The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-11 00:00:00

WISIIIOkNE.

SPORTING EXTRAORDLYAR Y.
PETIT SESSIONS, Friday.—(Present n-
bert, Facp Chairman, C. J. Parke, Esq., C. Parke,
Esq., J. T. Haekett, Esq., Grant Dalton, Esq., Major
Portman, the Rev...l, H. Austen, and Capt. H. Monro.)
Sir John Lister Lister Nave, Bart., Sir Charles Henry
Abelson, Bart., and Williant Henry Fryer, Esq., were
charged with an offence against The (lame Laws, in
haring shot a number of pheasants at Lytahett Matra
vein, on the 2nd, 3rd, and sth of February last, being
after the Sole allowed by the Game Act. The case
appeared to cocotte considerable interest in the neigh-
bourhood, • large riiiither of influential and other per-
sons being present. The defendants did not appear,
and their names having been called three times, service
of the stnmnonses was proved by Superintendent Biqa-
ton, Mr. F. W. Freeman prosecuted, and Mr, Pocock
defended,
Mr. Freeman, in opening the ease, said the Worms.
tion stated that the three defendants, Sir John iAster
Kaye, Bart., Sir Charier Henry Ibbetson, Bart., and
William Henry Fryer Esq., did on the 2nd, 3rd, end
sth of February, violate a certain Aet of Parliament,
viz.' the first and second of William IV., ehap. 32, see.
3. The law would permit the Bench to fine the de-
fendants, not only in the particular number they had
each shot, but also in the whole number. For example :
supposing one individual had killed ten birds, and sup-
posing that another man had been present, the Bench
would be able to fine each in the several penalties.
After a brief consultation, it was agreed to take the
eases separately. The first ease was that against Sir John
Kaye, Bart. Dlr. Freeman called John Sinunonde, who
stated: I live in Oxfordshire, In February last lived
at Lytohett Matravers. Was up to the Ist of February
in the service of Mr. Macginnis. On the 2nd of Febru-
ary I was out beating the wood with the defendants,
Sir John Kaye, Sir Charles Ibbetson, and Mr. Fryer.
Sir John Kaye was with me on the 2nd, 3rd, and sth of
February.—Mr. Pooock objected that Mr. Freeman
should confine himself to a certain offence committed
on a particular day.—Mr. Freeman contended that he
was perfectly right in pursuing the course he adopted.
It was a trumpery objection, not worth notice.—Mr.
Pocock: That's a very easy way of putting off an objec-
tion which you are incapable of answering. (Laughter.)
The Court having overruled the objection, the examina-
tion was continued—Was at Lytohett on the 2nd of
February, in the company of Sir John Kaye, Sir Charles
Ibbetson, and Mr. William Henry Fryer. Witness beat
the wood called Phillips copse. Knew that Sir John
Kaye killed two lien pheasants on that day. Saw him
do no. On the 3rd of February be was shooting at
Highwood.—Mr. Pocock objected that they were now
getting to an entirely different place—The Chairman:
A different covert—Mr. Pocock : Absolutely a different
spot. lam not going to re-open the question which
you have overruled. I submit that Mr. Freeman should
confine himself to one place. A portion of the penalty
goes to the parish.—Mr. Freeman: Quite a different
spot—but in the same parish, and therefore the de-
fendants will not be misled.—The Bench overruled the
objection. Examination continued—Sir John Kaye was
shooting on the 3rd of February at Highwood, in the
same parish, Lytchett Matravers. Sir John shot five
pheasants, one cock and four hens, on the sth of
February.—Mr. Pocock: What about the 4th 7—Mr.
Freeman: It was "too wet," and they could not go out.
Examination continued: Sir John on the sth of Febru-
ary, was shooting at Dyett's wood. Saw him shoot
eight pheasants. Do not know how many were shot
altogether on the three days.—Mr. Pocock: Confine
yourself in this information to the pheasants killed by
Sir J. Kaye.—Mr. Freeman: So we will, Mr. Pocock.—
Witness: I made an entry of the number of pheasants
killed at the time. I produce the memorandum. There
were four pheasants killed on the 2nd of February, two
by Sir John Kaye.—By Mr. Pocock: Entered the num-
ber in this book.—Mr. Pocock: I thought you said you
entered it in another?—By Major Portman : I entered
it in the little book first, and then copied it in the
other. [Witness produced another book] Had entered
that Sir John Kaye killed two on the 2nd of February,
five on the 3rd, and eight on the sth. The handwriting
produced is mine.—Mr. Freeman: I put in this book
as evidence.—By Mr. Pocock: I entered each day's
shooting in this book. I will not swear that all the entries
were not made on the same night.—Mr. Pocock (to the
Bench) : By putting it to the light it will appear that
the entries were not made at the same time. Mr. Pocock
(to witness) : I suppose you stated to Sir John when he
shot the birds that it was a very unsportsman-like thing.
—Witness: I did, of course.—Mr. Pocock : Never
mind "of course." Did you tell the party so when they
began to shoot, as head-keeper to the estate 7—Witness:
I did as, I told them it was wrong. When I saw the
first pheasant killed on the 2nd of February I told Sir
John they ought not to do that. Having cautioned
them thus they still persisted, during that day and the
two following, in killing pheasants.—Mr. Pocock : I
s'pose every time they killed a pheasart, you almost
cried and said "Oh !it is very, very wrong !"
(Laughter.)—Witness : Not quite so.—Mr. Pocock :
Upon your oath, did you not tell them "There are so
many hens left by Mr. M'Ginnis, and it will be cheaper
to put down young birds at the beginning of the year,
than to feed the old birds 7—Witness: I did not. Did
not ray "Shoot, shoot, we have too many liens here."
Although I objected, they persisted in shooting
pheasants.—Mr. Pocock Has anybody offered you £2O
to lay this information? Before you answer, consider a
little.—Witness : I don't answer that question. —Mr.
Pocock (to the bench) : You will see by and by why I
ask this question. It is one of credibility, and per-
fectly right. I put myself in the hands of the Court,
submitting that the witness is bound to answer the
question.—Mr. Freeman contended that the question
was irrelevant • assuming that he had been offered a
thousand pounds to come there, it had nothing to do
with the case. Will the court allow the question
Simmonds will be amply corroborated—Tire Chairman
(to witness) : Mr. Pocock ;Lelia if you were offered £2O
to come hem to-day.—Witness : That is not true. I
swear that solemnly.—Mr. Pocock here produced a
letter (which lie subsequently read), and 'asked the
witness if it was his handwriting. —Witness : It is.—
Mr. Pocock then read the letter, commenting upon it
somewhat. The following is a literal copy :
SIR JOHN.

April 30, 1868,

I I;Si—tit7o-174Orin you that I have been Offered TWENTY POUND..
.220 0. Otl., ill will appear agahott You, Sir Charles Mellon
and W. Fryer for shooting A MAT NUMNIR OF FIINANANTO
namely, 42 at Lytuhett Matravers, out of *wort, but I have
declined having anything to do In the matter, but u you must
know It is a great temptation .€2O OA, Od., but however,
although 1 hive left Lytehett, I have no wish at all whatever,
to injure my old employent, neither WILL I. but still Sir John
I thought it my duty to let you know ea the Doreet people
would not do you any good but would do you ALL TIIN HURT they
poseibly oono, I say again, Sir John I think it was my duty
to let you know about it, and then Sir John I shall Icy. it to
your glineroeity, whether you think that you ought to do
somothing for Die Solna future day.
I esn, Sir John,
your obedient servant,
JOHN SIHHONDS.
. . -

Sir John Lister L. Bove, Baronet,
bi, Portland Plus 'London.
—Mr. Pocock: Upon your solemn oath were you offered
£2O by anybody to appear here 7 Witness: No Sir.—
Mr. Pooock : Did you then sit down and write that
deliberate lie P—Witnesi made no reply.—Mr. Pocock :
There is no doubt about your writing it?—Witness: No.
—By Mr. Poeook: Was perfectly sober when I wrote it.
—Mr. Pocock: Did you think Sir John would give you
£lO or .220.—The Chairman : It is evident he thought so.
—Witnesa : I did think so.—Mr. Pocock : If he had done
so, you would not have come here and given evidence
against him 7—Witness : I am summoned.—The Chair.
man: You can hardly go to what his intention was Mr.
Pooook.—Mr. Pocock: Was not that the truth 7—Wit.
nese : I didn't want to wine here, but being here I shill
speak the truth.—By Mr. Pooook : I took up sonic of
the pheitunts myself. I knew I was liable to the same
penalty if any one laid the information spinet me, I
left the service upon my own accord. I did not give
any warning. My time wu up with Mr. McOinnia.—
Mr. Pocock here ref9rred to the section of the Act of
Parliament, showing that any personalding, oounselling,
or abetting in killing pheasants was liable to be punished,
—Mr. Freeman having made an objection—Mr. Po.
cook : Mr. Freeman will contradict me in anything.—
The bench ruled that Mr. Pocock had put a proper con.
struotion upon the Act, Reexamined by Mr. Freeman :
Did repeatedly tell Sir John lie must know he was doing
wrong, and all of thein.—Edward Pitman was the next
witneu called. In answer to Mr. Freeman, he said : I
do not live at Higher Lyteliett at present. Did so on
the lit of February. On the 2nd of February was
shooting with Sir John Kaye on that cloy. Loaded Sir
John's gun for him. Saw him flre it. The first day he
shot rabbits only. Saw him kill one pheasant on the
2nd of February. I cannot say the number he killed on
the 3rd of February—By the Chairman : Saw Sir John
kill one pheasant on the sth of February.—By Mr.
Freeman : It might have been more than one. He could
not remember the number. He could swear positively
that Sir John shot one.—By the Chairman : Saw Sir
John kill more than one, two, three, or four, but could
not speak with certainty as to any larger number of
, birds being killed.—By Mr. Freeman: I have not seen
Mr. Fryer this morning. Saw Sir John kill one Fame-
eant on the 3rd. There was more than one killed by Sir
John.—Cross-examined by Mr. Pocock: The head
keeper was pregent at the time. I did not hear him
say anything to the gentlemen in icy hearing. I did not
hear him say "shoot. shoot." I do not know what quan-
tity of hens were left. I was employed by Sir John
Kaye to load his second gun. I never heard the keeper
say they ought not to kill the hens. Simmonds was with
the beaters. Sometimes he was two or three hundred
yard, from them.—lte.etarnined by Mr. Freeman : I
did not at any time see Simmonds talking to Sir John
Kaye. Simmonds was near enough to Sir John at dif-
ferent times to speak to him without my hearing.-- By
the Chairman: I did not pick up any of the game. It
was picked up by several parties—James Brown, on be-
ing sworn, deposed: I live at Lytehett Matravers I
was employed in beating. I can't say that I did see
Sir John Kaye kill anything like pheasants. I know
he shot some rabbits but I don't know what else he
shot. I saw Mr. Fryer there. I saw 601118 pheasants
killed at Highwood on the 3rd. I do not know how
many it was. I was beating on the sth. I saw them
killed, but I do not know who killed them.
Mr. Pocock then addressed the Court in behalf of the
defence. He submitted that although they had no jury
sitting that day, yet the Court had to fulfil that
duty ; and if the court were sitting u judges and
they were a jury in this eau, he should ask
them—and he had no doubt they would see it was
a proper course—to tell the jury that, although ,
• party who had token port in an offence which had
been committed was a competent witness, yet juries
never convicted unless the evidence of the person who
assisted in the offence woe corroborated. He asked the
court what evidence there was except that of persons
who had taken part in the offence. By the Act of Par.
Bement every person counselling or abetting were liable
to be prosecuted and punished se a principal. Every
person taking part might be punished for &twisting and
in point of law and truth, they were actually guilty of
committing the offence. He submitted that the infer.
motion must fall to the ground. He did not put this to
them because Sir John Keys was a baronet. It
would be the same if the defendant were • poor man.
They would have the moral courage to administer justice
fairly and impartially, without regard to Sir John
Kaye, s being a rich man. There was no evidence against
his client, except that of ocoomplioes which had not, as
They litsbole r to o
wu be t.d
some deri
was required by law, been corroborated. He was about
Pr°l6e
under.
that day—and it ought to have been done before—to lay
information against these three parties, for taking part
in the
of he proceedings.
affair,
The evidence which had been taken would be sufficient
t x o bo were
h to convict. It was quite clear that they were part and
p
current. The witness Simmonds, who was head keeper,

and who, he was instructed, was the muse of the offence,
told the defendant that Mr. McGinnis had left too many
hens, and it would be cheaper to turn down new stock
than to be feeding the old ones. It was by hie direction
and desire that these pheasants were killed. The covers
were let, and under let, and Mr. McGinnis left • good
nicety hens. They did not know why Simmonds left.
there was something mysterious about it. What could
be worse them that a men's servant who Used with him
should, after having advised to such • precedare, turn
round and ley information against him. If the court
clerk's
oeunrs
kr a
sb a
notes—The
he.
were against him MI the first point as to the necessity of
the evidence of aecomplices being corroborated—alter
the evidence Simmers& had given, and the letter he Ind
written, would they, or would any one who had the.
slightest regard for justice, safely believe what he hadi
said? Ile had sworn that he was never offend E2O cr-
ony money to lay information. It was quite clear he
eestundhe
eeeirdiete,
ceanedf alusowpeedut
was not drank when he wrote the letter. The sum 40
mony, and submitted that • verdict should be given in
PiwniutfingireanuriFo.tedbseHrv'eaicn:dgmdtmhoauetblethdalittur°P;kas the only reliable testi.
favour of his client.
The msgistrates having consulted, the Chairman
mid that the bench had given the ease their hi/
attention, and were of opinion that there sr&
killed on the 2nd, 3rd, and sth, to the number of 15.
The decision of the bench was that A fine of El each bird
be inflicted, making together £l6 with costa—Mr. po.
sufficient evidence to prove that birds had be",
cock farther addressed the bench, and said that as the
statutes Mid it down that notice of the intention to sub-
mit any question of law to the Court of Queen's Bench,
he
that step being taken, and allow him to to.ke his objec-
presumedgitkveenbelrintlineh would ,o 4 notdayslmovfe thaneywonbvjiectoitoionn, to
point
cohlehtinew own refretnetfeoirrlyat:i oyneferommetyhedier
so.—Mr. Freeman hod also • Anther observation to
make to the bench. If they thought proper he would
ask them to make it • part of their judgment that cer-
tain costs incurred in this case beyond those usually
granted should be allowed. The whole of the witnesses
as the court would perceive, were adverse, and be had
both before and on that day very great difficulty in ed.
Ling at the facts.—Mr. Pocock would ask the benois that
these expenses should not be allowed. The letter which
he had read to them previously certainly threw some
light upon the motive which had actuated to the trans-
action, and he hoped the bench would take that into,
account—The Chairman said the bench thought fit to
allow all such expenses as should be agreed upon by the
magistrates' clerk and the advocate.
Mr. Freeman then proceeded with the case against
Sir C. Ibbetson, Bart. He commenced by calling John
Simmonde, who, on being sworn, said Sir Chas. Ibliet.
eon was present on the 2nd and 3rd of February. On
the 2nd he never shot anything but rabbits. On its,
3rd I saw him shoot • pheasant. On the sth of
February he was not there. I was with Sir Charles en
the 3rd of February. He killed some rabbits. Sir
Charles fired off his gun on the 2nd.—By the Chairman r
There were 42 pheasants killed on that day.—Edward
Pitman, on being sworn, said—l did not see Sir Chance
Ibbetson on the 2nd, 3rd, or 15th of February.—By
Pow& : Sir Charles was only there the first day. j
I have made a mistake; he was there the second day also,
—Examination continued: Sir Charles was not present
on the sth of February. I did not see kiss kill any plies.
sante on the 3rd. I was in quite another part of the
copse. James Brown, sworn, said: I saw Sir Charles
Ibbetaon shoot • pheasant in Highwood on the 3rd of
February, but I can't recollect if he shot any snore. Sir
Charles went out shooting two days. I do not know
how many birds were killed on the 3rd February;
might have been twenty. Mr. William Rolls Fryer,
jun., was called, and said, I was not in the companyd
Sir Charles Ibbetson on the 2nd of February. On the
3rd of February I was with him. I saw him kill two,
pheasants on the 3rd of February. I cannot say that
was all he killed on the 3rd. On the 2nd I did not see
him kill any birds. I saw 38 birds killed altogether.
He was there when 14 or 15 were killed. I will not
swear, but I think there were Nix or seven killed on the
2nd of February.—Charles Swyer stated, I saw sir
Charles Ibbetaon kill two pheasants on the 3rd of
February.—By the Chairman: 38 birds were killed
altogether (laughter). Sir Charles was present when
the whole 14 or 15 pheasants were killed on the 3rd of
February. Couldn't swear positively to one or two, but
he thought there were six or seven killed on the 2nd
For
Charles
Pocock submitted that the number of
against Sir Charles Ibbetsion was four.—The Chairman:
There were 14 or 15 birds killed.—lt had been proved
that the defendant killed four. Verdict accordingly.
The Clerk: Costa the same as before. The Chairman:
Yes.
srukarillye.d—Wonuthine
t2hnedemo:
The case against Mr. William Henry Fryer, was then
Tkothnieleenl
gone into—John Simmonds, examined by Mr. Freeman:
Saw William Henry Fryer kill two hen pheasants on
the 2nd of February last: two on the 3rd; and six on
February, was four; on the 3rd seventeen • on the 56,
twenty one.—Nenry Langdown : Saw Mi. Fryer kill
enfineitcdhsay'irsmasnhoo: shooting,
ploy of Mr. Fryer. Cannot tell how many birds were
killed. Can't be certain how many he killed. It might
have been three or four. Couldn't swear that he didn't
none on the second, and three on the third. Mr. Fryer
loaded himself. Couldn't tell how often.—Mr. Pocock:
Verdict accordingly. Mr. Freeman asked for the costa.
—Application granted as on the former occasion.
The
niitulb
ekneiull irlinuedib enzeortndhedi f
abnFilde
the

THE MinurEn.—Another window (the sixth by
the same artist, Mr. Lavers) is being placed in
Wimborne Minster, recently restored bylilr. T. H.
Wyatt. The new window is presented by the Earl
of Malmeabury, the Foreign Secretary, in remem-
brance of his education there under a late vicar, the
dedication, being inscribed at bottom of the window
to that effect. The subjects chosen are—Christ bless-
inglittle children, and Timothy with Lois and Eunice.
The quartrefoil in the head of the window repre-
sents an angel bearing a scroll, with text.
HOLY THURSDAY.—Thuraday next being Holy
Thursday, the ordinary Wednesday evening service
at the Minster will be held on the former evening.
FRIDAY, May 7. —Joseph Wright was apprehended by
P.C. Simmons, at Hampreston, for killing a duck on
Thursday evening last. The duok was identified by
Mr. Hayes, a farmer, of Knighton, as his property from
a peculiarity of colour. The prisoner affected idicany,
and when put the usual question as to whether be
would be tried by a jury or the Bench, said, " Neither !"
but after explanation, he pleaded guilty, and was sm.-
tensed to fourteen days' hard labour.
Richard Brine, • guardian, of Crawford farm, wu
summoned for removing an old woman, • pauper, out of
the Blandford into the Wimborne Union, oontrary to
the Poor Law statute. After a lengthened hearing, it
was arranged that lie should pay the costs of having her
returned, as there appeared to be no intention of trio.
!sting the law.
George Mama, of Wimborne, was fined 51, for being
drunk at Wimborne, on the information of P. C. Kirby.