F.. The Lord CbiefJustice—Yes, that will be the more correct way • Perhaps they will be here to-morrow. Mr. Adolphus--I will lake care to have them as early as podatble. The Jodie' rose before two °Woolf, to sit with the Chancellor of the Evcliequer, the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Culahester, Mr. Peel, &o. in the Court of Exchequer, fur the selection of Sheriffs to serve for the year casein. WioNgaDA V, Nut. 13. THE KING V. pubßY. This was a prosecution against the defendant, Mr. W. Dolby, bookseller, preferred by the Constitutional Society for the public, lion of a work entitled o The Political Dictionary." The Cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice, at the sittings in Middlesex, and the Jury found a verdict of Guilty. M. J. Evans moved for a new trial, on the ground that the Coroner, who by rule of Court was ordered to return a Jury, in lieu of one returned improperly by Sh. riff Garret ; kmember of the Constitutional Society had no authority to return certain persons to act aa Talernien, in the event of a sufficient oumber of Special Jurors not being present. By the Act of the 42d of Edo. 111. it was enacted, that the names of persons to serve on inquests should be returned to the Court six days before the trial ; and is the 2d Hawkins, sec. 21, page 577, it was held that statute applied to criminal cases and to Tales Jurors, with the exerptiou of TOirele rr Orrannataatilma. The SLeriff could not summon any set of Jurors without giving the parties the pannel. The Act of the Bth of William the Third gave no power to the Coroner similar to that exercised in the present case, and which completely negatived the provi sions of the two Acts of Parli.unent to which be had referred. If the power exercised by the Coroner with respect tesunnuoo iug Talesinen was allowed, that otlicer might he the means of pooling a Jury. Judge Bayley—lt is a selection by an indifferent person.— It does not hear the invidious sense of the words packed Jury. Mr. Evans—l use the words in the worst sense. Lord Chief Justice—You do, but you are Dot authorised to use it in this case. Mr. Evans said be was prepared to justify time term he had used by argument. Lord Chief Justice.—lt is not necessary for you to go on is that line of argument. Mr. Evans thee said, if the Coroner had power to summon whom he chose, be might summon those who had been struck out of the list of 48. Mr. Justice Bayley—Does not the Coroner take an oath of office Mr. Evans—l believe be does, my Lord. Mr. Justice Bayley—ls it not then harsh to suppose he would be guilty in the way you suppose ? Mr. Evans said public officers were nut exempt from political 'sling, at least that was the opinion of the legislators who formed the enactments to which he lad alluded. Judge Bayley.—lf the Coroner was not to exercise his dis cretion with respect to summoning Talesmen, might not an ob jection he made on the other side, that the detendiuit might have friends of his own standing near? Mr. Evans proceeded in his argument at considerable length. Ile contended another point, which was, that the Sheriff was the person who ought to have returned the Special Jury, which was never challenged ; for which he quoted the authority of the king and Edmunds, 45th Barnwell and Alderson, 171. He quoted also, 2d antis, 173. He contended that this was not a ',untie prosecution, but a prosecution carried on by private in dividuals, who acted on • political bias, Sto. and not to be at all favoured by • Court of Justice. The Judges having consulted awhile, The Lord Chief Justice said, that when these objections were taken at the trial, he had, on the hest consideration he could give to ►hem, thought they should not prevail ; but being fully impressed with the importance of every thing which related to the trial by Jury, and that every thing regarding that important branch of the administration of Justice should be duly con sidered (although without meaning to intimate any change in his own iyinion), Mr. Evan■ might take a rule to shew cause. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. w <~. ~-s. PET MUER V. GA RTSIDE. Mr. Williams moved in this case, which was tried at the Somerset Assizes, for a rule to skew cause why the •erdict of Ills. damages in this case should not be set aside and a non-suit entered, upon the ground that it was not proved, as set forth in the declaration, that he bad refused either to marry or con tract marriage with any other ; and the defendant pleaded, that he denied having broken the promise, and that he was still ready and willing to marry her when called upon so to do.— (Laughter.) Lord Chief Justice —lt is not the business of the woman to call upon him to marry her. It is his business to perform his promise, by asking her to be married, and then this action, which is for non-performance of contract, will be abated upon the marriage taking place, Ths Court rejected the application. lio - WLEY, JUN. v. 6 kOUG N. This was an action to recover damages fur assault and battery. The defendant pleaded that he kept a public house, and • little before the assault the plaintiff came in and conducted him self in a riotous and quarrelsome manner, and on his refusal to go out, the defendant put his hand upon him and turned him out. The cause was tried before tb• Lord Chief Justice, at the Sittings after last Term, in Middlesex. The plaintiff is the son of an auctioner, and the defendant, who is a respectable licensed victualler, keeps the Swan, in Bury-street, St. James's. It ap peared on the trial, that the plaintiff and another person entered the defendant's parlour, and not only rung the bell with violence but beau to stir the tire in a most offensive way. The defem slant finding there was a disposition to behave in a disorderly manner, requested his visitors to leave the house.—They re fused, and the defendant turned the plaintiff out of doors. The farts of the case were proved in a very able manner by a little boy in the semice of Mr. Bruu6h, and the Jury found a verdict fur the defendant. Mr. Chitty this day moved to set aside the verdict and ob tain a new trial, no the ground that the justification by the de fendant bad not been mule out. Mr. Scarlett also said he had some recollection that his Lordship at the trial intimated that the justification was riot 'nude out. The Lord Chief Jastice observed, that he could ma have charged the Jury that way, because the evidence in support of the justificatiu.. had some weight on lain mind. Mr. Chitty then adverted to the evidence, and particularly to the act of stirring the fire. The plaintiff mad his friends were driven into the defendant's house, he said, by the pelting rain. They called for beer, and the defendant refused to supply them, on the mere ground that they had stirred the fire. He nest assaulted the plaintiff, and turto-d him out. It was the first time he had heard that stirring the fire in • public house was sufficient to justify an assault committed by the landlord. The Lard ChielJustice said, Mr. Chitty was not warranted in that conclusion. The evidence proved improper continct on the part of the plaintiff' and his companion. In C the Jury ad found a verdict for the plaintiff the dausag. s inns, have ~. , THE NATIONAL REGISTI been trivial. ilia Lordship, under all the bearings of the ease, allowed Mr. Chitty to takes rule to sheW cense ; bat recom mended, for the benefit of the parties,* stet procusas. THE CIAO T. HALL. This was a proceeding ow a writ of quo aarrenlo, calling upon the defendant to chew by what authority he claims to be Regis trar and Clerk of the Court of Requests at Bristol. The question was tried at the assizes, and it cane before the Court in the form of a special case. . . . . The Judges bad to decide whether several commissioners of the Court of Requests at Bristol were resident inhabitants, and qualified to elect the defendant to the office. Alter the case bad been ably argued by Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Adams, the Court took time to deliver their judgmeat. TN'Astral'. NOV. 14. At half.past nine, Mr. Justice Bayley came into Court, and immediately after Mrs. Sestumah Wright entered, with a Add in her arms, and another in the arms of the nurse, supported by two male friends, and three females in her train, and imme diately following entered Waddington, with a quimitiog glass sobpended from his neck by a bright purple riband, and Black stone's Commentaries in his band. At ten, two more female friends of Mrs. Wright, young ladies of genteel appearance, whose father, we understand, presented her with live guineas on her trial, joined the party, nod took their seats facing the King's Counsel. THEXING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE SOCIETY ►OR THE SUPPRESSION OF VICE, V. SUSANNAH %RICH!. Mr. Gurney mused the judgment on Seasonal' Wright, who then stood op ; she seemed rather delicate in her health— ge•teely dressed. The Lord Chief Justice read the libel and record of con •iction, being a letter addressed to the Rev. Mr. Wade, of Bristol. The defendant being asked if had any affidavit, answered in the negative. The Lord Chief Justice—Have you say thing to say in your defeuce t—A great deal, my Lord. The Lord Chief Justice—Then proceed. The defendaut then proceeded to read her defence in • clear and audible voice, from a mattuacript.—l am charged with pub lishing a blasphemous libel on the Christian religion—what is that religion t—it is an anomaly. Mr. Justice Bayley—Whist is it ? Defendant—A non-entity—an anomaly-- Court—W e cannot pfnuit you to revile the Christian religion in this Court. Defendant—lles accused of disturbing the peace of our So vereign Lord the King—now •e libel on religion can disturb his peace, whose conduct is itself— The Isord Chief Justice—We cannot permit you to go on in this course of abuse. Mrs. Wright, attend to me—a great deal of what you have attempted to read the Court cannot allow. That Christianity is • non-entity, as what we cannot, as Judges and as Christians, sit here to hear. If you choose to go home and reform what you have written, you may come op another, day, and address the Court as to that which you think may avail you in mitigation of punisLinent. Mr. Gurney—That is written by some wicked adviser of her's. who sits behind her. Defendant proceeded—The thirty-nine articles of the esta blished church— Mr. Gurney—As that which the defendant is reading has no more to do with the subject before the Court than the Ilistory of England, she ought not to be peraiitted thus to waste the time of the Court. Defendant (raising ber voice)—But I will proceed. Lord Chief Justice—We cannot hear you. Defendant—My Lord, you refuse to hear me. The Lord Chief Justice—Let the defendant stand committed to Newgate fur tune to reform her address in mitigation of punishment ; and for the purpose of bein4 again beard, let her be brought up the fourth day of next Term. KINO - 111. WADDINGTOK. The next judgment moved was that of Samuel Waddington. The defendant, addressing the Court, said he stood there claiming Ins right to be beard on a motion for a new trial, and he should insist on that right. He was silenced by the Court. The Lord Chief ;khaki, read the libellous passages selected from " Palmer's Principles of Nature," and the evidence on the trial ; and observed the defendant urged strongly to the Jury that the witnesses were sot to be believed who stated that he was the publisher. . _ _ _ The defendant proceeded to comment upon the term special and petty jury. Mr. Justice Bayley cited Blackstone to show that a petty jury meant a special jury, as cuntradistingaished from a grand Jury. The defendant then referred to the Unitarians being sanc• tioned by the Legislature, and the Judge's answer to the ques tion of the Jury. The Solicitor General explained, referring to the short-hand writer's notes. His Lordship merely declared, that to speak of our Saviour as be did, was against law, and a libel. The Lord Chief Justice affirmed the truth of this interpreta tion of what he meant by the explanation. Mr. Justice Hayley—The Act of Parliament for the relief of the Unitarians was merely as to penalties for denying the God head of the Trinity. It appears to me what his Lordship said ass perfeday legal, and the ireediet of the Jury given upon that answer ought to stand. Defendant proceeded—The labels attached to the books sold, es well as the books themselves, might bt brought there by the Bow-street °dicers, and sold in conspiracy with the person who kept the shop. Lord ChielJustice—You have concluded ?—Yes. Mr. Justice Bayley (bought it perfectly clear, if such pamph lets were sold in that shop, that the person keeping the shop wee answerable ; such person lending himself to the publication was guilty as purticeps mimesis. It was for the Jury to deter mine the fact that he had lent himself to the publication. Mr. Justice Ilidroyd was of opinion there was no ground for • new trial, and that the ob lion of the Lord Chief Justice to the Jury was perfectly correct, " that to deny the truth of the divinity of Christ was a libel," and the Jury, under that di reciion, had given that verdict. which was also perfectly correct. There was no doubt of the evideuce warranting the Jury in finding defendant guilty. Mr. Justice Beat concurred with his brother Judges. Defendant being asked whet he bad to any in initigation, pro. ceeded in an audible voice. He called their Lordships atten tion to .be recollection, that for the judgment they passed upon him this day, they would be called itlion to receive the judg• went of all nations before that august Being the Author of the Universe, who was outraged in his character of eternal truth and wisdom by this prosecution. The Solicitor General rose iu aggravation. There never w an • wore infamous, libellous, or blasphemous work, on soy former occasion published. The defendaut Ltd biumelf given it thin character in his label. 31r. Justice Bayleyprooeeded to pass atotence. He th,,u4lit the Jury could eut here come to eituthei cutraissou. The lee. Agaftai s[tß. . '? 1 A of this ociuntryfolo rated any maw fullesrieg snob religion as he approved, or to dimities temperately the truth of all doctrines. But this was a libel on the Bible in general, and inMelllehitor that which we were taught to look upon with rem:reamer He had no difficulty in saying, this was properly described es a libt.l; and there was the judicious sentesoe of this Cant, ie the case of Cathie, that it was. The sentence of the Court is, that you be confined for twelve months in Coldbatiellelds, and to find security for good behaviour for five years, yourself in 5001. and two sureties io 1001. each. Waddington—l hope your Lordships will allow me the use of pen and ink there. Court-1i e have nothing to do with that. Waddington.--(Retiring in custody.)--Thoogh I did not sell this book, I will how to the sentence of this Court whim the Bishop of Clogher is brought to justice.—(Laughter.) sIiASI ATTuitat Y.—THE JUNO V. JAQUES.' The defendant appeared to chew cause why the Court Amid not commit him pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Par. liament, for having practised as an attorney io the name of Thackeray without qualificatiou, he being only as entirety's clerk. The facts have been several times stated in our reports. The Court on this occasion; read as mach of the aidavi appeared necessary to make them cozetisant of the fact; , ' was clearly proved against the defendant, not only W the . port of the waster, to whontthe matter mee.origiredly referred, but on the defendant's owls hooks; white eenteined *sines of money paid to Thackeray for allowing Mote prattle', • ,• _ • •.. The defendant alleged on this 0010611111 that this was not a proceeding against him in open Cease, and that 'wittiest's, should have been examined tie semi es before a i= e nte,, and the Court on that account anemia with Emu as all the defendant had to offer. _ . The laird Chief Justice, after the dekmdame he 4 eshwistalit- • said, the Italia* gave the Judges dee pew he mini& tae any term not more than l 9 'months, and the only meadow mop, • whether they ought to commit for that perkier for - • defendant had submitted en affidavit, - fe which he • , the distress which had fallen on himself sad faun • y ir latien of the law. Fite wartice of who qualification, i 1.141 much ddaspdhi.wd j • Court was, that the defendant be this Court for six calendar asonthli. rotoae, Nov. 111. This being paper day, the Court proceeded with themes on the Special Piper. CUTE V. COLRIDOS AND •NOTHEIt. This (muse came before the Court upon a demurrer to the plea. The plaintiff is a solicitor, and the defendants are magistrates of the County of Lancaster. It appeared, upon a statement of facts, that a person named George Brown was etarged with felony, and being examined before the defendants, the plaintiff presented himself as the prisoner's attorney, for the purpose of cross-examining witnesses, and producing opposing testi mony. The magistrates refused to permit him to be present, and not only prevented him from cross-examining the witnesses, but turned Lim out of the justice room. The plaintiff then brought his action for assault. The defendants justified and alleged that they bad a prisooer in custody, and that by law the plaintiff had no right to be present at the examination.— The plaintiff, in his replication, said he had a right to be pre sent. The defendant demurred to that, and the demurrer came en to be argued. The question was, whether at the elimination before a mugietrate of a person charged with felony, am attorney has a right to insist upon admission an a legal adviser of the party accused. Mr. Colridge, in support of the demurrer addressed the Court, and contended that the magistrates court was not a ju dicial tribunal. They had only power to esquire into the nature of any charge brought under their cogeisance. A ;na gistrade had a right to examine privately, and consequently to admit such persons only as he might consider necessary for the ends of juetioe. The magistrates in this case were justified in turning the defendant out of their odic, and the action could got be sustained. The Common Sergeant, in support of the replicaC op. t. : this as a question of great importance to the public, ioas..i eb as personal liberty was deeply coactereed in the result. A ma gistrate was bound to hear both parties with strict impartiality. ' and to allow the accused an oppeortioity of proving his imp canoe. The question affected the liberty of the party, and every charge ought to be well investigated h. : cis ilefae. dant was sent to prison. He et:weeded the. e; ;:-taut. ac cused lisd a right to receive t h e assistance of his attonsej, sad to deprive him of that right would be making a deep inroad upon public liberty. The plaintiff, in the discharge of his pro fessional duty, attended the priaouer, and ibe magistrates were not justified in turning him out. The assault having been coin • mitted under such circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. The Court gave judgment at considerable length on the main question, utterly, whether an attorney bad a right to be admitted tu a magistrate's room, as legal adviser of the accused under examination.—The Judges were clearly of opinion no such right existed. A magistrate was not _judge of his court ; his bum neat was to enquire, not to determine, and that enquiry vies necessarily private oar sonic occasions. In some cases it might happen, that the object of the magistrate was to discover thief and that object would be defeated if the attorney of the accused was permitted to he present, because lie might give the thieves Dunce of the measures taken for their apprehension. If attor ney., Lad the right to attend before the magistrates, they would also have a right to attend before grand juries. Under all the circumstances. the Court gave Judgment for the defendants. COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. FIIIDA". siiv• 13. Mr. Justice Park arrived • DAN • mew minutes before one o'clock, when the Jary being 1...4.“1 the (elbowing cans. cause on for trial. PIENSIAN e. DAWSON. Sergeant Pell stated, that it was an action, brooeit by the plaintiff agaiust the defendant, for money bud and received.— that the plaintiff Lad guaranteed the payment of a bill of ex • change, 431. 3s. Gd. which the defendant not having honoured, the plaintiff had paid. The defendant to the acuton pleaded the general issue and set off. It appeared that the plaintiff had had some goods lodged in his hands, to the amount of 201. and upwards, but which the plaintiff had wrote defendant a letter to take away, but which be had not dose. Mr. dit.llllll Wallas: moved the arluoaledgment of the de• feutlant to a letter put in, ail his owing the plaintiff the moues. The learned Judge directed the Jury to lied for the plaintiff damages 221. 3s. the ditto/rune betwixt the amount of the bill and the amount of the guuda in the pussessiun ut the pluntihl - Verdict Accordingly. Mr. Abraham Moore, barrister at law, who luff Engl and abruptly about a year ago, thud lately art the yellow kver at New York. :+ll s ..). '.'s • 1-..: , -1 , It :: , , , • I 1 I 1 - I