Star. — London, England, 1821-12-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 14. THE KING V. DREW. This was an indictment against the defendant for ilful and corrupt perjury. Tile perjury alleged was, at the defendant had sworn before a Committee of [louse of Commons that Colonel John Bailey had offered him £2O or £SO as an inducement to him to give him his'Vote for the Borough of Hedon, in York shire. during an election which took place for that Borough, in April, 1820. • Mr. SCARLETT stated the case to the Jury,and called Colonel Bail ey,who . was examined, and denied that he had eve, male the defendant such an offer as that to which he bad sworn. Cross-examined by Mr. Towrow.—He did go to the house of the defendant, and said to him, you were hostile to me on a former occasion ; I hope you will be friendly to me on this." Witness had relieved per sons when in distress, but had no view in so doing to electioneering purposes. He had paid £5OO for tavern expenses. Had heard that the electors of Hedon would expect money for their votes after the election was over. When he went to canvas Drew he was accom panied by a person named Clifford. The defendant's father had a vote, but witness did not canvas him ; he called twice on Drew with Clifford; believed he went a third time alone. R. Clifford accompanied Colonel Bailey to Drew's house. No money was offered to him: money was not mentioned at all. W. Wells was in town at the time Drew was exa niined, and after the examination they went together to a public-home to the Attorney, to get his expenses for him. Drew complained the money offered was not sufficient ; and said, if he had known they would have treated him so ill, he would not have come to town at all. Colonel Bailey never gave him any money. Cross-examined.—Did wit say before the Commit tee, that he waited on Colonel Bailey's voters at Storey's Tavern after the Election. Mr. Tun Torr then objected to the terms of the in dictment ; the defendant was charged with having perjured himself before a Committee of the Lower House of Parliament ; he had made inquiries, and could not learn that Lower house of Parliament was a pro;-,er description of the House of Commons. The LORD CHIEF Arm ee overruled the objection. Mr. Tuftroa then addressed the Jury at consider able length, on behalf of the defendant, and dwelt particularly upon the circumstance of Colonel Bailey's third visit to Drew's house. when he went alone. The Crime Jt.”.;TIGE summed up, and the Jury found the defendant—Guilty. TILE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION. THE KING V. DOLBY. This was an indictment against the defendant for , publishing a supposed libel, of and concerning his Majesty, prosecuted at the instance of the Society of of persons calling themselves ‘• The Constitutional Association." The case of the King. v. Thelwall, Esq. had stood first on the list of the Association' cases appointed for trial this day, but for some reason the King v. Dolby took precedence. The Special Jury List reduced for the trial having been'called over, only three Gentle men appeared ; upon which Mr. GURNEY said he would pray a tales; and prayed it accordingly. Mr. SCARLETT.—My Lord, as Mr. Conley has prayed a tales in this stage of the business, I propose to challenge the array for unindifferency in one oldie Sheriffs, who has returned the Common Jury panel. I am instructed that John Garratt, E , q. Alderman, and High Sheriff of the County of Middlesex, who has returned the panel from which the talesnien are now to be chosen, is one of the subscribers towards defraying the expense of this prosecution ; that he is a member of the Constitutional Association, and con sequently that be is not competent to return a panel to try this indictment, it being a prosecution of his own. I take this objection on the authority of a case in Leach's Crown Cases, the King v. Smith. Mr. GURNEY,—The regular way is to challenge the array. The CHIEF JUSTlCE.—Certainly it is. I understand Mr. Scarlett to be stating his objection as matter of challenge to the array. I suppose, Mr. Scarlett, you are prepared to present your challenge? Mr. ScAßLETT.—Certainly, my Lord. The CHIEF JUSTICE.—Then hand it in. Mr. SCARI.!.TT handed in his challenge, which was reduced to writing on paper, and read by the Clerk at Nisi Prius, to the following effect: " And hereupon the said Thomas Delby prays judgment of the panel of the tales aforesaid, because, he says, that he is pro- secuted by certain persons, styling themselves The Constitu tional Association.' and that the said panel of the tales has been made by -- Venables and John Garratt, Esquires, Sheriffs of the County of Middlesex • and be says, that the said John Garratt, Fay . at the time o f making the said panel, was me of the sub s cribers to the said Association, and one of the prose cutors of this indictment, which he is ready to verify ; wherefore be prays judgment that the said panel may be quashed." The CHIEF JUSTICE.—Does Mr. Gurney propose to demur to this challenge? Mr. GURNEY requested to see the challenge, and it having been handed to him, he said—Properly speak ing, it ought to be on parchment, and not on paper. The CHIEF JUSTICE.—Of course the panel will be put into the form in which the defendant means here after to abide. Mr. SCARLETT.—T am somewhat surprised at such an objection. Whether the challenge is on paper or on parchment, signifies nothing at this moment. Cer tainly it will afterwards be reduced to parchment, and must be made a part of the record like other proceedings. The CHIEF JUSTIOE.—Do you demur, Mr. Gurney ? Mr. GURNEY.—No, my Lord ; I take the issue upon the fact stated in the challenge. Mr. Sc. KLETT.— My Lord, I do not require my friend to put his joinder of issue into form. Tryers must be sworn,but some person must return those tryers. The CHIEF JusTicE.—The Court appoints tryers. That was the course adopted at Maidstone some years since. On that occasion two of the Gentlemen of the Jury, who were not challenged, were appointed tryers. In this case three of the Special Jurymen appear, and I don't know that I can appoint more proper persons than two of those Gentlemen. There can be no objec tion to them.- Mr. ScAntarr.—My Lord, I apprehend the chal lenge goes to the Special Jury as well as to the Com mon Jury panel. The CHIEF Jusrics.—No, Mr.Scarlett a it does not, ; go to the Special Jury. Their appointment k an act of the Conn, and not of the Sheriff. Your challenge , is as to the array of the tales. It seems to me that two of the Gentlemen who have appeared are as in different persons as can well be selected. I r eally Mentioned 'them as being two of the most indif- ferent persons. Mr. GURNEY—At Maidstone, Mr. Justice BuHeti said, that the usual course was to take some of the officers of the Court as tryers. The Cuter JUSTICE—It seems to me that I cannot elect two more indifferent persons. William Fisher, Esq. and James Taplin, Esq. two of the Gentlemen abovementioned, were then sworn, " well and truly to try whether, at the time of making the panel in question, John Garratt, Esq. one of the Sheriffs of the County of Middlesex, was one of the prOsecutors of this indictment," pursuing the words of the challenge. Mr. SCARLETT shortly opened his case in support of the challenge, and proposed to shew, that Mr., Alderman Garratt, at the time the panel was made, was a Member and Subscriber of the Association, ' , and consequently incompetent to make a return. The, following. witnesses were then called : Mr. Nettlefold, Attorney for the defendant, de posed, that he attended before the Master of the I Crown Office, to reduce the Special Jury panel, for the trial of this indictment, in May last, but before he did so, he required of Mr. Murray, the Solicitor for the prosecution, a list of the names of the Consti tutional Association, Mr. Murray having informed him that that Association were the prosecutors. In consequence of this requisition, Mr. Murray sent him a list on the 29th of May, which the witness now produced. In that list he found the names of Sir George Garratt, and John Garratt, Esq. Alderman. Opposite the latter Gentleman's name was a subscrip• Lion of five guineas, and opposite that of the former, a subscription of one guinea. Witness knew Alder man Garratt as a public man. He believed that the Alderman Garratt mentioned as a subscriber in that list, was one of the present Sheriffs of Middlesex, and the Gentleman who had returned the panel in question. The indictment was found by the Grand Jury on the 16th of May. Mr. S. Roberts deposed, that he was present at Guildhall, London, at the last Election of Sheriffs for Middlesex and London, in the mon I► of June. On the first day of the poll, he heard Alderman Gar ran, one of the candidates for the shrievalty, declare in a speech from the hustings, that he had been a Member of the Constitutional Association, but that since he had become an Alderman, he had withdrawn his name, conceiving it incompatible with his situa tion as Alderman, to continue among them, as hr might possibly be a judge in his own cane, in hi!. capacity of Magistrate ; he had, therefote, ceased to be a Member of the Society. The worthy Alderman had been pretty sharply handled by the Livery on that occasion, and this declaration had proceeded from him, in consequence of the opinion sshich they hadexpressed as to his conduct, in becoming a Aim- 1 ber of the Association. Ott the third day of the Election, however, the worthy Alderman retracted his words. Witness could not state precisely in what language the Alderman retracted his previous de• elaration ; lie could not even state the substance of what he said ; it was in the course of a si.eech !torn the hu,tings. C're.l's•esntniaed.—The Alderman had been pretty sharply handled in the Hall. There was some noise in the Hall, but not much for a Comn:on Hall.— There were five or siX hundred persons present.— They were tolerably quiet; he could not recol• lect one word of what the Alderman said, when he retracted, as the svitiiess had before expressed him self. The Alderman did on that occasion say, instead of retracting, that he had ceased to be a Member of the Association for a week before. Mr. Garratt had been an Alderman for some short time before. This was the case in support of the challenge. Mr. GURNEY then addressed the Jury on behalf of the prosecution, and expressed his surprise at the ob jection sshich had been taken on behalf of the de fendant. As it had been taker., however, lie trusted he should be able to shew most satisfactorily, that it was without foundation in fact. He should shew, by the evidence of the worthy Alderman himself, that he was not a Member of the Association at the time the panel was returned. It was very true that be had been a subscriber, but he had nothing whatever to do with the details of the proceedings of the So ciety, and almost the moment he became an Alder man he withdrew his name. He had now nothing to do with the Society, and was as indifferent as any other public officer could be with respect to this prosecution. Mr. Alderman GAItRATT, who was in atteodance in Court, was then tendered as a witness ; n;!en which Mr. SCARLETT interposed, and objected that he was not a competent witness in this issue, being di rectly interested in the result, and in fact a party to the issue, which was, whether he was or was not indifferent? A leng desultory discussion then took place as to the Sheriff's competency. No cases were cited on either side bearing upon the question. The point was discussed upon general principles, and at length, The CHIEF JUSTICE said, there being no authority cited on either side, I think the safer course is to con sider the witness incompetent. I do not, however, by any means, pledge myself that the fact is so. It is a point that deserves much further consideration, and I beg to say that I do not decide anything : and I wish that it may not be considered as a precedent tq be acted upon hereafter. Mr. Sharpe was then tendered as a witness. Examined by Mr. SCARLETT on the voir dire—l believe, Mr. Sharpe, you at least are a prosecutor in this case—there is no doubt of that? I apprehend there is no doubt of it. Mr. SCARLETT submitted to the Court that Mr. Sharpe was clearly incompetent as a witness; for he had an interest in supporting the Sheriff if he could. The Cntee JUSTICE—Such an objection might be taken in every possible case. No, I don't think I can reject him. Mr. Sharpe then deposed, that in December last the Constitutional Association was formed. In May and June last, Mr. Sheriff Garratt was a Member of the Association ; in May I know he was, and as far as lean recollect, I think he was in the month of June ; but he certainly was in May, I think through the whole month of May ; he ceased to be so some time before he was•elected Sheriff; but I cannot take upon myself to say how long he ceased to be a Mem ber before he became Sheriff; he did not act in .the Society, he only subscribed five guineas ; be never at tended any of the Meetings of the Society. Cross-examined by Mr. ficaaczni—What are you?—l am Ho- 1 ' norm Assistant-Secretary (4 burst of l aug hterthrough the Court). That is not your way of business : I ask you what you are— what is your business?—l mean to say, that I maintain that situation in the Constitutional Association. Yes; but what business do you follow?—I am not in any business. Then this is your only business ?—I have no business whatever. You live on your fortune?-4 live on means that I possess. Were you ever in any business?—l was in the Manchester trade—the cotton trade. How long ago?—'lwo years. Had you ever any other business?—l never had any other business. And you have been two years without any business?—Yes. You say that Alderman Garratt became a Member of this Association by subscribing his money ?—Yes. That was the case with a great many people, J believe?—Yes. Have you returned the Alderman his money ?—1 ant not aware that the money has been returned to him. What has become of it?—lt went into the general fund of the Society, amongst the other subscriptions. Were you Treasurer?—No; Mr. Alderman Atkins is. Why do you say that Alderman Garratt ceased to be a Mem ber of the Association?—lle did cease. The Loan Unice Jusnce—What act did he do?—He ad dressed a letter to me, as Secretary, upon the subject. Have you got that letter here?—No, I have it not here : it is amongst the papers at gte Society's Office. Was that printed Address circulated by you (A printed paper handed to the iritness)?-1' es, it was circulated by me. The Address was not tendered in evidence. Mr. Scatterre thanked Mr. Gurney's witnesses for the sup port they had given to the defendant's case. This was the case for the prosecution to support the negative of the issue in question. Mr. SCARLETT addressed the tryers in reply, and contended, that, on Mr. Gurney's own sheaving, the challenge was made out; for it appeared that at the time the panel was made the Sheriff was a Member of this Association, and for anything that appeared to the contrary, he was at this instant a Member. The Loan Curer JUSTICE, in his charge to the tryers, observed, that in the trial of this issue there was nothing whatever which could in the slightest degree cast any reflection upon the personal charac ter and conduct of the Sheriff. Throughout the whole inquiry there had been nothing suggested which ounht to give him any pain or uneasiness. It was simply a question of fact, whether, at the time the panel was made, he was a Member of this Asso ciation? On the part of the defendant, it was averred in the challenge that he was a Member: this was denied on the part of the prosecution; but his Lordship observed, that it was the duty of those who ished to support the negative of the proposition to chew, by the most distinct, clear, and satisfactory evidence, that the Sheriff was not a Member. Had such evidence been adduced?' It was for the tryers to declare, by their verdict, whether he was or was not a Member of the Association at the period stated. The tryers deliberated a few minutes, and found their verdict in support of the challenge, thereby af firming the fact that the Sheriff was a prosecutor at the time the panel was made. A burst of satisfaction broke forth from the audi tory the moment the Jury declared their verdict. the CHIEF JUSTICE—The course now is, to return the proceedings on the post en . This and the other cases in which the like objection exists, must there fore stand over. Mr. GURNEY—If your Lordship pleases. The CHIEF JUSTICE—The proper course is to make them all remanets to the next Sittings. Mr. Thelwall presented himself to the notice of the Court, and said, that notwithstanding the objec tion which had been taken to the indictment, he had rather be tried that instant by a Jury, however con stituted, even if it consisted of the Members of the Association themselves, than that this prosecution should continue to hang over him. Mr. ScaRLETT begged to observe, that he was net Counsel for the Gentleman who was now addressing the Court. The Loan Curer JUSTICE—IS it your desire to waive your challenge, and that your trial should come on immediately? It is undoubtedly compe tent to you to make your election now, or, if you' think tit, the Court will give you till to-morrow to consider the course you may deem it expedient to take. ' Mr. Thelwall said he should certainly wish to con sult with his professional adviser before he decided; but he did not wish the case to stand over finally this day, so as to preclude him from bringing on his own trial immediately. He was about to enter into a detail of the sufferings he had endured during the progress of this prosecution, when the LORD CHIEF Jusrice said, it was unnecessary to say any more on the present occation. The case would stand over until to-morrow, and, that the Jury might not have the trouble of attending upon an un certainty, the defendant must then be prepared to say whether he would waive his challenge and pro ceed .to trial immediately. Mr. Thelwall thanked the Court, and retired. The names of the several Jurymen who wouldhave tried the indictments brought by the Constitutional Association, werethen read over proforma, that every S:,ecial Juryman in attendance might receive his guinea, which was paid by Mr. Murray in Court. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 13. MAIBIN V. SADLER. • The plaintiff in this case is a livery-stable-keeper at Brighton; the defendant is thi proprietor of an exten sive repository for horses in Goswell-street. It appeared that in August last the plaintiff let a horse and gig to a young man named Durant, to go from Brighton to London, and from thence to Southampton, for eight days. The time expired, and neither Durant nor the hot se were heard of. In consequence a reward was offered for the recovery of the -property. After a long and laborious search, the horse was recognized as one of four, harnessed to a coach from Dartford to Lon don. rom inquires made there, the horse was traced to a Mr. Bray, who purchased it from Mr. Sadler, by whom it was sold for Durant in August. It appeared that it was put up for sale at Sadler s by Durant, and notbringing the expected sum,wasbought in by Durant himself. It was, however, afterwards sold by private sale to Mr. Bray. To recover the property from Mr. Sadler, it having been sold by him, the present action was brought. The value claimed for the horse was £3O. It further appeared that Mr. Sadler, on being applied to by Mr. Maibin, and told that the horse was his, of fered to have it given up, provided that £3O were paid to hiM, and he would forego the 30s. his commis sion on the sale. This fact was relied on as proof of the sale by Mr. Sadler. The horse, gig, and harness, were sold for 50 guineas, but the gig and harness wer e got back by the plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHItN, for the defendant, con. tended, first, that a conversion of the property b y Mr. Sadler was not sufficiently established to ten d er him liable to the action ; secondly, that the identity of the horse was not sufficiently made out; and lastly, j that it did not appear clearly that the plaintiff had not made the sale of the horse and gig conditional to Durant, upon its not being returi:ed by him wi t .4 a j the eight days. To support this view of the case, he called— Mr. Sadler's clerk, who proved that the ho rse was put up to sale at his employers' by desire of p nt ,„. and was bought in by Durant himself for s i xte „; guineas and a half. He (Durant) then t‘ - ck tin:More and gig from the Repository, and sold the m f or thirty guineas to Bray, outside the door. On his cross•examication by Mr. Sejeant Tiamv, Ire said that the sale of the horse and gig w 4 a i ~... ivards booked by Mr. Sadler, and char ge d i n M , Bray's monthly account. Mr. Sadler charged thi ny shillings as his commission. Mr. Bray, to whom the horse was sot!, was text called ; and he stated, that Nt hen Maibin applied to him first res;.ccting the horse, he (!;ray). i n a I .„i s take, brought cut ancv.het horse, ninth Maibin said was the one he sought. tie admitted, however, t h a on seeing the real horse, he immediately recognized him as the one which he had let to Durant. Mr. Serjeant 'FADDY replied to evidence; nrd LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, the Jury returned a verdict for the pl.tintiff—Dain:igt: DEC. 14.--..-CORK V. BATT AND ()Timis. Mr. Serjeant LENS , tated, that this waS an actin brought by the plaintiff to recover L(100, bvin , 4 amount of a sum of !Loney given to the plaintiff:ma his wife by a deed of a Mrs. Henley, lately decea , ea, independently of any legacy c(:atained to her w 44 under which the defenda.:ts were executors. Th e wife of the plaintiff Wai NI: s. Henley's niece, andilut Lady had always expressed a particular affectian4. wards her. Mr. Webb, the plaiff's Attorney, proved the hand-writing of Mrs. Henley, and the due exeNtio : of the deed. On his cross-examination, he de,.nsed that Mts. Henley, at the time of executing the deed, was in the perfect enjoyment of her faculties. Wit. ness had read the deed over to her before she afsn4 her name to it; he had also explained the dismr! parts as he proceeded. There bad not beta the slightest attempt to deceive her as to the natutenf the instrument. Mr. Serjeant VAUGMAW, for the defendants, then addressed the Court, and observed, that hi, chest s had only been induced by a sense of duty to all pr. ties to btit.,g this case to a public inve,,igati.o, cause they had believed that Mm Henley, at thetime of executing the deed, was not aware of its n at ,, ieet effect. The evidence of Mr. Webb wai.satistfc:.l on that point, and he therefore submitted to a verdict for the plaintiff. OLD BAILFY. Yesterday, John Long (aired.' y twice convicted fon similar offet:cet) was indicted for stealing, and Jodi Rideout, for receiving, knowing it to have been stolen, twenty-two yards of paper-hanging, the property ai Thomas and William Cox. The prosecutors are exteQsive paper-hanging•mo nufacturers, in Playhouse-yard, IVhitecross-street,ani Long was their porter, and had been so fur the le,: seven years. In October they received an anointnom letter, informing them that they were plunderel as large extent by Long, and in consequence the ;:6!ize officers were employed to watch him. They follss him on the morning of the 13th of October toh Lion and Lamb public-house, in Gulden-late, thts kept by a man namod Wayman, and in which Rik. out, who was Wayinan's brother-in-law, reided.- Long, on entering the house, took a roll rf pipe hanging from under his apron, and delivered as Itideour, who was in the bar, and the latter pct's under the counter. The officers went in, and old for the paper which he had just revived from Lail . ; and he denied knowing anything a4c.ut it. 'find cers called to his recollection that he had just tats it from Long ; but he still denied it ; and they tba searched under the counter, and took out the pipe in question; and Itideout, seeming to recollect his. self, said, he had taken it from Lung, but he hie really forgotten the circumstance. On examisit the house, the officers found it papered from top to bottom, with the paper-hanging belonging to thepm secutors, and which must have been stolen byLosg. Hideout, in his defence, declared his ignoranceths the paper was stolen; and accounted for his denialta the officers by saying, that he bad forgotten. is hurry of business, having taken the paper. Long made no defence. The Jury found bah the prisoners Guilty. The same two prisoners were again put upon this trial with Waymn, the landlord of the Liusvi Lamb, when nearly the same evidence was addetti It was proved that Wayman had acknowle44 buying paper from Long which - was, at cost pg 4 nine-pence per yard, for tive-pence. The Jury found the prisoners Guilty. The following were also convicted of felony, viz.—Ann k king and Illary Quinion, for stealing 26 rids of Irish lit; Abraham Myers and RObert Day, for stealing four rup; /14 Baylis, for stealing two napkins, &c. (sentenced to be find! shilling and discharged) ; Mary Brett, for stealing two rings; John Maul, for stealing ills. of ginger; Ann Jul" for stealing 7s. 641. Robert Jackson, for stealing ZOlbs. of ME John Haydon, for stealing 10s. John Driscoll, for steslinglik. net; Samuel Chip, for stealing a handkerchief; Sarah 6.64 for stealing a watch, &c. Caroline Butterworth, lot 1. 10 4 1 shawl; Sarah Taylor, fur stealing a shirt; Thomas Wait for stealing two loaves; Thomas Parkins, for stealing l James Newby and Samuel Schofield, for attempting $ three pair of stockings; John Morris, for stealing two pr,. brass rings ; John Lynch, for stealing three boots • An man, for stealing two spoons ; and Henry Blacks ball, few ing a hat. DIED. Wednesday, at Brighton, Phu be Hassell, aged 111Tet i His Majesty had, for the last seven or eight yeas, albs w deceased 10s. 6d. a week. COUNTRY MARKETS. Ozroito, Dec. 13.—Wheat, per bushel, Os. Od. Prier d i° half-peck Loaf (Wheaten) h. Bd. Decamp., DEC. n. —Wheat, per load, £7 Os to 11601:: New Wheat, £7 to £l6 Os—Barley, per quarter, 1 0 245--o.Bs, 16s to 24a—Beans, 22s to 83s.—Rye. O tell" Peas, 28s to 325. _______---------- I HIGH-WATER at LONDON BRIDGE TO4oo° Morning - 11 minutes *furl - r Attervonn - 54 ----. • . . . • ..'."'"77:5...=.........-.......' rg .4! Mi i ebm ties or • *5l SI II SI se 1 161 • 9 11 11 •17 1 rid * L) DO ; rrinted and published by LEM. Kah pace, Temple 2u. it.th )1111 VW'