HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0581 and id is 1 raw text is: 910
xcEGINA V. COLLINS
9 CAR. & P. 458.
designed, and it would be for the jury to infer that they had begun to demolish within
the meaning of this Act of Parliament. You must, however, be satisfied that there
was a beginning to demolish the house. The shop shutters are not part of the house,
they are not part of the freehold, and if all that these persons had done was demolish-
ing the window-shutters, that would not be within this statute. However, it
appears here that the house itself is set on fire, and though setting fire to a house
is a substantive felony, yet if fire is made the means of attempting to destroy a
house, it is as much a beginning to demolish as if any other mode of destruction
were resorted to.
The jury found the prisoner Wilkes not guilty, and convicted all the other
prisoners.
[456] Campbell, A. G., Balguy, Hill, and Waddington, for the Crown.
Miller, for the prisoner Jones.
Daniel, for the prisoner Wilkes.
[Attornies-Solicitors of the Treasury & Griffiths, for the prosecution;
and Wright, for the prisoners.]
. REGINA V. COLLINS.
(Every man has a right to give every public matter a candid, full, and free discussion
but although the people have a right to discuss any grievances they have to
complain of, they must not do it in a way to excite tumult ; and if a party publish
a paper on any such matter, and it contain no more than a calm and quiet dis-
cussion, allowing something for a little feeling in men's minds, that will be no
libel ; but if the paper go beyond that, and be calculated to excite tumult, it
is a libel. A defendant was tried for publishing a letter, purporting to be the
resolutions of a body of persons calling themselves the General Convention, and
in one part of it stated that an outrage had been committed on the people of
Birmingham by a force acting under the authority of men, who, when out of
office, sanctioned and took part in the meetings of the people. A witness for
the Crown stated in his cross-examination, that he had formerly belonged to
the Convention, but had since resigned, and had become a town councillor of
Birmingham. It was proposed to ask him further in cross-examination, as to
what he said at a meeting at which the Convention was agreed on, but which took
plate nearly a year before the publication of the alleged libel :-Held, that this
could not be done.)
[S. C. 3 St. Tr. (N. S.) 1149.]
Libel.-The indictment charged, that on the 4th day of July, 3 Vict., at the parish
of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, 10,000 persons unknown, with force and
arms, unlawfully did assemble, armed with divers offensive weapons, to wit, sticks,
clubs, and daggers, bearing banners and flags, and were then and there making a
great noise and disturbance, to the great terror and alarm of the peaceable subjects
of our Lady the Queen, and that George Martin and John Hugh Sweeting, together
with certain other persons, forming and being part of the London metropolitan police
force, having theretofore been sworn in and then being special constables of the
Borough of Birmingham, in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided,
did, by the order and direction of William Scholefield, Esq., and John Kayc Booth,
Esq., justices of our said Lady the Queen, assigned to keep the peace, disperse,
separate, and remove, and cause and procure to be dispersed, separated, and removed,
the said unlawful assembly of persons, and that they the said G. M. and J. H. S.,
were, together with the said [457] other persons forming part of the metropolitan
police force, then and there acting in the due execution of their duty as such special
constables, in dispersing and causing to be dispersed the said unlawful assembly of
persons ; and that the defendant intending to excite divers liege subjects of the
Queen to resist the laws and to resist the persons so being part of the metropolitan
police force in thit due execution of their duty, and to bring the said force into hatred
and contempt, and to procure unlawful meetings, and to cause divers liege subjects
of the Queen to believe that the laws of this kingdom were unduly administered,
and intending to disturb the public peace, and to raise discontent in the minds of the
subjects of the Queen, and raise and excite tumult and disobedience to the laws, did
publish a certain false &c. libel, of and concerning the said persons so being part
of the London metropolitan police, and of and concerning the administration of law](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0581&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)