The National Register. — London, England, 1822-11-25 00:00:00

THE NA' REGISTra correction, to be put to bard labour fur lb months. I. appear. that whilst be was in your custody he was punished for offences committed within the gaol. In the month of November, 11120, he complained he was ill, but on the surgeon's examining hid the surgeon declared be was not. He was confined in a solitary cell between which and the punishment an unfortunate inter view took place between you and the surgeon, Prior, and ac cording to the affidavits he suggested to you to apply a blister to this man. Whether the suggestion came either from one nr the other, made no diffentose ; bolt were in the wrong to suffer au application of that kind. It is of importance to gaolers to know that they should keep within the limits of their duty to preserve subordination, and if they go beyond that limit, sober dination will cease. It is important to prisoners to know, that when gaolers exceed those limits, they 'will be pmdshed. If wits a blister calculated tis produce pain, but not to have dan gerous consequences. For many days be was kept in a straight waistcoat. It is the duty of the gaoler to report any thing ore common that may happen in the course of the discharge of his duty, in an occurrence book. No mention is made in the oc currence book of the punishment of Gardner. You mast have been conscious at the time that you were not acting correctly, or you would have mentioned it, that it might have met the eye of the visiting magistrate, who would have given his opinion whether it was proper to be continued or no. While the man was in solitary conlinenteot there was no reason why the straight waistcoat should have been applied. It was not a punishment likely to endanger, bat it was a devintitio from our line of duty. From the evidence it appears he miscon 'ducted himself; bat that does net justify yea. A good ohs racier him heed given you by many respectable persons. It appears that you were ander the eye of a Capt. Smith for many years, and had his highest approbation. lit the general tenor of your duty you hare conducted yoarsetf with great propriety, which has beentaken into consideration by the 1111011. It appears that you went beyond your ditty even as a gaoler, in attending to the comforts of the persons under your charge, and that you even exposed your person to danger in visiting persons who had contagious disorders, to see if they had every comfort their situation required. I sincerely believe it is a solitary in staace of a deviation from your duty. The court look whether ' it has not prodneem any inconvenience to yourself. It has con tributed to your removal from your situation at Ilchester, and you have suffered great uneasiness of mind. Too are conscious that a man will be brought to punishment by this deviation from duty, and diet you have sacrificed your character. Greet bk. must be produced by thi s ~ thought ; yea are conscious that you are looked upon with aillEferent eye from whet you were before. What you have suf f ered will deter another man porn following your example (For, from what has occurred, it is not likely that you will be in a situation to commit it again.) The keeper of &geniis to keep in safe custody all persons com mitted to his charge, but is wit to annoy them in any moaner The court do not think it necessary to visit your offence with imprisonment, but, for the purposes of justice, the Court du order and adjudge, that you pay a fine to the King of 501. and be in the custody of the Marshal of the Muslialses till such Sae be paid." The defendant ime.ediately paid the Sue, and bowing res pectfully to the court, withdrew. BREACH OF PROMISE OP MARRIAGE. ABBOT? 0. YOUNI• This was an action to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage. The cause was tried at the York assizes, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, with 1501. damages. The plaintiff was a young woman who lived servant with the defendant, • cornfachor, at Bramwell, near Leeds. Cuder a promise of marriage he seduced her, and she was delivered of a child. The defendant finally married a Miss Cuselin, and abandoned the plaintiff. At the trial the promise of the defen dant to marry the plaintiff was proved by Emma Abbott, the plaintiff's sister. The defendant's letters also were read, on which the Jory were induced to find their verdict. Sergeant Bullock, on • former day, moved for a new trial, on the ground that they had ant been able at the trial to read two letters from the plaintif f .to the defendant, which would have led the Jury to conclude no promise of marriage bad bee,' made by the defendant. At the trial it was st.ited in evidence that the plaintiff could not read, and consequently the conasel for the defendant was not in a condition to prove the letters.— Since the trial Ada% its had been procured, stating that -the letters had been written by the plaintiff's sister, under the dm ' tation of the plaintift—Upon those adidavits the court were induced to grant a rule to chew cause. Mr. Hahne this day 'hewed cause against the ru:e. In this case, he said, promise upon promise liarl been made to the poor girl, and wedding clothes bought. Tuere was, in short, no ground to disturb the verdict. The court wished the letters to lie read, for the purpose of seeing whether they interiered a i.ii the One course of justice. Mr. Rainie read them. he follow ing are passages : •• Slit,—This comes with 1. , id love, hoping yOU are well.-1 cannot say I sin very well at present. Little Elize in • very fine girl—yon would hardly know her if you saw her. If you have forgotten me you may recollect little Eliea. 1 shall be much 01614..1 if you would get me • situation. I think if it had been Miss or Miss A— you would have written to them. 1 hope you will write to me, if conveuicut if hot, you may do as you please." The other letter contained this ; assage sic—Mr. Crowther and Thom.ts insist mi miming to Wakeiield to father my child. I should like you „u send word *hat you sill allow fur the keep oi you child." Sergeant Bullock, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Brougham were heard iu support of the applieattou f r a new trial ; but the court held that it would be gross injustice to disturb the veadiet. New trial refits i:lsh r. nESSITER. In this prosecution manhole the defendant, for subornation of perjury at the trial of an action for auras brought by Sir T. Champ:ley a, Bart., a motion was made for arrest 01 jadginent. The Lord Chief Justice stated this day, 'that the coma could not hear the aigunients on the Viestion d g the present term. The decision conseimently stands over to nest term. 719: 11151 V. A VAGISTP.Are 4.F nenevo;tl). Mr. Caniphell moved tor u ruie calling 03 a origistrate of the cott:ity it Her, ford (whose name lit- did not mention) to *hew cause why a criminal infortnation should sot issue against him. The magistrate hail a neighbour 11.1.11 Cd Austin, 14101/Le 11.111 was supplied from a aster-course riming through his grenade. In Au6ust last, Mr. Aus;tn palpitated • aurkmun to fence And .Joao the water c mrse, as he had always done a i;liout objectien, when the magistrate directed a con.ts'ile to (eke one of the workmen named Probert, into eustudy, and curry him to the ound-louse. This was dime ; and through Mr. Austin tendered call and uarred to I:101. to eoroire the ativntian...e of .he ma.' to answer Nov Octr i ze ii.ciinst bi.n, the onListr it.• refused to set him at liberty. hut iletaired I im, met noA win!smit his ,ticket till eight &Mods in the evening, when he permitted In.. prisoner to depert, on a protnivi to at a petty se...atoms the nett day. On the morrow the moan apptared at the aeseicre., w licit he tuouti tofu nmaletrate• brace* the . gentlemen elm • 311 had detained hint ; they said that there was so grottos to detain him, and that his seen.er did wrong to .it in lodgment on I is ow• cause ; but no sooner were they gone. than that aoctissr ordered him spin to be taken into custody. On the INI of September he pursued the same conduct towards another of Mr. Austin's workmen. Mr. Justice Bayley asked if the men bad dune any thing but commit a trespass Mr. Gampbett replied in (fie negstise, and added. that they were only working in the same way in which Mr. Austin bad Wets?* directed the wateroinuese to Ise repaired. Mr. Justice Bayley—The eitar„e is then against a magistrate in the mention of bin olhce r!Pl"" not in strike out a punishment not prescribed by the laws of the country. The prisoner Gardner had bees capitally con victed, and was to he imprisoned and kept to bard labour ; he was only 19 years of age, and had bad sentence of death passed upon him. Pardner represented himself to be ill, and the Surgeon, Valentine, represented him to be in perfect health. He bad inflicted a wound an inch deep above the knee of his fellow-prisoner; and it appeared had been cursing and reviling the magistrates of the county. The very characteristic of Bridle's life was humanity and tentleruess. On hoard tine bulks he could go down between decks among the . convicts, without arms in his hands, when no other dared to venture among such desperate characters. Sir Joints Ackland repre seated him as the frieud of the friendless, Ste.—The prisoners %s 100 canoe forward had no interest iu speaking inn 6.3 favour, but heartfelt gratitude. Mr. Justice Bayley asked if the defendant was dismissed from his situation in consequence of this and other charges. Mr \Vilnius's said it was so—there were charges voluminous enough to all the Court, They were produced by that man wino never set his foot but where discord was—who was like the horse of whom it was said, no grass ever grew where he ►at his foot. Mr. Erskine, jun. likewise addressed the Court in mitiga tion. He trusted the Court would consider it their duty to discharge him without any punishment at alt. The whole ob ject the defeodant aimed at was to repress insubordination in tine gaol. ho other puaishineat hal been indicted on this man that Mist his eonduct deserted. Mr. *lnning followed on the same side. The Attorney-General said, it was not his object to with drew from their Lordships consideration the topics of mitiga tion which had been urAed, nor the benefits which would fol low to the defendant. His dismissal from ollice was not upoa this but various other charges. The question fu: their Lord ahips' consideration was, how far the detendant had committed' a very ser ons offence, in overstepping the boundaries of the . law—in the indicting capricious punishment at his will pleasure. This he was not at liberty to do even in the case of a person who had forfeited his life to the laws of his country. It- was not to be tortured by his ;.aoler. De'endant alleged that the blister was suggested by the surgeon.—Referring •to the evidence of the surgeon, no such fact appeared, but on defendant's own assertions. Was it to be endured (said Do doomed gent.) that the gaoler should trifle with t hose commit ted to his care! It was stated, that the violent and unnatural conduct of the man was the provocation. He stated in the occurence book that be had sentenced this man to solitary con finenneat, bat does not enter either the blister applied or the 'trait-waistcoat. If ever there was a cause for public invee tigatioa it was this; to hold example to others. However high a man's character stood for benevolence, it would Dot sanction misconduct like this. It most go forth to the public, under their Lordships' authority, that such -conduct io gaolers was against the law of the land, fer the protection of other pri soners. In his (the Attorney-General's) opinion this was not a case of such trilling import as to go unpunished. An offence of a very serious nature bad bora committed. He thonght lie had only discharged his duty in bringing this case before their Lordships, and of reminding them of their duty to the cousti tution of the country, which was, by their sentence on this defeadsnt, to deter other gaolers from following the example of this defendant, in overstepping the boundaries of the law— on the pretence of iulicting punishments on unhappy prisoners, fur tine support of has authority. The Bench conferred together for some minutes. The Lord Chief Justice said, the Court woule consider the punishment to be awarded the defendant, and fur that purpose let him attend again to-morrow. THF. KING tr. WILLINMS. Mr. Scarlett moved the judgment of the court on the de fondant. The learned Judge then read the record of the trial. The defendant was indicted for the publication of a libel on the established clergy, and also the olergy of Durham and the vi einity. The libel appeared in the parkas, Chrouirld, of which the defendant wins editor and proprietor. It related to the death of tine late Queen, and contained a statement of voluntary disrespect on the partuf the clergy of Durham, in omitting to toll the hells. Mr. Brougham, as counsel for the defendant, moved for a rule to sinew cause why the judgment should not he arrested, or a new trial bed. His applioation to arrest the judgment was made no two grounds. First, there was an error in the decla ration with reepeat to tine clergy alleged to be libelled. The de. fendent was charged with liltelling the clergy of the established choral; Secondly, tile clergy of Durham ; and thirdly, the clergy residing near Durham. These tilegstione wer e, aceov.l -ing to Mr. Brougham's argument, vague and indefinite. Tine clergy of tine established church was too general. There was taut ■ eitilie,ent designation of the parties to whom tine libel was said 'to apply. ith respect to the clergy of Durham, the allegation inlaid be supposed to apply to dissenting clergy, and the terms in or near Dunham,' did not specify any precise place or residence. Near Durham might mean three Indies or I wenty miles from Durham ; in short, the allegations were im perfect, and the prosecution could not be sustained. The lenrned counsel having disposed of Inc points far arresting the judo:tent, stated the ground on which he expected a new trial, an case his first objections should lie over-ruled by the °mut. It appeared that Baron Wool, who tried the defendant, said, in his charge to the Jury, "Gentlemen, I am required to state whether thin in a lihel or tint, acd I must tell on that I think it is a gross libel." The learned Judge. accoidiog to air. hiroughoms arguniebt,in thus addressing the Jury, gore a mis direction, inasmuch as the Libel Act did not require him to give any opinion whether it was a libel °root. The Jury were alai) misdirected nyin another point. The learned Judge had told them, this Cant had found it to be a libel, when they granted the criminal Liforanation. The Court could nut decide upon the question ; if they could, of whit use was •4 trial ! Limn these aid other grounds Mr. Brougham contended there ought to be • new trial. The bond Chief Justice was of opinion the learned counsel bail not produced any fact to induce the court to grout a now 1641. 'flue charge made by the learned Judge uai not ohyoc tisinahle. It ass not a misdirection. Telling the Jury that tilt Court of Wm+ had considered it a libel, was no more Om caking the recollection of Ilia Jury to the lindin4 of a true bill he the Grand Jury. On the other grOUII4I4 slated by the learned his Lirdship thought there was sonie weight, and the court granted a rule to skew cause why judg• meet should uut be arrested. Rule Nisi talc& 11. 1141” IY, NOW. 22. TIIE KING" I. 1111101. E. The defendant being placed on the floor of the court, Mr.Justiee Bayley proceeded to poor sentence Oil lion in the folloniug terms :—" Yon Imvr been Anhui guilty by • Jury of your country, nod are now to stand to receive thi. judgment of this coeit, for unlawfully punishing a young Mall unmed Gard ner about 18 or IJ yeai sof ag::. Hr woo under sentence but his sentence was CU.44l.luted to i 4144.41 Louse of Mr. Campbell--Certainly, oy lard. Mr. Jostle, llsyley--Von may take a role to show class ; and probably we dull not bear of tbe matter again. Mr. Campbell tuko his rule. COURT OF COMMON Put As. TIIURNDAY, liov. It. Mr. Sergeant Lens on thin day said the defendant was net able to accede to the offer of the plaintiff to bring 5001. into court making en order of reference to ascertain' the real ao.uut.t of the goods furnished by the pinintiff as diseaue. for the hills. He should only repeat to the court the °bier/Mimi, that the plaintiff could not recover more than the consideration actually advanced, as he lied derived no benefit whatever from the bill.. Mr. Sergeant Vaughan observed, that to save further ex pence he would take the verdict for the amount proved by the defendant's evidence, which he believed described the amount to he 8001. This offer was not accepted, midis connect could not agree as to the sem really proved to be the viable of the goods. Lord ChiefJustiee Dallas remarked, that this case bad already bee. tried twists. and the question was, whether it eh•.uld go down to a third trial I Whoever discounted Oleo, etchange, to a oertain eatent specalated on the solvency of the parties, whose names were attached to them. The plaiotiff 'a ooasset had most liberally rif.ared at the second trial to take the ventiet for such sent as the Jury should tide's really the valor of tb• goods ; bet the Jury had given a verdict for the fell amount of 4he two bills, en the grown that the circulation of bills of ex change shoeld be asirttle impeded as possible. The case bad better stand over (or the parties to look into this accounts, and alter the werdiot accordingly. The parties, however, not seeming to be likely to agree os the moan, the court refused Mr. Sergeant Leos' 'notion for a new trial, on the plaintiff's consenting to reduce his judgment from 1,0001. to 7501. Mehl, snit. 22. Lord Chief Justice Dollar sat this morning at Cihiball, to hear cases at Nisi Prima. The fear t oases heard were unde fended, end of no importance. (Sittings is Basco.) At eleven o'clock the court met in Westminster. Zlbsetsaat R nem& Mr. Sergeant Rellock in the coarse of the present term oh. Mined a rule to sbew cause why the award made in this rams should sot be set aside. The ground of the application was, that the authority of the arbitrator had been readied by one of the parties to the reference before the award was made, and 144 *Siderite imputed improver conduct to the arbitrator, and also .barged some of the witnesses with perjury. Mr. Sergeant Cross proceeded this day to show cause against the rule, sod contended that this was not a case in which the court world interfere to model the defendant. The original action was one of nassaysia for money had and received fur tim plaintilra use. The defendant admitted the receipt of the monry, but defended the Refit)e on the grouted that he had paid it over on the plaintiff's acconnt. When the swim came on at the York Assizes, in 1820, it was referred to arbitration by the recommendation of the Judge who presidert, and an order of Nisi Prins was made to that effect. After this die defendant frequently called upon the arbitra , ur, and canard several delay e in the award, and at length revoked the arbitrator's authority by deed. The arbitrator. however, proceeded is the affair, and made his eased in a few d+ys slier. The learned Sergeant submitted that if the court were to set aside the award 1111111 . 1 . such circumstances, they would he opening a door to the mast vezati )))) s proceedings 011 'the part or frauduls tit def. mimes, who, after a cause was referred, might, when the matter was about to be finally settled by the artistrator, come in and ley n'ee hi+ authority, and thins delay the plaint di and defeat the purposes of justice. He .4:omitted therefore, that in the pri sent case the defendant was not entitled to relief, and that the rule ou.,lit to he discharged. The Lord Chief Jestiee Dallas asked what was there in this care to take is net of the general award The general isle was, that an award was null and of no flied, when made after the revocation of the arbitrator's autholity. Here the award was made after the authority had been revoked, and the 'order of Nisi Prins was r. it made a role of the court antil after iltot award had been decided. Hid the an aid been made under a deed of reftreuce, it w aid undeuhtettiv be bad amide :titer the revocation of the authority. The question then ass, whether there was any,atel what difference between a deed of referenee and an n: der 411 Nisi Prins. In the case of dinith v. Aston, the counsel for the award argued as the learned Sergeant t ('ross) (lid in the present, sod uiviutained that 1111 crde t ef Nisi Pies would I.e ti.ed wily as a :timers of debit , , if the early ortu!d, before the terra, and before the eider could be made a rule of court, revoke the arbitriter's tethotity, lit tout es .e, bowers r, the court decide.** at the Snarl! emlil not stand. thou,h they enforced put of tie order by rendering the imiy • creating the delay liable to coma. In the present case, what ever might 1w the merits of application, the strictness of prac • I ice required that the vole he mimic The other Judge concurred in this opini no, and the rule was made absolute. • - - By an oracr oMIM2 S.:wltris, no shop of tor kind will be allowed to le 1.... pt within the %tails of IV :r. wick Gaol or noes of Correciion, tuAtthat no `jr vent of the county sball, directly or indirectly any titbit; to the pristiners therein confitiell. L.... wise, that no apprentices, or other pt mops, tea by NagiNtratti as a punislitn.qn, nor any persfots sentenced at the pt.-salons to cor,littootut to a paa:../1. Men% will be all - oved to porthaas vietw.la or to rtceivc any front their ncquaintance, but that they are to part: ke of no other diet th..n the county al lowance of bread and water, sinless iu case of sit k nees the surgeon IPAup , tliceary wla attend the prison shall uirect otherwise. A r.-soketattie f.otot f J 1 Nne;tt 1 3 1 . 1tlertoln fair ZU pi i.iir Som, rset ewe, ./11. 151. Th:. saii.e firmer had a Ire. Iwo :Ta3 a l ;w„ for 'us. more thin our t 9 ewes Low fetched. • r F