The National Register. — London, England, 1822-11-24 00:00:00

.IMM.F. not to strike oat a punishment not prescribed by the laws of the ouuotry. The prisoner Gardner hod been capitally can visited, and was to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour ; lie was only 19 years of age, and had had lenience of death passed upon him. Gardner represented himself to be ill, and the Surgeon, Valentine, represented him to be in perfect health. He had inflicted a wound an inch deep above the knee of his fellow-prisoner; mud it appears t had beau cursing sod reviling the magistrates of the county. The very characteristio of Bridle's life was humanity and tenderuess. On board the hulks he could go down between (leas among the convicts, without arms its his bands, when no other dared to venture among seals desperate characters. Sir John Ackland repre owned him as the friend of the friendless, &o.—The prisutiers who came forward had au interest iu speaking in his favour, but heartfelt gratitude. Mr. Justine Bayley asked if the defendant was dismissed from his situa: ion iii consequence of this and other charges. Air. Williams said it was so—there were charges voluminous enough to all the Court, They were produced by that man who never set his toot but where discord .was—who was like the horse of whom it was said, no grass ever grew whore he sit his foot. Mr. Erskine, jun. likewise addressed the Court in mitiga tion. lie trusted the Court would consider it their duty to discharge him without any punishment at all. The whole ob ject the defendant aimed at was to repress insubordieatiou iu the vol. No other punishment had been iullicted ou this man that what his conduct deserved. Mr. Manning followed on the same side. The Attorney-General said, it was not his object to with draw from their Lordships consideration the topics of mitiga tion which had been urged, nor the benefits which would hol low to the defendant. His dismissal from office was not upon this but various other charges. The question for their Lord ships' consideration was, how far the detendant had committed • very serious (Menne, in overstepping the boundaries of the lew—in the inflicting capricious punishiueut at his will land pleasure. This be was not at liberty to do even iii the case of a person who had forfeited his life to the laws of his country. 14.. was not to be tortured by his ;owlet.. Dmendiunt alleged that the blister was suggested by the surgeou.—Referring to the evidence of the surgeon, nu such fact appeared, but on deftudaut's own assertion. Was it to be endured (said the Beamed 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 occureuce book that he bad sentuared this man to solitary con finement, but does not enter either the blister applied or the strait-waistcoat. If ever there was a cause fur public inves tigation it was this; to bold example to others. Ilowever high a 111110 . 11 character stood for benevolence, it would not sanction misconduct like this. It must go forth to the public, under their Lordships' authority, that such conduct in gaolers was against the law of the land, her the protection of other pri soners. In his (the Attorney-General's) opinion this was not • case of such trilling import as to go unpunished. Au offence of a very serious nature bad here committed. He thought he had unly discbsrged his duty in bringing this case before their Lordships, and of reminditig them of their duty to the oousti tuition of the country, which was, by their sentence on this defendant, to deter other gaolers from following the example of this defendant, in overstepping the bouudaries of the law— ns the preteuce of inflicting punishments on unhappy prisoners, for the support of his authority. The Bench conferred together for some minutes. . 'hie Lord Chief Justice said, the Court would consider the punishment to he awarded the deleudatit, and for that purpose lot him attend again to-morrow. VIE &ISO V. WILLIAMS. Mr. Scarlett moved the judgment of the court on the de fendant. _ _ . . 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 clergy of Durham and the vi cinity. The libel appeared in the Durham Chronicle, of which the defendant wee editor and proprietor. It related to the death of the late Queen, and contained a statement of voluntary disrespect on the part of the clergy of Durham, in omitting to tall the bells. Mr. Brougham, as counsel for the defendant, moved fur a rule to thew cause why the judgment should not be arrested, or a new trial had. His application to arrest the judgment was made on two grounds. First, there was an error in the decla ration with respect tattle clergy alleged to be libelled. The de• fendant wan charged with libelling the clergy of the established cherub; secondly, the clergy of Durham ; and thirdly, the clergy residing near Durham. These allegations were, accord ing to Mr. Brougham's argument, vague and indefinite. The clergy of the established church was too general. There was nut a sufficient designation of the parties to whom the libel was said to imply. With respect to the clergy of Durham, the allegation might be stipposed to apply to dissenting clergy, and the terms " in ur near Durham,' did not specify any precise place or residence. Near Durham might mean three miles or twenty miles from Durham ; iu short, the allegations were irn perfrrt, and the prosecution cold not be sustained. The learned counsel having disposed of his points fur arresting the judgment, stated the ground on which he eapected a new trial, in ease his first objections should he over-ruled by the court. It appeared that Baron Wood, who tried the defendant, said, iu his charge to the Jury, „ Gentlemen, I inn required to state whether this is a libel or not, and I must tell you that I think it is a gross libel." The learned Judge, according to Mr. Brougham's argument, in thus addressing the Jury, gave a mis direction, inasmuch as the Libel Act did nut require him to gibe boy opinion whether it was a libel or not. The Jury were also misdirected upon another voila. The learned Judge had told them, this Court had found it to be a libel, when they granted the criminal iefinniatimi. The Court could not decide upon the question ; if they could, of wind use was a trial 2 Upon these and other grounds Mr. Brougham contended there ought to he • maw trial. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion the learned counsel had not produced oily feet to induce the court to grant a new trial. The charge made by the learned Judge was not objec tion:Oak. It was not a misdirection. Telling the Jury that the Court of King's Renal, had considered it a libel, was no more than calling the recollection of the Jury to the lindin4 of a true bill by the Grand Jury. On the other grounds stated 1..) the letrinid counsel, Iris Lordship thought there was some weight, arid the court grantbd a rule to show cau►e why judg ment should not be arrested. Rule Nisi lliktll. FRIDAY, NOV. 22. THE RlhO E. BRIDLE. The defendant beitix placed on the their of the court, Mr. Justice !Idyls,- proceeded to ins* sentence on him in the follosing Orme You have been found guilty by a Jury of your country, nod are now to stand to remit e the judgment of this court, for unlawfully punishing s youn4 mini named Card o• u .bout Id or 19 years of age. lie was under nent.•on• ofde.ith, but his **minium was commuted to imprisonment in the house of THE NATIONAL REGISTER correction, to be pat to bard labour for 18 montliv. It appears that whilst he was in your custody he was punished for °Weems committed within the gaol. In the mouth of November, 18x0, he oomplsined he was ill, but on the surgeon's examining him the surgeon declared he was sot. Hv was confined in a solitary cell ; between which and the punishment an unfortunate inter view took place between you and the surgeon, Prior, and so cording to the affidavits he suggested to you to apply • blister to this man. Whether the suggestion Caine either from one or the other, made no difference ' • both wire in the wrong to suffer an 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, either dination will cease. It is important to prisonet ato know, that when goo:era emceed those limits, they will be punished. It was a blister calculated to produce puin, but not to have dan gerous consequences. For many days he was kept in a straight waistcoat. It is the duty of the gaoler to report any thing un• common that say happen is 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 Gardiner. You mast have been conscious at the time that you were sot acting correctly, or you would have mentioned it, that is might have met the eye of the visiting magistrate, who would have given his opinion whether it was proper to be continued or tie. While the man was in solitary confinement there was no reason why the straight waistcoat should have been applied. It wan not punishment likely to endanger, bet it was a deviation Irons your line of duty. From the e•idence it appears he miseon- Clucted himself; bet that does net justify you. A good cha racter lass been given you by many respectable persons: It appears that you were under the eye of a Capt. Smith for many years, and had his highest approbation. In the general tenor of sour duty you have conducted yourself with great propriety, which has been taken into consideration by the court. It appears that you went beyond your duty even an a gaoler, in attending to the comforts of the persists under your charge, and that you even exposed your person to danger in visiting persons who had contagious disorders, to see if they bad every comfort their situation repaired. I sincerely believe it is a solitary in stance of a deviation from your duty. The court look whether it has not produced any inconvenience to yourself. It has con tributed to your removal from your situation at llchester, and you have suffered great uneasiness of mind. You are couseious that a man will he Drought to punishment by this deviatiou Iron, duty, and that you have sacrificed your character. Great bit terness must be produced by this thought ; you are conscious that you are looked upon with a different eye from what you were before. What you have &uttered will deter another man Jrom following your example (for, from what has occurred, it is not likely that you will be in a situation to eommit it again.) The keeper of a gaol is to keep in safe custody all persons com mitted to his charge, but is not to annoy them in any manlier The court do not think it necessary to visit your offence with imprisonment, but, fur the purposes of justice, the Court do order and adjudge, that you pay a flue to the King of 501. and he in the custody of the Marshal of the blarshalsea till such line be paid." The defendant immediately paid the fine, and bowing res pectfully to the court, withdrew. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. ABBOTT v. YOUNG. This was an action to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage. The cense was tried at the York assizes, and a •erdiet found for flit plaintiff, with 1501. damages. The plaintiff was a young woman who lived servant with the defendant, a cornfactor, at Bramwell, near Leeds. Uuder promise of marriage lie seduced her, and she was delivered of a child. The defendant finally married a Miss Coach°, and abandoned the plaintiff. At the trial the promise of the delta• dent to marry the plaintiff was proved by Emma Abbott, the plaintiff's sister. The defendant's letters also were read, on Lich the Jnry were induced to find their verdict. Sergeant Hullock, on a former day, moved for a new trial, on the ground that they had not been able at the trial to read two letters from the plaintiff to the defendant, which would have led the Jury to conclude no promise of marriage had bee., made by the defendant. At the trial it was stated in evi , !, ence that the plaintiff could not read, and consequently the counsel for the defendant was not in a coaditiou to prove th letters.— Since the trial affidavits had been procured. ;stating that the letters had been written by the plaintiff's s..ster, under the dic tation of the plaintift—Upon those :..iidavits the court were induced to grant a rule to chew btuse. Mr. Rejoin this day 'hewed cause against the re:e. In this case, he said, promise opera promise hail been made to the poor girl, and wedding clothes bon,••:. 'Clime was, in short, no ground to disturb the verdict. The court wished the letters to he read, for the purpose of seeing whether they interfered with the doe course of justice. Mr. Rainie read Oleo. The following are passages : .• Stit,—This comes with kind love, hoping you are well.—l cannot say lam very well at present. Little Eliza is a very line girl—yon would hardly know her if yon saw her. If you have forgotten me you may recollect little Eliza. I shall be much obliged if you would get me a situation. I think if it had been Miss C— or Miss A— you would have written to them. I hope you will write to me, if convenient ; if not, you may do as y ou please." '('be other letter contained this pessage Sitt,—Mr. Crowther and Thoinas Insist on my eoniing to Wakefield to father my child. I should like you to send word w hat you will allow fur the Leer, of your child." Sergeant Bullock. Mr. Williams, and Mr. Brougham were heard 111 support of the application fur a new Vial ; hut the court held that it would be gross injustice to disturb the verdict. New trial refused. 7•IIE KING V. MEsSITER. In this prosecution against the delitolant, for subornation of perjury at the trial of an action for words brought by Sir T. Clianipneys, ►tart., it MOllOll was sonde for arrest of jittlginent. The Lord Chief JuNtioe stated this day, that the court could not hear the arguments on the question during the present term. The decision consequently stands over to next trim. TUE Kim; v. A MAGINTRATL OF IlEttEfoßD. Mr. Campbell moved for a rule Whit.; on a nmaistrate of the county of lieretoni ( whose name be dial not mentions In chew cause why a criminal information should not issue against The magistrate had • neighbour natn. d Austin, whose mill was supplied from a water-course running through his grounds. In August last, Ma. Austin employed a t.ork Inas to ft nee and elm the water course, as he had al•rays dune without objection, when the mngistrate directed • constable to tale one of the eurltuen named Proliert, kin custody, and °any him to the ..ound-liouse. This wan done ; and though Mr. Austin teaered bull and uttered to deptedt 1001. to ensure the idle:Mance of the man to answer any cli,tge against him, the sisa;istrtte refused to set him P: liberty, but detained bin', wet and without his jacket, till eight o'clock i• the evenine, when he per mitted his primmer to depart, on a pa otnise to &mint at a petty sessions then t,st day. On the morrow the mos appeared at the sessions, whtitr he foetal two tua4istrates besides the gentleanas who sn had detained him ; they said that there was no ground to detain hhst a a44Met hit sommtkrilik wrong to sit in Judgment en his owl amass; but so mow woo they gone, than that amasser ordered him again to be taia into custody. On the 9d of September he pursued the some conduct towards another of Mr. Austin's workmen. Mr. Justice lityley asked if the nun Lad dons any thing but commit a trespass? Mr. Campbell replied in the negative, and added, that they were wily working in the same way in whirls Mr. Austin bad always directed the water•onurse in be repaired• Air. Justice Bayley—The eliar i e is then against a magistrate in the execution of his office ? Mr. Campbell—• Certainly, my Lord. Mr. Justice Bayley—You may take a rule to show cause; and probsbly we shall not hear of the matter ageis. Mr. Campbell toko his rule. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. TIICRiiDAY, NOV. 21. Mr. Sergeant Leos on this day said the defendant was not able to accede to the offer of the plaintiff to bring 5001. into • court making an order of reG•renoe to ascertain the real ■mount of the goods furnished by the plaintiff as discount for the bills. lie should only repeat to the court the observation, that the plaiutiff could not recover more than the consideration actually advanced, as lie had derived no benefit whatever from the bills. Mr. Sergeant Vaughan observed, that to save further ex pence lie would take the verdict for the amount proved by the defendant's evideuee, which lie believed described the amount to be 8001. This offer was not accepted, as the counsel could not agree as to the sum really proved to be the value of the goods. Lord UlisfJustioe Dallas remarked, that this case had already been tried twice, and the question was, whether it should go down to a third trial ? Whoever discounted hills of exchange. to a certain extent speculated on the solvency of the parties, whose names were attached to them. Toe plaintiff's counsel bad most liberally offered at the second trial to take the verdict for such sum as the Jury should think really the value of the goods hut the Jory had given a verdict for the full amount of the two hills, on the ground that the circulation of bills of ex change should be as little impeded as possible. The case bad better stand over for the parties to look into the accounts, and alter the verdict accordingly. The parties, however, not seeming to be likely to agree on the 'mount, the court refused Mr. Sergeant Len,' motion for a new trial, on the plaintiff's consenting to reduce his judgment from 1,0001. to 7501. FRIDAY, Nor. 22. Lord Chief Justice Dallas sat this morning at Guildhaif, to bear cases at Nisi Prior. The four causes heard were unde fended, and of no importance. (Sittings in Banco.) At eleven o'clock the court met in Westmin►ter. CAI 11AM P. lIYAM. Mr. Sergeant HoHock in the course of the present term ob tained a role to shew cause why the award made in this ease should not be set aside. The ground of the application was, that the authority of the arbitrator had been revoked by one of the parties to the reference before the award was made, and the affidavits imputedimproi er 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, and contended that this was not a case in which the court would interfere to assist the defendant. The original action was one of assaunpeel for money had end received for the plaintiff's rise. The defendant admitted the receipt of the money, but defended the action on the ground that he bad paid it over on the plaintiff's arecnut. When the cause came on at the York :►seizes, 1820, it was referred to arbitration by We recommendation of the Judge who presided, and an order of Nisi Prins was made to that effect. After this the defendant frequently :ailed upon the übitrieur, and canted severe! di.1.9 • hr , the award, and at length revoked the arhitraten's authority b? deed. The arbitrator, however, proceeded is the afitir, and made his award in a few d. 3 a after. The learned Sergeant submitted that if the court were to set aside the award wader such circumstances, they would be opening a door to the meat •ezatioas proceedings on jthe part of fraudulent defendants, who, after a cause was referred, might, when the matter was about to be finally settled by the arbitrator, Wino in and :evoke his authority. and thus delay theplaintiff and defeat the purposes of justice. He submitted therefore, that in the present case ULe defendant was not entitled to relief, and that the ride oe o lit to be discharged. The Lord Chief Jastice Dalian risked what was there in this case to take it out of the general award ? The general rale was, that to award was null and of no effect, wbe■ wade after the revocation of the arbitrator's authority. here the award was isade after the authority had been revoked, and the order or Nisi Prins was not made a rale of the meet emit after that award had been decided. Had the award been made under deed of reference, it w. uhi undoubtedly be had if made) after the revocation of the authority. The question Ono was, whether there was any,siel what differeoce between a deed of reference and an order of Nisi Prins. In the rate of Smith v. .►stun, the counsel for the award argued as the learned Sergeant (Cross) did in the present, and maintained that an order of Nisi Prins would be used only as a means of delay, if the party could, before the term, and before the order could be made a rule of court, revoke the krbityllnes authority. In that ViSe, however, the cowl decided t at flue award could not stand, thonOt they cidiwctd part of the order by rendering the party creating the delay liable to costs. In the present case, what ever might be the writs of application, the strictness of prao• tier required that the rule he made absolute. The other Judge coucurred in this opinion, and the rule was made absolute. By an order of last Sessions, no shop of any kind will be allowed to be kept within the walls of War. wick Gaol or House of Correction, and that no ser vant of the county shall directly or indirectly sell any thing to the prisoners therein confined. Like wise, that no apprentices, or other persons, commit. ted by magistrates as a punishment, nor any persons sentenced at the sessions to confinement as a punish ment, will be allowed to purchase victuals or to receive any from their acquaintance, but that they are to partake of no other diet than the county al lowance of Lread nod water, unless in case 61 sick ness the surgeon and ap.ithccary who attend the prison shall direct otherwise. A rewcvdlale 1.1r111..-r s"1,1 a N•uth Pohertno fair PO mime Somerset owes Or 131. saint farms r sold a two years ago, fur too. uwte than the vg ewes now