H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

nally published, the work. He said, if I had not published that work, I had published others nearly as bad; to which I replied, that I thought it was strange doctrine, that I should be punished for my own publications under a prosecution for selling those of another. I then went away, and was afterwards arrested by a tipstaff and taken to Kemp's lock-up-house, where I remained one night; the next day I was taken to the court of King's-bench at Westminister, and admitted to bail. I was arrested again in the September following.

Mr. Richard William Hayward. -I was attorney for Mr. Thelwall in the April of last year. On Friday the 27th of that month, I addressed a letter, by his desire, to Mr. Murray. (The letter was read-it expressed an intention of putting in bail for Mr. Thelwall, and requested, that he might not be unnecessarily harassed by the proceedings.] To this letter I received no answer. Mr. Gibbons, the tipstaff, called on me late on Saturday evening, and informed me, that he had a warrant against my client. It was then too late to give notice of bail, but on Monday, at one o'clock, I sent my clerk with the notice, containing the names of Mr. Adams and sir R. Phillips, for the Wednesday following. I did not see Mr. Murray until Tuesday. At one on that day I attended with the bail at Mr. Justice Holroyd's chambers, but Mr. Murray did not attend, and his lordship appointed a meeting that evening at five o'clock at his own house. There we all again attended, and met Mr. Murray, who objected to accepting the bail, because 48 hours had not elapsed since he received notice. I

then stated, in the presence of Mr. Murray, that I had sent a letter on Friday offering bail, to which I received no answer, and that on Saturday I communicated the names of the bail to Gibbons the officer. Mr. Justice Holroyd said, he did not think Mr. Murray ought to object to the want of notice. Mr. Murray then examined sir R. Phillips and Mr. Adams as to their sufficiency, and they were admitted.

Mr. John Thelwall. - At the time when the indictment was found against me, I resided at Effra-road, North Brixton. The first intimation I received of it was by a paragraph in a morning paper. I immediately requested Mr. Hayward to make inquiry as to the fact, and having on the Friday ascertained it, I requested him to write the letter to Mr. Murray, which has been read. I remained the whole of Friday and Saturday, except, perhaps, going home late at night, at my office in the Strand. About five o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, I was taken into custody by a person from Mr. Gibbons, while at dinner with my family and pupils. I walked to town in custody, the officer behaving very respectfully, and first went to my office. There I was informed I could not be taken before a judge that evening, and was asked where I would go? I said, I had no direction to give; they must do with me as they pleased. They took me to a lock-up-house in Serle's-place, where I remained that night. The next day I went with my bail before Mr. Justice Holroyd, but Mr. Murray did not attend. In the evening, at five, we went, by appointment, to Mr. Justice Holroyd's house, where we met Mr. Murray. I complained to Mr. Murray that he had received notice of bail, and arrested me on the same day, which he did not deny. He objected to the bail for want of notice; but the objection was discountenanced by the judge, and they were received. I was then set at liberty.

d

Examined copies of two indictments against Wardell, of one against Dolby, of one against Turner, and of one against Thelwall, were then proved and handed in to the officer. One of those against Wardell contained 58 folios; the other between 17 and 18 folios. The indictment against Turner contained 19 folios and a word.

Mr. Harmer deposed, that he was a solicitor, and had been much engaged in prosecutions in the criminal courts, and was acquainted with the costs of criminal proceedings. The expense of an indictment of 58 folios, preferred at the sessions, and removed into the King's-bench by certiorari, would be 201.; of an indictment from 17 to 18 folios, 7l. or 8l. less, and of one of 19 folios, something between both. In this he included the regular profit of the attorney, and allowed, on the two indictments against Mr. Wardell, 5l. for extra attendances and negotiations. If there were no indictment, but only an affidavit, warrant, and arrest, 56. would be a liberal allow ance; but a writ of certiorari would increase the costs 31. more. No counsel's fee could raise the expense to 181.

Mr. Gurney addressed the jury for the defendants.

The lord chief justice in his charge, directed the jury to lay Mr. Clarke out of their consideration, as there was no evidence at all to affect him. He then adverted to the general charge of a

conspiracy to indict. Undoubtedly, by the law of England (though in other countries and in some parts of the British dominions it was otherwise) any individual might institute a prosecution for a publie wrong, and it had been long the practice for many to combine, for the security of a neighbourhood, to divide the expense of bringing offenders to justice. Although the legality of the Constitutional Association was not to-day in issue, he had, since he was aware of the prosecution, made it his business, as it was his duty, to look into the authorities on the subject, and he had found not even a single dictum whence he could infer, that an association to prosecute libels was unlawful. But the members of a society professing a laudable object might be criminal, if they abused its power to corrupt purposes. Accordingly, the indictment proceeded to charge a number of acts of this character. The third count was for conspiring to indict with a view to extort money; and if this was proved, beyond all question it was a heinous offence. On the charge of administering unlawful oaths, no evidence had been given. The learned judge then read over all the evidence to the jury, expressing his opinion, that it did not sustain any of the charges, but intimating that it would have been better, if Mr. Murray, in the case of Mr. Thelwall, had either not issued a warrant, or had forborne to enforce, it after notice of bail, whose sufficiency could not be doubted. On the expediency of the association they were not required to decide: if he were to give his own opinion on the subject, he should say, that this depended almost entirely on the manner in which the society

was conducted. He left it to the jury to say, by their verdict, whether it had or had not been used by the defendants, or any of them, for purposes of wicked lucre or of oppression.

The jury deliberated in their box for five minutes, and then retired for a quarter of an hour, at the close of which they returned, and found all the defendants-Not Guilty.

The foreman said, that the jury thought Mr. Murray's conduct rather harsh in respect of Mr. Thelwall, to which observation the lord chief justice assented.

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH.

SATURDAY, APRIL 20.

Waithman v. Weaver, Shackell, and Arrowsmith.--Mr. Campbell stated, that this action was brought by Rob. Waithman, esq. to recover damages for two libels, published by the defendants, in a newspaper called The John Bull, imputing to him, that he had received stolen goods, and committed perjury. The defendants had pleaded, that they were " Not Guilty."

Mr. Scarlett then proceeded to state to the jury, that in the paper of Sunday, the 9th, and Monday, the 10th September, 1821, the author thought fit to suppose a meeting of the common council assembled to investigate the claims of Mr. Waithman to the mayoralty, who was first examined by his friends, and then cross-examined by others. The examination began thus:

"You are a sheriff of Middlesex, Mr. Waithman?-I am. "And an alderman?-I am. "And a linen-draper?-Yes. "You wish to be lord mayor

next year? - That is my present intention.

"You were once in parliament, I believe? I was.

"How comes it you are not in parliament now ?-I really cannot say.

"On what are your pretensions to the mayoralty founded ?-On my general conduct as a man and a tradesman; my principles as a son, a husband, and a friend; my love of liberty, the purity of election, Magna Charta, and the trial by jury; my constant attention to the duties of my present office, my zeal for the rights of the people, my abhorrence of despotism, my hatred of military government, all the acts of my political life, and, above all, my esteem for injured innocence.

"Have you any other qualifications?-Some few more which I could not recapitulate without appearing vain.

"Has any gentleman a wish to ask Mr. Waithman any questions? -Several.

"The members of the meeting proceeded to cross-examine the candidate.

"You said you were a linendraper, I believe? Yes, I think I did; in fact I did say so.

"A wholesale merchant I conclude? No, not exactly; a retail dealer.

"What, am I to understand that you are the retail linen-draper, who sells contraband goods in Fleetstreet?-I am the Robert Waithman, who sells shawls and bandanas.

"You buy them, too, I believe, sometimes?-If I did not, I could not sell them.

" I am not quite so sure of that, sir, [A laugh.] Pray, do you recollect two shawls which were sold by Messrs. John Cooper and Co. of Bond-street, for 95 guineas, to a man, for which he gave a draft that was not paid; and do you recollect buying the shawls of this strange man the same evening, and paying him the next morning 50 guineas for them; and do you not recollect that the matter was referred to arbitration, and that you were obliged to give the shawls back to Messrs. Cooper and Co.?-I do not recollect any thing about it; when did it take place?

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

"Do not you remember, in the year 1808?-I cannot charge my memory with any thing so far back."

With this vague answer was the matter left until the next week, when the mock-examination was continued, and the subject of the shawls thus resumed. Mr. Waithman is supposed to be called in, and asked,

"Have you any observation to make on your last examination?I would merely say that I do recollect the circumstances about Cooper's shawls, and that I saw the propriety of returning them, after the decision of Messrs. Moorhall and Kesteven.

"You saw the propriety of returning them? I did.

"But you withheld them, I believe? I did as long as I could, because the decision of the arbitrators was not written on stamped paper, as the act directs.

"And you think there was nothing extraordinary in purchasing new shawls for 50 guineas, at night, of a stranger? - Nothing; I am by no means particular in such

cases.

"Did you know the shawls were worth more than 50 guineas, when you bought them? - I am not likely to have given more than they were worth.

"Had you ever seen the shawls

before?-I cannot say.

"Did you know that they were bought at Cooper's?-How should I?

"Had you not sold one of them to Cooper a short time before for 39l.?-Why yes; I believe I did; but I did not recollect it at the time.

"Did not your young man in the shop say, This is one of Cooper's shawls,' looking at one of those brought you for sale?-He might. I rather think he did.

"And as you did not pay the man who brought them to you that night, did you send no message to Messrs. Cooper upon the subject ? -I did not.

"Did you know the person who brought the shawls for sale ? - I was quite convinced he was a respectable person, which quieted my apprehensions.

"Oh! you had some apprehensions? Why, if I had apprehended the person

"You would have done your duty, Mr. Sheriff. Do you know who the person was?-I think I have heard.

"Was it not Roberts, who has since been tried at the Old Bailey, and who escaped from Cold Bathfields House of Correction?-It might have been; but I trust this committee will not suspect that I was personally acquainted with him at the time."

But this was not all, said Mr. Scarlett. The libel went on to make a distinct charge of perjury. Mr. Waithman was asked, whether he did not return his income at 60l. while carrying on his present trade; which he was represented as admitting amidst the laughter of the spectators. He was then asked, "Did you not make that return on oath?" and represented as re plying in the affirmative.

The lord chief justice here observed, that this could not be true, as the first return was never made on oath.

Mr. Scarlett assented; and proceeded to read and comment on the libel, which distinctly imputed to Mr. Waithman, that, after making this statement on oath, he was surcharged 800l. per annum; that he never appealed; but that he paid the tax only when compelled by process of law. There were many other questions and answers referring to subjects long ago satisfactorily explained to the world, but they were framed with so much ingenuity as not to form a safe ground of action. On these two distinct imputations, therefore, of receiving stolen goods and of perjury, the plaintiff now sought compensation at their hands. Whoever is the author of these elaborate calumnies, said Mr. Scarlett, whether his vile instruments will ever disclose his name, I know not; but you will teach them, that if they lend themselves to this abominable traffic, they must bear all its consequences; you will feel that no compassion is due to those who thus, in cold blood, assist in the circulation of libels for gain; nay, that they are baser and more wretched even than the authors, as the assassin who hires out his arm for half-a-crown has less excuse than his employer, who may have some human passion to excite him.

The publication of the libel by the defendants was proved.

The passages charged as libellous were then read by Mr. Abbott, the counsel for the defendants waiving their right to have the whole of the articles read. A number of the "John Bull" of August, 1821, was also put in, containing an affidavit of Weaver, that between

7,000 and 10,000 copies of the paper had been sold weekly in the preceding month.

Mr. Serjeant Vaughan then addressed the jury for the defendants. This, he said, was not a case where the defendants had pierced the shades of private life, to drag an individual into dis graceful notoriety; but where they had attacked a person seeking the public attention, at a period when the publie mind had been greatly infuriated and agitated, and when the plaintiff had personally interfered in two inquests, while holding an office essential to the public peace-in that season of excitement and heat, the defendants thought it right to call the public attention to certain facts, of which some evidence would be given to-day.

The lord chief justice. What is the nature of the evidence which you propose to give, as it seems to me very probable, that I shall entertain great doubts whether I ought to receive it?

Mr. Serjeant Vaughan.-I submit that I have a right, under the general issue, to give evidence of any facts, short of a complete jus tification, for the purpose of negativing the presumption of malice.

His lordship begged Mr. Serjeant Vaughan to state to him the substance of the evidence in ques tion, but to do so privately, that the statement might not operate to the prejudice of any one. A conversation in a tone inaudible in court accordingly took place between the learned serjeant and his lordship. After which,

The lord chief justice rejected the evidence, leaving the counsel for the defendants, if they should think fit, to move for a new trial. Mr. Serjeant Vaughan then admitted that a verdict must pass for

« TrướcTiếp tục »