The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-03-22 00:00:00

HARDING r. EDGCoLIBE.

Mr. Collier and Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the
plsintiff, and Mr. M. Smith, and Mr. Kingdon for the I
defendant.
The plaintiffs in this case were bankers at Bideford,
and the defendant was a clergyman, living about ten or
twelve miles from Bideford, and the action was brought
on a prominisory note, dated the 24th of September,
1811, payable on demand, for E1:10 and interest at 5 per
cent, from that date, and which was endorsed by a Mr.
John Ilanilyn to the bank. The bank continuol to hold
the bill until the death of Mr. Bainlyn, which took
place on the 19th of December, 1857. and who continued
paying the interest on the bill down to that time. On
the death of Mr. Ilatulyn the bank applied to Mr. Eilg-
combo for payment of the note, and were then informed
by the defendant—first, that he never accepted the
note, it being a forgery ; next, that he had signed a pa-
per in blank, which Mr. Ilandyn had improperly filled
; and lastly, which was the defence now set up, that
the note had been paid. In the course of the plaintiffs'
case it transpired that inlet...tilt at the rate of 7 and 8 per
I cent. had been paid by Mr. Mambo' to the bank.
I Mr. Smith at the conclusion of the case took an objec-
tion that there was no authority on the part of Mr. Ilam-
lyn to make the payments, and the learned Judge ordered
the plaintiffs to be non suited.

PHILLIPS r. PARKHOUSE.

In this cue • verdict was taken by consent for £25
beyond the amount paid into court.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Powell appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Collier and Mr. Coleridge for the defendant.

BARTLETT r. BRowx.

Mr. Coleridge was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Kerslake for the defendant.
•

This MIA an action of ejectment to recover powession
of a cottage and laud adjoining. The formal proof
having been given a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff.

MARCH 16.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron WATSON.)

Henry Clay was indicted for the manslaughter of
Charles Lawler, on the 26t11 of December, at Plymouth.
Mr. Cox proaecuk.d, and Mr. Stock defended the pri-
soner. . .

It appeared that the prisoner was a lance sergeant of
the 2nd Warwickshire Militia, stationed at Plymouth.
On the 26th of December he won ordered with a picket
of eight men to take the rounds of the citadel ; it would
seem, however, that he went beyond the circle of his
duty, and went down a lane called litonehouse-lane. He
arrived at the George and Dragon beerbouse, the picket
stopped before the house, and the prisoner we'd in.
There were some privates of the 17th Foot in the bowie,
there was wine ill-feeling between the Militia and the
regular troops, and as *Mill as the prisoner went in
some of the 17th said, "There are none of your
corps here." The prisoner said, " If you are not civil I
will take you to the citadel,- and went out, followed by
many of the 17th, who took off their belts as they rushed
out. The prisoner told his men to draw their bayonets.
The prisoner and the picket then proceeded along the
street, followed by the men on the 17th. After going
some distance the deceased and another soldier struck at
the prisoner with their belts, and the prisoner put up
one arm to ward off the blow, and with his other arm
stabbed the deceased with his bayonet, and he died in
about 20 minutes.

......
The evidence for the prosecution WAS rather contra.
dictory, inasmuch. AS one of the witnesses, ft an,
stated that the soldiers threatened to turn the prisoner
out of the house, and that the sergeant did not order his
men to draw their bay ets until his mete hail been
struck several tittles by the men of the 17th, and that
lie then ordered his men to draw their Alyo3lCtS mei face
round, and that he said "If you thee belts we use bayo-
HAS," and that as the primmer warded off one blow he
struck the deeeaacel with his bayonet All the witnesses
agreed that the deceased struck the prisoner with his
belt before the prisoner stabbsod I . The primmer re-
ported himself that eve g, and said his Men had been
assaulted by the 17th. Mid had to run for their lives,
and that he had stabbed a man by holding out his bayo-
net, and the man had rushed mem it, and he ,mrpowd
the wan could not see the bayonet, PS it was dark. A
pie ket had a right to take up any men of any regiment
who were drunk and elisonlerly, and they had a right to
enter any publichouse if they suspected any of• their
two were there. The prisoner bad been in the regiment
four years. He had always conelacted himself must pro-
perly, awl his HAW had never appeared on the books
for any improper conduct. After the primmer had re-
ported himself that night he became insensible, and bad
a very severe cut across his face.
It was urged on behalf of the pi banter that he had a
right to go into the publichouse; and that lie did not
conduct himself improperly there ; that he was insulted
the ..... anent lie entered, and was afterwards assaulted
with • formidable weapon, the belt, and that a :emend
blow was in the act of being given, when he held out
his bayonet to defend himself, anol that the deceased ran
upon it. Upon three facts it was submitted that the
prisoner was entitled to be acquitted.
In addition to the cross-examination eliciting the
goo.' charaeter of the prisoner.
Colonel Glativihlu WAS called. And stated that be was
the co ...... ander of the Warwickshire Militia, and that
the prisoner was one of the hest men in the regiment.
Mr. Baron WATM,N, in euiimimiisig lip, said there were
two questions—did the prosecutor cause the death, and,
if so, was he justified in the course he puneued ? He
would Ante to the jury what the law was. A pence's in
charge of • picket WAS upon military duty, and was a
sort of police for the IMINSW of preventing personsdrunk
and disonlerly being about the streets, and he heel •
right to go into a imblichouse if soldiers were there—
indeed, lie was bound to do PO for the benefit of the
public ; but the CALSS! of the soldier *net the civilian WAS
exactly the same sue to the use of weapons. Nu one
had a right to use sharp weapons unless life or limb was
in danger. An rttack upon the picket was a very grave
military offence ; still, if there was no impending dan-
ger the sergeant of the picket had no right to use his
weapon. The sergeant was perfectly right to order his
men to draw their bayonets, because lie heal a right. and
was bound to prepare his men, in case they should be
attacked with violence, for he was responsible to his
superiors if the life of ally of his inen should be taken,
or if they should be injured. 'fhe question was this—
was he justified in using lii, bayonet? If they looked at
this belt, was it not weapon which well take life?
and the evidence was that the ieri,oner was rendered
insensible by the blow he lend receives'.
The jury returned a verdict of Nut Guilty.