The National Register. — London, England, 1817-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Warrausrria, Nov. 1. SIR MATRIX MIKES T. JOHN MORGAN. This very protracted cause, which was fixed for a hearing this day, was called in the usual manner. Mr. Agar, leading Counsel for Sir Welkin, bring absent in the Court of Chancery, and nut immediately arriving, Mr. Blake, as junior was called on to proceed with the plaint cue. Mr. Blake then moved the Court for an order to put Sir Watkin Lewes in possession of his estates, it appearing that the ojiginal mortgages icon then. had heel' liquidated ; and also for an order to compel Mr. John Morgan to pay into the bands of the plaintiff the amount of rents and other monies tee produce of these estates since the year 1894. The learn ed gentleman stated to the Court the facts on which he gi ()waded his motion, and enumerated the legal proceedings that had been had in this case for a great number of years past. He Mated, that Sir Watkin Lewes, so ter back as 17/5, had obtained rooadea on certain deeds from Messrs. Morgan and others. Mortgages were. afterwards assigned, and in the year 1778, the Messrs. Morgans posaessol them selves of the estates, and Mr. Joke Morgan, the present de fendant, was appointed a reerker for the mortgagees, at a salary. In the year 1783, Sir Watkin filed his original bill in this Court, praying that an account should be taken of the whole account, and that he 'tumid be let into the possesaion of his estates, on paying up the amount in arrear. The Court then appointed a receiver, and referred the accounts to the Deputy Remembrancer. This was accordingly dine. In 1801, the Court Ordered a separate report tasitie made with respect to the transactions of Mr. John Morgan. He did so; exceptions were taken to it, and sebsequently allowed in the House of Lords. The report was sent back to the Deputy Remembrencer, who made another, to which exceptions were again taken and allowed. In 1818. the Depitty Itentem• hnorcer was ordered to compute the interest on a certain sum of mosey, ind to set otl against it the rents and profits arising out of the etudes. Ile accoriliogly again examined and reviewed the accomits ; and from his report it appeared that the whole of the original mortgage was paid Of in the year 1814, and that Mr. John Morgan hail since received 4,9931. This report their lordships had confirmed. It there fore appeared that the original mortgage, by virtue of which Sir Watkin Lewes, was alone dispossessed of his estates, hail been paid off in 1891, and that since that period these estates were forcibly held by Mr. John Morgan, who was only there as a receiver for the Mortgagees, and not as a principal, for the payment of a private claim fie had upon Sir Watkin. Baron Graham.—ls your motion that Sir Watkin Lewes be let into the possession of all his estates, settled tend unset tled ? You know that there were estates differently situated ; there were estates in Glamorgaushice, Pembrokeshire, and other places. Mr. Blake resumed, and said that his motion embraced the letting into possession of all; and for this lesson, that Mr. John Morgan's connexion with them, as receiver, natal ally ceased, when the mortgage under which he received was fully paid off; after that he had no more right to walk in and retain possession for his own private purpose than any other cre ditor. His private account was wholly collateral and distinct from that under which he had been appointed teceiverosith a salary. It was nionetrous injustice and nonsense for him to attempt to convert a security, which hail been given for one purpose to another never coeteinplated by the party origi nally giving it. The Court, tiropeily acting 'llion this princi • ple, had ordered o separate report, which it would have been useless to call for if a manifest distinction were not meant to be drawn between Mr. John Mot ean's situation as a receiver ands the mortgage, and a private creditor. This distinction was clearly laid down in the House of Lords, by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Redeadate. Bat on Graham inquired whether Mr. John Morgan, though originally receive' under the agage, had not be e n s i nce , on the application °isle W Atli Leo es, appoititi d receiver a- art officer of the Court, and thus divested of kis original sititatioil Mr. Blake replied, that this was not the case. Mr. J. Mor. gust had certainly been this oiled of his situation as receiver, under the original contract, and another hail Loren appointed, who rail away. Mr. J. Mot gait then repossessed him s elf in that capacity, as under the first engagement. Sir Watkin Lewes.—This is the case ; the receiver at that I' • alit tech rim away with 6,0001. of my money. Baron fit 4114111.—Mr . Blake's eXpliiiiililolll is important. Thin, to t nth, iliVic is DO receiver by older of the Court. Mr. Agar, who had just entered the Court, was livaid on the same side w Ult Mr. Blake. liarun Graham asked, whether it was not contended that the present defendant stood iii the capacity of agent, not to the mortgagees since Val, lint to Sir Watkin Les es r In smelt a case, then, if au action a: law were brought against it VIII for rents and profits, would he lint have a right to set oil 11.• claim on his principal! file lem lied Judge added, that I: e_ should requite much argument to edify lure him of the centrary. rep li e d. that the rlcfimdant could not take ailvair til 4e ut its own wrong. Ile 11...1 no right to retain pos.essimi, after Ina I, meter any circostusiance. Mr. Datitieey, on the part of the defendant, solicited a short time to prepare his reply to a subject that, lie submit ted, was very momentous and exceedingly complicated. The Coort allowed him nitil the next open day. rriilay, Mr. Danncey replied to the arguments of Mr. Agar and Mr. Blake, contending that a final judgment could not be gis en by the Court, swill the general report was made mit. Or. Saturday, Mr. Nearby, un the part of the defendant, Morgan, went over the amine arguments at great length ; but th it a chum ge of pt ocrastination might not he fixed upon his crew, lie was instructed to say, that if sufficient securities woe given by Sir Watkin Lewes for the payment of any sums which night Intimately be proved to be due by hint to ist,, r ea e , possessiun °Nip estates would be immediately given. Baron Graliani—•` What security can you have? Ton take all a roan has in the would, and then say, give us something morel —lt is idle to talk so." Mr. Agar was proeeeding to reply to Mr. Naseby, when the Court intimated that it must proceed to the criminal eases and appointed Tuesday fur the final consideration. RIISIBIAI4 SQUADRON.—ExtrAct from a letter from the agent to I.loyd's at Gottenburgh, dated the sth instant :—" A Russian squa dron, commanded by Rear Admiral Ilollet, reported to ise bound to Cadiz, consisting of five line-of battle s u ps, and three frigates, an chored in NA' ingo Sound, hating expezieheed heavy gales of wind in the ('attegat ; they have susinined but little damage, with the los., however, of 6111 C anchors and cables. The INemiritti frigate, one of the above three, parted company, from the squadron in the Cane pt. and some doubts are entertain... 4 for her safety, she not having get gutchvi the appointed anchurat,e." THE NATIONAL REGISTER. TRIAL OF WARING. The following is a fuller detail *an we before had room for of the principal points of the croft-elimination of Mr. O'Connor. The part relating to his creed we have already given at length : Were you ever in the county of Cavan ? I was ; ouly once —How long !ago? I cannot tell in what year.—l tell you it was in spring, 1814? I do nut know.—What brought you there? 1 was brought there upon this occasion :—Michael Oweus had been taken up fur fuming notes, or for some dealing of that bind • his mother came, and said, her son would be hanged if did nut gu and and say something fur him at Cavan. (By Mr. Justice Dalv.]—Did you attend at Cavan, and for what purpose? l did attend, my lord, but did not know for what purpose. She said generally to attend, and I did not know the purpose.—You swear, that when you went to Cavan, you did nut know for what purpose yon went? No, nut when the woman came to me.—When yon went to Cavan did yott know conceived it was to ac. quaint the jury that he was acquitted of the robbery chat ged upon him, and that he lised in my neighbourhood, I eon. ceivwd his mother to say to me, that it 1 did nut say some thing of him [I will say ut hit character], he would be hanged.—i Mr. Justice Daly.] —I Was going to ask you, %%lie Bier you did not observe to her, that merely stating his being in the neighbourhood would not he enough? My lord, I told her I thought it would not ; but she was so very im portunate that I did not like to refost . —Then you tuld her yoer goieg would be of no use? Yes, but she was so impor tunate that I did not wish to refuse.—Then yet: went? I did; and at great trouble and expense.—Of course, then, you took a powerful interest in the trial? No, not the least— noire whatever. I neither knew the inan's lawyer nor his agent—Were you esainined? I was.—Vere yen cross examined ? I cannot now say.—Did yon givo Owens a cha_ ratter? No, not what I should call one.— IV kat did yl7ll say WAS asked if I knew Michael Owens ; I 3,1•41, I could not correctly say I knew him. I was then asked if lie was not accused of a mail-coach robbery at my gate, (so the lawyer' at the triafatated it; lie brought Cappagh-hill, which is ten miles off, up to my gate, and I corrected hint.) —1 . .11r. Justice Daly, .j—Were you produced as a witness on the part of the Ciown ? No, my Lord. —On whose part? Ou the part of Owens.—W' hat was the first question put to you? Whether I knew Michael Owens ; and 1 answered that I could nut correctly say I did.—Did you say any thing further i I did. —What ? I was asked whether lie was a MAO Of goad cha racier. I said lie had been accused of a mail.evarit re:, het v, but had been acquitted, and that I nevi r heard any 'leer el,e to his disadvantage.—[By Mr. Jostice e palyl Tli —cii vou were asked as to his character? I was my Lori. 1 heard la had been accused of passing notes robbed out of the mail. The name ut Michael ()wen t{ was IRA mcutioned during the trial. —k By a Jitter.) Were yon not examined to lilt Chitrileis r ? I was not.--(By a Juror,) why I don't know. I ant not 5,_ countable fur the conduct of the lawyer.—Did you go to tLe dock to that man ? By the virtue of my oath, I did nut.— Did you go to the gaol to him ? Never —Did you thank hits counsel fur his exertions? Nut that I remember. I might have said something complimentary to Mr. Deering. I niet hi m , and claimed consangutuity with him, my grandmother's name being Deering.—Did you thank him for his exertions I am confident I did not thank kiln, though I might have com plimented him fur his exertions.—What exertion could there be for them:in, if his name was not mentioned? I said," Mr. Deering you have shown great skill and ability," or to that effect.—Will you now tay, that you did not feel an iota of interest about the trial? I will say no such thing : for I never saw a man, fur whom, till he was.con vicied, 1 should not feel a very lively interest. Such is my disposition. Now we shall leaveCavan, where you' wont in March, 1814. Did you ever attend at Tina', for the purpose o f b e i ng o f use to >liehael ()%% ens r Never.—You sw ear that ? I do.— Now Mr. O'Connor, in 1816, you attended at Naas?—Yes, it was in lelB.—Who desired you to go there ? At present I (wool tell. I was served with a paper, but I could nut bring to my recollection who served it.—Did yon guess by whom, or for what purpose you were brought Here? I could not conceive for what purpose I should be bruti4lit to the trial of Michael Owens.--%t e dud you in the different towns every time this man is tried—at Cavan iu 1814—at Naas in 1816 —you attended there at the time you had the conversation with Mr. Thompson i 111 1:0111•CIIIIVIMe of a paper being delivered to yon? Ye...—But you cutout recollect by whom,? No.—Did you rAtil it ? Yes. —What wits it ? It was to call 1:11011 Inc to appear and give evidence for Owens.—Did you guess what erideuve you could give ? I ',mid not furin an upinion.—Did you guess ? I might guess it would 1m to give him a character.—Did.' on guess it ? 1 can not say.--At the time you got the paper, upon guessing it was to five hint a character, were you satisfied in your own mind that you conlil give him a good character? I was satis fied in my own pitied that I could nut give him a good cha racter.- Then yon would not_ give lino the same character you did in spraig, 1314 ? No.—You would have given Imo a worse % I ivueld.—Did you, when you went to Naas, apprise Owens:: Cionhel or his agent nut to call ilium you, as your evidence would net he of use to him? I did nut; I never said a word about it.--Were you called ? I was.—Were you examined? I was.—Were you cross - examined? Yes.—Were cots examined to any thing but character? I was not.—Mr. O'Contior(to the Court.) —My Lord I am anxious to explain this. I dill go to Nita{ upon the summons, and I met this g,enticietan, Mr. Thompson, at the stable door at the inn. I kuew his pet son, but bad never spoken to him before. After saying !something about others matter, " I suppose (said lie) you ate corning here about Owens." ..I aiu. " To give him a character:" " Ido not know; but if he thinks I will give him a character, be is mistaken ' for 1 will not." I was a l i ttl e testy at the time, and s aid to him, " I know you would have saved me a great deal of trouble, if you had transported him five years ago."—(By Mr. Justice Daly.)—You said you were produced to nothing but character, and that you never com. naunicated to ()wens's counsel or agent what you communi cated to Mr. Thompson ? I did not know his agent.—Then being supsened on the part of the prisoner, you never com municated to those who subpanaed you, what you could swear?—No, my Lord.—That is very extraordinary? fact is so.—Then you gave in evidence exactly what you said to Mr. Thompson ? Yes.—lt was intended you should give him a good character, but you gave him a had t why were you cross examined 1 was asked whether I knew Michael Owens, and I said I could not correctly say I did.— What character did you give him? I said some gentlemen of the country spoke well and some ill of him.—Did you say upon your oath on that occassion, that *heti you spoke as you have mentioned to Mr. Thompson, you were joking? Nut at all.—(By a Juror.)—Dial you swear what you said to NOY 17 Me. Thompson was in a joke? I said no such thing.—(By Mr. Justice Daly.)--What was the further substance of your evidence ? What is your own opinion of the prisoner ?,Such as will not allow of my giving him a character. Having said so I turned about to the Jury and said, that I didaot dacha. giving him a character from any knowledge wh h I Myself had of his unworthiness. But, said 1,1 have an impression on my mind which will not allow toe to do so. Besides it is a good maxim steseitur a smile. Mr. Jebb begged I would translate it for the jury, and 1 did," that a man is known by the company be keeps ," and 1 added, that the prisoner kept bad company. Mr. Jebb said to me, " Don't you think that any person whom you wished to be hanged, or who you said deserved to be hanged, would deserve a bad character ?'' " lie might." I said if you made use of such an expression with regard to Owens, would you not consider yourself hound to give a character of him accordingly? Certainly.— Did you not say to Mr. Thompson, that Owens deserved to be hanged ? You are on your oath. I said I never did ; and that if I had, I should despise myself. Upon which Mr. Thompson said, he must have misunderstood me.—( By Mr. Justice Daly.(—The answer you gave to Mr. Serjeaut Jebb was, that such a man would deserve a bad character, but you never had any such conversation with Thompson as that Owens ought to be hanged.' Did you say transported ) —Av. Rid yon tell the jr.ry even that? No my lord, I don't think I did. Let me ask yon, Mr. O'Connor, whether, after March. 1816, you ever showed any mark of kindness to Michael Owens? Never in all my life to my knowledge.—Did you know that Michael Owens was convicted at the Commission here of a capital offence? I did hear so, and believe it.—And that be was to be executed ? Yes, as I heard, on the 29th of March last. Did you ever propose to provide him with a coffin? Never— You would call that an act of kindness? I do not know that . should.—Did you ever giv c a coffin to a felon before? No. Do you know a man of the name of William Allen? Yes.-- Did you ever ask that William Allen to lend vou a dray to bring up a coffin for poor Nlichael Owens? Never.—Then you dou't remember his saying, that his horses were killed with ploughing; and you then saying, that you Would send up Ned Cot r with a dray of your own? No ; and I would not have suffered Ned Corr to go outside of my gate with a car of I wish tin say a little about this coffia. John Owens, Michael's brother, had been in my employment, and Was taken up in the month of September lin- an alledgial robbery. I knew he was innocent, but he lay in the prison six months, when I bailed bins. After be got out of prison lie was is. great distmess. He cask• no to mc, and said, he was going to his unfortunate brother who was condemned, and that he did not know what to do Miry him. I said I could do nothing, sod could give him nothing. He said he must pledge his great coat to buy a coffin. I said I had done a great deal eady, and could do uo inure. He said there were some windfalls in the plantation, and asked my leave to get as many as would buy a coffin. I felt for the brother Jahn, and told the creature, 'By ill means.'—You did not feel for Michael Owens at all? Nu; they are men of very different characters. .When did you first know, us when had you first reason to believe, that convicted felons under sentence of death took refuge in yonr demesne? I never knew it.- -Did you ever hear it ? I did.—When did you first hear it 1 cannot say.- - How many years ago? I do not know•.—wlio gave yon the first information of it e Mr•. %Wade, the High Sherd' fur the county of Xleatli.—Yon heard that in o whim were taking .refuge iu your &memo.? I did.—Had you any reason to be lieve it? No; I had reason to believe the ellialEary.—What do aim believe now? I can limn no belief on the subjeet.—Did you poll s-lf ever tell any man thatyuu would set Savage, and have him? No; never. The morning alter the robbety. I lies rd that Savage was asleep in my woods, and I sent to John who was brusher-imlaw to the gaoler of 'lron. I asked him if he could be the means of securing one of the men ss had broken out orTi ins caul. [I might have asked lb st whe ther lie Was seem ity for his tootherAo.law.J His answer war, that he coui:d Hot get any one. I then said to him, " %►'ben I eat my breakfast, I will go myse;f, and if I suc ceed is in seeming him, I n ill send to you." " Thank on Sit," said lie. The red book I hail in my hand was a:•y at lile, which I was mailing, and which I ant now engaged in arising on.— Did you send fur hint ? I did.—At what hour did yon eat your breaktitsi that morning ? At My usual hour, about 9 o'clock. --It was a sagacious think in you to take your breakfast first, iii order to Imo you into Malt far the pos.:nit. Did yon cub upon any Alagistrate w tutee c.pect to Savage at litery ? I did told you that Savage was asleep .iu the demesne? email not now trtl yoli.—Yon know now that Savage Wriiicon• eviller' in tile robbery ? I hear lie was.—You cannot say who toll you? No.—Was it a man or woman ? It was a man, but I do not know who.—lle acid he saw him lyiug down in the woods.—When was that? About e o'cluek.—Did you know what Savage Was meant ? I heard it was the Savage who had played the devil, and made a noise and disturbance at Dan gan-gwe the night before.—Did you know it was the man who had woken gaol? J did.—What had Savage been doing the night before? Riutilig and drinking.—Did you go to look for him after you.ate your break-fast ?—I dad.—Was he theie ? He was nut. if lie was I would have secured him.—What words did you use about him to Allen—did you say you would have him set No. I said I would secure him.—Yon had a Bible in your hand ? Yes.—Did you mention the word " se crecy ?" No. Perhaps I might say "Don't say a word abont it, and we shall secure him."—But what necessity was there for imposing secrecy upon John Allen, nho was security for the gaoler? I said I would ►ecure him.—Do you now believe that Savage was in the demesne? I can form no opinion.— After all you have read and heard, Mr. O'Connor, do you mean to say that you cannot form au opinion whether Savage seas concealed in the demesne? No. I have heat d it, but can not form any opinion about it.—You do believe what you have heard :Mont it ? I do not disbelieve it. —Then you believe it ? No ;lean form no opinion about it.—Do yon now believe he was ever in the demesne? I believe he was amongst the robbers. but not hiding in the demesne.—Do you believe the information which was given to you? I did.—You waited till after breakfast? Ycs ; I went home to breakfast.—You applied to no Magistrate? No.—You made no other search ? No. Now how many bags did you find? I cannot tell ; to the best of my judgment three or four large hags and a hundred small ones.—Would it require a horse to carry them all ? I think not, because three men carried them in a bog - barrows.—Did you ever say there was a horse - load? I might ; one man could not carry them.—Where any blunderbusses round? There was one.—Where? Among the mail•coach articles.— What became of it? I gave it to Mr. M'Nabb.—Was these any stamp or mark upon it ? Yes ; it was marked with a number, seemingly a mail-coach stainp.—Any other arms? Not that I saw.—Did you read what was on the blunderbuss? Yes; lam sure it was a mail coach mark, with some number cm it. —Where any guns found found at your son Roderick's house/ 1 do not