The Press. — London, England, 1858-08-21 00:00:00

r St pl th tli th if to nc gr PT SIl tli el Ta aS WI St 10 11 ‘ hi ft lI c, THE PRESS, AUGUST 21,1858. Hinder saw them. Saw Hinder pass through the village of Fovant in August. SAMUEL. HINDER: I LUI a sheriff's officer, and defendant in this action. In February, 1857, received warrants in the cases of " Burleigh v. Futcher " and " Beck v. Futcher." I afterwards received a letter from Messrs. Cox and Sons, sus pending their execution for fourteen days. I there fore delayed arresting the plaintiff. On the 2111.11 of April I received a letter from Mr. Genge, which I sent to Mr. Awdry, the under sheriff, ordering a further suspension. On the 31st of October I received a letter from Mr. Awdry, directing me to execute the warrant against Futcher. On the 9th of November I received a letter from Mr. Awdry, stating that a suspension had been ordered in " Beck v. Futcher," but ordering me to execute the one in " Burleigh v. Futcher." I, in consequence, arrested the plaintiff at half past six on the afternoon of Saturday. I had been waiting to take him as he came from market. He said if it was not settled it ought to have been. I told him it cduld nut be settled, as I had heard nothing of it. I wished him to send for his cousin, as we could reason the case over. and I might possibly take his undertaking. He said he would not trouble any of his friends. I wished him to call on Ewer, but he would not. The plaintiff made no offer to pay me the money. I should have been glad enough to get it. I then took him to Salisbury gaol. 1 never received the letter from Messrs. Cox and Sons in May, nor any letter to that effect. I have had no communication informing me of the withdrawal of that ca. sa. Cross-examined : I did not tell Mr. Wilson, plaintiffs attorney, that he had caught me twice. I said I should put my trust in Providence. I had to refund some of my charges in two cases; one was for giving a man time. I had the notice of suspen sion for fourteen days. I did not feel it my duty to take him after the fourteen days without further orders. I could not see myself clear in doing it. If he had paid me the money, I should have lodged him in my house. He did not offer to show me the receipts. I say that what the plaintiff said about the offer of money and the receipts was en invention. I had no legal claim for the It. lls. 61 I received from Mr. Gcnge, but if a gentleman offers me money I take it. The fee on a caption is a guinea, and we get an allowance for an assistant, if we can get it, and we take anything we can get besides. The under sheriff is my solicitor in the matter and defends at my expense. I had no fees at all in Beck's case. - - - Re-examined : I was 4/. out of pocket. I look to the sheriff for my instructions. I give a bond to the sheriff. - - WEST Awnnv : I am under-sheriff for the county of Wilts, and have been so for several years. I have the writ of ca. sa. in the action of " Burleigh v. Futcher." I issued a warrant and sent it to Hinder. It is usual for selicitors to communicate with the under•sheriff in case of a settlement. I hail no com munication from the solicitor in Burleigh's case uutil after the arrest. Cross•examined : Mr. Lee spoke to me upon the subject of this arrest on behalf of Futcher. I have no doubt I informed Mr. Lee that I had instructed Hinder. I had not received any direction from Cox and Sons to proceed upon this warrant. Mr. SMITH summed up his evidence. The mistake was not with the defendant or the sheriff, but from the solicitor of Mr. Burleigh or Mr. Futcher not having done his duty. Mr. SLADE replied for the plaintiff upon the whole case. He hoped this would not be an instance of a great wrong being suffered without a remedy. They were now twitted by the standing counsel for the under-sheriff that they had gone against the bailiff instead of against the under-sheriff. But whom were they to sue ? They believed the wrong to be in the bailiff, and therefore, out of kindness to Mr. Awdry, they did not attack him. Which, then, did they believe—that fine specimen of a Wiltshire farmer, Mr. Futcher, or the bound bailiff of the sheriff? He submitted they would believe the former. Hail they any doubt that that letter had gone out of Messrs. Cox's office ? That letter had never been returned. If it had not reached its destination, would it not have been returned? Or were they to suppose that that little thief had purloined the letter? If Hinder had not received that letter, did they imagine that he would not have taken Futcher within twenty-four hours? Hinder had sworn one thing, but the facts were all the otoer way. What was the motive for the arrest? He himself had been in doubt about it, but he now had the key to it. Could anyone doubt that it was the miserable caption fee, the fee for the a.saistant, add '• anything he could get besides " ? If they were of opinion that the defendant had received that notice of withdrawal, they must find a verdict for the plaintiff. Mr. Baron CHANNEL'. then summed up. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages-501. Points of law were reserved. 811 BIGAMY. Alexander Charles Borromen, 29, was indicted for bigamy, at the Central Criminal Court on Monday, before the Common Sergeant. Mr. Sleigh conducted the prosecution. This prisoner has attained some notoriety, from the fact of his having been the author of some pre tended proceedings of a body of persons whom he described as holding meetings upon the sulkjeku of the affairs of Italy, of which country he pretends to be a native, the real country to which he belongs being represented to be Ireland. Ho was tried at the Middlesex Sessions for obtaining money by falsely pretending that certain reports furnished by him of the proceedings of this Italian Conference, as he termed it, had actually taken place, whereas it turned out that the whole affair was a hoax. The prisoner was prosecuted for this offence by the con ductors of the Morning Star newspaper, and he was convicted and sentenced to a yea's imprisonment. Several bills of indictment charging him with the offence of bigamy were subsequently preferred, tied lie was removed to this court by habeas corpus, to take his trial upon those charges. The trial of the prisoner was postponed from the last session. The prisoner now asked the court to postpone his trial again, in order to give him an opportunity of producing witnesses. Mr. SLEIGH opposed the application, and said that there was not the slightest ground for supposing that the prisoner could produce any evidence of a material character if the trial were postponed. The COMMON SERGEANT said it appeared to him that the trial must proceed. Mr. SLEIGH, in opening the case, said that so far from there having been any undue pressure against the prisoner, his application for a postponement at the last session was immediately acceded to on the part of the prosecution, and there was not the slightest pretence for further postponement. The case was a very simple one. The prisoner, who re presented hiteself to be an Italian, and whose real name he believed to be Charles Tucker, and who was a native of Ireland, would he proved to have married a lady of the name of Sadleir, in 1842, at Chelsea, and that after living with her four years he deserted her, and in the following sear he married another young lady, named Froggett, whom lie also subsequently deserted ; and if he made out these facts he would in law be guilty of the offence of bigamy, and it would be the duty of the jury to con vict him of that offence. Mr. C. SADLEIR deposed that the prisoner paid his addresses to his sister, Mary Anne Satlleir, in 1842, and they were married on the 30th of October in that year, at Trinity Church, Chelsea. Witness was present at the marriage, and he was quite cer tain the prisoner was the man who was married to his sister. The prisoner went sway in 1840, and he did not see him again until he was in custody upon another charge. Cross-examined by the prisoner : At this time, I should say, you appeared to be about nineteen years old. lam quite certain you are the same man. I don't know whether my sister has seen you. She is not in court. The prisoner said he thought the person to whom he was represented to have been married ought to have been called to prove that he was her husband. Tine COMMON SERGEANT said that by the law of England a wife was not permitted to give evidence against her husband, and she therefore could not have been examined if she had been present. Mrs. C. 1 441x.t.5, the sister of the prisonei's first wife, proved that she was also present at the marriage, and she was quite certain the prisoner was the person who married her sister. The prisoner asserted that the witness was mis taken. ------- In answer to questions put by the court, Mrs. Mills and her brother both stated that they saw the prisoner constantly during a period of fuur years, and that they had not the slightest doubt that be was the man who married their sister. Miss ANNE MARIA FROOOETT, a ladylike young woman, was then examined. She stated that she VMS on a visit to some friends at Preston in 1847, and she was introduced to the prisoner, who paid attentions to her, and she ultimately consented to accompany hint to Gretna-green, where they went through the ceremony of marriage. 'Clie prisoner stated that he was willing to take her for his wife, and she stated that she was willing to take him for her husband, and the marriage ceremony was then read, and they were declared man and wife. The prisoner at this time represented himself to be a single man. They lived together as man and wife until 1851, and she had one child by the prisoner during that period, a little girl, who vim now nine years old. The prisoner deserted her and her child at Liverpool in 1851, and she never saw him again until he was in custody at Bow•street upon the charge of obtaining money by false pretences. The prisoner was married to her in the name of Marco Emile d• St. Hilaire, and he represented himself to be a Frenchman. She added that the audience did not hiss her—she was an exception. In re-examination the plaintiff said that the reason the defendant was not asked for the money was that they were on much friendly terms with him, and they thoug ht he would pay it, without. She also said that if she had been aware that the paper she was asked to sign at Turin was a receipt, she certainly should not have signed it. The defendant, always professed great affection for her. CONsTANCE CESARINI, the sister of the plaintiff, proved that she accompanied her to Turin, and that s he played three or four months. She considered that she was very well received by the public in the character of Fenena. By Mr. JAMES She did not play any other cha racier. The reason for this was that she was not asked to do so. Mr. JAMES asked the witness whether Nabucco was not a species of Nebuchadnezzar ? The witness said it was. By Sergeant SH€E : The opera of .11 Bravo did not succeed at all. Mr. JAMES here said, that the only answer he was insuucted to make to the action was the receipt that had been put in, and the only question was whether his lordship thought such an instrument was binding upon the plaintiff. Mr. Justice WiLr.F.s said that, under the circum• stances, he though. it was not. Mr. JAMES then said that he could not call the de fendant to give his explanation of the matter because he was not in this country, and he must therefore consent to a verdict. The jury consequently found for the plaintiff. FETCHER V. HINDER. This case, an action for arrest and false imprison ment, was tried at Bristol before Mr. Baron Channel' on Monday last. The defendant pleaded " Not Guilty," and a justification that he took the plaintiff under the authority of a writ of ca. sa. The plaintiff replied to this that notice of the withdrawal of the writ had been given to the sheriff. - The plaintiff was a farmer at Fovant, in Wilt shire. The defendant was a sheriff's officer at Salisbury. The action was brought to recover damages for an arrest and false imprisonment, under the following circumstances :—ln 1856 the plaintiff was in difficulties, and endeavoured to make a com promise with his creditors ; two of those creditors, however, refused to agree to the composition, and one of them adopted proceedings, and obtained a judg ment. A warrant was issued and placed in the hands of the defendant, but, as the creditor afterwards came into the arrangement, and a notice having pre viously been given to the de'endant to suspend the execution of the warrant for fourteen days, a notice was put into the post.office, stating that the matter had been settled and that the warrant was with drawn. The plaintiff then, on the 2nd of May, returned to his Couse at Fovant. He saw the defen dant on different occasions and spoke to him, hut nothing occwred until Saturday, the 14th of Novem ber, when the defendant met the plaintiff and arrested lam on the warrant. The plaintiff said the matter was settled ; the defendant said it was not settled. The plaintiff said he could show him the receipts if be would go to his house. The defendant said he would not look at any receipts. The plaintiff then said he would pay him the money. The defendant said he had no orders to receive money, and he must g 0 to gaol at Salisbury, and the defendant accor dingly took him to Salisbury gaol on the Saturday evening. He sent for Mr. Lee, a solicitor at Salis bury, but did not obtain his discharge until the following Wednesday night,at half-past eleven o'clock. Mr. Lee's charges were 1)1. 15s. The plaintiff proved the arrest. GEORGE GENGE : I am clerk to Mr. Swyre, a solicitor at Shaftesbury, and was employed to settle the actions of " Beek v. Futcher" and " Burleigh v Fetcher." On the 23rd of April I sent a letter to the defendant, stating that the matter was in course or arrangement, desiring him to suspend the execution of the warrants, and requesting to know his charges. 1 heard fr om hi m , stat i ng t h at t h e c h arge wou ld b e 2s- I wrote to him offering him 11. Ils. which he agreed to take, and I sent him a cheque for the amount, and received a notice of withdrawal of the warrant in Burleigh's case from Messrs. Cox and Sons, his solicitors. What I (lid with it I don't t sow, but I can't find it in the office. --- EWER, a corndealer, and member of the town council of Salisbury, knew of the arrangement of the two actions i n w hi c h F utc h er was d e f en d ant. K new of a warrant being in the hands of Hinder. Subse quently, frequently saw Futcher at Salisbury. Had a communication with Hinder in May or June. Asked hi m i t he wanted Futcher, as he was in Salisbury. Hinder said no, lie did not want him. WILLI/se FUTCHER, brother of the plaintiff, was at Salisbury with him in July at the agricultural meet ing. Saw Hinder there, but did not know whether 1