The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-29 00:00:00

ESSEX.

INDICTMENT FOR DISOBEYING A SCIIPCENA.—At
the Essex Quarter Session., last week, T. Smith, a labourer,
was indicter for having refused and neglected to attend a
subpiana. The fact& were these:—Before the month of May
last a person named James Little had been charged with
stealing a post from Mr. Oliver, and information was given
that it was important the prisoner should appear on the
trial of that charge, and state what he knew. Accordingly
the writ called a subpicaa issued, and was tested by the
lord-lieutenant, requiring him to attend at the adjourned
session and give evidence in the matter. A copy of the
writ was sent in to him ; but on the 18th of klay, when the
trial took place, the prisoner did not attend. He had stated
to the person who served him with the writ, that he would
not give evidence, and he did not appear either before
the grand jury or when the prisoner was tried; the conse-
quence of which wax, that there was not sufficient evi-
dence, and Little was acquitted. The magistrates thought
the ends of justice should not be defeated in th it way, and
they directed this indictment. For the defence it was con-
tended that the indictment could not be sustained unless it
was proved that a reasonable sum fur expenses in coming to
give evidence and in returning bad been tendered to the
party subpccaaed. When the man refused to come, the
party who summoned him should have tendered him his
expenses, aad not having done so, the prisoner was not
liable to an indictment in this court. Counsel for the prose-
cution replied that the provision only referred to the Court
of Queen's Bench in Ireland and England, and the Court
of Justiciary in Scotland, and the provision was made
because those courts had the power of punishing by
way of attachment. In criminal cases the witness was
not entitled to ask in this way for his expenses, be-
cause it was a matter between the crown and the prisoner,
and it was a principal of law that the crown paid expenses
to no one.—lt was replied that by analogy the act would
apply to the court of Quarter Session, because seeing what
the practice of the Queen's Bench was, this court would
regulate its proceedings accordingly.—The Chairman said,
the impression of the court was that the parties were not
hound to tender the expenses.—Counsel then addressed the
jury for the prisoner, whs was an illiterate person, and his
conduct could not come under the terms of wilfully, un-
lawfully, and contumaciously refusing to give evidence.
This subpoena talked of " Thomu Smith and John Doe
greeting and was it likely that a poor labourer, with
bread so'dear as it was in May, should leave his work, and
feel such curiosity to see John Doe, not knowing who John
Doe was, and come to Chelmsford, not having had his
expenses ? When the policeman said, "If you don't
come and see John Doe you will be fined 1001.," he
said, " You may as well say 200/.," it was so absurd
altogether that he could not think it meant anything. If ,
the policeman had given him ss. and said "if you come you
will get a good dinner," he would have been there. From
all the facts, he contended that it could not be said he wil-
fully and contumaciously refused to give evidence.—The
Chairman, in summing up, said, it was most important that
persons should give evidence of what they knew, for if in
criminal matters a person could say " I will not come here,
and I will not go there," one of the great safeguards of
society would be broken down.—The jury found the prisoner
" Guilty."—The Chairman in passing sentence said, if par-
ties were to disobey the law in this way, no one would be
safe, and he hoped if there were others who were disposed
to disobey the command to attend a court of justice, they
would take warning by this conviction. It was clearly the
prisoner's duty to attend when the charge against Little was
gone into; in consequence of his absence the charge fell to
the ground. The sentence was that he be imprisoned for
one month.

ENCROACHMENTS OF THE SEA.—The loss of land
at the eastern extremity of Worthing by the attacks of the
sea is yearly made evident. The town itself, if it be
exempt from all probable ill-consequences, may witness the
encroachraent, though unpleasantly near, without serious
alarm. Within the last two years the East Coast Cloud Sta-
tion house, which not long before had a platform and a good
beach on the south of it, has been washed down by the
tides; and within memory various objects—buildings and
sites—on the east and west of Worthing have in like manner
disappeared. By the Lancing turnpike.road, a few years
since, the trustees, linable by groyning to resist success-
fully the force of the tides, erected a see wall, against which
a beach soon accumulated, and, by the united strength of
beach and wall, the overflow of the sea into the road was
rendered of rare occurrence. The action of the tides, how-
ever, did not abate, whilst the masonry decayed, and the
beach shifting, left the artificial defence (the wall) to offer,
almost alone, a resistance to the sea. On Saturday night,
during the storm which then prevailed, a great portion of
the wall was washed down, and the sea again made its way
to the road. There is now no beach on the south side of the
foundation of the wall, that being removed farther north ;
and the advancing line of the heath thence towards Lancing
is indicative of the ceaseless aggressions of the sea, despite
the industrious and expensive efforts of the Lancing turn-
pike trust to stay its inward progress.