LAW INTELLIGENCE. ...winin... _ COURT OF LING'S RENCH. MONDAY, MAY 2s. LIBELS. THE NINO C. JOHN HUNT. On the first sitting of the court this morning the So licitor General moved for judgment on this defendant, who was tried the sittings atter last term before the Lord Chief Justice, at Westminster, and conviated of pub lishing The Examiner, a libel on the House of Com mons. The defendant put in no affidavits, but addressed the court, from a written paper, in mitigation of punish ment. He urged the purity of his intentions in publish lug the matter complamed of, alleging that he had stated nothing more than what necessarily followed from the opiuion expressed even by one of the speakers of that house, which he was charged with villifying. He was about to address their lordships in reprobation of the special jury system, but was stopped by the court, who informed him it was entirely irrelevant to enter upon such a topic, the system being established by act of parlia ment, and consequently was placed without their Juris diction. The delendant had no intention to libel the House of Commons. That house, in his opinion, could nut 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, he contended it should be exercised in decent and modern language. After a short consultation on the bench, Mr. Justice Bayley pronounced the sentence of the court, which was, " 1 hat the defendant he imprisoned for one year in the house of correction, Coldbath•fields, and at the end of that period enter reeognizatices, him self in 5001. and two sureties in 2501. each. THE gnus V. THOMAS FLYNDALL. The Solicitor General moved the court for judgment upon Thomas Flyndall, of the Western Luminary, who was convicted at the last assizes for the county of Devon, held at Exeter ' of a false, scandalous, and degrading libel upon her Majesty the Queen I The defendant put in a long affidat it, stating, that he has twelve children, nine of whom were dependant upon him for support, and that if he was imprisoned for any . length of time at a place distant from that where he carried on his business. (Exeter), it would be ruinous to himself and family.— The affidavit contained nothing of moinent—Lein read— the defendant addressed the court at some length from a meuuscript which he held in his hand; he stated, that the publication in question occurred in the regular dis charge of his bounden duty, as a conductor of a news paper, which required the notice of public events. That Isis attention bud beets called to the subject by the pub lication of the report of the committee of the House of Lords, appointed to investigate 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 ruin which must befal him and his affairs, if he was imprisoned at any distance from his usual plata of reildence, and also called the attention of the court to the iniury he had already sustained by assault and popular violence, in consequence of this prosecution.— He submitted, that he had already suffered enough for his offence, which he repeated was not ititentioual.— lie 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 sutler the most lenient pee, nishment which the law could possibly inflict. He wet now extremely sorry for the offence he had com m hied. The Solicitor General, in reply, denied the peculiar' right claimed by the defendant 01 acting upon, or even publishing the report of the House of Lints. As a journalist lie (the defendant) contended for his rigrit to comment upon public evetiu. It was true that he had this right—certainly not pectilias ly, but in common with all the objects of this free country. But it was not for the free exercise of such a right he stood there for judgment this day, hut for a foul and infamous libel upon her Majesty the Queen, and which was published at a period calcula'erl more than any other to aggravate the offence. It was true he had been recommended by a jury of his neighbours to great mercy and lenity. He (the Solicitor General) had tin desire to reduce the value of that Recommendation, which, he pres ttttt ed, was given by prisons well tittahtied to forum a proper judgment of his general character and conduct. Ile had also sworn that he had a family of twelve children, nine of whom were dependent upon him for support. These were circumstances upon which the coot would exercise their discretion; and as the defendant had expressed liit contrition fur the offence, lie had 1111 wish to aggravate the circumstances of the case. After the judges bad consulted about ten minutes on the bench. Mr.justice Bayley rose to proriaunce judgment. Ile said, that the netentlant had been louno guilty of what was truly descruwil as being a hint and infamous libel on bar Majesty the Queen—a libel too, %%Mien was pub lositeo at a period well calculated to aggravate the elm tacit r of tbe utlu. nee. There was nothing more important to the due administration of justice, than the party whose conduct was iiiijaogned, should go unprejudiced before a constitutional was the wisest and most leachog usaSini iii the LAWS 01 . this kingdom, that a person sl Id be pretutnell innocent until the contrary appeared in due course of law. The defendant had not only disregarded ties maxim of law, which it ought in have been his first duty to have obeyed, but had added oilier charges against Her Majestv, which were irrupt rly stesignaterl In the indictment as being CuICULlen toilclautr and slander the Ell4liClef of her Maje,ty tote Queen. — The defendant had said, that he had unifoinily sup ported the reigning faintly -upon the throne ; lie should have recollected that her Majesty was the Consort of the kitsig who sat oil the 011011 C, and that she was th.arly tat itAtil REdisTtii allied to the Royal Family fit which he professed so devoted an attachment. The learned Judge iu con clusion said, 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 neishbourhood, and that that recommendation had materially weighed with them in pronouncing their judgment, which was—that the defendant should be imprisoned in the county jail of Devon, at Exeter, fur 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, hiutaelf itt 5001. and two suffi cient sureties in 4501. each. The defendant then withdrew, in the custody of the tipstaff of the Court of King's Bench. THE LINO V. BELL AND OTHERS. Mr. Scarlett said, in this case a rule fur a criminal information for a libel had been obtained against The Times newspaper. He had now to show cause against that rule. The libel was contained its an account, published in that paper, relating to the proceedings at a public meeting in Denbighshire, w Inch cast some reflec tion on the character of the individual who was prose cutor in the present case. The defendants acknowledged that the article, which was the subject of prosecution, was unfounded ; but the fact was, the defendants re ceived it from a correspondent, and behaved 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 have been guilty of thisinjustiee 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 on pay ment of costs. 'fhe rule was accordingly discharged. The Court disposed of several revenue cases, pronoun. cing judgment on the affidavits. REMOVAL OF PAUPIRS.—THE /LING V. THE INHACJ. TANTS OF Leans. 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 he was settled. The question arose on the power vested in justices of the peace to remove four persons front one part of the kingdom to another. It appeared that a Scotchman, with his wife and children, had become chargeable on the parish of Alverdiston, Leeds, and the magistrates, under the act of parliament, which empowers them to remove persons horn in Scot land, Ireland, and the Isle of Man, to those places respectively with their children chargeable on parishes, made an order of removal of the father, a Scoichistan„ in this case, to Scotland, leaving the norther and children, who had obtained by birth a settlement in the parish. On appeal to the sessions the order was quashed. After arguments pro el ans. the Lord Chief Justice lamented the necessity which the court•had beets under, upon some occasions, of saying the wife might be sent tootle place and the husband to another. In the present 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. tug the order of the magistrates for separation of the husband from the wife, and ought to stand. Tne other judges were of the same opiniou, and die order of the court of sessions was affirmed. FRIDAY, JUNE I. THE KING V. CARTWRIGMT, WOOLER, 80. At the re-commencement of this case to-day, Mad docks stated to the Court that he would address a few words to their Lordships. After some introductory words he was proceeding to make sonic reflections on the manner in which Special Juries were constituted. when he was interrupted by the Court, and told that he could not be allowed to take any observations of that nature. He went on, but was again interrupted. and told that tie could not be permitted to asperse ad the persous who had been concerned in supporting the indictment. If he had not any thing to offer in mitigation of punish. ment, lie hail better be silent. The Court was utilised to interfere repeatedly, and the defendant then said, he would past over nearly all lie had to say, as he found he should he should nut be allowed to speak freely. lie then concluded by asking the Court, if they would Cause 111111 to be locked up for conduct which he could justify on the principle that lie had been only exercising his benevolent feelings. A person of the name of Mills attempted to addrra the Cuuri in the behalf of Lewis, who was then iu pri sun. The Court told him that lie cotdd nut be heart, as the defendant was out before ae Court. Mr. Denman addressed the Court in behalf of Major Cartwright. He wished to spew that the Major had taken but a very small part in the proceedings tor whim lie was now to be punished. besitier, pin of the talice chitty:Li tin Wouler and Eillllolli3 was vo oat they had published in their 'respective newspapers, and conse quently the Major was not at all itu l d.cated iii that pa of the crone. He then contetided mat the isiere act of electing a legislatorial attorney was of itself no offence. It tile defendants merely assembled to petition for a re dress of grievances; and if they hal in some degree over-stretched the proper bounds, their meeting with good intentions utigtit to have its wei z atit in 'migrating pumshinent. Ile elicit alltl3ol to the punlicattous of the Major, and concluded by repeating that though no abuses in the Legislature existed, if the parties met fur a boranafJe ;impose, they were justifiable. A. all events the ctiaratter and cuilutact of the Major were very dif ferent trom those who were with him. lie hoped the sentence of the Court would bear a reference to the Major's particular case, and be f i tly in unison with the principles of freedom. Great expres,ions of ailtd.talloll honoured the close of Mr. iiiii an's speech. Mr. 111oultr then addressed the COW( at considerable length. I - 174 The Solicitor-Casseral then rose to reply in aggravation of the °deface. He was not desirous of pressing the weight of punishment upon one more titan the other of the defendauts. Tney were all implicated in the un constitutional act, which he expressed a hope might be the last attempt of the sort. Tuere 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 punislimeta to be passed on the defendants. Mr. Justice Bayley then said, it was his painful duty Its pronounce the sentence of the Court. The charge its in the iiitlictsuent was, that the defendants conspired to raise discontent against the gdvertiment, as by law established, and to produce hatred and contempt of die House of Commons. In pursuance of their object they met to elect and appuinta person to be the represeutative of the inhabitants of sham in the Commons Houag 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 object of the meeting, but re turned thanks to them. o jud g e of the conduct of all the defendants, it was proper to look at their conduct. Haddocks, Wouler, and Edmonds made speeches, to excite disaffection in the minds of the meeting, which proved at their trial, the Jury found theta guilty by a conscientious verdict. The affidavit of Major Cart wright exhibited the feelinga 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 certaiu degree in the mind of that gentleman a delusion, an unfortunate de lusion as to the rights of adult amen to vote fur their own representatives. The nt:•,;•K's preference of imprison ment to fine was a preference which deserved to weigh, and would weigh, with every well coustituted mind; • but the court was bound to look at the majors age, and to judge male prudently than he had done fax himself.— The Court, taking all these circumstances into consider ation, did order and adjudge—that the defendant Ed monds should be imprisoned fur nine months; the defendant Maddox, for eighteen; and the defendant Woofer, 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 stonl. 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 defendants were taken into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench. 11111116 R C. $l5 ROBERT PRAT, CLARK. This was a nisi obtained by Mr. Denman to discharge a sogriovii, which the defendant, as he said, had unwst tingiy signed. The atChivit upon which the rule was granted was made by the defendant himself, and was 'to the following effect :—that he had received no consider ation from Hammer for the bill; that on proceedings being taken against hint tipoa it in the year 1810, he had signed a paper upon accidentally at the office of calling Messrs. Cooper and Lowe, the atiormys of Mr. Hemmer. which he did not know to be a caveat& ; and that lie heard no more of the matter front time year 1811 to the year 1819, and that, if the corsavii was discharged, he (deponent) believed he had a good defence to toe action., The Solicitor General, In showing eafise against the rule, produced an affidavit (rout the pl fRi swearing to the consideration given to the bill . and accounting for the non insertion of it in his schedules. by stating that it was in the hands of Messrs. Cooper and Lowe, wno had a lien upon it (beyond its value for the payment of costs due to them; A second affidavit front Messrs. Cooper and Lowe, set forth a letter written by Mr. Hannan), the defendants attorney, a few days before th*signature of the corwvit proposing that cogno sit, and promising that his ellen' should call to execute it. The atii‘lavut turther stated that the le was an affi davit upon the files of the court by which Sir Robert Peat, in the year 1814, to exonerate his bail in the action set up the cognoat which he bad given. —(Sir Robert having sworn that lie heard nothing of the mailer be- • tween the years 1811 and 1819.) It concluded by stating, u a reason for the delay in proceeding, that the defendant had fur a lung for another long time he had been psivilegetl as tit eta state of a foreign atubassador. The Court thought toe fendant's affidavit in 1814 &Wire :IS to the nature of the case. and discharged the _ rule Willi Busts. Ealraordinary CoVingration—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 tumbling and playing in the straw, which from being laid down three or four days, was as dry as oiratf : 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 scorcli‘d ; some escaped with their little frocks and pinafores on lire, and one child was nearly falling a victiiu to the flames, front which it was rescued by a hackney-coactnuan wrapping it up in his great coat. The entire of th,: straw was eon- - sinned bctOre the conflagration be stopped ; it spread considerel.L.;arm in the neighbouriakal. A grouni rattan c.ino %C.IS presented at the ia-t meeting of the Madras Litcrary Society, feet in kti-th ; beitg; 23 feet the itmauruent huateti. I