Star. — London, England, 1822-04-11 00:00:00

to the patty who performed it. liovitad Mr. Ethel stone, the individual to whom he alluded, sworn that he ha:t read it? He had said that he reedit from the windows of Ms. Button's house. Did he pretend , td swear that he had read it anywhere else? No.— And why had he not ? Because, forsooth, when he went downstairs, he did not find his servant waiting with a horse for him to mount, aad on which to read , it ! To whom, too, had he read it ? To nobody but the Rev. Mr. Hay, the Vicar of Rochdale, who, though labouring, as he pretended, under the greatest alarm' and antiety, found time enough to say to his Rev. Coadjutor, with a calculating coolness that was al most inconceivahle—o Ethelstone, I never heard you in such good voice before !" and yet, the tones . of Mr. F.thelstone's voice were so clear and sonorous, not one Magistrate had come forward to say that he , heard him tending the Riot Act, though it was point that all of them would have been willing - enough to prove had they been able to swear it, bid anybody outside of the.honse here it read? No ; for even, according to Mr. Ethelstone's own account, it was read, at a time when the ringing of the horses hoofs on the, pavement, and the clashing of the Yeo men's swords with one another, rendered all other sounds quite inaudible. Mr. Stanley, who was in the window of the room above that in which the Ma gistrates were, did not hear a word of the Riot Act read, though he was paying the most earnest atten tion to everything that passed ; neither did Mr. 111‘Kinlay, who was on the steps below them, and equally attentive to all that was going forward. His Learned Fiend, in opening his case, had stated, that there were fifty yards between the Magistrates' house anti the crowd, and that the intervening space was filled with special constalget. How, then, could the crowd know of the reading of the Riot Act ? The Jury were then left to infer that Mr. Silvester had quitted the house to read it, and that he had been prevented by having been knocked down, and trampled upon. If such were the case, why had the defendants not called Mr. Silvester, the best of all witne-'es on that head, to prove it ? Instead of that, they nad called upon a person who said that he saw Mr. Silvester, the Magistrate, take up a card en ‘alich the Riot Act was printed, leave the room far a short time, and then return with a . clitty coat.— It Mr. Silvester could have proved so material a fact as hi, reading of the Riot Act, he would have done it, for he was one of those who had signed the war rant. It was well known that Mr. Silvester had never read it ; but in order to leave the Jury to infer that he had, an individual had sworn as he had before de scribed. It was now worth while to see how the Riot' Act was to be read according to the provisions of the Statute. The Learned Counsel here read the Statute to the Jury. He then contended that the reading of the Riot Act, as the Reverend Mr. Ethelstone bad done, was no justification of the killing, maim ing, and wounding, that afterwards ensued. He then reviewed-the evidence, and said that it was clear from it that Birley, Withington, Oliver, and Meagher were all of them upon the field, aiding and abetting each other in the attack on he plaintiff. The Learned Gentleman next alluded to what had been said by Mr. Serjeant Hullcck in his opening speech—that all the witnesses for the plaintiff largely entered into the feelings of the prosecution, or had a latent interest in Parliamentary Reform. Surely his Learned Friend could not have known the descrip tion of the witnesses which he himself intended to I call, when he made such an attack on the witnesses I on the other side; for the Jury, if they examined the fifty-one witnesses -for the defence, would find that thei e was not one of them who had proved any es sential point in their favour, who was not either a Magistrate or special oonstable. The Learned Coun sel then adverted to the conduct of the Yeomanry, and maintained that they had no right to seize a single flag. They went into the Meeting not to " have at their flags," but to take into custody cer taiu persons named in a warrant. But he would say that the warrant, on the face of it, contained no de signation of the offence, and did not justify the ulte rior proceedings of those individuals. The warrant was simply to take up certain persons therein named, at a quarter past one o'clock, and who were in the cart at the hustings. Mr. Justice HOLROYD said, that the warrant could only affect the parties concerned in executing it under the provisions of the Statute of George 11. which ex presses that no action shall be brought against a con stable, or others acting in aid of a constable, in exe cution of the warrant of a Magistrate or Magistrates, if the proCeeding be illegal, unless the action be brought within six months. Mr. BLACKBURNE said; that if he mistook the law, it could be argued hereafter. He cared not whether the warrant was good or bad, but he could never toe strongly impress upon them that the wound inflicted upon the individual in this case occurred after the execution of that warrant--after the parties had been arrested or, the hustings. They had done all that was required under the warrant; and having done so, the parties in possession of that warrant had no longer any power to act, and they were not justified in using the sabre, or even an instrument much less likely than a sabre to occasion death, having per formed the duty for which they were deputed to act. But it was said resistance had been offered ; where was the proof of that resistance? There were Messrs. Andrew, Moore, and Nadin, they said that they went up behind the Manchester Yeomanry to execute the warrant—they saw no resistance offered, except the statement of Nadin, that a man's arm had been hurt by a blow of a stone. These people, there fore, furnished negative evidence of a most important kind to establish the main fact, that no resistance was offered before the cavalry reached the hustings. It was not a little remarkable, that when so much was said of the injury done to the Yeomanry, that mot a single individual of the corps was brought for-I ward to prove the assault. How easy it would have been to have proved the fact, had it occurred as his Learned Friend was instructed to represent. But what said Lientetiant-Colonel Keymer, with antici pation of mischief, not from the people, but from the cavalry. lie said, that the moment he saw the latter coming on the ground, he ordered the woolen and children to get away, because, said he, " I then dreaded wischief." There was nothing, then, accord ing to that witness's evidence, to excite apprehensions in Ins mind, until the Yeomanry came; it was then uniy that he warned the women and children to de pa; t, and it was thou only that he became sure of the oct:urrencc of mischief. This was at the period ctthe and in Ifg Plea, into allegan present spiral had hills was , of Par) passed, Ind such a Meeting was not penal at,the time Redford was represented to have attended it. With the other drilling matches the plaintiff had no , concern ; and therefore the Jury would disconnect him from the acts spoken to at those drillings, of whatever character they were. The Learned Gen tleman strongly enforced the claim of his client for the protection and relief of the Jury, and entreated them to found their verdict upon the facts of the case alone, and not upon. the idle alarms and surmises which were so unsparingly spread around this case. lle said, that to a person of so little experience in his profession, and so unaccustomed to lead a cause, the Jury must he struck with the difficulty, nay, the impossibility, of his replying in detail to all the weight of evidence adduced throughout three days on the part of the defendants: so strange and conjectural a body of evidence had never been before adduced upon any trial : lie had, however, endeavoured to unmask its character, and perform his duty to his client to the best of his power. He trusted that he should have the benefit of their attention, and that they would at tach to his observations whatever weight they were fairly entitled to among calm and dispassionate men. He left the case of his unfortunate client-.for unfor tunate he was, whatever verdict he could receive— to their judgment with confidence, perfectly assured that the humble man's poverty, instead of being a bar to his obtaining redress at their hands, would -only. 'the more strongly recommend him to their consideration, their humanity, and kindne.s. If they thought he had been wantonly and unjustifiably wounded, then they would give him that protection Which the law equally extended to the poor as well as the rich; and which wo.al 1 s:lew to the country, the desire . they manifested by their firmness to uphold and preserve the liberties of their fellow-subjects. Mr. Justice HOLROYD rose at twenty minutes be fore four o'clock to charge the Jury, and stated that the time had then arrived, when it became his duty to direct their attention to the mass of evidenie which had been given in this case, and to the law as appli cable to its several parts. This was an action brought by the plaintiff Redford, against four persons, one of whom, Birley, was Captain of a troop of the Man chester Yeomanry ; another was an Officer of a dif ferent troop of the same corps ; a third was a private named Oliver, and the fourth was Meagher, a trum peter; and the action was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for an injury which Redford alleged he had sustained by an assault of the said de fendants on the 16th of August, 1619, at Manches— ter. The Jury had heard that the defendants were Yeomanry, and the law made this distinction in cases like this:---that if they (the Yeomanry) went am.ong the people on that day, by command of the Civil Ma gistracy, and to execute a lawful purpose, and that one of them, while so engaged, committed an unlawful skct, then the others being lawfully employed, and not participating in the unlawful act of one of their party, were not answerable for his conduct. If others went • in a body to do, not a lawful, but an unlawful act, then all were by the law held responsible, their ori ginal intent being alike illegal. But even in the lat ter case, if one of the party separate from the rest, and does an act not in pursuance of the common de sign, then they who were so separated from him are not involved in his particular guilt. If the military were called in for a lawful purpose, they were bound to execute the commands of the civil magistrate, and only those who shall act unlawfully in obeying those commands can be held responsible; for the law said, a man might act unlawfully in executing a legal pur pose—for instance, in the forcible removal of a pub lic nuisance. The Learned Judge here recited the pleadings (which we published in the STAR in the first day's proceedings of the trial) in detail, and commented upon their technical import. In the de fence upon some of these pleas, it was contended that the Meeting of the 16th of August, I bl 9, was, if not actually riotous according to law, at leait what was denominated a riotous Meeting, and one which might become riotous if permitted to carry its object into effect; and that they (the Yeomanry) were called in to disperse such Meeting by the order of the magis tracy. There were other parts of the pleas which led to a great deal of evidence—namely, that there existed a previous seditious conspiracy to excite dis content in the minds of the Kings subjects, and that divers persons were at that Meeting engaged in the designs of the conspirators. Now upon the subject of the drilling it was right he should tell the Jury that whether the drilling was clandestine or not, if it was intended by those who were so drilling, for the purpose of overturning or overawing the civil govern ment, then it was unlawful. A great deal of evi dence had been adduced for the purpose of shewing that the magistrates' warrant could not be executed without the aid of the military. As to what consti tutes, in the eye of the law, an illegal assembly, he ,could not explain the point more clearly than it was laid down by his learned coadjutor (Mr. Justice Bay ley) at a former trial in York. In the first place, a riot consisted of . three or more persons unlawfully meeting together, with or without cause of quar rel, so as to endanger the King's peace.—A riot kius- assembly was where the parties met for a common purpose intending to do something in a riotous manner, but /et not remaining long enough ' to accomplish it. An unlawful assembly was any meeting convened under such circumstances as the law could not with safety to the public allow ; Itsk would state to the Jury some of .the circumstances which brought a Meeting within the scope of kite law, and copstituted an unlawful assembly ; and here, again, he begged to be understood as speaking in the language of his excellent coadjutor,• who had fa voured him with some notes ofhis charge on the trial. at York. According to the opinion of tb.a& Learned that ,rgth.he innocent ; but was it so here? Drillint, was a part of military discipline, and regulated under the prerogative of th e Ki ng—a prerogative, rept -1 ' in modern time s , un d er controu l o f P ar li ament . Formerly the King' s mili tary tenants , uncontrou l e d a t e d by the authority of Parliament, and holding their estates in fee, were bound, by their tenure, to give the King their military service when required ; and they were even bound in many instances to assist the Civil Power of the country in the performance of its . civil duties; and he found, to his surprise, when he had occasion in the former case of Sir Francis Bur dett, in which he was Counsel, to refer to ancient records upon the species of service required by the military tenures, that in several statutes of the Henrys and Edwards, Officers were appointed expressly to go about the country and see that the military tenants of the Crown had their armour, arms, horses, &c. ready and in fit condition; and for what purpose? —to assist the Sheliff,who was the King's Civil Offi cer, to raise the posse came:alas. He stated this to :hew how early the , Military Authorities had been called ir. aid of the Civil, for the purpose of executing the law. Indeed he hardly knew how the posse cond.. talus could now be called out ; he knew not how the Sheriff was to raise them. Not so at the former period to which he alluded,when there were military persons expressly enjoined to assist in calling the= out. Referring back to the question of drilling, he must say, that if the object of it were so to arrange the parties at the Meeting as to secure, by a confi dence in their own numbers, an attention to the speeches to be then made, and having the ultimate object of attaining the complete purpose they had in view, by a demonstration of their strength, then such a Meeting so got together was clearly illegal. If, from the general appearance, and all the accompany ing circumstances of the Meeting, it excited reason able grounds of alarm and apprehension, then it was generally criminal and unlawful, and all persons at tending it in such a manner as to evince a determi nation to co-operate in the attainment of its object, were equally criminal. The appearance of the Meet ing and the intentions of the parties could only be collected from the evidence. If these were of such a nature as, when taken together, to excite alarm, then it was for the Jury to say whether it did not become the bounden duty of those who were sworn to keep the peace, to take such steps as were calculated to avert from the peaceable inhabitants the apprehended mischief. It might be, that had they refrained from doing so, they would have incurred, as Kennett, Lord' Mayor of London had, in the year 1780, a criminal prosecution. At that period Lord George Gordon, the brother or son of the then Duke of Gordon, had collected together an immense body of people, ostensibly for a lawful purpose—it was to petition Parliament not to repeal certain Acts on the score of religion in favour of the Catholics. After accompanying Lord George Gordon with that petition to Westminster, they committed several acts of violence, burned houses, broke open and fired one of the prisons, and did immense injury for three days to public and private property, until at length the military were ordered into the city, where they acted, and by doing military execution upon the rioters, at length suppressed the tumults. A prompt and timely interposition of the civil power might have prevented these consequences; and for not acting with firmness and due precaution the Lord Mayor was fined 1,000/. Now Lord G. Gordon's first meeting in St. George's fields was for a purpose ostensibly legal, but in its con duct had afterwards incurred the penalties of the law. The Spa-fields Meeting was also convened fora legal purpose, and yet they saw how a party of those who were concerned in it broke out from the spot, and carried riot and tumult into the City. With reference to the character of the Manchester Meeting, and whether, like the others, its circumstances rendered it clearly illegal, or whether it was an exception to them, and only meant for the lawful exercise of the right of pe:ition, the Jury must determine for themselves by an attentive consideration of the voluminotis evidence before them in this case ; and which, if they pleased, he should read over to them in detail ; or, if they pre ferred, be would confine himself to an abstract of its principal bearings. Two or three of the Jurors here rose, and stated to his Lordship, that the outline would be quite sufficient. The Learned JUDGE enumerated the different heads of the evidence, and commented upon the previous drilling of the parties who had been seen at this Meet ing —their assault on the constable, and on Murray their hissing before the latter's house when marching into Manchester—their hooting before the Exchange, and again at the soldiery ; and, after dwelling upon these topics for upwards of two hours, he left the case to the Jury ; who, at six o'clock, retired for about six minutes, and then returned with a Verdict for the Defendants. The decision seemed to give great satisfaction to the Manchester Magistrates, and some of the Yeo manry, who were present when the verdict was given. At the Suffolk Assizes, last week, William Aldous was charged with having, on the 6th of February, set on fire and burned the barn, stable, and other out buildings of Mr. Davy, of Stradbrook. The prisoner was only seventeen years of 'age. He was found piny, and left for execution. • At the above Assizes two travelling gypsies, 'Lewis Boma and Ferdinand Smith, were convicted of a burglary in the house of Mr. Jacobs, of Great Livermere. When the verdict of Guilty was returned against them, Boswell struck one of the witnesses a most violent blow; cryiag out. " That's the into that has murdered us." A great Uproar took place both the prileners continually screaming our that they Were wilfully murdered. A shocking murder WM committed et Corday, near Wm minster, on Manley aveeleg, the 25th ult. on a pm ntam eiret4 John wAo eggs remain Lame fro* his on at .11N . Taunton's mill. . _ , Mid friends *ho would &IA him fer £5O to`telt better dancer that the defelidant; This Was at the pmvocatiotrthat had been given, and Without futther ceremony the defendant, Who was a More athletic and powerfol man than hit Client, and who, fromhis practice on the Stage as findertin; was exceetfingly alert with both foot ani hand, immediately gturied the plaintiff, • struck him Several times with' his fist ' and with a stick, and continued beating him till be was rescned by a by-stander. The Learned Counsel said, he understood no person appeared for the de fendant; he should not, thetefore, attempt to add a single word to the plain statement of the facts, in ol der to enhance the. damages. Paul Wreitch (known in the theatrical world 24 Signor Paulo) was called, and proved the 411tercation and subsequent assault. William Bennett, the waiter at Tloneyman's Coffee house, stated, that he did not see the commencement of the array, but he heard the plaintiff tell Mr. Ilidg 7 way that his Iroys were very clever, and asked were they under any other master ? to which the defendant replied, that if he repeated that, he would . chastise him. • This was the case for the plaintiff, and no defence being offered— The Lortu.CHIEF JUSTICE . left it to the Jury to say, on the evidence, whether one shilling damages would be enough ? It did not, his Lordship observed, vet y clearly appear who began first. The Jury, after a moment's consultation, found a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages Is. and Costs Is. I , . . .. ..--• : - - - 1 ' ' 77're s " ----- ' - ' 7 9tt"Wjqrr -7- ••erVgf"" 7 " 7 'V'r'" s'""' l '''' - 777 1 • 71 7watrillrirtgrreTIXPer , - ..- Itert, 7 1 9.711177: , ..•:, - .1-,... e ...._ ' • • , ~ • . . .'. ' . ' . , . . . • • . . . i . . ‘ • I .•.., . . • '. . . - • • • .• . .. , ; • . . . 1 - • ~. . 3, . • '. ' lvance of the cavalry towards the hustings ; and Ito al,ppi,nkt eincesconfirnted hal -4704 1 14.4444a1ig4111011:114 . . 4PAILiaI ;,,, )to that tins, 110614 hid beeedone either to es- ((WM- 51 16T 14,1 4 1Wilthilitli ji lf g -. . 1 to or to propagate alarm, except on the part of those Coortriitsy seued4 et* unlisellel. *lids af - • .. • Tb• tit th 1 0 .A.:-.._,±.. ' - • • ho had by sprenffmg previous reports infused ilarin, to 40W reillids,o4.4 fl ins jesoinswed ass 4 1 17.,3""ve5 "te. gP Ae4lllll X reetnemenced id doubt into those arouid them, by diSSOrnitinh the' C • 40141 tounm,....A.ll*“Pse Illt bfi _. his sal* at Grillabelf 4isit : rippii4 bt . itifet. - ' - - g their own fears, 4 ppreheniions, 'and danget4.lsemblect to .' • any object which Vris ealculatal undefended causes. -,•5.. ;, „ , . . conspiracy 'be alleged by the 'defendants in their Ito produCe sad aq wet e illegal. iNti tai miter-' ' , . 11 PstiST9***, yr t v or ,. 4xt ea, he defied any man whose name was introduced ' lain how far this eer t n g of the lath of August , 6 r M .ivir r. Se un a ton fttirlv wvii 'sinteri no li ! iti titi 4i n oi tmc.t ai, ro r tr 'iii and Pl i i ane nti r at • to that plea to have the power of rebutting the came Within any of esedescriptions; they fintsrMak legation by any other means than those used bribe at the mode and manner . of its assembling...what were tbeSdrilyThlibt ' ibit de dittntlatstfik eili . ploi,,ed • . , 'esent plaintiff. But, after all, what proofs of con- all the cirtaatstancoa . r we ee ji ng and attending its or. at thit'Tbeitie _ .„'EsliesikiikediN e Weiii ta vika% -e n • Tracy had been proved •against his client? 110 ganizalOns-,-who were the ife A ders On brought the the edin,hg 'Oleh'ettleer Mat test dit•ittiblertard ~ id never been at White Moss, where the assaults divisions to the ,Meeting —What Were the banneti, the ilifen'ant sitrein tile; tortvfobtil ilditiftilltrift ere committed ;• h e h a d b ee n o n c e on ly a t Tandie. and how the bearers of diens condoctedtheniselves Coffet-fiensei ?Writhe duties of the ?hit* iiiii ereft: t * Ils ; and suppose he were drilling on that spot, that •on that oceision—ivho had beet drilled, a n d what, *bib *tin* tntiVeliatfoit d rose 646 the swebtlfive LS no legal offence at the time a lluded to: t he A ct was the apparentollect of thatdrilling. The Learned • merits of the parties A •tfatictis ; the dialegde teen 'Parliament against drilling had been subsequently Counsel for the plaintiff had truly said that drilling becathe very aninrated,'"ltrifffhe plaintiff obseried be asset). and such a Meeting was not penal et,the might.be innocent : but was it .m 1 here nrillitic• hid •146ndc *fro would 'Glad/ hint for ['got 1w0...-. PIPPETT V. HEARNE. This was an action to recover a compensation in damages for a malicious prosecution for perjury. The defendant, who keeps the King's Arms Inn, Holborn-bridge, had been entrusted by a man named Strange, who used his house, with a box of lace, in order to enable Strange to procure payment of the sum of £4O from a person named Wild, with whom he had had some dealings before. Wild mas to be induced to believe, that on payment of £4O on ac count, the box of lace, whiCh was of gleater value, would be delivered to him ; but instead of which, - when the money was paid, then the defendant was to give him his dishonoured bill for 1:40. Wild stated ' to a person named Pippett, that he had this lace to sell, a great bargain, upon £4O being paid, for which it was impounded ; whereupon Pippett told a friend of his, named Brydges, who agreed to purchase i►, and on going to the defendant's house the treaty was concluded. Brydges paid the money into the de fendant's hand, who then threw down the dishonoared bill cf Wild's, and put the box of lace behind A scuffle ensued, and Brydges get back his £4O from the defendant, while Pippett endeavoured to secure the box of lace, but in vain : that was wrenched from his hand by a female servant of the defendant's,— Brydges and Pippett were then taken into custody by an officer before the sitting Alderman, on a charge of felony preferred by the defendant, but the Magis. trate on investigating the affair, dismissed the matter. For this unsubstantiated charge Brydges and Pippett brought an Action against Hearne, who suffered judg ment to go by default in the action at the suit of Brydges, and if was on the occasion of the evidence given by Pippett before the Secondary, that the al leged perjury was committed, for which Hearne in dicted 11:m, but on the trial he was acquitted, on a flaw being discovered in the indictment, before any evidence was gone into. For this Pippett now brought his action to recover a compensation in damages.— Several witnesses were examined on both sides. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evi dence, and told the Jury the principal circumstance for them to consider was, not whether Pippett had on the occasion mentioned committed a perjury, but whether the defendant had reasonable ground to come to that conclusion. The Jury retired for half an hour, and on their re turn found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £l5O. Yesterday the LORD Mayon held a Special Court of Aldermen at Guildhall, for the purpose of electing a Recorder in the room of the late Sir JOHN SYL.• \TESTER, Batt. which was most fully attended. His Lordship, 20 Aldermen, and the Sheriffs, being pit sent, the thanks of the Court were unanimously voted to the Lord Bishop of lAA NDA FE' and the Rev. Dr. GODDARD, for their excellent sermons preached at Christ Church, Ncwgate-street, before the LORD MAYOR, Aldermen, and Governors of the several Royal Hospitals, on Monday and Tuesday last.— The Court then proceeded to the special business of the day, when . NEWMAN Kstowiss, Esq. Common Serjeant, was unanimously elected Ilcc3rdcr ; and being sent for, he attended, and took the usual oath. Theoan MAYOR declared the vacancy of Steward of Southwark, in the room of Sir J. Syr:ark:mit, and the next Court was appointed to fill up the sane. A convict under sentence of death for burglary, now in Horsemonger Jail, has been ex amineJ, on suspicion of being concerned in the murder of Mrs. DUNATTY, but nothing apptoaching to proof has been brought forward agaihSt him. Hrorawav-RonnEnv.—Mr. HawKiNts,• a traveller, in Stanhope-street, was robbed on Monday evening, returning from Oakingham to . Hatchet-lane, Berks, of 122. and some silver, his watch, and several bills of exchange. He'svas travelling in h:s gig near War field, when a person on horseback inquired the road to Windsor, and joined company at his pace to the cross-roads to Hatchet-lane and Wingfield-Plain, when two fellows inimock-frocks stopped the chaise, and ransatked, it, assisted by the horseman. They plan of cutting harness to revolted to' the usual prevent .p Intuits and made off into Windsor Forest. 44 1 • . 1 1.:, , . !"" ;. .1 ';~ .