Star. — London, England, 1813-06-14 00:00:00

1;4 IP IMILLIdENCP. rrIVID '' OP k 'IF-Nett, JUNE ii. liduclovs PEI:ICC/VON IND IMTMO.VMIINI% LLOYD 1.). DIMING AND artivms. This action was brought to recover compensation in damages for false imprisonment, and a series of malicious and unjustifiable proceedings. Mr. Anotenos having opened the case by stating the pleadings, Mr. Pants addressed the Jul. 'the plaintiff was the mother and guardian of the Oil. who had been srevant to Mr. Dering, one of the defendants§ and the ill treatment of whom by Mr. Ds his wile, and a black man-servant, called Perstu, was the sehject of the present action. The girl being under age, she of, teurse could not bring the action. The defendant, Mr. D., was a gentleman of fortune, residing in Upper Berkeley-street. The young woman in qtiostion had unlortuna'ely, for a misfortune he must call it, gone to live with the family as lady's maid, and on the tionsekeeper leaving her situation, she was induced to take that situation also. The family had made pre parations to leave town for Bath. Previously toobeir going, however, Mrs. D. made 'charges against Lloyd, that she had been purloining property entrusted to her care. Sh. was then, at eleven o'clock at night, on the 28th of September, forcibl v confined in the house keeper's room, tinder the care of the black servant Venus, where she was kept for more than two days, without even being suffered to go to bed, or to take regular sustenance ; indeed, so close was the confine ment, that she teas not suffered to leave her prison on any pretext whatever, nor to have any communica tion with. her friends. The street-door etas locked, Sind the master carried the key. Amongst other things, the mistress charged her with stealing a table cloth and picking out the mark ; but it turned out that the cloth was not in an unusual place, and that it had never been marked. She then charged her teith stealing six gowns ; but the disposal of these was satisfactorily accounted for. Lloyd was then charged by her mistress with stealing a pair of stockings ; hut these proved to be two odd ones, and more than that, the girl's own property. So frivolous were the charges, and so momentarily were they disposed ef, cveh to the mistress's own satisfaction 1 But the mistress still persisted that the girl had been guilty of them and succeeded at list in forcing the girl to cot:- less herself guilty ; and she was compelled to give a promissory note for the payment of the carte of thities said to be lost. At last, bowevei • the girl was taken before a Magistrate (Mr. Baker, of Mio-lbo r ,ugh•street), but site was immediately dischwised after a lecture from the Magistrate, he deeming the girl very fortunate in falling into such merciful hands. fitter the present action WAS commenced, which was jiegun early in the present year, Dering indicted the gill at the Old Bailey for felony ; but she was most tnnourably acquitted, with the Lull and complete ape prohatioirof the presiding Judge, NO CIIIEF BARON. But these Fin tiCUIRYS were more sully detailed in the evidence. .Geotje Wright was examined. He had been a con srame. On ti e 29 h of September last he was sent for to Mt. who lived at No. 21, I.7prer Berkeley-street. He went, and to let him in the outer door was obligid to he unlocked. He waitednxlii;e Ilr. D. was dressed. On seeing witness, Mr. D. said, holding the pencil case in his hand, a I have been robbed of a gold pencil-case .it is Mrs. D.'s—it has her name on it! I have also been robbed of a table-cloth. Lloyd a girl servant has robbed me, and I fear she has some bad connections. You must get me some search-warrants for the girl and all her friends !" Witness then told Mr. D. that he must state what be had lost, and swear to the statement, as warrints were required not only against the girl, but against a young man who kept her company, her nio-1 Vier, and her grand-mother. Mr. D. said he must have the search -warrants, for he supposed lie might int! something. Witness replied, " But if you are, not sure you have lost something, you can hardly think of destroying the characters of three families upon mere supposition." Mr. D. said, he would have the warrants if they could be obtained ; but on application witness believed they were refused. After this Mr. and Mts. 1). spoke a good deal of French to-; gether, and witness fortunately not knowing any other language than his own, did not ttnderstand their it:tichijeJ talk. Mrs. D. then said, " Good Con ! I have lost two nattily!" But screech was made, and nothing was found to be improperly in the possession of Linyd. All the articles in the housekeeper's list vere found in their proper places. When the witness et to Mr. D. he asked where Lloyd was, and was answered, " Oh ! she is safe enough—she is down itairs, in the custody of the black fellow." She was in the custody of Venus, the black man, all the time '.vituess was in the house, which was many hours.— Rho was then taken to the Magistrate, and discharged, but when they ieturned home, the mistress imme diately came running to them, exclaiming (holding up some threels) " See how I have been rubbed—all e work is to do over again—l will prosecute you,l Isar wretch !" addressing Lloyd. Lloyd was much agitated. 'Phe mistress then said to her," Con fess, and I will forgive yon."—" What can I confess ?" asked I .lnyd,—" I have been guilty of nothing." Miss D. then held up two stockings saying, " See, you have nilabed me of my stockings, you wretch." " Will 70u say that," added Lloyd. " Yes, I do ; I will be nn my oath of it," answered the mistress.— Lloyd then took hold of the stockings, and said, " Why L these are two odd stockings ; besides they are mine, and not yours :" and she immediately called some Person present, who proved that they were really Ll`Vd's •iwn stockings ! Mrs. D. then acknowledged that she had been mistaken. fire. Piet e•as then examined. On the 29th of Sep. teeter last, Mrs. D. came to her house accompanied by a maid servant, in a hackney coach, Mr. 1). on horseback, and a police officer, on foot. Such a num ber of persons coming to her house in such a manner, c(ilected a crowd about her door; and she then asked them to walk in. Mrs. D. asked many mysterious questions about Broxham, the young man who kept company with Lloyd, and who had been an appren l'et In witness's husband. She then talked a good deal id French to her husband. Having obtained direction, the whole of them went away. in the evening, witness went to see Lloyd, but they w ould not permit her to see the plaintiff, for the ser s-iiits said Ll oy d was conf i ned, and they had posi tive orders not to let any one see her. Mrs. 1). then commenced charges similar to what ale bad Made in the *presefieb tit the eunitablei *Melt weed satisfactorily divrotied. LlOyd was krouths up ' stairs, anti the mistres2 still cOlitinned !Is call on her to confess and she Slid wisai was she to confess Aritness teplied, .6 Oh ! Cordes's any thing ; do but let us get yob out of this trouble." And the mis tress said, she wished her to eaten herself guilty before all the servants. In the rtestuce of all the servants she accordingly confeoed herself guilty. The mistress then said, 4 1 forgive the servants." t do," answered Lloyd, Mid may God forgive them .and you ! Will that satisfy you I" After the discharge before the Magistrate; she then brought up the story already repeated of the six gowns, and said to witness, You (tan% know Lloyd—you are much deceived in her--she *lust have cut up my sik gowns for her little one!" Witness said, she did not understand Mrs. D. ; that she had known Lloyd for many years ; and that she knew Lloyd never had any I. little one I" But the mistress was soon satisfied that there was do foundation for this any more than there were for other stories ; and she desired that the matter might be dropped. But Lloyd still continued confined in the house. Wit ness then gave the promissory note for things said to be lost. 13rOxam, the young man, WAS next called. The whole cavalcade before described went to his apart ments, and examined his trunks, and the trunk of a friend of his; but nothing was found belonging either to Lloyd or Mrs. 1). Mrs. D. said, that Lloyd had robbed her of a " decanter of jewels." The mistress also kindly told him, that he too was deceived, that Lloyd kept company with many other men. Esther Prvum bad been refused admittance to Lloyd ; and Mrs. D. repeated various charges of robbery to lier. Charlri Roche who had been servant to Mr. D. proved that Lloyd was confined in the sore-room, under the care of Venns, the black, from the 38th of Septemb.r to ten o'clock in the evening of the 30th ; that she did not go to bed ; that nothing was carried to her to cat ; that the master gave strict orders that she should not be permitted to leave her place of confinement on any pretence whatever ; and that Mr. D. locked the sweet door, and kept the key himself. The ATTORNEY-CE':Ell/a for the defendants, thought the case was somewhat too high coloured, but admitted that the plaintiff had so made out her case, that lie should decline calling any witness; and he also admitted, that for such sufferings she was en titled to liberal damages, but he hoped the Jury would not gi ec extravagant damages. Lord EI.I.F:KiI'iItOLGIf summed up, and said, that' the plaintiff had certainly been most harshly treated.' The Jury retired for about half an hour, and re turned fur the plaintiff—damages YOUR 111UNDIAXD NVI. The Court was crowded, this trial having excited very great interest ; and the verdict seemed to give un.versal satisfaction, for there was a but of appro ..bation the instant it was returned. I JUNE 1 4 2.--rUIVATE HAIMIOUSE.S.-BUTM v. FOULKS. The ATroeslev-GENett AL, in opening this case, . declared it to be, according to his idea of it, probably the most important which had come before a Court since he bad been connected with the practice of the law. In consequence of certain unworthy practices j which were known to prevail in houses in which lu natics were confined, the interference of the Legisla. ture had been deemed necessary ; and in the 14th year of his present Majesty's reign an Act of Pat Ha. ment was liaised, imposing certain regulations as to all houses of this description, and declaring that no ! person should be entitled to keep any house for the custody or confinement of persons in this unfortunate situation, except under certain guards specified in that Act of Parliament. The present case, however, afforded a proof that the provisions of that Act of Parliament could be eluded ; but he trusted the ver• diet of to-day would spew that they should not be eluded with impunity. By the Act of Parliament in question, all houses and places for the reception, cus tody, or confinement of lunatics were required to be licensed by the Royal College of Physicians; were to be subject to the visitotial inspection and exami. nation of a number of Commissioners, delegated by that body from among their own number, to examine into the state and mode of treatment followed in all such receptacles t and, in ureter to provide against the keeping of any sus i house, which by not being licensed should not be subject to the visitorial cog nizance of that learned and respectable body, a clause was introduced, declaring, that any person or persons who should harbour, conceal, or confine, in any house or place kept for the reception of lunatics, more than one person at a time, such person not be ing duly licensed, should incur a penalty, for such offence, to the amount of £5OO, to be recovered in an action to be brought by the President in the name of the Treasurer of the Royal College of Physicians. To recover this penalty from the defendant, Mary Foulks, who kept a house for time reception of female lunatics at Ivy-lane, Hoxton, in the parish of St. Leonard's, Shoteditch, in the county of hfiddlesex, was the present action brought. The Jury would observe, it was not one of those mean, selfish, and dastardly actions brought by an interested common informer. The plaintiff was Dr. Budd, the Treasurer to the Royal College of Physicians. To that learned and highly respectable body the Legislature had en trusted the public protection in this most important point; and they felt that they would indeed be want ing in duty to the public and to their own character, did they suffer a case like the present to pass unno ticed. In vain would be the enactments of the Le gislature, in providing that all houses of this descrip, rion must be licensed ; in vain would be the care of his Lordship, sitting in die Court of King's Bench, and issuing Writs of Habeas Corpora, where persons confined from this afflicting malady were supposed to have attaiged to a state of convalescence ; in vain would be thivisitorial labours of the College of Phy sicians to those abodes of human misery, which from being licensed could partake of the benefits of their skill, experience,and humanity, if houses of the descrip. Lion of that kept by this defendant were tolerated. He grieved to tell the Jury that he feared there were, in the environs of the metropolis, at this moment, many houses of this description; and who could ven ture to say, that being the case, that there might not be there confined persons who enjoyed the full use of their reason, or who bad been deprived of the enjoy-, ment of that invaluable blessing by the treatment they had there eipertenced ? to the tetenlant's house he shotild he able to she* that there had seldom b e e : , fewer than three or four finforittnate L 'dies cnnfine.l at one time—not treated in the manner in *hie' en fortunate persons are in those (some of them splen- did) establishments which are publicly opened for the reception of persons visited by that malady, but so treated as to prevent approaching convalescence, and the consequent restoration to their friends. He should prove that three imfortuna:e females were in this, house, chained to a table, in strait waistcoats, with their arms so pinioned down as to prevent them even from wiping their mouths. So long as such houses as that kept by the Defendant were suffered to exist, there was no safety for any one, but an trefarttmate female might there be easily disposed nf, without any questions being asked. The osly feeling which the present action would excite, he trusted, would be a sentiment of public gratitude , to this highly r •spec. table body by whom the action had been brought, ifl by means of it the law could be restored to its due energy. Mr. ROBERTS, Solicitor to the Royal College of Physicians, produced a copy of the act for regulating Mad-houses: also the Book of Annals of the College ; containing an entry of the appointment of Dr. Budd to be their Treasurer, such entry being in the hand writing of Dr. Harvey, their Registrar. Dr. Powau., Secretary to the Commissioners for regulating mad-houses, elected under the Act of Par liament, produced the Bunk of Licences kept by the College for the entry of houses of this description, which contained no entry of any house in the name of Mary Foniks, he having carefully examined the book with the view of ascertaining that fact. Mr. Roamers was again called, and proved that,' in consequence of information he had received, he, on the 21111 February last, went to the Defendant's house in Ivy-lane, Hoxton. He asked for Mary Foulke, when khe defendant said, she.was the person. He said, he believed she was in the habit of receiving into her house lunatic ladies. She answered that she was. The witness asked he r if she had, at present, room for a lady of that description ; she answered that she had not; she could accommodate Only three, as she had only herself and maid to look after them. He asked if she was likely to have a vacancy soon ? to which she answered, that she thought she should. On the 2.1 of March the witness called upon the De fendant again. She recollected him, and said she had not yet a vacancy. The witness then asked her how she came to keep a house of this sort without a licence, and asked if she was not acquainted with the Act of Parliament in that respect? She seemed much confused, and said she could not afford to pay for a licence. [The witness here explained to the Court that a li:ance for a house in which we; e to be ke r e, any number of persons, not exceeding ten, cost only £lo]. He then told the Defendant she had incurred a penalty of £5OO, and gave her a copy of the pro cess. She said she was not worth £3OO in the world, and that she should be ruined. The witness gave her the names of the President and Governors of the College, and told her she might apply to them on the subject. He asked her if Mr. Dunstan, who is Master of St. Luke's, did not keep the house She said no; he was her landlord, and recommended her to patients, but had nothing to do with the manage ment or profits of the house. lie asked her if any Medical Gentleman attended the house? She aa swered, No; her patients were nit ill enough to re quire medical assistance. Cross.examined by Mr. MARRYATT.—The &fen ' dant did not say that the persons in her house were not insane, she said they were not ill enough to re quire medical assistance—she certainly did not say that the persons whom she received into her house were only of a melancholy tern. The first question he put to her, and to which he received an answer in t h e affirmative w as , whether she did not receive lu natic ladies into her house ? Sarah Smithery said she was in the habit of attend ing ladies who were out of their mind, at their own houses. She first became acquainted with Mary Foulks on the 16th November, 1811. Mr. Dunstan sent for the witness on that day, to meet him at No. 3, Ivy-lane, Hoxton, which she found to be the house of the defendant. The witness slept there that night, and Mr. Dunstan came there the following day, which was a Sunday. He engaged the witness to take from thence a lady, whom the defend oat and he represented had been six months confined there. Be fore the witness took her away, there were four luna tic ladies confined there. They seemed to be lunatics,‘ they were treated as such. There were some of them t without locks, and some of them with locks. First I they had double strait waistcoats, not of the commhn kind, but which confined their arms; then there s. as a lock across the two wrists, and a similar lock at night confined their legs. This was the way in which the Lady, whom the witness was Co take to the coun try, was confined when the witness first s iw her. The witness took her to the country, and attended her for forty-two weeks—she then wtnt hack to the Defen dant's house at Hoxton, leaving the Lady behind her, she being then so well that she could do without the witness, and could be safely left to the care of the village people with whom she lived. Being asked how lately she had been at the Defendant's before the information reached the College of Physicians ? the witness said she had been there on the 30th of Sept :ember last—there were then five Ladies in the De fendant's house. Being asked how they were treated, that it might be found whether they were lunatics ? - Mr. Mannvarr, for the Defendant, objected. that the declaration in this action was of Easter Term, and that the 80th of September, the period alluded to, was beyond the six months, within which period, by the Act of Parliament, the action must be brought. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he should be able tO shew it was within the time, and his Learned Friend would have seen so, had he attended to the evidence - given by Mr. Roberts. Lord ELLENBOROCCII thought the evidence rele vant, as going to shew the state of the house at that time, which might be continued down, by other evi dence, to within the six months. The witness said, there were then five Ladies in the Defendant's house, exclusive of the Lady the witness had left in the country. She could not say much as to the way in which they were treated. She has seen them sometimes with, and sometimes without strait waistcoats--they were all treated as lunatics. The Ltdy whom the witness took to the country, when she first sae► her, was steered by a double waistcoat, her wrists wettlockeJ, and she was tened to a double chair which she entail tint Being asked how the others were secured ? Lord ELLiNnottotiou said, they weld of secured in the way that was thts tight necessary such cases, The ATTIRSZY-GIVIERAt said, his ntiect was s'.iew•, that they were treateJ watts a degree or strait that was not necessary. Lord Et.tattnoninon said, if these wts any of that kind, LI it be made the suitiect of a s! action. All they had now to c was, - the penalty here sued for had or h t I not been hu red, in considering which, their jttigments were to be inflamed by enteting iuto circumstances of extrinsic Nature. The Witness then stated, that she had seen Defendant since the 510th September, when six , five Ladies living in her house, but she had made minute of the date. On inquiry since, she they were 113 W removed from the house in gill Mr. Ronents put in the Writ on which the sent action proceeded, which appeared to hive on the Ist March last. Lord ELLINSMOUGif-o That brings k within sir months." Mr. MeaRTATT then took technical objections the evidence adduced in proof of Dr. Budd Treasurer, and Sir . F. Milman being Psesident nf Royal College of Physicians, but the evidence was at length deemed satisfactory. Mr. MARRYATT then submitted, that however per it was in the College of Physicians to I brought the present action, thereby warning public in general of the illegality of such houses as that which had been described, still the question mained, was the person here sued the one from wit( the penalty ought to be exacted, or ought it not they to be enforced in the present instance from Mr. Dunstan, who, these could be no doubt from the evidence of Smithers, was the person really keeping the house in which these women were confined, and also deriving the profit thence arising. The Managee and Keeper, and not the Servant, as the Defendant here appeared to be, he submitted, was the party from whom the penalty ought to be exacted. Lord ELLINSOROUOII said, the words were erpresa —harbouring, concealing, or confining, " in any house or place," to whomsoever the house belonged, the person who so harbours, conceals, or confines in any such house or place, snore than one lunatic at a time, is by the Act of Parliament liable in the pe nalty. The Defendant here was the person who did the act;—though she had nothing to do with) the house, or had no interest in it, still she was If the words had been harboutiag, concealiog, Itc. in " his or their house," then the words would have been material. But here the penalty cle trly applied to the person guilty of the harbouring, conceaVng i , or confining in any house or place. His Lordship, however, did not say that the owner or keeper of the house would not also be liable. The ATTORNEY-CUSIMAL wished the defendant would give the plaintiff a case against the person whom her Counsel stated to be the principal in the business. Lord ELLENBOTtOUGH,, addressing tile Jury, ohms.. ved upon the high importance of the Act of PALI. ment in question, by which the Legislature sought to save the inhabitants of this country Item the possible lity of falling into dungeons of oppression more grit. vous than couli well be conceived, and from which they could be protected only by its being known wheys such receptacles were to be found, so that they might be visited, and the mode in which they were cnnduc. ted might be accurately inquired into and investiga ted. The Act of Parliament had said what the pe. . flaky for a contravention of the law was ; in bringing the present action, the plaintiff had only discharged his absolute and incumbent duty ; and it was for his Lordship and the Jury only to give effect to the law as they found it. One of the jury asked, if they had a power to mid. • gate the penalty Lord ELLENBOROUGU said, Ito. The Legislature had said what the penalty should be: it we; for the- Jury only to say if that penalty had been incurred. If the penalty in this case were not severe, the Act would be entirely inoperative. It was meant by this . penalty to deter persons from the commission of acts by wi.ich the lives and happiness of numbers might be endangered. The Jury were to judge only of the dry matter of fact. The Judge and Jury were merely the organs of the law. The Jury immediately found for the plaintiff—. Damages £5OO. ti) geus ght tang " r ' Ir:/1 its I ha nod )rn a l ira 'wen ti: ansi 6 stair ,CA in t win Rho It 0 but oP it. the :AL 10 a g fro 11 A Ldt t De the L h. To fl is es th, lan th in ::tdr 1)1 Ice L An a th ne tl port h th b 6 c tl out 1 Irt ' , " l ec a ‘l . ,y 1111 J. are art. , • r _ t'ce 1i ible st WAS t move. course essary ct was ;roe or any ea a speci vhetl - en itocu were o ces of I seen tl slot: ha. made n'• he loon gooestio the p vc issue• vithin etiins to ii brio .nt (of the ;e of both ever pro to havet Icing Wel louses as estiun re., ,m whorl* it not Ma! 'roam Mr. 'rout the keeping ted, and Msnsger lefendsnt the party e erpress k I in any ielonged, onfints iQ tatic at a n the pe. who did with the iiig, dm. uIJ have r applied nceslisg, Lordship, ser of the lefendsnt he person al its the y, obser. of Parliki sought to e possible lore grit. MI which wn where icy might e conduce ;Istrestioa. THE KING W. JOSEPH HERMON ' ESQ. We are happy to find that the Defendant, a respect* able Magistrate of the County of Middlesex. was . on Saturday last, most honourably acquitted on all the indictments preferred against him. OLD BAILEY. On Saturday eight persons were tried, five of whom weft eon. victed of felony, and three were acquitted. - Same day the SeFsions ended, when sentence of death was passed on the following prisoners, viz. Joseph Nash, Faimund Birkett, William Badcock, Robert Brady, "l'hoinas Bontein, anti Peter Patrick Innis, for forgery; Isabella alias Elisabeth Philips, Thomas Edwards alias Smith, George Russ, lime Ruth, Mary Hook, Norah Murphy, and George Harman alias Pearson*, for stealing in a dwelling-house; James Smith, for house-breaking ; William Smith, for secreting a letter containing Batik notes; Matthew Chapman, for burglary; Joseph Richardson and Los e s Simons, for a like Offence. Eleven were sentenced to be transported for life, viz. WU* Hain Duffey, Richard Raymond, George Brown alias !menials Healey, John Oliver, Joseph &alms, George Phillips, John Wilson, William Clark, Frederick Salmon. John Day.son, and William Jenkinc—Ten for 14 years, viz. Mary Rob e rts, Ch ar l es Games, William Marley, Thomas ones, lames Kean, Riclaard Walker, Nathan Simons, Thomas Long, Charles fames Cooper, and William Thempson.—Twsnty-two were ordered to be transported for seven years, viz.—George Hand, •I'honsat Da. vies, 'William Stevens, Joseph Eton), William Foy, Joseph Free. man, William Bartlett, Charles Reeve*, Wiiliani Horner, James Connor, Joseph l.eoni, John Stephens, William Goddard, J ihn Wakeman, Charlotte Pearce alia. Hopkins, Joseph l)sy, '1 hennas Thompson, Benjamin Jones, John Simons, Drawl Stevens, Wil• Bain Jenkins, and John Briant. Seven to be imprisoned io the House of Correction at Clerk.* enwell, for two years; fifteen for one year; and ent) -three for sia calendar months each ; twenty two to be imprison...l in Nswgate for various periods; seven to be privately, and two publicly whipped; fourteen judgments were respites'; ne were finad Is. each and discharged; and forty-oot Wore discharged by proclaim'. ion. Solivne at4ausaird tv I'M? 141 b July nos,