340 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



profits had been, upon examina- 

 tion, allowed by the additional 

 commissioners, and the amount 

 of the ten per cent duty, thereon 

 paid into the bank; the inspector, 

 at the time he made such a sur- 

 charge, having been also aware 

 that Mr. Grenfells, one of the 

 plaintiffs, had appeared before and 

 fully satisfied the commissioners, 

 previously to their passing the as- 

 sessment upon which this sur- 

 charge was afterwards made. 

 Upon hearing, hovvever,before the 

 commissioners of appeal, the sur- 

 charge was disallowed ; and plain- 

 tiffs, considering it a question of 

 great public import to ascertain, 

 by the decision of a court of law, 

 whether the inspectors were justi- 

 fied in making surcharges, as 

 seems too much the practice, 

 without an)' ground of Information 

 for doing so (taking the chance of 

 putting a proportion of the sur- 

 charge into their own pockets, in 

 case of its being in any degree 

 allowed) brought this action. It 

 however, appearing, that one of 

 the additional commissioners (Mr. 

 James Dixon who is since dead) 

 had, in the present instance, advi- 

 sed the defendant to make the 

 surcharge, the court was of opin- 

 ion that it had removed from him all 

 imputation of his having made the 

 surcharge vexatiously ; and the 

 plaintiffs were of course nonsuited. 

 It was, notwithstanding, distinctly 

 understood,that a surcharge made 

 without any ground besides an 

 inspector's own presumption is 

 unwarrantable, and would be 

 deemed vexatious. It also appear- 

 ed, and was stated in court, that 

 the circumstance of the inspector's 

 having acted under the advice of 

 Mr. Dixon was woolly unknown 

 to the plaintiffs. 



From this decision, it should 

 seem that the subject is not pro- 

 tected by the existing law against 

 a false surcharge, provided the 

 inspector acts under the advice, 

 or at the suggestion of any one 

 of the commissioners ; notwith- 

 standing the assessment having 

 been made by the commissioners' 

 before whom an investigation re- 

 specting the same had previously 

 taken place. 



Court of Kings-bench. — The 

 King, v. j'Vnu Cobbeit, for a libel. 

 —On Friday, June 15th, this im- 

 portant case was tried before lord 

 Ellenborough, at Westminster 

 Hal!. The panel being called 

 over, the following persons were 

 swornof the jury: Thomas Rhodes, 

 Hampstead Road ; John Davis, 

 Southampton Place, ditto; James 

 Ellis, Tottenham Court Road; 

 John Richards,Bayswater;Thoraas 

 Marsham, Baker-street ; Robert 

 Heathcote, High-street, Mary- 

 le-bone ; John Maude, York 

 Place, ditto ; George Baxter, 

 Church Terrace, Pancras; Thomas 

 Taylor, Red-Lion-square ; David 

 Dean, 110, St. John's-street ; 

 William Palmer, Upper-street, 

 Islington. Joseph West, (tales- 

 man) was about to be sworn, but 

 Mr. Cobbett objected to him, 

 and he was withdrawn without 

 assigning any reason, on the con- 

 sent of the attorney-general. 



Henry Faver, a talesman, was 

 then sworn , and made u p the twelve. 

 The Attorney-general then open- 

 ed the case on behalf of the crown. 

 In 1808, lord Casilereagh brought 

 in his bill by which the local mili- 

 tia might be called out for twenty- 

 eight days, though they had only 

 been called out t went}' days. Vv'hen 

 theCambridgeshire militia was call- 

 ed out, some disafi^ected persons in 



