The National Register. — London, England, 1818-11-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLMENCE. COUR I' OF CHANCERY,WrowEsDAY, Nov. 11. Tna ATIONNEV-GEN ER. I. V. THE DUKE 01 M•DLOOROGGH• The Solicitot-General stated that this was an information filed by the Attorney.tleileral, at the relation of Charles speereeClotrrhill, co tttttt only celled the Marqnis of Bland. f o rd, an d others, and it prayed that the defendant iht be restrained front cutting down timber OD no an r m of g Blen heim. Th• motion was made upon proper affidavits, and rested on the provisions of an Act of the 3d of Queen Anne, by which the house and manor of Blenheim, sod divers estates, were settled for his eminent services, on John, then Duke of Marllsorough. The preamble of that Act distinctly Foisted out the object of the legislature to have been, to make stick a provision for the family and descendants of the first ancestor, as should he sufficient to maintain its dignity, and not to create an estate tail, or enable any successor to slionate the 'lke Lord Chancellor instantly granted the injunction, ob serving, that hr entertained no doubt with regard to what bad been the intentions of those by whose gilt the estates in question had first vested in the Marlborough family; it was. however, still open t o consideration what were these rights of a tenant in tail, or of tenant for life, which the Act of Parliament had left unrestrained. - COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAY, Nev.lo. 711 K RIM. AGAINST ROW/ITCH AND OTHERS. The defendants in this cause, it will be recollected, were tried at the last Dorchester assizes, for a conspiracy to abduce Miss Maria Glenn, a young lady only 16 years old, front the custody and care of her mother, and a Mr. Tuckett, who had married her aunt, without their knowledge or consent. The defendants, by Mr. Scarlett, their Counsel, now moved for a new trial, on grounds which will presently be stated. The whole number of the defendants were obliged to appear personally in Court for this purposi, as is always the ease in moving or a new trial on indictments for a conspiracy. They were ten in wither; James and William Bowditch, Messrs. PAM and Snell, Mrs. Bowditch, mother ofJames And William; Susan and Jane her daughters; Mrs. Paul, Mrs. Snell, and Mrs. Mulraine. James Bowditch, the young num to whom Miss Glenn was to have been married, appeared about the age of 22, rather slender, of the middle bright, and of a countenance not nnplepsing. lie was dressed ia a black coat, yellow kerseymere waistcoat with metal but tons, a red under waistcoat, sand a spelled neckcloth, smart leather breeches end jockey boots. In other word', his ap pearance (which we describe minutely, as perhaps of some consequence in • case of this sort) was that of die class called gentlemen farmers. Chief Justice Abbott ordered a seat to be found for the ladies, in respect to their sex. Mr. Scarlet then proceeded to state in detail. the facts that Mme out upon the trial,and the evidence of Miss Gienn and Mr. Toicliete. The ground on which he moved for a new trial were, first, that the verdict was against etidence ; se condly, that he had Admits in great number to contradict the evidence for the Crown, the greater part of which was • surprise ou the defendants. The learned Counsel commented upon the manner in*hich Miss Glenn gave her evidence; on her composure, clearness, precision and apparent modesty, all of which had had a very remarkable effect upon the Court and all who were present. The main pillar of the prosecu tion was the evidence of this young lady ; and one part of the defence set up was, that she had represented herself to he of age, had every appearance of being so, and that the defen dants fully believed her statement. In answer to her testi mony, they produced three letters (one of which was ad mitted to be of her band writing), and seventeen witnesses. the verdict given was right, not only was this one of the foulest and most disgraceful conspiracies that bad ever been brought before the public, but seventeen witnesses must all of them have been guilty of perjury. Fifty persons had' now come forward to swear to facts, the existence of which; eoutradicted Miss Glenn's statement in the most material points : the remainder of the defence went to show that the' elopement was assented to by the young lady, and the match proposed one of her own seeking. The manner in which the young lady's testimony was given bad such en effect epos' the whole Court, that the defendants naturally tried to affect; bee cred it; but in this part of the trialt wo witnesses g ave *fir edence in such a manner, as required some esplana. lion, Mies Glenn bad denied the existence of any fansiliarL fife between her and James Bowditch. A witness who was called to state that he had seen them together upon a feeling of intimacy, having proved the fact, was called on to say whether Miss Glenn, then in the witnesses' box, was the person he saw with James Bowditch. He replied, no I This came like a burst on all present, and bad such an effect on the le arn e d Judge, as indeed it well might, that be summed hip strongly against the defendants. It was late, however, in the evening whoa this witness was called, the court was almost dark, and the witness was evidently in a state of in totieatiosi. There *ere now three witnesses who bad made affidavits of baying seen Miss Glenn with J. Bowditch on the emission in quietus,. The defendants then proceeded to show that Miss Glean was on such terms of intimacy with the family as to have attended a christening, and stood god smother to one of Mn..Mulraine's children. The clerk who vas called to prove her attendance at the christening, on looking Miss Glenn in the face, said, he thought she was not the person. This *eased denial seemed almost conclusive to all pm. sit. But be bad fourteen wit n e sses who had made emdmviu of facts, the existence of which was utterly incom patible with Miss Gleam's not having been present at the christeaing ; and the clergyman who attended had prepared instructh ins for en affidavit, but had died before it was sworn. The teem ed +wee' then read the letter which was admitted to be in Miss titenn's hand writing. It was a letter to a friend, i 4 11 * hid), among other things, she stated she was much altered, ant I appeared much older than she was; insomuch that her se a t herself hid mid, if she did not know her to be sixteen, she c tolo not believe her niece to be less than twenty. Of the other t no letters, though she denied them both at the trial, one was a t ldressed to James Bowditch ; and Mr. Oxen. hem; the attorg egi_swore, that when she had called at his *Ace with Mr. Timken, she bad admitted the whole of this, except the direction, to be her owe hand writing ; and it was remarkable that she herself stated at the tilt .1, that the letter which she bad been forced to write at h Ir. Oxenlmut's, it. the presence of Mrs. Bowditch end Mrs. h telreine, contained instructions to James Bowditch how h e in to proceed. This letter then stated, that she was °rage the August preceding, end directed James Bowditch to bey e, b et •nse forthwith. The letter was dated the 14th of September, and the interview at Oxenhant's took Sac, on the toth. If th is letter was Miss Glenn's hand writ ill& dAilowed lastedia wt is so muck implicated is ibis alleged THE NATIONAL REGTSTER conspiracy as any of the defendants • and that James Bow. ditch had every reason to believe her 21 years old. The Learned Counsel then read the third letter which Miss Glenn had denied when at Mr. Oxrnhanfs, with her uttcteos well as at the trial. This letter expressed a strong wish to see Mr. Bowilitch; and he pat it to the Court whether all thethres were not in the same hand writing? (The letters were hare hand. ed up fur the inspection of the Judges.) These letters had never been submitted to the inspection of the jury. There were three principal points on which he had supplementary evidence. He would not say, that out of the 50 new wit. mists he was ready to produce, some might not speak to the same facts as might have been deposed to by some of the 17 witnesses who had already been examined ; but he would say, that by far the greater part of the facts deposed to by these 50 new witnesses, were such as could not have been furnished by any of the 11, mid such as the defendants could not have been prepared to produce on the former trial. As to the letters, he had the affidavit of Mr. Kingslade, au attorney at Taunton. Chief Justice Abbott.—How cants' the defendants have been taken by surmise by Miss Glenn's denial of the letters, when she had denied one ot theM before Mr. Oxenham, their own attorney ? !Bead your affidavit ; though it is not clear that it can be admitted, unless you skew that the parties were taken fry surprise. Mr. Scarlett said, he wss aware of the difficulty, but Miss Glenn had distinctly admitted one of the letters at Mr. Ox enham's, and this had put the defendants off their guard. Chief Justice Abbott.—Was she etta iii i i tett as to what passed at Oxenham's? Mr. Seariett,—She was; and denied her admission there. The ordinary way of proving baud-writing was by calling persons who had seen the party write, and were acquainted with the hand; but when Ilse hand-writing is unexpectedly denied, there are cases to show that supplementary evidence may be resorted to. Witnesses were called who were ac quainted with Miss Glenn's hand-writing; and Mr. Kingslade states io his affidavit, that Mr. Tuckett's solicitor had .aid, that in case Miss Glenn denied the hand-writing, M r. Tuckett would examine competent persons, and if their opinion was against the lady, he would drop the prosecution . Could the defendants after this have supposed that the letter would have been denied, unless the lady was the basest of woman • kind. Chief Justice Abbott.—Yon express yourself somewhat too strongly, Mr. Scariett. Mr. Scariett.--Perhaps I might, my Lord ; bnt it was ne cessary for me to express myself strongly, in order to pave the way to affidavits of the most competent and respectable persons in the Post-office, Bank, and other public offices, who all state that the handwriting of the letters is not a feigned hand, and they have no doubt of their being the SUMP hand. lam aware that such evidence could nut have !wen given at the trial. ChiefJoistiee Abbott.—Then how can we receive it beef.? Mr. Scarlett.—My Lord, the Court often receives evidence that could not he admitted before a jury. As, for Instance, affidavits made by the defendant him.. if. Mr. Justice Bayley. —That is to remove some wrong iin. passion that the Court might otherwise form. Mr.Scariett then contended, that when the rale of evidence, rejecting the opinions of competent persons concerning hand writing, was laid down, it was thought that all men were equally competent to form a judgment upon the subject ; but now, since the establishment of the post-office ' and other public o ffi ces, which did not then exist, it is known that persons concerned in those offices are snore skilled in judging 6(lmnd-writing than others he hoped, however, that part of their affidavi:s might be received which stated that the bands were ant cosnterfeit. Mr. Justice Bayley.—Was Kingslade called ? Mr. Scarlett.—No. Mr. Justice Bayley.—You did not expect his presence would be necessary. Mr. Seariett then stated, that ()embus swore, that before the occasios mentioned at the trial, ie had Dever set eyes on Miss Glenn. She swore that she met him in the street; and there are affidavits to show that lie never quitted his office till the night of the day on the morning of which sloe swore she met him. There was a good deal of theatrical effect in the description site gave of Oxenham's person, his having a sweaty face. ace. ; and this was not without its effect upon the Court esti Jury. Here there was one material contradic tion in the Lady's evidence. He should now mention another ; she was present at the christeniug of Mrs. Molraine's child, but all the others who were present were among the defen dants except the parson and clerk. She denied having been there. Could the defendant have anticipated this? These were now 14 witnesses who swore to facts which could not have existed unless she had been present. If these were all perjured, the conspiracy was broad indeed. They swore that she desired to be godmother, and went into particulars of her dress ; when she first went to Mrs. Bowditch's she wore a very plain dress, but she west to the christening in Mrs. Bowditch's gown. and with a spencer and parasol of Miss Susan Bowditch's. In this dress she met an acquaintance of her's, named Goldsworthy, an i afterwards stated that she was so well disguised he did not know her. He had also the evidence of a ainsic•master, who attended at Mrs. Bowditch's est the evening of the christening. He stated, that she played on the harp, and he accompanied her on the piano ; that she said she had been present at the christening that morning ; that it was meal to kiss the godmother on such occasions, and proposed that he should kiss her; that James Bowditch, looking displeased at this, she sail it was only nonsense, and went immediately to stand by him. It was true the clerk, who was present at the christening, was called, and said he could not swear she was there. But the clergyman, who us. fortunately was now dead, bad prepared instructions tar an affidavit, which instructionscould be produced,and his hand. writing proved. The learned counsel, however, expressed his fears that these instructions could not, consistently with the rules of evidence, be introduced into the affidavit. The Court.—You may make affidavit of the clergyman's death. Mr. Scarlett.—lt amid be proved that this clergyman, Mr. Clapp, was too ill to attend at the trial. He should now pro. need to that part of the case which respected Miss Glenn's familiarity with J. Bowditch, and be should divide this into two parts—the familiarities that took place while Miss Glenn resided with Mrs. Bowditch, and those that occurred during the elopement. He should show the familiarities 1 that took place at the farm, by Yo witnesses. if they were not all ured, she must be so: but their evidence proved the defendant's ease completely. She appeared publicly. walked oat repeatedly with James Bowditch, boasted of her intimacy with bins, said that in her country young women were married very early, and was surprised that was net the case here.— She wished of all things to be a farmer's wife, and longed to aoakt•the butter, and attend to the pos1117; as she bad no • Nov is certain expectations, she said th a farmer would by no meansibe a bed match for her. He Mr. Scarlett) was sorry for the young lady, but justice must e done, and the origin of all the business had proceeded frotn her. He should now speak of the familiarities that took place daring the elope. went; he had 30 witnesses to speak to these; that she had 'myriad times lett her uncle's house by assignation; that she find been seen often walking in the town with James Bow. ditch ; and frequently at the honie of William Howditch.— These were strong facts; but be had to explain the evidence of Sarah Northam. who said that on one OCCASiOII she saw Miss Glenn walking with James Howditch, and on looking at her in Court stated that the lady there was not the same person ; now he had to produce three persons who were pre sent on the occasion in question ; who swore that the person with James Howditch was Hiss (Henn, and that Sarah North• ham had said so herself to them. Phis was the case of the defendants. There was no reason why the Paula should have been joined iu the indictment, except to exclude their evi dence. Mr. Jngtice Bayley.—llitt for their concurrence there would have beeu no evidence of any conspirucy is the connty of Dorset. Mr. Scarlett.—That was true. It was of infinite import. ance to public justice, that a iiiimreAti. and r.. unify should be cleared of the stigma that unjustly rested on them, lu consequence Of this verdict. I:thr 4fridavits which he rested were all false, be must have brought with him a vol of pet jury. such as never before disgraced a Court. lie had also an ob j ection in point of low. The in. dictment was preferred in Dorsetsbirt ; but the cunspirary, it any, took place in Somersetshire; all that occurred in Our. setshire was the reciiition given the parties by Mr. Pouf ; and there should be at least some evidence to slow that he knew of a criminal design. If a young lady who ii.id every appearance of being of foil al.te (-hose to einpr, it was very hard that a friend who received the parties, ktc4wisig inching of the circumstances, shoutd also ae implicated. An affidavit of William llowditch Mated. that lo• amid sill his faintly balite. ed from Miss Glenn's repeated :iNscitaeo;s, that she was 11 years old ; and that whit they arrived at 'dr. Paul's. .ind she denied her bring of age, he advised tits orother to give the thing up, and prrventrd the iiiturtittre. MI. Justice tioylcy. —She st.it.4l at fri. 'ri .1, hat an elderly imitleietati at Mr. Paul' ttad askt••l spun its be ing stated, ;4141 th. mart iiiac ^t...4 tilt Mr. Sc.tilei t .4141, he h... 1 ..4 witnrssas to rontradiel her state tient of se It pasted is P4: . tc's. At "Ire late trial Mr. Tenn at 184.4 slated, 11131 dieser :s and extlitu:ed no sign. of distre.r.; 44(1 two mute 4111.3tsses n 0 ,% stated, taut she was .it.tny cut jumes kitowaStc.M..k l ie r playing at 11 tot, with her aiiza retina 14:s ..tek. 'lto' pro. s-ristors did not e..h Mr. Lee, (Mr. l'il , •*.e.Vt-ic:ic;tei,) Who Imo ft telted Mtss Glenn bar v. from ei44l'4, 1 .011/11;:i. tie VAS :" Court isti the nine, agat4 4: :' tilt at ;he akirrht.. , llt, wtl the swarms.; Itsvatte been 0re...7?3 out of Culin the trial. Mr. Aaariee 5m..5.,1,t!v0. Lee vas Elbortivevi, i it Ms.;isk. '...!1e..;..:rr..,::.wntues eiectigra . y , uktia re_ tam biro a% a %vitae's., or nemei oln Cwirtrt. Ya objee.. lion was made zq gayir,r 4.:11,rt. _ Mr. Scarlett '..oe ought to have twcn called, and added, that rt +cc Awn, tire dO'r A:. m t.ey, , wrote • note to desii it that Lee ,night retire, lie trusted this, on the grounds he had stated, the Court would grant a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted in this matter, and insisted that, in point of law, the untie of the indictment ought to have been in Somersetsbire. Chief Justice Abbott.—The Court don't think yon likely to succeed as to the last part of your rule respecting the venue. Bat as this is a case of great importance, and it is impossible for the Court to proceed with too much caution in the admi nistration of justice they think it proper that the business should be sifted to the bottom, and grant a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be had in this case. Mr. Scarlett then objected, that husband and wife bad bees improperly joined in the Indictment. But The Court said, ;hat being but one in law, they could not be joined for the purpose of constituting a conspiracy when there were no other parties; but as there were other parties here, no objection could be taken. Mr. Searlett then stated, that the part of the affidavit con taining the instructions left by the clergyman should be struck Gut, and asked that the remainder might stand, to which the Court assented.. In order that both parties might be prepared, the argument was postponed till seine day next term. One of the female defendants wept during the while time she was in Conn ; as did James Rowdich, when Mr. Scarlett read that part of the evidence at the trial which mentioned Miss Glenn's apparent regard for him. WEDNESDAY. CARR T. RZT. --'RAPTOR. SZDVC7IOII.—This was an action brought by the father of a young woman in the service of Mrs. %arm, for the sedne. tine of his daughter, as we understood, by the husband of her mietreu. The plaintiff was !moulted, on the ground that the relation of master and servant did not subsist between him and his daughter. Mr. Scarlett now moved for a rule nisi to set aside the aonsait, on the ground that the young woman, being under age, and the father receiving her wages, he had suck an Interest in her person as entitled him to bring this action. A parent bad suck a commit over his daughter he' fore she came of age, that he could prevent her making any contract for a service that he disapproved of; and in case of ill.treatment, could have her restored to his custody by writ of Habeas COrpns • while be could not interfere with her en. gagements or c onduct after she was of full age. He refer red to 3 Barrow, 1878 ; and to Dean and Peel, 5 East,4s. contending that the latter, (which denied that the distinction eetween the female's being a minor, and her being of full age, bold!l make any difference in the action) was not sufficiently considered. But The Court said, that though it might be regretted the law was so, the relation of master and servant must subsist, in order to enable a plaintiff to sustain this action. Where a plaintiff was father as well as master, the jury might, pe!. haps, increase the damages ; but there must be some serv►ce, however slight. Mr. Justice Bayley referred to the ease of Satterthwaite v. Dewliiirst,23 Gee. 111. decided by Lord Mansfield..—Rolt refused. mason V. WILLAW. CARRIXIIII.—This was an action against a carrier, for the loss of some cloth. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff to the amount of 30 per cent. on the valne of the cloth, though it had net been entered at Willan's olke. Mr. Searlett Row moved to set aside the verdict, on the ground of deconstruction to be pot au defeadaot's notice, which wes,Altat be wonW net be answeraWe to a greater ~' v