The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-08-04 00:00:00

ESSEX SUMMER ASS ILES.

CHELMSFORD, FRIDAY. JULY 30.
OYSTER AND SOLE FISHERIES.
TAE RIND V. WILLIAM SUTTON ♦ND OTHERS.

This was a case which excited a good deal of
interest. It was an indictment against fair London'
fisherusen, named William Sutton, Edward Fresh-
water, virnold Freshwater. and William Sloper,
for unlawfully hiking two pecks of oyvtere, null
oyster brood, from the oyster laying. of the Burn-
ham River Company, on the 17th of Julie last, by
memo of a certain iostrumeett called is Irani, con-
trary to the form of the statute made in tits 3lst of
the King. for the better protection of the several
oyster fisheries within this kingdom.
The prosecution was conducted at the instance
of the Burnham Oyster Company, by Mr. GDR..
REY, Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr. Bmairaux ; and the
defence at the instance of the Corporation of the
City of London, by the Common SutigAer, Mr.
BOLLARD, and Mr. JESSOPP.

The object of this proceeding was to determine
the right of the Landon fishermen to traul for lON'S
•pas the private oyster grounds of the prosecutors.
it being alleged that the operation of 'nailing was
injurious to the young oysters and oyster spat, the
traul being an instrument with a good deal of ice's
work, made for the purpose of dragging along the
bottom of the sea, and catching soles, and thereby
destroying, at the same time, as was alleged, a
great quantity of young oyster', which would be
crushed by the weight of the m•ichine. It was
proved in this case that the Defendants, on the
17th of June last, were seen insulin for soles in the
Burnham river, and that they brought up about two
pecks of young oysters and oyster spat, which they
threw overboard again, reserving only the solve.
There was nothing to shew that the object of the
Defendants was to take oysters : on the contrary the
whole evidence was, that they had come there ex-
clu,ively for the purpose of catching soles ; but it
was insisted, on the part of the prosecution. that it
was not necessary to shew that the Defendants went
for the purpose and with the intention of destroy-
ing oysters, in order to bring there within the
penalties of the Act of Parliament ; for the bare
fact of dragging their trim!" over the osster-grounds,
without taking oysters, was quite sufficient.
On the pert of the Defendants it was urged, that
they could list be convicted unless it was clearly
shewn that they had come " fm the purpose of
catching or destroying oysters." Three latter word.
were introduced expressly into the Act of Perlis•
meld, and us all the evidence negatived any such
purpose, the Defendants were entitled to au ac-
quittal.
Mr. Justice PAWL, after consulting with Mr.
Baron GA 'mow, stated that his Learned Brother
and himself were clearly of opinion, that the word•
" for the purpose," over-rode the whole clause upon
which the indictment was founded. As it appeared,
therefore, that the Defendants had not come for any
other purpose than that of fishing fur vole., they
could not be convicted upon this Act of Parlia-
ment of the offence now imputed to them; his
Lordship, therefore. directed an acquittal, and the
Defendants were found—Not Guilty.
There were upwards of fifty witnesses subpreneed
to be examined upon each side. This verdict was
considered a great triumph by the London
Asher-
tneu.