The Recorder on Monday made his report to the King

at Brighton of the prisoners capitally convicted at the Old Bailey Sessions ; all of whom his Majesty respited during pleasure.

In the Court of King's Bench, on Monday, Sir John Campbell, in a very low tone of voice, moved for a criminal information on behalf of the Earl of Durham against the proprietors of the Newcastle Journal, for a libel. This libel is the one which charged his Lordship With placing the English flag on the mast of his yacht below the tricolour, at Cherbourg; with hoisting a flag bearing his own arms above that of his sovereign ; and with carrying the tricolour on his mast-head when be entered the Tyne. Lord Durham, in an affidavit, denied all these charges, distinctly and 'positively. Sir John Campbell observed, that " This application was made in a shape in which the truth or falsehood of the charges might come before the Court ; because a prosecutor, on applying for a criminal information, was bound to deny the truth of the charges made in the paragraph of which he complained."

The Court granted a rule to show cause.

The Court, on the application of Sir James Scarlett, granted a writ at quo warranlo calling upon Mr. Thomas Johnson to show by what authority he claims to be an Alderman of London. Sir James stated the fact of Mr. Scales's election by the inhabitants of Portsoken Ward, Iris return by the Lord Mayor, And subsequently Mr. Johnson's elec- tion by the Court of Aldermen. There was, he maintained, an evi- dent irregularity in this proceeding. Mr. Justice Parke said, that he was entitled to take a rule, having made out a primii facie case.

Mr. Sergeant Goulburn moved on Tuesday, on the part of the Reverend Mr. Perkins, for a rule to show cause why a criminal infor- mation should not be issued against three Magistrates of the county of Warwick, for refusing to act with another in affairs relative to a parish wear Coventry. He moved on the ground that they denied justice ; and that, too, from corrupt motives. He would briefly state the cir- cumstances which were supposed to influence these Magistrates in adopting the course which they had followed.

The Chief Justice asked what were the grounds of complaint? .Mr. Sergeant Goulburn said, that before he proceeded to enter into the cir- cumstances on which lie grounded the application, he would state what had happened on a previous occasion. A pauper named Smallwood, belonging to the parish in question, came before two of the Magistrates against whom he applied, and the Reverend Mr. Perkins, who were then assembled in Petty Session, and swore that he was perfectly destitute, that he had no means of sub- sistence, and that he had previously applied to the parish-officers for relief. .Thes: two Magistrates ordered the large sum of 25s. per week to be paid to the pauper. Mr.*Perkins, who was then present on the Bench, and the vicar of the parish, suggested the propriety of summoning the Overseers, and intimated that, if they did so, it was probable that the case the pauper had stated would appear not to be correct, and one not calling for the interference of the Bench. The two Magistrates refused to attend to his suggestion, and signed the order ; which the Overseers obeyed. An indictment for perjury was subsequently in- stituted, and came on for trial at the last Assizes, before Mr. Justice Park. The Reverend Mr. Perkins gave evidence on that occasion ; and the Overseers were also called, and stated that the pauper had never made any application to them previously to going to the Magistrates in Petty Session ; and it was after- wards proved that he had a good house and furniture sufficient, even though he lad buried some of it underground. The Jury pronounced a verdict of guilty ; and the Judge expressed himself satisfied with the verdict, and sentenced the p9aper to nine months' imprisonment.

Since this transaction, although Mr. Perkins had been on good terms with them previously, his brother Magistrates not only refused to act with him, but would not listen to any applicant belonging to his parish. On one occasion, they said to the Overseer—" It's of no use your ap- plying; we will not hear any cases from your parish." They also in- duced a Rugby Magistrate not to take any business from that parish. The Court granted the rule, after some deliberation as to whether a mandamus should not be granted instead of it.

In the Bail Court Yesterday, a writ of certiorari was granted to bring the whole proceedings relative to the rating of the Earl of Burlington's mansion into that Court ; so that the order of the Magistrates, reducing the assessment from 2,9431. to 1,6881. might be quashed, if found formal ; and should it be held good, the Court might decide as to what further proceedings should be taken.

A rule was granted, on the application of Mr. Kelly, to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued commanding the Magistrates of Pullborough, in Sussex, to compel the Reverend Mr. Austen to paw his poor-rates, which amount to 991. 19:. 9d. The assessment itself; Mr. Kelly said, had not been objected to, but the Overseers had not yet been able to obtain payment of it from Mr. Austen. It was fur- ther stated, that whenever the reverend gentleman (who is a Magistrate) becomes aware that any application is:to be made to the Sessions on the subject of the rate in question, he is, of course, in his seat on time bench of Magistrates, who decline interfering or issuing a summons until compelled. This mandamus, for the purpose of so compelling them, was therefore now applied for. [These cases of magisterial neglect and violation of duty thicken upon us. It is to be hoped that the sub- ject will be brought before Parliament next session. A motion for an address to the King, supported by a score or two of cases fully and correctly stated, would be a warning to these gentlemen, and do much good ; even though it should be opposed by Mr. G. Lamb, and re- jected.] In the Court of Exchequer, on Monday, the question as to whether the publication of defamatory matter, spoken by counsel during a trial, is justifiable or not, was argued. The case was briefly as followslishareed- port of a trial, in which Lord Foley was defendant, had been pub in the Times. Jim the course of this trial, in stating the contents of an affidavit by Lord Foley, some language had been used by Sir John Campbell reflecting very deeply upon a Mr. Pennell. That person brought an action against the publisher of the Times; who urged in his defence, that time account published was a true and faithful report of what took place. The point to be decided was, whether this was a sufficient justification of the publication of libellous matter. Mr. Hutchinson, for the plaintiff, Pennell, quoted several opinions of the Judges. Justice Holroyd had said—" It by no means follows, because a counsel is privileged when in the course of the administration of justice lie utters slan- derous matter, that a third person may repeat that slanderous matter to all the world."

Lent Lyndhurst—" In ' Curry versus Walter,' no judgment was given ; but Lord Chief Justice Eyre told the Jury, 'that though the matter contained in the paper might he very injurious to the character of the Magistrates, yet he was of opinion, that being a true account of what took place in a court of justice, which was open to all the world, the publication of it was not unlawful.' "

. Mr. Hutchinson—" In that case the party was before the court; which formed a most material distinction between that and the present case."

Lord Lyndhurst—" Has that distinction ever been made ? " Mr. Hutchinson—" No, I believe not." Lord Lyndhurst—" Is not the injury to the individual more than compensated by the advantage to the public, in making known the proceedings in courts of justice?"

Mr. Hutchinson—" This is an account of. what was not properly before the Court. The words principally complained of ought not to have been introduced into Lord Foley's affidavit ; and if they were not properly introduced, they should not have been published."

Lord Lyndhurst—" A reporter of proceedings in courts of justice would be in a very difficult situation if be were to be obliged to decide what was properly or improperly stated in an affidavit."

Mr. Hutchinson—" He places himself in that situation voluntarily, and he must incur the responsibility of it. The matter complained of was improperly introduced into the affidavit, was unnecessary, and therefore ought not to have been reported." Mr. Platt, for the defendant, said—" The general rule was, that whatever took place in a public court of justice was a proper subject of publication to the world. This rule had no other effect than of extending the walls of the court. All the King's subjects had a right to have access to his Courts, and to hear what takes place there ; but if the publication of what does so take place were illegal, the inhabitants of a distant part of the kingdom, as for instance Corn- wall, would be kept in total ignorance of the administration of the law." Mr. Baron Bayley—" You put the case too broadly, and suppose that because you are not at liberty to publish every thing, you may publish nothing." Mr. Platt —" The publication in this case was a report of what took place in the King's Bench Court at Nisi Prins, before Lord Tenterden, on a question whether the trial of a cause should or should not be expedited. All the facts brought forward in support of or against the application were relevant, and came before the Court warranted by the oath of the parties. Mr. Baron Bayley—" Were the words 'notorious swindler' necessary? would it not have been sufficient for the application to state that the party was a ma- terial witness? "

Mr. Platt—" One ground of the application was, that the party kept out of the way on purpose. The affidavit was to meet any opposite statement that might be made, and the facts appeared to him highly material in support of the application. But the question here was, is a reporter bound to be a first-rate lawyer ? Is be to select in his report of a case so much only of the evidence he hears stated as is properly applicable to the point in issue?'

He further urged, that the publication of what took place at the trial of a person convicted of a scandalous, blasphemous publication, might not be improper.

Mr. Baron Bayley—" What! notwithstanding- its indecency?" Mr. Baron Gurney—" Suppose a man indicted for publishing an indecent print, might you therefore exhibit it as part of a true report of the trial?" Mr. Platt—" No; but the ground of that objection is, because such a publi- cation would be contra bonds mores." Lord Lyndhurst—" The expressions of the Court in the case of The King versus Carlyle' are matters of a defamatory nature,' 'tending to excite dis. affection," calculated to offend the morals of the people.' The publication of such matters cannot be justified."

After some further argument in which the opinion of Judge Bayley seemed to lean against the defendant, and that of Lord Lyndhurst in his

favour, the latter said—" The question is of great general importance. It is quite obvious that it is extremely difficult to draw the line. We will consider it."

The Grand Jury of Westminster on Thursday returned a true bill against Ephraim Bond and another, for a nuisance in keeping a gaming- house in the parish of St. James's.