In the Court of King's Bench, on the Sth instant,
Thomas Russell Davis, one of the witnesses before the Committee of the House of Commons which sat last session on the Hertford election, was tried, on a charge of perjury. The prisoner had sworn before the Commit- tee, that on the day of nomination he had gone to the house of Mr. George Nicholson, the agent for Lords Ingestrie and Mahon, two of the candidates, and had there received a promise from Lord Mahon that he would give him 101. for his vote in consideration of the bruises be had received from the gipsies and bullies belonging to the party of the two Lords ; and further, that Mr. Nicholson had promised to forgive iiiM a debt of 31. 15e. Lord Mahon and Mr. Nicholson swore that this statement was entirely fa!se ; and the prisoner was found guilty ; but was recommended to mercy by the Jury, oil the ground that there had been great bribery and corruption at the Hertford election. In the course of the cross-examination. by Messrs. Phillips and Clark- son, of Lord Mahon and Mr. Nicholson, several of the more noto- rious circumstances attind:1-4,- the corrupt proceedings at the last Hertford election were admitted by the witnesses. Lord Mahon said that his election cost him between two and three thousand pounds. There was another candidate who had his share to pay also. The election altogether cost between eight and nine thousand pounds. Mr. Nicholson admitted, that he had said at a meeting of voters, that the Administration and Mr. Duncombe had done nothing but bring in a bill against bribery to make voters go to the poll with long beards and empty stomachs, but that the two Lords would do just the reverse. He was not at liberty to state whether any other person except the two Lords had paid the expenses of the election ; it was a privileged matter, and he would not disclose it. Mr. Nicholson also said, that the respon- sibility of the leading article in the Hertford county Press might full upon him, though he did not write it. He would not say that it was sent from Hatfield House.
On Monday, a Mr. Montprivat, who is married to a sister of the Countess of Cornwallis, was tried on a charge of libelling the Coun- tess, who had provoked him by discontinuing all intercourse with her sister after her marriage with him. In order to gratify his ilifeeling towards Lady Cornwallis (who, he said, bad done every thing to blast his character), he wrote letters to the Earl her husband, and vari- ous other parties, insinuating that the lady had misconducted herself previous to her marriage. Mr. J. Stockdale, the publisher, was charged with being an accomplice in this affair. They were both found guilty.
The action brought by Picas the attorney, against Mr. Onwhyn, a newsvender in Catherine Street, for selling a number of the Satirist, in which he was libelled, was tried on Monday, in the Court of Ex-
chequer. It was proved on behalf of the plaintiff, that Mr. Onwhyti had been warned nut to sell the paper in question ; and the difficulty of getting hold of the real author of the libel, or the real proprietor of the
paper, was given as the reason for bringing the action against the seller, or publisher, of the libel. Sir John Campbell spoke very earnestly in
behalf of the defendant. He dwelt upon the injustice and absurdity of making a newsvender liable for the contents of the papers which he sold. The rule which made a farthing damages carry costs, was a blot upon our laws. The defendant had only been proved to have sold one copy : it did not appear that it had been put into circulation ; on that ground, therefore, the defendant was entitled to a verdict.
Mr. Baron Holland charged the Jury— A bookseller selling in his shop, by his servant, any publication, was answer- able for such publication, and to discharge himself he must show that it was sold by a stranger; but if he sold a paper without a fair conviction that there was a libel in it, although liable in law, he should feel himself bound to tell the Jury it would not he a case for severity, but rather to be treated with lenity. If men opened shoes to sell books, or opened newspaper-rooms to sell newspa- pers, they were liable for all the consequences of those acts; for were it other- wise, it would crumble persons to employ illiterate people to sell their libels, and thus to elude the law. lie therefore could not subscribe to the doctrine laid down by the Solicitur-General, nor allow that the defendant was exonerated because he was a newsvender only.
The Jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff; damages one far- thing. The Solicitor-General applied to the Judge to certify; so as to prevent the recovery of costs. The Judge said he would consider of it.
On Wednesday, a ease was tried in which, Messrs. John Hall and Thomas Allrich, tea-dealers in St. Mary Axe, were sued for the pay- ment of six penalties of 500/. each, for alleged frauds upon the revenue. The first charge was that of having taken into their stock nine chests of tea without permits, and of having taken one pound of tea out of each of five chests ; the second, that of having obtained from a retail- dealer permits to cover stock which had indirectly got into their hands. It was admitted by Sir John Campbell on behalf of the Crown, that if the nine chests of tea were only taken to the warehouse of the de- fendants for the purpose of being corded and forwarded to the country dealers to whom they had been permitted, the transaction, though ir- regular, was not such as to induce him to press for the penalties ; but then it was alleged, that the different weighings by the Excise-officers proved that one pound each had been taken out of five chests ; and this must have been done fraudulently. The evidence as to the difference of weight, however, was by no means clearly made out against the de. fendatitsand the Jury only found a verdict against them for one penalty Of 500/. for having permits illegally in their possession. This cause occupied the Court from ten in the morning till twelve at night ; and excited much interest.
Robert Griffiths, to deaf and dumb man, was tried on Tuesday, at the Middlesex Sessions, on a charge of assaulting his own daughter, a child twelve years of age. An instructor from the Deaf and Dumb Asylum attended as au interpreter. The man, when asked to plead, made a sign that he was " bad ;" but the interpreter said that there was no sign by which the terms of guilty or not guilty could be conveyed. The Court decided that the trial should proceed, as it did not appear certain that the prisoner meant to plead guilty. He was found guilty by the Jury, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment in the House of Correction.
At the Sheriff's Court, on Tuesday, an action was brought by a fashionable tailor against an auctioneer's apprentice, to recover 41. 17s. for work and labour done in making him a pair of trousers with " silk linings and padded calves !"
Previous page
