Who says that he is inspector of hides and skins duly appointed under the hands and seals of two of his majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county, within the market town of

[not exceeding three, nor less than two] miles last, he seized a in the said county,

day of

in the said

and district of therefrom, and that on the calf's skin belonging to A. O. of butcher, at the place of inspection, to wit, at market town of· the said skin having a large cut [or flaw, or gash, as the case may be] therein, which said skin appearing to have been cut wilfully [or negligently, or carelessly, as the case may be] and being thereby rendered less useful and valuable for the purpose of making leather, he, this complainant, demanded of and from the said A. O. the sum of as a forfeiture for the said offence, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided, but that the said A. O. refused to pay the same, and forcibly wrested the said skin from him this complainant, [or as the case may be]. He therefore prays that justice may be done in the premises, and that he may be protected in the due execution of his office as inspector of hides and skins as aforesaid.

Sworn before me,

J. P.

(B.) Summons thereupon.

A. I.

County of

To the constable of

}

in the said county.

WHEREAS information and complaint have been made before me J. P. esquire, one of his majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county by A. I. of. in the said county, cordwainer, inspector of hides and skins within the said market town of and district of [not exceeding three nor less than two] miles therefrom, that he the said A. I. did on day of last, seize a calf's skin, belonging to in the said county, butcher, at the place of inin the said market town of

the

A. O. of spection, to wit at the said skin having a large cut [or flaw, or gash, as the case may be] therein [here state the facts as charged and detailed in the information]. These are therefore to require you forthwith to summon the said A. O. to appear before me, or others of his majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county, at county, on

the

day of

in the said at the hour of in the forenoon of the same day, to answer to the said information and complaint, and to be further dealt with according to law. And be you then there to certify what you shall have done in the premises; herein fail you not. Given under my hand and seal the day of· in the year of our Lord one thousand

eight hundred and

J. P. (L.S.)

For the Form of Conviction, see 3 Burn, 233.

(C.) Warrant of Distress to Levy the Penalty.

County of To the constable of

WHEREAS A. O. of

now last past, at

in the said county.

in the said county, butcher, is this day duly convicted before me. J. P. esquire, one of his majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county, upon the oath of A. W., a credible witness, [or, upon his own confession, as the case may be], for that he the said A. O., on the day of in the parish of in the said county, did wilfully [or, negligently, or, carelessly, as the case may be.] [Here state the offence of which the defendant is convicted]; whereby and for which offence he the said A. O. hath forfeited the sum of, to be distributed as hereinafter is mentioned: And whereas the said sum of hath been duly demanded of and from the said A. O., but he hath refused and still refuses to pay the same. These are therefore to command you the said constable to levy the said sum of by distress of the goods of him the said A. O., and if within the space of [four] days next after such distress by you taken, the said sum, together with reasonable charges of taking and keeping the said distress, shall not be paid, that then you do sell the said goods so by you distrained, and out of the money arising by such sale that you do pay one half of the said sum of [See stat. 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 66. § 14. 3 Burn, 233.] returning the overplus on demand unto him the said A. O. the reasonable charges of taking, keeping, and selling the said distress being first deducted. And if sufficient distress cannot be found of the goods of the said A. O., whereon to levy the said sum of that then you certify the same to me, together with the return of this precept. Given under my hand and seal the day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

J. P. (L. S.)

(D.) Constable's Return [to be indorsed on the warrant] of

want of Distress.

A.C. one of the constables of

within mentioned, maketh oath and saith, that he hath made diligent search for, but doth not know of, nor can find, sufficient goods and chattels of the within named A. O. whereon to levy the within mentioned sum of

Sworn before me,
J. P.

one thousand eight hundred and

A. C.

in the said county, and common gaol [or, house of in the said county.

in the said county, butcher,

in the year of our Lord -, duly convicted before

me, J. P. esquire, one of his majesty's justices of the peace in and

for the said county, upon the oath of A. W., a credible witness [or,
upon his own confession, as the case may be], for that he the said
A. O., on the
now last past, at the pa-

day of

rish of
in the county aforesaid, did wilfully [or, negli
gently, or, carelessly, as the case may be.] [Here specify the of
fence of which the offender is convicted]; whereby, and for which
offence, he the said A. O. hath forfeited the sum of -
said sum was duly demanded of him the said A. O., but he refused
and still refuses to pay the same: And whereas, on the

which

day

by dis

of
in the year aforesaid, I did issue my warrant to the
constable of
to levy the said sum of —
tress and sale of the goods of him the said A. Ŏ., and to distribute
the same according to the statutes in that behalf made: And whereas
it duly appears to me, as well on the oath of the said constable as
otherwise, that he the said constable hath used his best endeavours
to levy the said sum on the goods of the said A. O. as aforesaid, but
that no sufficient distress can be had whereon to levy the same :
These are therefore to command you the said constable of -
aforesaid, to apprehend the body of the said A. O., and him safely
to convey to the common gaol [or, house of correction] at

in the said county, and there deliver him to the said keeper thereof,
together with this precept. And I do hereby command you, the said
keeper of the said common gaol [or, house of correction], to receive
into your custody in the said common gaol [or, house of correction],
the said A. O., and him there safely to keep for the space of·
[not exceeding one month], unless such penalty shall be sooner
paid and satisfied: and for so doing this shall be your sufficient
warrant. Given under my hand and seal the day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
J. P. (L. S.)

Libel.

[See 3 Burn, 248.]

IN an action for a libel, which professed to be a narrative of proceedings in the insolvent court, beginning "Shameful conduct of an Attorney," and proceeding with the detail of the speeches, examinations and observations of the court; defendant pleaded that the alleged libel was a correct account, and a verdict was found for him but the court of K. B. afterwards held, that the pleas were bad, the narrator not having confined himself to what actually passed in court, but prefaced the statement with the words "Shameful conduct," &c. which were a direct allegation against the plaintiff; and gave judgment for the plaintiff notwithstanding the verdict. Lewis v. Clement, 3 B. & A. 702. See also 3 Brod. & Bing. 297. S. C.

See 3 Burn, 249.

The court will Rex v. Williams, E. 3 G. 4. 5 B. & A. 595. A rule nisi had grant a criminal been obtained for filing a criminal information against the deinformation for fendant for an alleged libel upon the clergy of the diocese of

public body of

the publication

Durham. The publication stated, that upon the death of her late a libel upon a majesty, none of the bells in the several churches at Durham were tolled. It ascribed this omission to the clergy, and then proceed- men upon an ed to make some very severe observations on that body. The rule affidavit, stating was obtained upon affidavits, stating the purchase of the newspaper of the libel by containing the libel, and that the defendant was the proprietor or the defendant. publisher of the paper. On shewing cause, it was urged that the court would not grant a criminal information for a public libel, upon the application of an unknown private prosecutor, and without any affidavit of the charge being untrue. Contra. The court have, in many instances, granted informations for libels on a number of individuals, without requiring any affidavit of the falsehood of the charge. In Mich. 13 Geo. 2. 1739, such an information was granted against M. Jenour, the printer of the Daily Advertiser, for publishing a libel against the directors of the East India company; and this application was supported by affidavits, stating the purchase of the newspaper, and an acknowledgment by the defendant that he had printed it. In Hil. T. 28 Geo. 2. 1755, a similar information was granted against A. Alderton, for writing and publishing a libel on the justices of the peace for the county of Suffolk, in an advertisement respecting the expenditure of money in the hands of the county treasurer. The only affidavit in support of the application was, that of the printer of the newspaper, that he had received the advertisement from the defendant for publication. So in Hil. T. 15 Geo. 3., such an information was granted against R. Holloway and G. Allen, for printing and publishing a libel upon the justices of the peace of the county of Middlesex, usually sitting by rotation in Lichfield-street, in a pamphlet entitled The Rat-trap, charging them with ignorance and corruption in the execution of their office. This rule was granted upon an affidavit, stating the purchase of the pamphlet from one of the defendants, and that the other acknowledged himself to be the author, and that several gentlemen named usually sat by rotation, as justices, at a public office in Lichfield-street. It is clear, too, from Rex v. Osborn, 2 Barnard. 138. 166. 2 Swanst. 503. that the court will grant a criminal information for a libel reflecting on a public body.R. A.

Rex v. Sir F. Burdett, Bart. M. 1 G. 4. 4 B. & A. 95. Information in the county of Leicester for writing and publishing a libel. Proof that defendant wrote it in the county of Leicester, and that Bickersteth delivered it to Brookes for publication in Middlesex unsealed. Bickersteth was not called at the trial, nor was there any evidence of his being in the county of Leicester, or how the libel came to him; the jury were told, as he had it open, they might presume he received it open, and as defendant wrote it in Leicestershire it might be presumed he received it in Leicestershire : the jury found accordingly for the crown. On R. N. for a new trial and cause shewn, three judges (BAYLEY J. dissentiente) held the direction justifiable; and they also held, that if delivery open could not be presumed, delivery sealed, with a view to, and for the purpose of publication, was a publication; and they thought there was sufficient ground for presuming some delivery, whether opened or sealed, in Leicestershire. — R. D.

If a libel imputes to a man a triable offence, proof of the truth is inadmissible; for it would be trying the question behind a

it

Delivering a libel sealed that may be opened and published son in a distant by a third percounty is a publication.

Rex v. Sir F.
Burdett, Bart.

If a libel is charged to be of and concerning the government of the kingdom, though it do not in express terms impute to the government any of the facts it mentions, the court is to judge from its whole

tenor and import, understanding it as other men would understand it, whether it does

not mean to cast

that imputation.

man's back, and creating a prejudice against him. Per totam curiam. S. C.

A libel imputing murder to certain soldiers. Evidence offered of the truth, but rejected; and the court unanimously held that it was rightly rejected; for the persons charged might afterwards come to be tried, and the previous inquiry might prejudice them. S. C.

The intention may be collected from the libel, unless the mode of publication or other circumstances explain it. S. C.

The publisher must be presumed to intend what the publication is likely to produce. S. Č.

So that if it is likely to excite sedition, he must be presumed to intend that it should. S. C.

The judge may tell the jury that they are to take the law from him, unless they are satisfied he is wrong. S. C.

If a man writes a libel in the county of L. with intent to publish it in the county of M. and publishes accordingly in M., he may be indicted in L. or in M. S. C.

Defendant wrote a libel in Leicestershire with intent to publish it in Middlesex, and published it in Middlesex accordingly. Information in Leicestershire: and on question whether the information in Leicestershire was right, three judges (BAYLEY J. dubitante) held it was. S. C.

Rex v. Sir F. Burdett, Bart. H. 1 & 2 G. 4. 4 B. & A. 314. An information stated that defendant, intending to excite hatred against the government of this realm, and to cause it to be believed that divers subjects had been inhumanly killed by certain troops of the king, published a libel of and concerning the government of this realm, and of and concerning the said troops: The libel stated, that he saw with astonishment in the newspapers the accounts of a transaction at Manchester, and alleged that unarmed and unresisting men had been inhumanly cut down by the dragoons (meaning the said troops), and then commented strongly upon this being the use of a standing army, and called upon the people to demand justice, &c.: it did not, in terms, say, that the dragoons acted under the authority or order of government, and after conviction, motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that it did not sufficiently appear that it was written of and concerning the government, nor of and concerning what troops it was written; but the court held it was obvious, from its whole tenor and import, that it meant to cast imputation upon the government; - that it was a libel to impute crime to any of the king's troops, though it did not define what troops in particular were referred to, and that the innuendo of the "said troops" meant the undefined part of those troops, and sentence was passed.

Lunatics.

[See stat. 1 & 2 G. 4. c. 114.]