Star. — London, England, 1817-07-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGFNCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 23. 17VTLRR V. WILSON. This was an application made by Sir S. ROWS LY, on behalf of the plaintiff, praying his Lordship so or der the sum of £2OOO, being the purchase.money due fscra the defendant, to be paid into Court. Mr. HIALD wished, on the part of the defendant, . 1 ;m the payment of such money should be postponed :o the 6th of November, in couzquence of his client not having the money at Hid. He had disposed of t he money on account of the very long time which su;t had occupied, and he hoped therefore for indulgence of the Court till that period. Sir SAMUEL ROM:v..I.Y wink( certainly on no account ,nnsent to such a long time being granted for pay eig this sum. The defendant had now been in pos. !cssion of the property upwards of four years, and it e• A ls rather singular that a Mal, after occupying pro p:Try so long, should still plead for longer time : lie thou!!ht it unnecessary to say m..re, as the case was f o clear that his Lordship, he was decidedly of opi nion, would at once rei:ct such a request. The Lonu CUANCEI.VM.—" C...rtainly to ask such a length of time, after so lorg rr,ssession of the pre •.ses, is most unreasonable, and cannot therefore be grinted by the Court. The Curt have a right to rant indulgence; hut they have also an imperious d':y to perform to the public, and they are bound to see that such indulgence be not abused. No man can feel more than I do the propriety of giving par ti.. in this C•mrt every indulgen& ; but I cannot al- . low 'my private wish..s so overenme my sense of pub lic duty, and I have always reg.:laird my conduct in that way. Idor. it think I sh9lid do justice - to ether party by granting till the WI: of November ; a;:.d I therekre order that the suns of £2(00 be paid ivto Court on or before the '2'..fsf of Augu,t nest ;tit the same time intimating, that if the money is not paid by that day at the farthest, then you, Sir Samuel gomilly, shall be at full liberty to apply to me on the 25d of that month. Let it be understood, this is my decided opinion." . . Another causv of the same nature, in which Mr. Cutler was plaintiff, cam: on, and the same order made for paying 431760 int° Court on the same day (22d August.) Sir SAMULL Roun.mr said, he understood. the de fendant had been speculating in the Funds, and he therefore had no illijecticni to grant him till the 6th of November, provided he would bind himself to pay the money then, with all the prilits which had arisen on that money from his recent speculations. The Lonrf CitAticst.t.utt.--‘. I am afraid, Sir Sa muel, 'you I.otild ilave a bad chance tht.fe, as I dare say many of these purchasers in the cst.ttes now in qttesti , m have no cash at all, if the tenth was knOWII. 1 order payment of the rn•mey peremptorily for the '22,1 of Ai:gust, with the same liberty to you of snow ing, if it is not paid."---.Motion granted. ILLL'3IIIIVIATE CHILDREN. ROBINSON AND OTHERS, AtzSIONEES OF WM. ALEXANDER REED, AN INSOLVENT; v. WILLIAM ALEXANDER REED, WEDDERBURN, AND 011IERS, TRUSTEES OF THE SAME. Lo this case, Sir SAMUEL RomILLY stated, that this was a Bill filed by the Assignees of William Alex. Reed, an insolvent, in consequence of the following circumstances : A Mr. Reed had acquired a considerable fortune in the East Indies, and was !lit father of several ille gitimate children, of whom the insolvent was one. The father, the testator, nominated the other defen dants as his executors and the trustees of his sun, who being then only sixteen ye4rs of age, was by them to be put into a mercantile house; for which purpose the testator left £lOOO, and in thit place he was to remain for three years, he being allowed a small sum during the first year, and a double allowance the se cond and third years, and on arriving at the age of nineteen he was to receive the balance. In the same will he gave in trust to his executors £lO,OOO, which was to be given to his son at the age of twenty-six, and mean time to be under their controul, and to be given only provided the said son conducted himself in a proper manner. In the year 1815, the young man became insolvent, and took the benefit of the Act, appointing the plaintiffs his assignees, and sta ting in his schedule that he expected the said sum of eglo,ooo. By an order of the Master of the Rolls, that sum was paid into Court, and he had improperly hof an order that the interest of that sum be paid to imself. The object of the present application was for an injunction to restrain the insolvent from re ceiving the interest of that sum, and that the said in terest be paid to the assignees of the plaintiff, for the benefit of his creditors. Such a motion, he had no doubt, would - appear to his Lordship to be absolutely just, and essentially necessary for public equity ; for it persons were allowed to take the benefit of the In solvent Acr, and permitted to live, after such a step, in luxury, on what was not their own, but in truth the property of their creditors, then the benevolent intentions of the Legislature of the vountry would be done away with; for surely the law was meant solely for protecting the debtor, but at the same time for doing justice to the creditor. Mr. CoLunson made a few observations on the same side. Mr. Leto', on the other s;cle, contended, that as the defendant, his client, was depending on the trus. tees, if they felt his conduct had in any / view been improper, they were by no means bound to give him a shilling, according to the testator's will; yet if a man was imprudent in early life, as indeed was too commonly the case (for who on the first introduction to the stage of public enjoyments did not, in some instance or another, act imprudently), and if he did atterwards correct his conduct so as to gain approba non, would his Lordship think it proper to visit him with the sins of early years, if the trustees thought proper to overlook such conduct, and to carry into execution the will of the testator ? He knew his Lordship too well to suppose he should do so, and he trusted, therefore, that the order of the Master of the Rolls be confirmed. Mr. AIIIIRCROMRIf y on the part of the trustees, ex pressed their willingness to submit to any order of the Court, and at the same time their anxiety to per- L'):iscientiously the duty with which they had beep invested by the deceased, whose son they could not wish to ste in any kind of distress, while they had funds in their hands sufficient to prevent such ss. Yet they would not sanction his juvenile irtdi. —Pons, and give the money to be squandered which had been left for other tad better purposes. They in truth wished to act as his father would have done, and as his best and true friends. It would be for his Lordship to decide in the case, as there were no legal heirs, the children being illegitimate. The LORD CHANCELLOR.--:4 I want to know if the Attorney. General has been served with notice of this c ise ? as it is impossible for me to decide unless the Crown be represented. Let therefore notice be served on his Majesty's Attotney•General." Further discussion postponed. EDLYBUI?GH, JULY 20. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY. CHARGE OF ADMINISEERING UNLAWFUL OATHS. THE KING v. ANDREW AI‘KINLEY. 4Evitlence of JJea Campbell, in continuation from the STAR of yesterday.) The witness stated, that he continued to consider the agreement that had been come to with him by Mr. Drummond, to furnish him and his wife with a passport to go to Prussia, as still bind ing, although not signed by the Sheriff, who !milt it in his presence; that the declaration he made and delivered to the Sheriff was made upon a reliance on that engagement: That at the CORverbation with Mr. Drummond, when he got the order to get books, he had been cited as a witness on the trial of 1 1 / 4 1 , Kinley, and the first book he got was on the 9.2 d day of April last, in the week Mr. Drummond went the Circuit : that the idea of danger to himself was first suggested by the Sheriff and Fiscal of Glasgow, who asked if it was for fear of his life that he wool! not be a witness: he cannot 347 he thought his life was in danger, but he did not like to go back to Glasgow after being a witness : in none of the con 'mations with any of the Genileman above•men tioned was any attempt made to instruct him any way as to what he should s in giving his evidence. The witness then signed his declaration in presence of the Court. Mr. Jerrttsv proposed to call Sir William Rae to corroborate certain parts of Campbell's declaration, which was opposed by the Lord Advocate as unne cessary._ '1 he Court then spoke at some length upon the comp‘ tcncy of the last witness, and decided that he could not be examined, as he came forward to give his evidence under the impression that he was to re ceive a certain remuneration, or had made an agree ment to that effect. The Court afterwards proceeded to the examina tion of the following witnesses : John M , Laughlan, prisoner in the Castle of Edin• burgh, was present at a meeting in Glasgow, when several others were present : the purport of the meet ing was to consider of commencing reform societies. At this meeting one Gibson said there were societies about town of the same kind, who would support them if they agreed, and would correspond with them. Some altercation took place on the subject of secrecy, which individuals conceived to be necessary. as it had been hinted, especially in the London Coe.' tier, that upon the meeting of Parliament, the Ha beas Corpus Act would be suspended ; and that as a very small crime might subject a person to its opera tion, it was necessary to provide against any member hurting his neighbour by any unguarded expression. An obligation was then proposed to bind the mem-, bers of this association till they knew the rules, Bte. of the other societies. It was proposed at the meet ing, whether the oath of secrecy should be by hold ing up the, right hand ; this was decided with the ex ception of one dissenting voice (Mitchell). A shake of hand and confidence then took place that no inf or. matiun from any other society should be used to hurt any individual of *these societies. Two individuals (one himself), he does not recollect the other, were then appointed to wait on the Glasgow Reform Com mittee. The next meeting took place, but he cannot positively state when was called on previously by a Mr. Richmond, who asked him what they were about that he believed they were as bad as the Glasgow Committee : he said he was glad he had been one of the Glasgow Committee, and lie was anxious to know what they were about. The Court here passed over this part of the narra tive, and prcceeded to the meeting which took place on the Ist of January,- in Legget's house. Witness and the prisoner, Campbell, and about a dozen others, were present. One Peat was President.. Witness was intoxicated when he went there. A paper called a bond of union, not an oath, was writ ten at this meeting : it was read by one Reddie cannot repeat the words, but is sure that it mentioned something about persevering in obtaining a Reform of Parliament, and elective franchise at the age of , 21, by all who were not disqualified by crimes but does not believe insanity was mentioned. Understands from the nature of the agreement that no mother was to hurt another. If any of the members were to break their promise they were to be accounted as tr ,iwrs, and used as such, but did not know what this meant. Recollects nothing farther that took place at Legget's, but remembers a speech being made, intended, as he believes, for another meeting. He never understood by any expression used io the proceedings, any thing but persrveraNce. Recollects the expressions of moral and physical strength being used, and believes they were included in the words of the bond. These expressions he understood to mean —the moral, to use all the means in their power, by way of reasoning, to effect a Reform in the Com- I mons House of Parliament—by physical, that he was bound to assist personally in preparing, and to for. ward as much as in his power, by petitions and other wise, the same end as far as the case might require, and to provide funds for forwarding, the petitions to Government, or contributcas far as was in his power for preparing and forwarding them; confessing him- self ignorant of the different idioms of the English language, he said he could nat distinguish between the terms phy s ical force" and a physical strength." Considered himself as obliged to use every means; either personally or otherwise, to procure the peti tions, or to defray the expenses of those who were personally engageJ. At the meeting before men tioned, he saw a paper in the prisoner's hand, heard it read, but although he considers it respected a re form in Parliament, yet he does not remember any of the expressions contained in it. This paper, as well as the speech, was withdrawn and he believes the bond of union was, to the best of his recollection; then written. While this paper was reading the first time, amendments were proporcd ; when it was first ,read, the Meeting stood up : the witness then left the. morn ; and when he retitined, the Paper was again read, and the Meeting determined that the members agreeing to it should hold up their right hands, w'Aich they did s the paper was read three times, but the members only stood up during the first rea•fing. Witness gave his approval to the bond by holding up his right hand. The oath was stated by the witness to have commenced and ended with an appeal to Gon. It contained something about brotherhood and affection; but be does not recollect any thing ab confidence o r th e punishment of death being included in it. It talked of equal representation and annual Parliaments; and those who divulged the secrets, or gave information, were to be treated as traitors. Un derstood that the expresiions " hope, fear, rewards, or punishments," applied to those of the society who should he induced by any of these enticements to act agaiost• any member of the society. Believes, lon cannot po,itively say, that M'Kinley was present when the oath was agreed to by holding up the right hand. Saw (*Kinky go out during the time of the meeting, but thinks he was in the room when it w:is agreed to. Heard it said that the same oath was similar to the one used in Ireland ; het recollects that some alterations were proposed and adopted on this account. Does not know Leggett was at Munn's ; Dicks.ns and Gibson were there ; went at hall-past nine o'clock on the 4th of January. Peat was also preses ; was about halt an Your there; Macdowall Peat volunteered to go to Carmunnock, to see if some acquaintances he had there wt.uld mndei a si milar society. Saw none initiated when he was there; by ie...tiating, I.e means, by :.014.1:::n up.his right hand to the bonds Peat was addressed as preset : the panel received Is. 6d. over the reckoning, as collector, to defray the expense of the room : thinks the sum paid by each was 61; was at a meeting about a week afterwards, at Robertson's, in the Gallowgate ; never saw IF Kinky have the bond of union in his posses sion : WAS in Hunter's, in the Old Wynct, on the 22.1 of February, when he was apprehended : the panel, when apprehended there, called himself Brotherston, or Brotherton. and G.bson called hinsselt 14 , Kinley the manner of signifying approbation was the preset saying. All who approve of the bond will hold up their right hands ;" that was what he means by being initiated never saw the bond again put at any DI the meetings, except at Legget's ; witness by no means considers !Outsell as under that bond at this moment. Peter Gibson, prisoner in Edinburgh Castle, knows the panel ; saw him . in a meeting in Dickson's, in December last; there were Dickson, Campbell, M‘Lauchlan, hi' Kinky, and others he *thought there were about ten altogether : there was a promise of secrecy by a shake of the hand, that they would keep any inlormation they got to themselves : was at a meeting in Legget's on the Ist of Janii try ; the panel was there ; the persons he mentioned before were there, and others he cannot name. Witness had got spirits before he went there, and while there Cah oot recollect properly what was done : was at I meet ing at Niel Mune's on the 4th of .1 Jimmy. :ices n o t recollect seeing the panel there, .t 1.-ast he was nut there when the witness was there ; does not k .ow it Sommerville was there; Hood Was there: was in Robertson's on the 15th February ; Was there, and one Finlayson ; and he can say, on his oath, that no oath was there administered by the panel Finlayson. The L RD ADVOCATE moved that these worcti" might be taken down. Witness was present at Robertson't upon the IStli February, along with the panel and Finlayson, when he thinks there was an obligation taken, but L wireteer a promise, or amounting to an oath, he can not say. All present took it. • It was not written— not read—he thinks it was repeated, but does not think by the panel. They bound themselves by that promise to do nothing but what WAy known to the central meeting. He never read any oath, for a very good reason, he cannot read writing. The witness here was asked by the L•inn Jusriee CLERK, on a suggestion by the Jury, whether he con sidered 'himself bound by any oath he bad taken not to disclose any thing within his knowledge ?—He re plied, Npt. James Finlayson, prisoner in the Castle of Edin burgh, was at two meetings at Robertson's, Ili the Gallowgate, in the month of February list, a week or so before lie was arrested. At the first meeting the prisoner was present, as well as Glisten', J. Camp bell, and James Hood, and several others whom he named ; one Robertson was pieses. The meeting chose a select Committee, but for what parpose he does not know—he was fine of the Committee. No oath was administered at the first meeting. Same of the Me gibers brought money, which was delivered to the 'Treasurer, Hugh Cochran. The time was taken up in conversation. At the second meeting an oath was dictated to witness, which he took; the nature of which was, that they were not to tell the names of the select Committee, or the Members of the Committee; the witness read this oath at the table, and which the Members took. Gibson was present at the time this was done, and was standing at the table. Did not know any other oath adminis tered in that bQuse, other than the one mentioned. Some discussion here took place upon a question, whether, alter the specification already given of the proceedings at the meeting at Legget's, the public prosecutor had a right to bring forward charges against the prisoner for oaths administered, not only in the place, libelled, but in different places, which could not have any thing to do with the present prosecution ? . Mr. JEFFRAV and Mr. GRANT opposed this upon the principle, that the Crown had no power to prove what was not and could not besbrought forward in evidence. To this the Court gave their assent, and the evidence was not proceeded in. Witness re-examined.—Know s s one Dickson, but does nut know whether he had a house in Glasgow. Knows one Munns. (fie was here cautioned by the Bench with respect to the administration of an oath on a different day from that before mentioned; but was ordered to retire from the box till the Court had decided whether the prisoner had caused an unlawful oath to be administered in the places mentioned in the indictment on the days and at the places there mentioned.) Mr. CLERIC spoke in support of the objection, that the prisoner was accused of being present at the ad ministering of the oath, when it could be so proved. The SOLICITOR GENERAL followed on the opposite side, and asserted, that the prisoner was present when this oath was talon, which Mr. jeiraY denied Art after several observations from the Bench. It Was de cided that the question propAsed to the critneis by the Lord Advocate should be repelled. He was then asked what the terms of the oath were which was adl ministered at Robertson's ? He said it was the same as appeared in the Newspapers, in the form of a speech In Parliament; and it he had not seen this speech id the Newspapers, he should not have recollected a word of the oath: The examination of the witness was here again in terrupted, and after considerable argument by the Loan ADVOCATE an.] Mr. JEFFRAY, the Bench de• dared it as their opinion that this witness could not be further examined on this point, as it was evident that his inlurtnatii-m was derived merely from News paper report, and not from any thing within his own knowlerige. The witness Was here called and re-examined. He stated that the won was administered to a person whom they met casually on the road, hut did not • know his name. Hugh Dickson, prisoner in the C►s le of Edin burgh, was in Legget's house tin January Ist; there were A number of persons there pr...irnt, among whorl! were the prisoner. Campbell, and Richmond. The oisligatien palled the bond of union was then agreed to, which was read in the presence of the prisoner, but he does sot know by whom. Does not know that it was.taken a; MI oath. but he SAW that the per:- sons composing► Our meeting held up their hands during a part of_the reading. Witness was not 'dyer at thus meeting, b-ing N• w YL.tr's Dry. Was at Munn's on the 4th of December, heard the bond of union read, and one man took the secret part of it, and read it to himself, holding up his hand while he read it. lie cannot say. whether the prisoner was then present. the room beings over crowded he did not know whether the prisoner reined, but he did not see him in the room. The examination of this a itness being concluded, the Lono AnvocATE rose and ad, ressed the Court, stating, that in consequence of the di, appointment he had experienced in the tutu which the evidence he had adduced had taken, he found he could not re ceive the verdict which his former _impressions had led him to expect. Il e ther e for e would not take up the valuablii time of the Judges airt Jury in goill fur ther into discussion which could neither be benefice tl to the country nor to hie prisoner. lie therefore left it to the Jury to return a verdict of Not Proven or Not Guilty, as they deemed most proper. Mr. JtEritAvipaiJ a high compliment to the Lord Advhcate, and the other Counsel for the Clown, for their humane conduct on this occasion ; and stated, that he had not sticti an occasion on which the con duct of the Court had been dinicted to the mainte nance of the constitution and the liberty of the subject with more propriety. _ _ Tho Jou returned 3 verdict of Net PIOWM. The L•'nu Jusi ice CLERK then addresbed the pri. whey neArly Andiew ftl•Ko.ley —ln consecptence of what has pawl' this shy, a Jot y )our co un try has returne l .t verdict of No Pr.o ea; )ror hay.: la-ii duly tried upon the roost patitiat iiivekii,;atiiai, and the Prosecutor has trot upon this occasion p:oduced evi dence to find you guilty of the charges in the iiimet. ment. The evidence has been tins . .vistactrry ; but looking to your own declaialon, and the moon/ given in by your Cutinsel,.the vc•tdict of Net Proves is a proper verdict. Tint, verdict leaves, however, mink upon your character, which nothing but a lite of rectitude wt.' wipe off; you have had a lull, fair, and impartial trial; it must sheer you the safeguard of • British Jury, and most leave upon your mind conviction ea the security and happiness of the people of this ci - tintry ; it sliew•s ti: it :he laws extend to their protection. You now return to society; have no more secret either by fronds, oaths, or en gagements. Abstain hoot wen practices, and no such charge call Caine against again. Hold ma, fog the future, to your lellowci.intrynien, that the lawn afford protector► to the persons of the subject►, and charge theft, to hand down our happy Constitu. Lion unittipaited to the lit:est posterity. Ky your fu ture lifn justify the vereict of the Jury. If you have been misled by wicked men, he determined in future to love in the paths ol honesty and virtne." Belpre leaving the bar, the prisoner addressed the Cow t as follows : MY 1.0141)8.-4 am not in a capacity to stand s from a weak state of hotly, to return you my thanks long speech ; b u t I thank your Lordships, and the Gentlemen of the J•nt, for your unwearied at. kntirin this long duntib case; also the Lord Advocate, for his kindness to me dining the time of my imprisonment, in admitting my Mends to visit me without restraint. To n y Counsel my feelings will not allow me to express fp/self." The prisoner then bowed to the Court, and retired. Tuesday evening a boy, about five years old, son of Mr. MATHEWS, of Eilgeware•road, was suffered to play in the fields near his father's house, until his mother, thinking it was tame lie should retire to rest, sent the servant for him. To the terror of the latter, however, be was not to be found. Immediate search was stn on foot and at nii- i ht a young man named FIELD returned to Mr. MATHEWS with the pour child, almost in a state of nudity. The account which this little fellow gave was, that he was enticed away by two women, who gave him some cherries, and on getting him near Edgeware, at the close of day, stripped him of his clothes, and left him in that :tate On the highway. FATAL EFFECTS OF DRUNKENNIESS.On Satnrday litt an Inquisition was held at Stretford, near Man chester, on the body of a man found dead in a hay. shed, near Stretford, the day preceding. It appeared, upon the inquiry, that the deceased had bees in a drunken rambling state some days, and having been employed by a liquor-meichaut in the neighbour hood, it is supposed, took an opp.ranney of bring ing off a sample bottle of sttoog spirits, which having indulged tuo freely with, it ttinrnated in his death. The bottle was found close to bm. The Jury found a verdict—Died by excessive dr inking.— Suoday evening anther Inquiiitiae, was held in that town, on the body or a woman, found in a drunken state in the strict, at one o'clock. in tits morning. She was taken borne in a wheelbare'•"+ by two butcher's men, who were passing :at rte time: and she att.-ray-Ards died.—The Jury, in this CAW alio . found a bans Lir verdict.