The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-26 00:00:00

HOME CIRCUIT.

JULY 2.i.
CROWN SIDE.
[Before Sir. Justice 1101.10TD.1
THE KING P. SIR EDWIN DAYNTON SANDYII. HART.
This was an indictment on the prosecution or William Jones,
Esq., Marshal of the King's Bench Pri,on, against the defendant,
for escaping from the rules of that prison, within which he had
been confined in execution for debt, at the suit of Charles and

was already overpaid by the dtfendir.t. If Mr. Hard*Ws set One
had by neghgence e•immitted any &mem., no do:bt Mr. Randall
would be liable ; and If the Jury should so find, it would be for
them to give such moderate compensation as the justice of the Me
required.
' _ Delling cxamlned.—lle knows the plaintiff, hd had set U
hint on the day in question, and he was then considerably in ligeor.
Crose.examined.—He could not say what sort of liquor he had
been drinking, but he had rather too much.
Wi'lism Icooltych examined.—l *as on Mr. Randall's coach
the day the accident happened the coachman called out as he was
going over the hill, as the gig was just before the coach I but Mr.
Lowe got into the middle of the street, and, by so doing, got Into
contact with the fore-wheel of the coach. The coachman was
steadily piing down, the waggon bring a little farther from the
coach than the gig. If the gig had gone on, nothing would have
happtned to it, as I fully beli; ve ; nr, if the gig had been pulled
up close to the curb-stone, the coach would have cleared it without
any difficulty. I know Mr. Lowe, and saw him immediately aftet
the accident ; I had some tail; with him, and he did not appear to
, me to be perfectly sober.
Cross.examinvii.—l cannot say he drunk. There were sit
or seven in the coach ; I sat behind, but I looked forward in goitic
down the hill. We were going about seven miles an hour. I
never saw a pair of wheels carried mere nicely off in my life.
Thomas Brown. a coachmaker, was called, but di.l net appear.
Wm. Wright, • journeyman in the employment of Mr. Brown.
in last, remembered the gi•• in quesidn. The iron work
was bad, and '
witness repaired it. When repaired, it was as good
Ins it was before. It was the worse for having a little dirt on the
I Air. Sergeant VAUGHAN, in reply, observed that the evidence
for the detente in no way proved that the accident had occurred
through the negligence of the plaintiff. Why was not the coach.
man produced? Why, the fact of his not being produced was quite
' decisive that the accident happened through hls culpable
negligence. He trusted tilf.Jury would so say, and give his client
• fair and temperate remuneration.
' The Lon") CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and left
it to the Jury to say, first, whether the accident happened through
' the negligence of the defendant's servant or not • and, In the yes
coed place, if they found it did, then to say to what compensation
• the plaintiff would be entitled.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Ten Pounds.

henry Bird.
The indictment contained several counts, to which the defendant
pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. 130LLAND (with whom were Mr. GlisiNF.Y and Mr. LAW)
stated the case tor the prosecution. In the month of August last,
the defendant was confined within the kilts of the King's Bench,
in execution tor debts to the amount of 11,0011. The indictment
charged, that on several occasions he had voluntarily es-aped from
his lawful imprisonment, and had so rendered himself criminally
liable. This prosecution was instituted by the Marshal, Isom a
sense of ab,clute necessity, aryl in order to make an example to
deter other persona from infringing the rules (Attie prison. not only
to his prejudice, bat to the injury or persons becoming sureties for
debtors enjoying the benefit of the rules. It would be proved, that
on three several occasions the defendant had been seen at large
during the period in question ; once in Gloucestershire. a second
time in Great Itussel.street. Covent-garden ; and, lastly, in Bell-
yard, Fleet-street. What defence could be animated to the in-
dictment it was not easy to divine. Probably it would be said
that an maps front civil custody was not an indictable offence.
This, however. would not avail the defendant, for in a case tried
two or three years since in this county before the Lord Chief Jus-
tice of the King's Bench, in which that question was raised, it was
decided to be an indictable offence, and on that occasion the party
was convicted, and received punishment. Sonic ttir years pie-
viously to that, a similar decision took place, so that there could be
no objection, in point of law, to the present proceeding.
Mr. Ambrose Parish, clerk to the Marshal s Clerk, proved that
the defendant was in execution in the King's Bench Prison from
Feb. lan, to Jan. 10211, and during that tine had the privilege of
the rules., The whole of the Baronet's debts for which he was in
execution, amounted to &mat I 1,0001.
Nathaniel Gibbons proved that in October last, he saw the de-
fendant at Missenden, in Gloucestershire ; he saw the defendant at
his own seat, with his family.
Cross.examined—Wltntss's father and el had been tenants
to the defendant, who had estates in Gloucestershire ; the defendant
was not skulking in concealment ' • he was surrounded by his family
and friends; understood that the defendant went down to his estate
at Mis e itlen, to sell some property to pay off his debts.
Mr.ltichard Stevens, bookseller, of Bell-yard, proved that he
saw the defendant on the 10th of September last, getting out of a
hackney-coach, on Holborn.hill, and go down Field-lane; saw
him several other times during last autumn, out of the Ruh', but
could not fix the precise days.
Mrs. Juliana Woldly, of No. 05, Great Russell-street, Blooms.
bury, proved that the defendant and Lady Sandys occupied apart-
ments in her house for about six or eight weeks. last autumn ;
during the whole of that time the defendant was confined to his
bed with a severe tit of the gout, and returned to the Rules in a
sedan chair; the chairman lifted hint out of his bed fur that pur-
pose, beivg tan ill is walk.
William Aylmer, in the employment of Mmes. Stevens and
Sons, 14,11-yavd, law-booksellers, proved, that on the 21st Sep-
tember las , he saw the defendant get out of a hackney-coach, and
go down Essex-street, Strand ; from thence he went in the sivoie
lickney-coach to the Opera Colonnade; thence to Prince's-street,
Leicester-spuare; Half Moon.strdet, Piccadilly ; Waterloo-place,
back to Essex-street; and finally to his house in Temple-place,
witlnr, the Rules of the King's Bench prison.

lI.L AND ANOTHER U. HOEN AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who ate machine•
makers, to recover from the detentlants,who are manufactured at

Corby the um of 31'. for goods sold nd delivered.
Mt. C • bristly stated the case. The plaintifft in this ease
were machine-makers at Birmingham. and the defendants were
manufacturers at Derby. In the months of November and Dr
cetnber, 1824, they 'received orders from the defendants to make
them 30 gross of screws, and in pursuance of this order, they were
forwarded to them. For some reason or other, however they were
retuned to the plaintiffs in February, 1825, and again sent hack to
defendants M the July following. He believed the defendant!
then refused to take them, and they were still in possession of the
carrier. t'or the plaintiffs he would prove, that the screws were
. made to order, and if so, the plaintiffs would be entitled to their
verdict.
Samuel Bar examined—l am warehouseman to the plaint if. ;
in February, 1825, I remember noticing up packages containing
screws and order ar ides; 1 re:koned went ot there were as rnacoy
collar head screws as male 31 gross, and 15 gross square heed
screws. They were returned, and some of them were toasty ; they
were not properly packed ; the brother of the plaintiffs was with
me when the screws came back ; I entered them in the Lomat book
fur returned goods ; I was subsequently desired to return them to
the carrier, for Alesart. Roden and Johnson, at Derby ; 1 received
them again, that is, I mean the carrier received them.
Casa-examined—The screws came back in February, but were
not returned till the July following. The trade had become bad
between February and July—to say a little worse.
Edward Upfill exaniinedl am brother to the plaintiffs ; they
had a manufactory at Birmingham. I was there in February last
year, and remember the defendants' sending back two boxes of
screws and a parcel. They lay by for a few days before we
opened them, and in a few days after tee received a letter about
them. I assisted in counting them over. When they came to
liiimingham I knew nathing about them, other than by the- in-
voice. In June my brother came to Ili-mingham, and he desired
me to sand the screws back again. I Jul so, and they were again
returned; they were not prnperly packed when they were seat back
to IN.
Mr. Serieant VAUGHAN. for the defendant*, contended that the
screws which were returned to the plaintiffs were not fit for the
purpose they wore bougi t for. It w.s fond they were itn;lie.
feet, ta,:.d not according to o:d r, and therefore they were reta
turned. The defendants disputed no other item of the plaintlfre
elmand, but this for the screws they resisted. The Jury'ahould
recollect that though they were returned by the defendants in the
month of February, they were not sent back by the plaintiffs till the
July following, when a considerable depression took place in the
market. In tact it had been agreed upon that the plaintiff's were to
charge the defendants' account with 20 per cent. as to these screws,
and them the matter was to end. This agreement was entered in
the books of the defendants, and if he could prove that fact, the
`plaintiffs could only recover the known which the defendants had
been all along willing to pay.
John Corlett examined—l am managing deck at Boden and
Co.'s, and had been so in February, 18'25. I remember the
screws ; I received some of them in October, and some in No.
amber; they were returned on the 7th of February, because the
heads were not uniform, end therefore unfit for our purpose.
Shortly aftrr they were returned a letter was written to the
plaintiff, and arzin on the 12th of' March, declining to have the
screws. The ream" they were not returned between November
and February was, that we did rot want to use them, and when
we did require to do so, we found they would not answer. On
the 31st March I saw Mr. James tfpfill at Derby, and heard it
arranged that 20 per cent. should be charged on account of the
screws, and there the matter was to end. There was a deprecia•
tion of 10 or 15 per cent. on screws between February and July.
The screws were not made according to order, and so Mr. Baden
toll the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—l cannot explain why it was that we were to
pay 20 per cent, on an article which was not made according to
order. At this time we had no particular use for the screws. Soon
after they came, Mr. Johnson, one of the defendants, had seen
them. I sent all that I received back to the plaintiff's; I think
there were 31 groan.
Mr. CLARKE. in reply, aged that the fact of the screws not
being sent back immediately after they were inspected by Mr.
Johnson, was in itself conclusive that they were made according
to order. The fact however really was, that the lace trade of .
the defendants had declined about that time ; and not having any
use for the screws, they wished to throw them back on the hands
(4 the plaintiffs. This would be acting contrary to justice, and
he Y.N. sure the Jury would not sanction an act of injustice by their
verdict.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE recapitulated the evidence to the
Jury, who tbund a verdict for the defendants.
CRIMINAL SIDE.
[Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.]
iriNiont L.nnd was indicted for having stolen certain money
front the person of Mrs. Oldham, of Leamington, on the Bth of
April last—the sum under 40s.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to nine months'
imprisonment and hart labour.

This was the case for the tirmeeution;
Mr. ADOLPIIUS and. Ur. BRODRICE eintended that there
was no case made out. The indictment averred, negativity, that
the defendant had voluntarily escaped without die leave and
licence of the Marshal. or of his execution creditors. This aver-
ment had not been proved, and in the absence of such proof the
presumption was, that the defendant had leave and licence; in
which case the indictment must fail. even arauming in point of
law ( which was denied) that an escape from civil proceed was any
criminal offence.
Mr. BOLLAND and Mr. LAW were heard contra; but
Mr. Justice HOLROVD thought the onus of proof lay upon the
defendant to show that he had gone out of the rules with the
leave and licence of the Marshal, or of his creditors, even sup-
posing that such a licence would be any answer to the indictment;
which, his Lordship thought. was at least doubtful, inasmuch
as neither the Marshal or his creditors had poser to grant such
a licence.
Mr. ADOLPHUS then addressed the Jury in an able and power-
ful speech on behalf of the defendant, and urged that as his client
had been influenced by no base or unworthy motive in leaving the
rules, it was a case in which the Jury might very conscientiously
return a verdict of not guilty. It was clear from the publicity of
the defendant's conduct, that he was not like a person skulking
Irons his lawful place of confinement, and endeavouring to secrete
himself from the view of those who were interested in his detention.
The defendant, perhaps, erroneously thought that he was violating
no law on the occasions in question, inasmuch as his sole object
was to arrange his affairs, and endeavour to satisfy all his creditors.
It was said that this prosecution was instituted for the sake of ex-
ample. Such a suggestion was quite idle. The more reasonable
supposition was, that it was prompted by some vindictive and per-
sonal motives. It was not pretended that the Marshal or the de-
fendant's sureties hard sustained the slightest prejudice by what Sir
Edwin had dune. The fact was, that every farthing for which Mr.
Jones had become liable, by minion of these escapes, had been fully
paid ; and therefore it was ridiculous to suppose that there was any
necessity for this proceeding. Under these circumstances he con-
fidently anticipated a verdict of not guilty.
The Learned JUDGE summed tip the case, and told the Jury
that, assuming it to be true that the defendant had broken the rules
for the purpose and with the motives suggested in the defence, it
would he no answer to this indictment. If the Jury believed the
witnesses, it appeared to him that the case hail been made out.
The Jury found the defendant Guilty.
The LEARNED JUDGE then suggested that the justice of the
case, and the object of ;he prosecution, would probably be attained
if the judgment were respited. To this the Counsel fur the pro-
secution acceded.
Sir E. B. Santlys declared moat solemnly, that on the occasions
in question he was out of the rules solely fur the purpose of arrang-
ing his affairs.
Mr. Jones observed, that during a very short time he had sus.
tained a loss of 4,0001. or 0,0001. by escapes of prisoners from the
rules.
It was not denied that the defendant hail satisfied the Manihiki
for all liabilities which lie had come under by reason of the breach
of the rules.
The defendant then entered into security. himself in 1001. and
two sureties in NI. each, to come tip for judgment if he should be
called upon.
The Assizes ended this evening.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.

Wsnwiex, JULY 24.
The Judges arrived here on Saturday evening front Covent 7,
where one prisoner was found guilty of stealing some silk gods,
and sentenced to transportation. in the Civil Court there was i
one case of an indictment for not repairing a road. The defendant
Not Guilty.
This day the Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT tool: his scat in the
Nisi l'rius Court, at ten o'clock.
Twenty-three causes were set down for trial. EXYTER, 'MONDAY, JULY 24.
ACCIDENT FROM NEGLIGENT DRIVING. CROWN COURT.
SHAESPEARE V. RANDALL. John Prost, Thomas Ilona, and Peler Avery, were indicted for
This was an action bra suht by the plaintiff, to recover eompen. unlawfully and rinmudy assembling, together with divers other
nation in damages fur an injury done to his horse and chaise persons, on the 14th o f November last. at Wall'borough, in th si
on the oth of March last, against the defendant, the proprietor of county, arid also with carrying through the streets an effigy of haz
a coach running between M'olverhampton and Birmingham, in Richard Taylor, to which they afterwards set fire.
consequence of the negligent and furious driving of the defendant's Mr. Sltt.wYg (with whom was Mr. BAILEY) stated that this
servant. proeeettiort was brnutht futwarl, under the direction of the Com-
Mr. Sergeant VAUOSIAW etatcd the case to the Jury. He said mis•toners of-Excise, who conceived it a duty they owed the milk,:
this was one of those cases which so often were submitted to the to bring forward the present charge. Tire prisoners were all
notice of a Jury. They MUM all be aware that coach proprietors humble persons. One a carpenter, another a barber, and the third
were answerable for the misconduct of their servants, and the pre. a journeyman paper-hanger. Some time since the Commissioners
sent was an instance which called for the interference of twelve of Excise thought it necessary to institute a prosecution against a
honest Englishmen. on the fith of March the plaintiff was re. person named Chapman, for selling cider without a license. That
turning to his home, and coming down a declivity a little before prosecution was supported by the evidence of Richard Taylor,
the defendant's coach, which was pursuing the same line of road, which excited the indignation of some persons against him, and in.
the plaintiff was obliged to incline towards the middle of the road I duce I than to display their feeling by bearing his effigy about the
in order to avoid contact with a waggon which was corning against streets of Wallbototigh, and afterwards burning it. it would be
him. IVliile doing this the coachman whipped his leaders, and the proved that there were nearly 400 persons assembled on the
result was.that the fore. wheel of the coach came in collision with the occasion alluded to: that they made a great noise ; and that their
nearside wheel ofthe plaintiff's gig, and he and his friend, Mr. Lowe expressions of dislike and detestation towards Taylor were loud
(who accompanied him), were upset, the gig broken, and the horse and frequent. The prisoners would be clearly proved to have been
considerably injured. These coachmen were well known to be fond of actively engaged in this riot, and to have taken a part which pointed
playing tricks with lighter vehicles, hut the lives of his M ,jesty's them out as leaders of the mob. Such were the circumstances of
subjects should not be thus endangered with inipunity ; and to this the case. As this was a ease of burning an effigy, the Jury might
case a proper example should be set, if it were only with a view expect a flaming speech from Mr. Bird, who was for the pi isoners ;
of preventing the recurrence of negligent or furious driving. but if the facts were proved, he was confident the Jury would do
Mr. Lowe was called, and he fully confirmed the statement of their duty, and find the prisoners guilty.
the Learned Sergeant as to the nature and extent of the accident. Robert Crunch, an excise officer, was present at the conviction of
In erose.exanutiation he admitted that the coachman apologized, Chapman for selling cider without a license. Taylor was the in.
and offered to have the gig repaired. The plaintiff had drunk a former ; he is a blacksmith. Witness !UM the mob tot:rolling
little, but was nevertheless sober. Wallborough with the effigy of Taylor. There was a black cap, a
Other witnesses were called to prove the injuries inflicted on the dirty apron, and other clothes such as Taylor used to wear, elevated
horse, which hail been long in the employment of the plaintiff, and on a pole. It was a very ;pod representation of Taylor, and there
also that the repairs to the gig were neither sufficient nor skilfully were lights round it, in order to show the public whom it was in.
performed. tended to represent. The prisoner Rims was holding the pole. The
In cross-examination it was admitted that the gig never was a prisoner Avi ty was present, and had a light. It was about eight
very superior article, and that the horse was not very oil, but o'clock in the evening when witness first saw the mob. They con-
broken-winded. tinned to parade the streets, allowing and humming, for about an
Mr. Dl:Nasal.% for the defendant, contended, that if the gentle. hour, when witness went out, and saw the effigy burned with all
men in the gig hail taken proper precaution, the accident would not those demonstrations of satisfaction which are usually displayed on
have happened. It appeared clearly that the plaintiff had taken a rejoicing days. Squibs and rockets were let off, and shwa fired.
little too much after his dinner, or, in going own a hill. he would Cron-examined—Witness went to survey a chandler whilst the
never have stopped directly before a stage coach,also going down the mob were in the micros, butt did not tell the chandler that there
same hill. Something was said about the coachman running away were candles to the feet of the effigy, and that this represented him.
after the accident, but no such thing happened. The coachman' Witness knows that there is a custom called burning the-Pope, but
was known to Mr. Lowe; he apologized ter the accident, and of. the Pope had been burned a week before.
fered to make the damage good. However, although such an offer Richard Taylor remembered the night his effigy was buried ;it
was made, the Learned Counsel still insisted that no damage had was :bur days after he hail appeared ta give evidence against (lisp.
been done, in the manner charged, by the defendant in this action, man. lie saw above two hundred persons assembled outside his
nor could damages therefore follow. The gig was not a good arti. arouse. They had torches waving towards the effigv. They c.ieti
cle,as he would prove; and they would look to the circumstance that out, " This is Taylor the informer's effigy." The prisoner Avery
the attorney was the relation of the plaintiff; and no doubt got up was applying many opprobrious names to witness. Others of the
1
this affair, would admit of no compromise, and oniy brought this mob said they would have witness's life, and pull his house down.
action for the purpose of costs. lie would prove that the gig was Point was very violent, calling out opprobrious names.
sufficiently repaired—the tender of repair was made for peace—and .. Mr. Man (for the prisoners) sail he did not impugn the motives
he would proceed to call in witnesses to show that all the damage 'of those who instituted the present prosecution ; but he insisted

WESTERN CIRCUIT.