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/ssactsengr0585 and id is 1 raw text is: REGINA V. GREGORY
the goods were shipped to be employed for the purpose, it would be sufficient to
sustain the indictment. His lordship left it to the jury to say whether there was in
fact a slave adventure, and, if there was, whether the prisoner, who managed the
transaction, was or was not aware of the purpose for which the vessel was intended
to be used.
Verdict-Not guilty.
Bompas and Talfourd, Serjts., and Payne, for the prosecution.
Kelly, Clarkson, and Bodkin, for the prisoner.
[Attornies-Sir George Stephen, and E. & J. Lawford.]
[228] November Session, 1843, before Mr. Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice Coltman.
Nov. 29th, 1843.
REGINA V. BARNARD GREGORY.
(The Court will direct an affidavit in a case of misdemeanour which contains matter
both scandalous and irrelevant, to be removed from the files of the Court, and
the party who filed it is liable to be visited as for a contempt of Court. Also,
if an affidavit contain matter that is relevant and scandalous, the Court, though
they cannot direct its removal from the files, will give the party attacked an
opportunity of denying the defamatory matter upon oath, by a counter affidavit.
Where a party had pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to an indict-
ment for libel, and affidavits were filed both in mitigation and aggravation, the
Judges refused to hear the speeches of counsel on either side, but formed their
judgment of the case by reading the affidavits.)
[S. C. 2 L. T. (0. S.) 193; 1 Cox, C. C. 31.]
The defendant had pleaded guilty to two indictments for libel, and
Bodkin, who was for the prosecution in one of the cases, moved for the judgment
of the Court upon him.
The Court said they had not read the affidavits which had been filed, and were
not prepared to pass judgment on the defendant then.
Montagu Chambers then complained to the Court, on behalf of certain persons
who were deponents in certain affidavits filed in mitigation of punishment, of the
manner in which those persons had been treated by certain affidavits filed in aggrava-
tion of punishment on the part of Mr. Vallance, the prosecutor in one of the cases.
The learned counsel said, that, on the authority of some decisions, he made his appli-
cation to the Court on behalf of the parties whom he represented, and who had been
made the subjects of general attacks, slanderous and irrelevant, and injurious to the
course of justice, as tending to intimidate persons and prevent them from coming
forward to make statements on oath.
Parke, B.-You said you did this on the authority of certain decided cases, will
you mention them ?
Montagu Chambers.-The principal case is in Burrow's Reports, and there are
others, decided in the Court of [229] Chancery. My clients could not indict the
parties for perjury, and, therefore, the present application is their only remedy.
That application is, that the objectionable matter may be struck out of the affidavits.
The case in Burrow is Astley v. Younge (a).
Parke, B.-Will you state some of the passages in the affidavits to which you
allude ?
Montagu Chambers.-One passage is, that the deponents believe that the said
several persons, naming them, are all unworthy of credit, and are all persons of
bad repute, and that they are actuated by bribes, &c., and are in the habit of fre-
quenting gambling-houses of the most infamous description, &c. In the case of
Astley v. Younge, Lord Mansfield says (2 Burr. p. 809), Shew that a matter given
in evidence in a court of justice may be prosecuted in a civil action as a libel. The
Court, indeed, before which such evidence is given, may censure it. And again,
his lordship says (ib. p. 810), There can be no scandal if th e allegation is material ;
and if it is not, the Court, before whom the indignity is committed by immaterial
(a) 2 Burr. 807. Action on the case for a libel, contained in an affidavit. Plea,
that the defendant made the affidavit in his own defence, in answer to a complaint
made against him in the Court of King's Bench. Demurrer to the plea. Judgment
for the defendant on the demurrer.
I CAR. & X. 2M](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0585&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)