord Chief Justi e--No such thing ; it is an act passed only to relieve front penalties incurred under a former statute. Defendant persisted these were the words of the preamble of t►e ant in question. Thus did the Legislature themselves per il**, impugning the troth of the Godhead of the Trinity, Mash the Attorney General told the Jury •was part sad parcel ter the land, and that it was a libel so to impugn. He dared the Attorney Genets! to prove uny thing i••unoral in the book ; he defied him to object to it on any other ground than because it did not preach up tithes and tsar.; becesse it did not lic►nce oppression and violation of public law and justice, oy supporting politic robbery sad politic clot - option. The Lord Chid . Justice interrupted the defendant, who ed that the Christian religion could not be libelled, be- Pam.° it was in itself libellous, absurd, bluphemoee, and against law. Defendant—l will conduct my defence in my own way, and sot as your Lordship may please to dictate to me. The Defendant again proceeded—What could the Jury °envie! bins of publishing ?--a hook of criticism—filet was not against law—containing unanswerable arguments—that was • sot azsinst law. Denying the Divinity of the Christian teligion ens sot against law. Lord ChiefJustice--Yemit is, I tell you so. no defendant then read the book, and coatisited reading till emu o'clock. The Lord Chief Justice said, the object of the defendant's reading was to defame the Christian religion, which it was his duly to prevent. (Inc of 11 e Jury oleo observed, that as the evident object of the defendant in reading the libel was to defame the Christian religion. their minds were sulhiciestly made op. The defendant persisted in going on with the reading, con tending it was the essential ground of his defence, and that it was impossible be weld bare a fair trial, if the Jury refused to bear him out. The Lord CbiefJustice said, that unless the defendant re (raised from the coarse of defense which lie html adopted, after what had fallen from the Jury, his duty would be to older him to stand committed. The Jury, without hesitation, prononneed the defendant— guilty. The Lord Chief Illation ordered him immediately to be taken oat of Court in csatody. The defendant, in the hands of the tipstalT. exclaimed. " The Jury have not heard my defence-1 bare not ►ad a fair trial— the Jury have been packed." O'BRIEN N. COUTTS. This was an action to recover loss sustained by breach of contract. The plaintiff had imported a qnantity of whiskey from Canada, and sent his broker to the defendant, inviting bite 4o become the purchaser. It was agreed that the defendant maa to have it for 2s. Dd. per gallon. The plaintiff, howweer, after the contract, required an additional price for part of the whiskey, which wan above proof, and the defendant resisted that demand, on the ground that he had agreed to give no more than 2s. Dd. Cur the whole. Tie plaintiff's broker did not prove any contract for more than 2s. WI. and the Jury found a verdict for the defendant TIUCIUAV, MN. Sl.' BREACH or PRoallan ItARRIAOII. M'YHERana w. Ovia. Mr. Adolphus stated, that tideless an action for breach of promise of marriage, brought by a widow lady against the de fendant, Captain of a West India ship. She went out to De inarara in defendant's ship prior to her marriage with Capts n M'Pherson. In January, Datil, Capt. Lovie mine home, stating that Captain bl•Pherson had gives defendant 5001. to purchase for her. The defendant coming brae from Demerara, came to the house where she resided and took up his residence, professing hoitoarible suit to the plaintiff, whom he intended to marry. A letter ',would be put in, promising in the most solemn manner, to marry her ens his return. The defendant is 40 years of age, the plaintiff, a widow, probably older than , bat that was no topic of defence in answer to the action. lie understood the defence attempted to be set op would be, that this paper, which would be put Ws, was intended as a de mise of the premises which Mr. Lovierbed purchased for Mrs. M'Pherson, in which he bad filled up a blank left with a pro mise of marriage, where nu such thing was meant or intended. He should show that, for the purpose of h ing this poor , woman, a warrant of attorney had been fictitiously filled up by the defendant, and a distress put upon her thereupon, with the view of preventing berirom prosecuting this action.—This was • case of all others, which would excite the indignation of a British Jury. He was convinced the verdict of this day would be such as would relieve the plaintiff from that oppressive injury she complained of, and give the defendant nu cause to triumph. The learned Counsel called witnesses. who proved the plaintiff's case. Mr. Heerlen addressed the Jury for the defendant. Ilia learned friend had not endeavoured to excite their feelings in , the opening, hut no doubt would in reply. Now there was no objection to her enjoy ing the thing she liked best as often as she pleased. (A laugh:) He did not think any man would give a thousand pounds to marry a woman who had already buried two husbends, but more especially when a man had already had as much of her as In liked. It wan quite dramatic the account of the tender scene between the Captain and the plaintiff, as given by the married daughter.—He should prove that that witness had frequently seen them in bed together—a privilege, lie should likewise prove, enjoyed by sundry other Captains, and even Lieutenants. Several witnesses gave evidence of indecorous conduct on Bee part of toe plaintiff; hut the promise of marriage b. ing proved, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff--damages 5001. TIIIVOIIILL O. KITCIIE!FR• This action was brought by the plaintiff, a seaman, to recover damages for an assault committed by the defendint, his Captain. The plaintiff, it appeared,' AS employed as a sailor on boar a collier, name the Rom i• June, belonging to Sanderland.—ln October, 11421, the vessel was on her trey to the Port of Lon don, amid the plaintiff was ordered to heave the lead for sound ings. Whilst in the discharge of that duty the defendant called him npon the deck, and on pretence that he did not per form the operation of throwing the lead in a seaman-like et le. beat him with • rope, until his hack was discoloured by bruises. The assault was aggravated by the state of drunken ness in which the defendant thought lit to exercise his violence. The defence was that the plaintiff had grossly neglected his ditty, to the great danger of the vessel. The Jury, Limier all the circusnatiumes, found a venligt for the plaintiff—Damages 101. ♦,) `• WEDNESDAY. Jas. 22. DULLER N. CALDN ELL. Mr. Botch stated, that this way an action brought by a repot sailor against the owner of the ship New Liverpool. Having perlorined two voyages, on the third the vessel was taken by a IFrench privateer, in consequence of which he was refused his wages, as defendant agreed for, at Si. per month. It enter tunntely happened the defendant was in America when the plaintiff was in England. This occasioned • lapse of some years in bringing this action. At length meeting Mr.Caldweil in England, the defendant agreed to pay hint half his wages. Mr. Larder, the mate, went with the plaintiff to the defendant's lodgings, in Bury-street, St. Junri s, to IdelOgiy Miller as one of the seamen of the New Lisarpu•l. The.plaintilf delivered his account, giving the defendant credit for money received, which reduced the amount to 471. The plaintiff was •adm the necessity .1 arresting defendant, who as a British met chant, and a man of fortune, had pleaded the statute of limi tation. The question would now be, whether the defendant had admitted the debt within sin years. His settling with Larder, the mate, who had Rued him, the Learned Counsel contradmi, would amount loan admission of wages doe to the plaintiff for the services arising out 01 the saute voyages. Mr. Larder, the mate, proved the case as stated by the Counsel. The Lord Chief Justice in his charge to the Jury, observed, that it was a hard rale for mariners ; hat the law had reong nixed it—that if the ship was lost, the mariner could nut recover for that voyage. This claim, however, was for antecedent voyages actually performed. If the Jury believed Larder. hero was acknowledgmeut that the wages due to the plaintiff rem•ined uns.•dsfed. Tim Jury found for the pleintiff—Damages 401. Lis. 104. 0 KAHAN H. ALCOCIL. This action was brought te•recover lbe amount of • tayines bill for clothes, made and delivered according to the order of the defendant. Mr. Scarlett stated the circumstances of the case. The de fendant and several others having set 'up an opposition coach, which they named the Manchester Inelepeaelext. it was consi dered necessary to start with becoming eclat, and accordingly the plaintiff received ■n order from the defendant to oak• scarlet liveries, with buff belts, &a. The clothes were sup plied, and worn by the coachman, guard, and others, end nothing remained bat payment of the plaintiff's bill. Mr. Scar lett said hr should prove the order was given by the defendant, and he entitled to a verdict. Witnesses were called to prove the plaintiff's case. 'Mr. Marryatt, for the defendant, said this was an attempt to make hie client pay debts incurred by others. The clothes were not furnished on credit given to the defendant, but to the men belonging to the coach. Independent of that fact. which be should prove, it would appear that the defendant had nothing to do with the coach, haring quitted the concern alto whet. The Learned Counsel called the servents belonging to the coach, who stated that they gave orders for the clothes. It •iso appeared that the defendant was not a partner in the con. tern. Mr. Staten, in reply, contended that the defendant, who had given the order, was liable to pay the plaintiff 's demand, whether he remained one of the coach concern or not. The Jury, after receiving the Judge's charge, retired from the boa, and hawing been out a abort time, returned • •erdict for the defendant. THURSDAY, JAN. 23. This being the first day of Term, the Judges took their seats with their usual formal;:y. The report of the 000 duct and state of the priooeers in the Penitentiary, Millbouk, was presented sod read by t►e officer of the Court. BRANSCOMB Y. BRIDGES. The Solicitor General moved to set aside the verdict in this ease, and enter a nonsuit. It was an action to recover damages for an excessive distress levied on lady Branscorab's goods.—The Jury found • verdict for the plaintiff. The witnesses for the plaintiff made a tender of the rent d•e from Lady Branscomh, and the Solicitor General contended that the form of action wail wrong. After the tender the Sheriff's officer had no right to distrain, a•d the action ought to have been for a trespass. The Court were of opinion that the •erdict could sot be disturbed. SIR W. HORTON V. LORD NEWRY. _ Mr. Scarlet! moved to set aside the verdict fur the plaintiff, and to enter a nonsuit. This WAS an action on the warranty of a horse, warranted to go safe in harness. The plaintiff had seen the horse in the Park, rode by S;r Simeon Steward, and bring struck with the animal, made some 'inquiry, with a view to purchase it to run in harness. Sir S. Steward wrote to Lord Newry, to whom the horse belonged, and informed the plaintiff that the horse would run well in harness; the noble plaintiff then purchased the horse oldie defendant's groom, and some time after returned him, on the around that hr would not run in harness, according to the terms of the w ty. The Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff. Mr. Scarlett now contended, in support of his motion, that t:.e communication from Sir Simeon Steward did not amount to a warranty on ibe part of Lord Newry, but a mere representation that the horse, whilst I. his possession, bad been ased in harness. The Court granted • rule to abets cause. WAY?! V. CARR. This was an action to recover damages for negligent driving OD the part of Lady Carr's coachman, by which the plaintiff and his wife were overturned in their chaise. . _ . Mr. Gurney moved to met aside the verdict given for the defendant, on the ground that the weight of evidence proved negligence, for which Lady Carr was answerable. The mis chief fur which the plaintiff sought a compensation happened in the Regent's Circus, Piccadilly. Mr. Wayte, a 1111111C1M140 in that street, was driving up Regent-street, and crossing the Circus. There was a hackney coach at the some time driving from the stand, and be drove his chaise before it. Lady Carr's carriage came on him by surprise on the near aide of the hackney coach, end overturned him. Mr. Gurney stated on this occasion that a special rule in driving was Ibis :—Orie carriage rrossing another ought to pans on the off side, and by omission on the part of the defendant's coachman to observe that rule. the accident happened. Mr. Justice Bayley—lt may happen that a man is obliged to stop on the near side. Mr. Gurney—that was not the case here. The coachman bad not to stop, and might have gone on the off side. All the indifferent spectators of the accident gave evidence that it was the fault of the coachman. 'rite Court. after hearing all the arguments of Mr. Corner in support of his motion. were of opinion that the question had been properly left to the Jury, and that they ought not to dis turb the verdict. 'M