The National Register. — London, England, 1820-05-22 00:00:00

166 LAW REPORT. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MOND %V. IV:As.• IS. An unusual bii,tle was this morning displayed in NVestminstcr Hall, in consequence of the great anxiety manifested by all ranks of people to procure a place in Court. The interesting proceedings which were this day appointed to take place, naturally nett:int for this anxiety. Besides the judgment to be passed on Mr. HUM and his companions, it was generally understood that Sir C. Wolselev was in attendance, expecting that his sentence woM.I also be pronomiced. Several noble men were in Court, amongst whom we noticed Lord Apsleyand Lord Binning. Mt. Justice Best entered the Court a little before ten o'clock, and after going through some business of no public importance, was soon after followed by the other Judg,es. The Attorney-General then prayed the judgrtitat of the Court on 11.tnry Hum, and others. Mr. Hunt immediately made his appearance in Court, attended by all the other defendants, with the excep tion of Johnson, who WAS then engaged in preparing an affidavit. On this account Inc proceedings were de layed for a short time. Mr. Hunt, accompanied by Johnson at length returned to the Court. All the de fendants being now in Court, The Chief Justice inquired if all the affidavits were • ready. • 'Mr Bunt.—ls it necessary, my Lord. to put in all the el davit• at present? They are very long. Lord Chief Justice.—Yes; they had better he laid before the officer. I hider some peculiar circumstances, an opportunity is -sometimes afforded of filing an afli davit io reply. The affidavits were then put in. In reply to a question from the Chief Justice, The Attorney-General said, that he would not put in any affidavits until he had heatd those of the defend ants. The officer then proceeded to read the affidavits, be ginning with Mr. Hunt's. It stated, that he received' an invitation to preside over a meeting to 'be held at Manchester on the 10th of August last, which invita tion he, the dephnent accepted. That on arriving at Bullock Smithy, he was informed that the meeting was abandoned, in consequence of the interference of the magistrates. That he was then informed that a meet ing was appointed to take -place on the 16th, and that 'he. much against his own inclination, was prevailed upon to remain in Manchester until that period. That during that time, having heard-that a warrant had been issued for his apprehension, he went into the Court house, and addressing Mr. Wright, inquired if this in formation was true. That he was told that no warrant had been Issued ; and after informing them that he should always be ready to meet Ahem peaceably, he de parted. That ou the asiorning.of the 16th he set out from the house of his friend, Mr. Johnson, and ar rived at the place of meeting about one o'clock. That the meeting then proceeded, and was proceding quietly, when they were attacked by an armed body of cavalry, who cut down men, women, and children, without resistance. That he deponent, arrested this slaughter, by inquiring of one of the officers near the hustings the reason of these proceedings, and being informed that he held a warrant for his apprehension, he the deponent, immediately jumped down; and requiring a police-officer to execute the warrant, he immediately surrenderea into the custody of Mr. Nadin. It then declared that the deponent believed that the yeomanry had intended to destroy him ; that, after he was pri soner, he had received two most severe blows from an individual holding the rank of Major-General in the army; and that his life had been saved by the interpo. anion of Nadin. That lie was then thrown into pri son, where he remained eleven days and nights; and, that being brought , up for examination, he was remand ed, as he was then told, on a charge of high treason. That upon a final examination, he, and several others, ware committed upon &charge of conspiring to hold a seditious meeting, and immediately sent off to Lancas ter Castle, a distance of fifty miles. That he, the de ponent, disclaimed any idea of committing a breach of the peace, and that he only saw the mottos of two of the flap, neither of which were exceptionable. That notwithstanding the opinion of the Lord Chief Jus tice, the meeting held some time previously in Smith field, was held for a totally diflerent purpose from that assembled at Manchester, as was sufficiently evident srom the,purpose expressed in the public advertisements announcing the meeting in Smithfield. That the depo nent, inconsequence of this trial, had been much in jured in h , s private fortune, ar 'that his affairs had been considerably embarrassed. This was the purport of the affidavit, which was of great length. Manyotheraffmdavits were read, sworn to, principally by persons attending the meeting, the whole of whom concurred in stating the legal object for which the meeting was convened, the peaceable demeanour of the multitude, and the unprovoked aggression .of the yeo manry cava!ry. Another affidavit was subsequently read, which im peached the credibility of Chadwick, one of the wit nesses examined at the trial on behalf of the prosecu tion. 1' he Attorney General observed, that perhaps he was wrong in not having interfered sooner, but that lie sub mitted that such an affidavit ought not so have been read. Mr. Justice Rest.—lt not only states him to be un worthy of belief, but goes on to accuse him of treason. Mr. Hunt.—lt accuses him, my Lord, of being the hero of the story which he himself' had told at the trial After consulting the other Judges, the Lord Chief Justice addressed Mr. Hunt, " Have you any thing further to urge?" Mr. Hunt.—" My Lord, had the name of the witness Chadwick beets on the hack of the imlielinent, we ought to, and should have been prepared with witnesses. But he was a witness totally unexpected, of whom we had THE NATIONAL REGISTER. no notice, and therefore we were unprepared to confute. If your Lordships think the affidavit inadniissible, I will not press it for one moment. Chief Justice.—We are anxious to receive whatever ought to be received, and to open the doors of justice as widens possible; hut we must not establish a precedent which may be dangerous in other cases.. The disputed affidavit was again handed up, and some difference of opinion seemed to occupy the Bench. T he Lord Chief Justice at length asked Mr. limit what part I of Chadwick's evidence he wished by this affidavit to impeach? Mr. Hunt.—My Lora, Chadwick stated that he at tended me from titockport to Manchester, and that I invited the people to cheer. Now the affidavits are sworn to by persons who accompanied me all the way, and they deny the circumstance. Jnstice Bayley.-t-That does not appear from the affi davit. Mr. Hunt.---It says, my Lord, that if it had occurred they must have heard it. After some further discussion, during which pan of Chadwict's evidence was read, The Lord Chief Justice said, that as the parties now before the Court appeared to receive judgment, their affidavits ought to confine themselves to facts, which might go in mitigation of puitishment. The reason of the deponent was not stated, nor had they any opportu nity of ascertaining them, and it did appear to him a • most dangerous course to admit affidavits tending to im peach the character of a witness, when defendants were brought up for judgment.—The affidavit was ultimately !ejected. After the affidavits have been read, the defendants severally addressed the Court in mitigation .of punish ment. Mr. Hunt spoke at considerable length, and with great ability. He took a general review not only of what passed at the Manchester meeting, bat what pre ceded it. He related ninny horrid particulate of the conduct of the Manchester Yeomanry, and he concluded by saying, " Let the Court address its attention to the conduct of the Manchester magistrates. Of all the popular meetings which had ever been called—of all those assemblies which Mr. Burke had emphatically termed' the safety valves' of the state—of all those meet ings which had met undisturbed, and from which no evil consequences had resulted—none had been called with so much caution, with so touch attention to regu larity and to legal notice, as this meeting of the 16th of August. The magistrates had every reason to believe that the conduct of that, meeting would be peaceable; they knew that there was no existing law by which that meeting could be prevented ; they knew that acts of parliament were preparing for that purpose; but they were too bold to wait for the assistance of those powers, and resolved at once to seal those ' safety valves' with the blood of the reforinerso What had the reformers done to deserve this treatment? They had said, We are working like slaves, and we are starving when we have done. We labour thirteen hours a day; and, though we live on oatmeal and water, we cannot get enough of that to support our wives and children. We have been told to watt patiently; but we are five years in peace, and our burdens are unabated. We are tired of these miseries, and we will meet together: We think that there is one great cause of all our grievances; we think that a free representation in the House of Commons would alleviate our burdens; we will lay our case before our Prince, and before parliament; we will call upon them to take off some of those enormous sums which are paid to the officers of government, sometimes for doing nothing, sometimes for doing worse than nothing. We will do all this, but we will do it peaceably. "Phis was the language of the reformers: how had it been answer ed? They were told, Your meeting is for an illegal purpose.' They called another of a different nature. bite requisition for that meeting was signed by seven hundred persons ; their names and places of abode fully given. Were those persons strangers? They had lived and worked, some of them 20 and 25 years in the same town, and seven years in the same dwelling. This was ' some evidence as to the character of such men, for they ' were poor men ; and if they committed any offence, ' they were speedily detected and punished, and sent packing. They were not gentlemen , not like Mr. Hol ton of Holton; not men of property who might be steeped to the lips in infamy and crime, and yet live unmolested and undisturbed in their mansions, who were above the reach of being driven front their homes or front society. The Attorney General and Mr. Scarlett, on the part of the prosecution, then answered the leading matter introduced by the defendants, and called for the severity of the Court. Mr. Justice Bayley, after making strong observations on the mischievous intentions of the defendants, deli ! vered the verdict of the Court, which was, that Henry Hunt be imprisoned two years and six mouths in Itches ter Gaol, and enter into sureties for five years, himself in 1,0001. and two others in 5001. each. The other defen dants were sentenced to be imprisoned one year in Lin coln Gaol, and to find sureties for five year., them elves in tool. and ivvet others in VOI. each. At the conclusion of the judgment Mr. Hunt asked if he was to be placed in solitary confinement. The Chief Justice said, the Court had made no order for solitary confinement. The de f endants would be in the usual custody, and if the parties should have any just pretence for complaint, the Court would hear It. • The parties were ilien taken mot of Court in custody of the officers. As they passed along the Hall toa coach, the erowii, which was numerous, gave Mr. limn three cheers. lie wore a smile, hut the sentence produced upon him a strong expression of surprise. THU ICING V. SIR C. WOLSELEY AND JOSEPH HARRISON. The defendants were next brought into Court to re ceive judgment. Nlr. Justice Bayley delivered the sentence of the Court. by which Sir C. Wolseley was sentenced to Ise imprisoned IS tnOttthS in Abingdon Gaol, and at the expiration alba' term, find sureties ior live )cars, I iiiii in 1,0001. and two others in 5001. each. Joseph Harrison was sentenced to he imprisoned in Chester Gaol 18 months, to be computed front the expira tion of his present imprisonment, and to find sureties for five years, himself in 3001. and two others in MI. each. Sir C. Wulseley.—May I ask when I am to go to A biligdon ? The Chief Justice observed, that would depend on the orders received by the officer who had him in custody. The defendants were then taken out of Court —Term ended. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TuesDAv MAY Is Sluing: after Term. TEASDALE V. CLEMENTS. This was an action against the Proprietor of "The Observer" newspaper, for having inserted a libel in that Paper, reflecting on the character of the plaintiff. From the evidence it appeared, that the plaintiff is Constable of St. Pancras parish. On the 3d of October he was going his rounds, accompanied by another consta. hie named Smith, about six o'clock in the morning, whet', in ;he New-road, near Brunswick-square, they saw two men before them, carrying a basket. Their manner excited suspicion, and they pursued and stopped them. On searching their basket, they found a dead body. They secured the men and their burthen, and took them Wine the late Mr. Leach, the Magistrate, when they underwent an examination, and were detaine d the misdemeanour. They refused to tell where they got the body from, and Mr. Leach directed them to apply to some surgeon, and inquire if the body would be useful for dissection. They accordingly applied to the surgeons at St. Thomas's Hos pital, and left word with the porter, the house surgeon not being at home, that they had a hotly in their posses sion, and an account of the manner in which it came into their possession. In the course of the day the surgeons sent their porter for the body, end gave the plaintiff His. to be divided between himself, Smith, and the watch-house keeper, as a remuneration for their trouble. On the following Sunday, an account of this transaction appeared in The Observer, in which account it was stated, that the plaintiff Teesdale was ordered by the Magistrate to have the body interred, instead if which he took it to Mr. Carpue, the surgeon, and offered it for sale, but Mr. Carpne refused to purchase it, saying it was the property of the men from whom the Constable had taken it.—The plaintiff, it was alleged, then took the body to St. Thomas's Hospital, anti there sold it; that the plaintiff had been held to bail to answer for his conduct, at the Sessions. Not a word of this latter part was true, and this was the libel complained of, and for which the present action was brought. The case having been proved, Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury on the part of the defendant. The Chief Justice slimmed up. and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 801. THURSDAY, if AY IS. REUSED AND WIPE, N. JOSEPH AND REORGE PAGE. This was a case of assault. There were two re. cords—the one charging an assault upon the plaintiff's wife, to which the plaintiff himself was of necessity a party; the other charging an assault committed upon the plaintiff alone. It was agreed, in order to save the time of the Court, that the two actions should be tried together. Mr. Gurney, on the part of the plaintiff, stated his case as one of peculiar hardship. His client, the learned Counsel said, was an industrious pains-taking hawker, who obtained his living by vending his com modities at fairs; and the defendants were gentlemen of property, residing at St. Alban's. It happened that, upon the 26th of March 1819, the plaintiff and his wife were attending the fair of St. Alban's; and upon the morning of that day, which was the last of the fair, were peaceably packing up their wares, in order to their no less peaceable departure, when the two de. fedants, who were wont from time to time to amuse the inhabitants of the town with a row, thought fit to make these poor persons the subjects of their dexterity. Those gentlemen, upon pretence of dealing, came to the booth of the plaintiff ; but, instead of making pur chases, by their beastly observations they indecently in sulted and assaulted the wife, and proceeded, by way of satisfaction, to heat the husband for interfering. Daring a period of nearly three hours the defendants continued to annoy and ill-treat the plaintiff and his wife; they broke down the booth, and endangered the loss of the 1 goods • and when the subjects of their sport retr e at e d to an adjoining house, they followed them thither, and threatened their lives. Ihe Jury would naturally sup pose that some attempts to protect theinselve had been made by the plaintilii. Such attempts had been made. Mr. Gelden said to one of the defendants, " I will complain to the Mayor." " Then you must complain to me," answered the assailant, " for I am the Mayor, at least I was Mayor last year." A constable was call ed, " but he dated not touch Mr. Gape." The gen tlemen, the learned Counsel believed, had the excuse of intoxication for their conduct; but if a man behaved ill when he was drunk, he must pay for it when he was sober. The present action had not been brought until very moderate recompense had been refused ; and it was to be hoped that the Jury, in giving heavy damages to the plaintiffs, would at the came time give a valuable lesson to the defendants. A number of witnesses were then called, who fully made out the case as stated by . Mr. Gurney. The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, informed the Jury that they must find distinct verdicts upon each action. The second verdict, however, would, he thought, depend in a great measure upon the first. In causes of the present descriptiail i great consistency of evidence could not be expected: the matter indeed, in itself, was a scene of confusion: he thought, however, that there was at least as much consistency in the plaintiff's case as had appeared in that of the defendants. The Jury found for the plaintiff in •oth the actions, with tool. damages upon the first, nil 501. upon the second. A library is advertised to be sold wholesale in a provincial paper, consisting of " several feel square of handsomely bound books, which are as good al new ) never having been used."