Star. — London, England, 1819-07-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. •COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 1.5. THE KING V. SCCRRAII. This was an indictment for false, wilful, and cor rupt perjury. Mr. CAMI.ECLL opened the pleadings, and Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury. The defendant, in an affidavit filed in the Exchequer Office, had sworn, that in June, 1815' a person of the name of John , Dayley, residing in Suffolk-street, in the Bo rough, called on the defendant, and stated that a friend of his had a quantity oicontraband goods to dispose of, which he proposed that the defendant should pur claase ; that a few days after this interview, Dayley introduced the defendant to Mr. James Whalley, of Gloucester, who said he had a quantity of contraband goods to dispose of, and agreed to bring them to the defendant on the following day that accordingly, as the 12th of June, 1815, Mr. \VT:alley brought the goods, consisting of Cachernere shawls, silk scarfs, stockings, gloves, and various other contraband ar ticles, and left them with the defendant, who agreed to purchase them ; and the defendant farther swore, that he afterwards sold these goods to Mr. James Laing, merchant, in London. In consequence of this affidavit, a capias had been issued by the Court of ! Exchequer against Mr. Laing and Mr. Whalley, and both of them had been arrested for penaltiei amount ing to nearly £.5000. Mr. Whalley, however, had made such a representation to the Commissioners of Customs as clearly proved that the whole charge was , a fabrication ; and on the representation of the Com missioners to that effect, the present prosecution was instituted. The affidavit on which the indictment was foun ded having been put in and read, Mr. James Laing was called into the witness-box, and sworn. In June, 1815, he had sold a quantity of hemp to the defendant, and not receiving pay ment as he had been promised, he had found it ne cessary to arrest him. To this he attributed the ma licious affidavit which the defendant had sworn against him. He declared that he never, either in June, July, or August, in 1815, or at any other time, purchased from the defendant any shawls, scarfs, or other ar ticles. At the time the affidavit was sworn, he resided in Butcher's-row, East Smithfield, but he had also a country-house at Westham in Essex ; and although the defendant had sworn, that he was in the habit of seeing witness frequently on evenings during the months of June, July, and August, 1815, the fact was that during the whole of that period he never spent an eveningat his house in London. It was his re gular practice to proceed to Whitechapel the moment 'Change was over, to take a chaise there, and drive to his country-house. In the months of March and April, 1819, witness received rwo letters from the defendant, then in the King's Bench prison, profes sing great contrition for what he had done, and im ploring mercy in consideration of his family. The letters referred to by the witness were then put in and read. Mr. Laing re-examined.—He had been arrested on a cipias issued by the Court of Exchequer, in conse quence of the defendant's affidavit. Mr. Jame Laing, junior, (nephew of the former witness) corroborated every part of his uncle's evi dence. He had never been ordered out of the room when the defendant was with his uncle. The sale of the hemp, mentioned by his uncle, was the only trans action that had taken place between the parties ; to this he could speak confidently, as he kept his uncle's books, and was his confidential servant. Mr. James Whalley was next examined. He stated that he resided at present in Westgate -street, in the city of Gloucester, and that he also resided there in 1815. He never in his life had any dealings with the defendant, nor had he ever seen him before the 16th of October,lBl7. On that day he called on the de fetl4Unt at his lodgings, within the Rules of the I .. s Bench, in consequence of the affidavit, by •• '"he had implicated witness in a smuggling ha ion. In June, 1815, the time at which the nt had sworn that witness called on bins with , g oods, witness was in Gloucester ;he remained tta during the months of July and August; nor did lii•return to London till November, 11315. He had 1-: d the affidavit read that day in Court ; and it *as, from beginning to end, a most vile fabrication. He could not conceive what had induced the defen- dant to pitch on him ; but he knew that at the time the affidavit was sworn, a person of the name of Henry Hickman was confined at his suit in the same prison with the defendant, and that Hickman and the defendant were intimately acquainted. Witness knew no such person as John Dayley, of Suffolk-st►eet, in 0)e Borough. Mrs. Elizabeth Whalley (the wife of the last wit ness) confirmed every part of her husband's evidence. • The apprentice of Mr. Whalley also swore, that his master had been at home at the time the transac tion was alleged by the defendant to have taken place. He produced his master's books, in which wire entries in Mr. Whalley's hand-writing, .day by day, for a considerable time before and after the period at which the defendant had sworn that Mr. Whalley called on him. Several other witnesses, respectable inhabitants of Gloucester, were called, and swore that they had had personal transactions with Mr. Whalley, at Glouces ter, in June, July, and August, 1815. Mr. Steel, one of the officers of Customs, was called. He stated, that he received a letter from the defen cant, then a prisoner in the King's Bench, requesting him to call on the defendant as soon as he could, in order to receive information respecting the buying and selling of some smuggled goods. Witness did call, when the defendant named Mr. Laing and Mr. Whalley as the guilty parties, and at the same time gave a paper purporting to contain a list of the con traband goods. (Th►s paper was produced and read.) In consequence . of this ►nformation, a capias was issued by the Court of Exchequer against both these persons, they were arrested, and a prosecution was commenced against them by the Attorney-General. This closed the case for the prosecution. The defendant had no Counsel. On being called on for his defence, he said, he should have been able to prove his innocence had it bee►► in his power to produce witnesses. But from this he was prevented, ci Cwo must material witnesses, the one was at present at Glasgow, and the other in France. The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and observed, that in the case of Mr. Laing there was a motive which might induce a person of a bad mind,' in the situation of the defendant, to endeavour to in• jure him—namely, his having caused the defendant to be arrested. 'The animus was not quite so clear as to the implication of Mr. Whalley in this transaction. This, however, was proved—that Hickman, a person confined by Mr. Whalley in the same prison, was in timate with the defendant. He left it with the Jury to give to this circumstance whatever weight it might in their opinion deserve.—The Jury, without hesitation, found the defendant Guilty. A //// !• f a. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, JULY 15. Charlotte Lawrence was convicted of stealing a frock from a link child, six years old. It was proved by the mother of the infant, that she lived at Stam ford•hill, and had sent her little girl to school ; the child had nut been gone long bekre,it returned with out its frock, and gave the whole history of the man ner in which she had lost it. The child said that she was met by a lady (the prisoner) in Shacklewell-lane, who told her that if she would give her that frock, she (the prisoner) would make her a present of a new pretty tucked white frock. The child consented, the frock was taken off, and the prisoner ran away. At shout half-past five the same evening the mother saw the prisoner di inking tea at her own lodgings, and taxes her with the robbery. At first she stoutly de nied it, but after, having been introduced to the con stable she then confessed the whole. Several witnesses were called to her character, and proved her honesty. Some of the witnesses also stated that the prisonec was sometimes deranged in her mind, and was almost an ideor. She had been a cook in a fami!y, and might have stolen plate and jewel lery if she had felt inclined. The Recon DER said, in summing up,:that although the value of this article was small, yet it did not dis prove her guilt. The amount of the article stolen was a very bad criterion to judge by—he had not for gotten the case tried not very long ago, where a man worth 4:20,000 was tried for stealing a sheet of paper . Junto•.; White, a very young boy, of respectable appearance, was indicted for picking a gentleman's pocket of a handkerchief. The fact of the robbery was distinctly proved. In his defence he told seemingly an artless tale, that he had a poor mother who was at home half starved, that he had laid out hip last farthing in pro curing victuals for her, that the day before the rob bery he had lain in bed fOr many hours without tast ing any thing, and that when he came out in the evening he saw the gentleman's handkerchief hang ing out of his pocket, and he could not help taking it. He said he knew'he was wrong in doing it, but, at the moment he could not help it. He earnestly begged to be sent to the Penitentiary, or some such place. The boy was found Guilty—and after the verdict had been pronounced, Mr. Brown, the keeper of New gate, said that he knew him to be a bad boy, and tnat the lad had before now been in Clerkenwell.— The young rogue still keeping up the dissimulation, denied the fact, and wept most bitterly, crying, " 0, my poor mother' and was taken out of Court. Elizabeth Robinson was tricd for stealing the sum of 17s. from the person of James Jewell. The pro secutor said he was a sailor ; that he had met with the prisoner in the Borough. and went with her to a house of ill-fame, where he missed his money. He acknowledged that he had been drinking a great deal, and had been with other women the same even ing.—The prisoner was acquitted. When the sailor applied for his expenses, the RE CORDER refused to grant him any, as the public were not to pay for the folly of such men as the prosecutor. Ann Schofield, aged 41, was tried for stealing two books, three silver tea-spoons, and various other ar ticles, the property of Wm. Bignell, with whom she lived as servant. Mr. Bignell said, that this woman had behaved very well during•the first month that she lived with him, but that after that she was continually getting drunk, so that he was obliged to give her warning to quit his service. In the mean time he missed several articles, and thought it necessary to search her box ; this she would not agree to; and at last he sent for an officer, who, on the 11th of June, searched the box, and found in it die two books named in the in dictment, together with duplicates of the tea-spoons and other articles, which she had pledged. The facts of the case were further proved by the pawnbrokers, with whom the articles had been pledged. The prisoner in her defence said she was accus tomed to have the key in her box, and that she knew nothing of the theft's with which she was charged. Several persons gave her a good character—lfluilty. Thomas Payne, aged 42, was tried for stealing on the 90th of April, the sum of 14s. 6d. from George Davis. These two persons lodged in the same house, having separate apartments. When the prosecutor came home at night, he found the key of his room removed from where it usually hung, and lying in the prisoner's room. The prisoner immediately ab sconded, and was not taken until the 13th of June. He confessed his offence, and threw himself on the mercy of the Court—Guilty. Mary Dale, a married woman, was tried for steal ing between 4.:17 and £lB, from the person of Thos. Jones.—The prosecutor said he was a waggoner, that on the 28th he met the prisoner, and went along with her into the Crown public-house, Lear Bagnigge- Wells. They sat for some time drinking gin and water in the tap-room, when he said he fell asleep, and on his awaking the prisoner was gone, and he missed the money he had in his possession—namely, a £lO note, four country Bank notes, and three Bank of England notes. As soon as he discovered his loss he went in search of the prisoner, and found her coming out of a pawnbroker's shop ; when taken and searched, a one pound note, and 245. in silver were found on her. She had bought a bonnet, for which she had given another one-pound note. Previous to the prisoner being taken before the Magistrate, she took the prosecutor on one side, and offered to pay him the whole of the money at ss. a week. The hus band of the prisoner made a similar offer. All these facts being clearly proved by other wit nesses, and the note found upon her, as well as that which she had paid for the bonnet, were proved to have been paid over with other notes to the prosecu tor, she was found—Guilty. The prosecutor asked what was to be done with the bonnet, which the prisoner had purchased with his note? One of the Counsel told him e he might give it to his own wife ; and advised him net to go with other inen's . wives in future. Patrick John Sullivan was next tried for picking the pocket of a Mr. Burcher, a tradesman in Oxford street, on the evening of the sth cf July instant, about nine o'clock. The prosecutor said a neighbour called out to tell him his pocket was picked ; he immedi ately seized the prisoner, who begged foigiveness. The prosecutor desired to have his handkerchief given back, when he said he would forgive him. The prisoner then took him and a constable to a house in St. Giles's where the handkerchief wa.; given up. —The neighbour who saw the transaction said the prisoner was accompanied by another pickpocket to whom he gave the hankerchief. The prisoner, when called on for his defence, burst into tears, and with a look of great ingeniousness, declared that his mother was on a sick bed without any nourishment ; that he was himself unable to get employment or food, and that he took the handker chief to relieve his mother from starvation. Here one of the officers told the RECORDER, that the boy had been in Clerkenwell prison, and wascon sidered a very bad boy—Guilty. SCOTCH JURY COURT, JULY to. FURIOUS•DRIVINO.-ALLAN J. NVLEItiII AND OTHERS, This issue in this case was ac fullows: " Whether, on or about the ‘2.sth dty of July, 181 ft, the W..- cello° Coach, of which the defenders are proprietors or contrac tors, was overturned betwixt the North Queensferry and Inver keithing, in consequence of the negligence or improper conduct of the coachman or guard, whereby the pursuer, then a passen ger in said coach, suffered bodily harm ?" The damages were laid at—For medical expenses, 000 ; for solatium, £5,000.—1t appeared from the evidence in this case, that the pursu°r, on the 2.5 th of July last, was an otir_ide passenger on the Water loo coach, running to Perth ; that after crov.ing, the Ferry, and between it and the old toll-bar, where the road branches off nwards Dunfermline, a one horse gig, having in it two persons, attempted to pass the coach ; the coachman was excited by se veral of the passengers, and amongst them the pursuer, to keep before the gig, and put his horses to a gallop, though desired by the guard to pull up.; whilst driving at this furious rate, and turning a sharp angle of the road, the coach upset, and the pursuer, with other passengers, was dreadfully hurt. Ills left arm was dislocated at the shoulder johlt, his leg dread fully maimed, some hard substance about the coach having perforated it through and through near the calf, lacerating the tendons and blood vessels so much as to put his life in the most imminent danger ; and Dr. Thomson deposed, that even at this time he was not out of danger, and that he thought the amputation of the leg must ultimately follow. Mr.lllll-illtAY opened the case for the pursuer. _ _ _ Mr. JEFFREY replied for the defenders, and called three witnesses, whoe testimony was intended as a mitigation of damages, and went to prove the fact of the pursuer exciting the coachman to pass the gig (by which the oveitfrow was occasioned). One wit ness stated that the accident occurred by the wheels passing over a stone ; but on cross-examination, being asked the size of the stone, he said, it was no size at all. After Mr. FORSYTH had replied to Mr. JEFFREY, the Loan CHIEF COMMISSIONER summed up the case with his usual pezqicuity, stating the bearings of the evidence on each side, when the Jury retired for a short time, and returned a verdict for the pursuer.-- Damages, for medical expenses 1:200, and for sola tium £lOOO. The trial lasted nearly eight hours. FARM SERVANTS' WAGES. IMPORTANT DECISION.- MACGLASHAN V. TILE DUKE OF ATHOL. Macglashan engaged himself as a farm servant to a Mr. Moon, tenant of the Duke of Athol, for one year from Martinmas, 1817, to Martinmas, 1818. In Aug. 181 8, the tenant's crop and stocking were sequestrated for rent due to the landlord. The servant applied to the Sheriff of Perth to order the Duke to pay his year's wages (I.:10) out of the proceeds. The Substi tute preferred the servant, but the Depute held the landlord's'hypothec to be the preferable right. The servant appealed to the Circuit Court of Justiciary. Lord GILLIES, the presiding Judge, was of opinion, that the servant ought to be preferred ; but, as the practice on this point seemed to vary in different Counties, his Lordship certified the case to the First Division of the Court. It was there heard fully ; and the Court have decided unanimously, that farm ser vants are to be preferred as creditors for their current wages to the landlord, whose right of hypothec must now yield through the whole of Scotland to this equitable and preferable claim. Lord LIERNIAND said the crop was created by the labour of the ser vants, and that it was the interest of landlords them selves that the wages of such labour should be made preferable. Lord BALsitrro concurred. Lord Sue- COTH remarked, that the rent is produced by the crop, and the crop by the labour of the servants. And Lord BALGRAY, and the Loan PRESIDENT, on more than one principle, were of opinion that the decision of the Sheriff should be reversed, and the Appeal sustained ; the Court gave expenses to the servant. Early on the morning of Thursday se'nnight, James Scott, John :11‘1 1 herson, William Dui,;, and David Gall, confined in the Tolbooth, Dundee, accused of capital crimes, effected their escape. These four were confined in one cell, and had for some days me ditated their escape, Scott's wife having brought to the prison, concealed under her clothes, the head of a! pick. axe, to enable them to carry on their operations. With incredible labour they cut a passage through a wall of four feet in thickness, built of large stones, firmly rivetted together with strong bars of iron. By this means a communication was opened with the east hall of the Town-house ; but as the hole was at the height of about 15 feet from the floor, they were under the necessity of fastening their blankets and coverlids together, to enable them to descend.— M'Pherson, Doig, and Gall, had already reached the floor, and Scott was in the act of following them, when the rope gave way, and he fell from a consi derable height, but without sustaining any material injury. After getting into the hall, the fugitives found it a comparatively easy task to force open the lower door of the Town-house. Scott, before leaving town, very deliberately went' to his own house to' conceal the pick-axe. _ _ Bow-STREET.—Yesterday nine persons were con victed in mitigated penalties, for following their law ful callings on Sunday, by the exposure of 1 1 1'114 and vegetables for sale iu Covent-Garden market. COURT OF COVMON COU.VCIL. Yesterday a Court of Common Council w as by the Loin MAvoit, at Guildhall, for the g tdivatch of busines, which was fully atten6d, A Peti•ion was presented from Robert I:r( relative to some proceedings that had been i:lst against him for not being frt., , of the City, a , the costs of which he was confined as a debtor, the Court directed the Chamberlain to p ty t h zart for his release from prison, Tun 1.081) mAYoit's uottsrum.n. Mr. 'l'. N. WILLI A ms rose for the purl;ose r,f mitring a Motion, of which he had given Ix; ", That it be referred to the Sword Bearers C w tee to inquire into th-• conduct, At th 2 M :inr,jc„ la during the present Mayoralty, of the sevet:ti composinn the Lord Muyo;•'s Household, a n ,: their opinion thereon to the Court.--Tnr. he said, could have but little rctercnce !,' lie had attended in the Mansion I rouse but having been turned out of his place by his i. but the Court would recollect that certai- had been made by the Lord Mayor resre - - - - of the Officers, and it was fitting that they inquired into. His Lordship had stated t:.r.h e every day receiying anonymous letters, an2.ll?a. ticularly charged him (Mr. Williams) written some of them. Now he solernoy decl he had written no such anonymous setters; that charge was untrue, the other observations mi on inquiry turn out to be false likewise. The LORD MAYOR rose with much warmth, appealed to the Court whether he was obliged in that seat and hear that Gentleman accuse hi his face of uttering false statements to that Cotu Mr. SAutrct. DixoN rose to order. lie conic, the language used by the Honourable Menthe,' highly indecorous. MT. OLDHAM reprobated in strong terms the duct of Mr. Williams ; it was disgraceful to him. and highly derogatory to the Court, to permi. :.11:mher thus to insult the Chief Magistrate. Mr. J. GHIFEITMS said, if the Gentleman lu • personal respect for the Lord Mayor, he oug respect his office, and not make use of languag which a man ought to have his nose pulled. Mr. WILLIAMS said, he was ready to apologi he had used improper language; but what iv. case to-day might be that of any other Member morrow, if his Lordship might make observ: reflecting upon an individt:al, and those oSservi were not to be answered. lie again declared accusations made by his Lordship with resp him were untrue, and there was therefore rea suppose The LORD MAyon again interposed, amiu cries of " Order, Order !" and said he could nc., Comas, if he was to be thus insulted, and 5h.,41; it his duty to direct the Mace to be removed the table. Much confusion ensued, during which some 1, ber moved, that the Court do now adjourn ; was carried, and the Meeting broke up. The value of the lands belonging to the Corperr tion of Liverpool, which have been recently a l priated to the extension of the Docks at that amount to the sum of : C83,000 which the Duck pany have to pay to the Corporation. The Little Theatre in the Haymarket has, J_ the present week, been newly embellished, prep.x. tory to its opening on Tuesday next ; and the - - is exceedingly pleasing. But its p:incipai rec mendations to the favour of the Public will be . strength of its Company of Performers, and the mei of the Pieces to be produced. The new Farce nounced for the first night is highly spoken of br the Actors and Actresses. The Stuart papers, formerly in possession ef dinal YORK, of Rome, are now undergoing an mination at Carlton-house, by five Commissioam appointed by the PRINCE REGENT. The late Jamie Sutherland, of Montrose, who death we announced on the 9th instant, was fors, time an inmate and lodger in the house of anothe pauper of eccentric character, Jamie Fairweather, who was attacked with a dangerous distemper, was attended by a distinguished member of t!:: culty, who had prescribed some pills to be tall. night. In the morning Jamie Sutherland called the doctor, to report the state of his patient. soon as the doctor saw Sutherland he rather rai interrogated the messenger, " How is he ; ha! ta'en his pills ?" " No," replied Sutherland. ' hadna time." " What, not time?" " tiered the peels to be ta'en at aught o'clock, buy dee'd at seven!" Extract from the Kingston (Jamaica) Clim of the 20th of May.—A letter, dated 17th ult. at Cayes, states—" We are all on the gni rive here, account of an atrocious massacre that occurred, night before last, about two leagues from torn. persons left this is a barge fir Aiquisso, a little to windward, who were .sailed during the nigh five armed men in a small open boat. The !nen literally cut to pieces by these ruffians; two worn escaped. Their object was six hundred specie, which were c.n board the barge. No disco , has yet taken place." ExEcuTionr.—lsrael Garnet and James colt: found guilty of burglary at the last Assizes fei Isle of Ely, were executed at Wisbcach on Sat'.. last. The novelty of a scene of this description that neighbourhood drew together several thous of spectators. The culprits tonfessed the crime: which they suffered, and died penitent. Gamer in his 24th year—Colebank only 20. BIRTH. On Sunday, the 11th instant, 'Mrs. Charles Clarke, of hurst-street, of a son, woo died on the 14th. 31.UIRIFD. At Stirling, on the Ist inst. Muncrieff Mitchell, Esq. roe:: GlastTow, to Christian, second daughter of the late Lev .11esz dcr Moncritff, Muckart. .Df:D. Tn Dracember last, at Tomb: y, the Ro% Walter M.A. formerly of Bailie, in the Crum), Bre,:qa, 3::,1 Cl!aplain of Cochin, in the East HIGH-WATER at LONDON BRIDGE To-Multi: o o Mooing - - 59 minutti ;.t . rer Afternoon - - 52 -- LONDON: published by I.i.v lior, I'Lice, Ten:plc-La. • 1. , tir;•.4 Af xicc, rPn Y •11:. .:.:r e lid be sra ; I pr. cl. 1 - t o. nd Int: V and to s i ; Lim iderti taras e imseg 121! t) lh: r e: BIZ is Vas Fy ter tp 1 Ott ?:c:6 55,.13 ?pore 2 PP : (.12. epaa eea,n• mar .e zr brad Cr. Rw oaeN she.* sons lothe ather, and he fa- NI on . A, as 11 . 1 !:= )a C• f.c to:: re, c• ht we: ome ATS over tic' 011 CS 1 4 : J Sre: . L: _ . aHi ;Ix I t $ I