The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-11 00:00:00

IVESTERN CIRCUIT.

WELLS, AUGUST 0.
William Macey was indicted for breaking into the house ofJo-
sepia Nipper, or illishop's and stealing therefrom a sovereign,
six silver tea.spnons, and several trifling articles of apparel, &e.
It appeared that the house was left by the family from four
o'sliiek in the afternoon of the 10th of June, until six o'clock in the
evening, and upon their return a ladder was found attached to one
oldie bedroom windows, which had been secured but was then
open. A person went up the ladder and discovered the prisoner;
a part of the properly was found on the prisoner's person, anti se-
veral ►rtieles removed from their Owen, apparently ready to be
conveyed Away.
Verd et—Guilty.
Sentence of death was recorded against the prisoner; but the
Learned Judge intimated that the sentence would nut be carried
into effect.

Daniel Wootiroof was indicted for stealing a horse, the property
of John lire.
The prosecutor stated, that on the 4th of April last he left a bay
mare at the Greyhound Inn, at Bath. He afterwards learned that
his horse was stolen. _ _

The hastier at the Greyhound Inn swore that anon after Mr. Gye
had brought the mare he noticed the prisoner entering the stable
and looking attentively at the mare. His conduct was so remark-
able that wimesn ordeictt Hire toleaterthe Amble. At ten o'clock
on the same night witness missed the mare.
Robert Bouchier keeps the Pelican Inn, at Rath. The prisorcr
brought a mare there nn the 5111 of April. and took her to the
stable. lie told the witness that he had bought the mare, but be-
lieved her to have been stolen. The rrasecutor came next day and
claimed the mare. When the prisoner lett the mare at the Peli-
can he wanted to borrow motley, both from the hostler and the
witness.

11r. Gye was recalled, and swore that the mare he found at the
Pelican was that he left at the Greyhound.
The prisoner Offered nothing in his defence.
He was found Guilty, and sentence of death recorded against

HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
Grorge Price and John uni.hug were indicted for an assault and
robbery on the King's highway.
Ann Parker sworn, said. I live at Whitchurch. I know George
Wiltshire ; he is a day labourer: 1 saw him on the 15th May
last ; he and I were drinking together that day nt Pensford, at the
King's Aetna. We came out of the house ahout ten o'clock at
night ; IViltabire had money in his hand which he wets goiag to
reckon, when the prisoner Dowling come up and struck it out of
his hand on the grnund ; Wiltshire picked tip the money, and
Dowling again struck it out of pis hand. Wiltshire lost four shit.
lints out of eight, which lie had. AVtitshire and 1 then passed on
about two tty pares. when seven persons, amongst whom were the
prisoners, surroun•., d its ; !sot Price, the constable. carne up at the
same tune, and.:. his desire, the party went away. Wtha we
had got titrward Ip.= a mile, Dowling leapt over a hedge, and
asked Wiltshire to go into a Held ; Wil:shire said his road was by
the turnpike, and that lie would not go into any licld, Dowling
' then whistled. and the prisoner Price, and six other persona, came
up. Price 'wired witness, and told her he would murder her if
she matte a noise, and Dowling, and the rest of the party, begun
beating Wilshire. They took Wilshire's bat, his cravat, and
four shillings from his pocket. Dowling was the person who took
both the cravat and money. Wiltshire was so much abused, that
he was incapable of making any resistance.
Cross-examined—Wiltshire helnnged ton club held at the King's'
Arms. Witness knew all the prisoners party. Wiltshire was not
quite sober. Vt'itness was offered a shilling by Price, but she
threw it away. She said to Price to make haste, as she did rot
wish to be seen in such a situation by her young man. Walashirss

was her young man. She gave up to Price and Howling, fearing
they would take away her life. Wiltshire was then lying on the
grotto I, at a few yards distance. One of the prisoners held wh-
itey, whilst the other abused her.
George IVilishire was next examined. Ile appeared to be ex-
tremely simple, and gave an account of the transaction different in
many material pariiculars torn that which the former witness bad
given. He said the Price was not present when he was robbed, as
he and Ann Parker had retired into a bye lane, whilst witness was
brat and robbed. !le also swore that he was sensible during the
whole transaction.
Fur the defence, Elizabeth !howling swore, that Ann Parker told
her, if she could not convict her brother, meaning the prisoner
Dowling, tate would convict some other person.
Under all these circumstances, the Jury acquitted both the
prisoners.

CIVIL SIDE.
[Before Mr. Justice OAIELEE.I
WEAItE I'. DEANE AND OTHERS.
Mr. BINGHAM opened the pleadings.—This was an action of
trespass, for entering the plaintiff's house and taking away his
goods.
31r. Gut; SING stated the plaintiff 'a case. All the parties re-
sided in Bath. The plaintiff was an ornamental painter, and lived
at No. 18, Norfolk-buildings. After renting the house., he had ob-
tained credit for some articles of furniture (rain the defendant, who
is a cabinet-maker. In the month ot May last, the plaintiff found
it necessary to go on business to London, and, in his absence, the
defendant, Deere, and the other defendants, entered plaintiff's
house, and, without the plaintiff's leave or authority, conveyed
away sevreal articles of furniture from the windows of the house.
The plaintiff's wife was in the house when the transaction etc-
curved, and was seriously alarmed by the conduct of the defendants.
The plaintiff now came before the jary to recover the value of the
furniture taken away by the defendants, as well as compensation for
the trespass which was committed under such aggravated cir-

The principal evidence in support of the plaintiff's 4:llse was John
Rogers, a chairman, and an old fellow "of infinite mirth." lie
stated that he was present when the defendants entered the plain-
tiff 's house. Ile saw them remove a rmewood sofa, and sevtrial
other articlesof furniture, through the windows. Plaintiff was not
at home, but Mrs. Weare was present, and seemed tenably fright.
ened ; she fainted away, and afterwards locked herself up. and ap-
peared in great trouble.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom was Mr.
MEREWETHER)—Witness knew that Weare had sold some of
his furniture to a person named Neale. NV eare met Neale and
tubers at the Red Lion public-house. Witness was also present.
Plaintiff' wanted to sell all his furniture to Neale. It was not a sale.
but witness could not say, upon his :cord, whether it was a pre-
tended sale or not. Some copper passed between the parties.
Neale has another action against the defendants for the furniture
he bought from the plaintiff. The witness could not say at that
was only pretended.
Mr. Sergeant %Vit.DE—Oh, yes ycu can, Bogert. You know
you are a chairman, are you not
Witness—l am ; but 1 sometimes look after mad people also.

•
(A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—WeII, then, look after these plaintiffs,
and the attorney who brought these action{ fur them.
Witness—Oh, they are not rich enough, Sir. I would much ra-
ther have you under my care, Counsellor.
Mr. Sergeant %VII. E—l ant not mad enough for you. Rogers.
Witness—Oh, Sir, that dues not matter ; we would soon make
you so. (Laughter.)
In answer to some other questions, the witness said that it was
only coppers passed between die plaintiff and Neale at the sale. He
could not say whether the toppers amounted to .tltl., but remem-
bered some one said it would not be a good sale unless there was
money given by Neale. A receipt was given by the parties, which
was drawn up by witness. He antedated it, because some one said
that was necessary, to make the transfer of the goods valid. Wit-
ness never saw Weare before the ineetine at the public-house, but
understood he set off next day for London.
Several other witnesses were examined in support of the plain.
tiff's case.

Ale. Sergeant Wi inf. then addressed the Jury -for the defendant.
He contended, that if a verdict was taken for the plaintiff the
damages should only be nominal. The plaintiff bad manifested
not only an ungratetul but a dishonest disposition towards a cre-
ditor, who had kindly iethilged hint by not pressing for pay.
ment of his just claim. The real facts of the case were proved by
the plaintiff's own witnesses. The ornamental painter had at.
tempted to defraud his creditors by making a mock sale of his pro.
perty, and then getting off himself to London, or elsewhere.
Whether this was or was not a fraudulent transfer, was a question to
be decided by another Court ; but it could not be wondered at, for
it was quite natural, that when the defendants learned that it was
the plaintiff's intention to tdspose of his furniture and get away
himself, they should be anxious to secure themselves, and no other
means of security was within their reach, except re-posaeasing them-
selves of the property with which they had supplied die plaintiff:
Under all the circumstances lie submitted that it was not a case for
damages.
At this stage of the case it was suggested by the Learned Judge
that the value of the articles ta1b...1 away should be ascertained. and
a case agreed on for the Court above to decide upon the legality of
the transfer made by the plaintiff to Neale. The amount of
da-
mages far the actual trespass was the only question left for
the Jury.
ills LOA DSHIIP having charged the Jury to that effect, after a
abort consultation they returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
One Farthing.
The action brought by Neale against Mare and others is to de.
mod on the qttesti ma as to the lt,4ality of the sale, and whether it
was a bona fide sale.
There was a third action connected with the transaction. It was
brought by Al'eare against a person named Calder, another of his
creditors, who had taken away a table for his debt. In this case a
♦erdict was taken for the plaintiff, with td. damages, subject to
arbitration.

NORTIIER.V CIRCUIT.

31R. WAKEFIELD'S TRIAL.
LANCASTER, AUG. 9.

Yesterday evening, Mr. Baron HuLLOCK and Mr. Justice
PARK arrived here and opened the Commission. This morning
Mr..fustice Parke took his seat in the Criminal Court, which in
consequence of the interest excited by the trial of Mr. Wakefield,
for the forcible abduction and marriage of Miss Turner. was ex-
ceedingly crowded, principally by ladies. The Grand Jury, of
which Lord Stanley is foreman, having been sworn,
Mr. Justice PARK addressed them respecting the duties which
they had to perform. His Lordship having shortly adverted to
the state of the calendar, which he described as containing an im-
mense number of !tenons, many of whom were charged with
" every crime that disgraced human nature," said the case of the
rioters at Blackburn, and other places in this crutity. against whom
not less than thirty indictments had been proffered, would require
the most serious consideration of the country. There was one
case in the calendar, respecting which he was anxious to say a few
words. because the offence charged was no. one of frequent occur-
rence in this country. The case to which he alluded was that of a
prisoaer of the PROW of Wakefield. who stood charged with a fe-
luny, (though not a capital felony) by having token one Ellen Tur-
ner, against her will, from the possession of a person to whose care
she was entrusted. The words of the calendar were, " E. G.
Wakefield, 311, charged with having, at Liverpool, felonioualy
taken and carried away one Ellen Turner, spinster, then a maid,
anti he r apparent to her father, William Turner, Es q. for the sake
of the lucre of her substance, and afterwards unlawfully, and
against her will, did marry the said Ellen Turner." As the pri-
soner then stood charged in the calendar, the offence was not
capital; but whether or not the prisoner Wright, by and by, be
indicted capitally, he ,:11r. Justice Park) had no means of
knowing. lie felt it his duty to state to the Jury, that, by the
Common Law of England. in very early times, ifs child were taken
taken away from her parents or guardians, or any other person or
persons, to whose care she had been properly entrusted, or to use
the language of the books, if a child had been taken away " by vio-
lence, deceit, or other corrupt or improper practices," and that sub-
sequently to such taking away, a marriage had been riolemnizA. with
the consent of the parties taken away. such taking away having been
effected by criminal means. was an offence at common law. There.
fore, septa-wing the conduct of the prisoner was to be ;mitred of by
the common law, and that he had accomplished his purpme by the
means stated in the calendar (which latter supposition he was '
bound to say was rot warranted by the depositions before hint), he
might be indicted at common law either eeperately as his sole act,
or as a conspirator aid' other persons, for "conspiracy" was one of
the means by which the learned writers whom lie bad already
quoted supposed that the offence might be committed. So stood the
comlllllll law in that respect, but sec unxbill3 was the legislature about
temaleeliastity, and female comfort anti happiness, that by an Act
passed in the reign Gf Ilenry VII. the offence, °sawed in the cafe'.
der, " of taking and carrying away a maid and heir tor the sake of'
the lucre of her substance, and against her sill," war made a
clergyable felony. However, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth
the Itni:y of the former Statute was deemed to be daagerous, and
as in dime days the laws regulating marriages were not so strict
as they hay.e been since the reign of George the Second. marriages
of that description very frequently took place under circumstances
produettve of considerable mischief to the country, and it was,
therofore, enacted by the :19th of Elizabeth thut such offences
should from thenceforward be deemed capital felonies. In latter
years the attention of the legislature was called to the subject, and
in the first year of the reign of his present Majesty the 9th of
Elizabeth was repealed, and, therefore, the Statute Law upon that
'species of abduction was restored to the statute in which it wood
during the reign of Henry VII., and the silence with which the
poisoner stood charged wits at the present day a clergy able felony.
There were many Ingo ethenta necessary to bring the offence within
the meaning of the Act of Henry VII. In the first place, in ord-r
to bring the offence within the meaning of that Act of Parliament,
force must have beet used ; not merely force in the first instance,
but continued force up to the time of the mart iage, or else the com-
inissinti of other acts mentioned in such inmate. indeed, there were
eases in which parties had been acquitted from a defect of proof
as to the continuation of suds force. In such cases it ap•
neared that force had been used in one county, and that tin
torce had been subsequently used in another county, but that
in fact consent had been obtained previously to the marriage.
To bring the offence under the statute of Henry VII., it was
thought absoltitely necessary that there elinuld be evidence of
force in the original taking away, and of continued force up to
the period of the marriage. In the reign of Philip and 31ary, an
Act of Parliament was made upon this subject. That Act of
Parliament did not contemplate force, but merely the tact of

--ses
taking away a child without the consent of parents or guilmia„.
thereby contest:Mg rather the feelingw of a patent
err guarera
t han any violence done to, or pain inflived upon th more ls
dine object of the aggression. To the Act 4 and a arch' "ante.
..
Mary he ',John! to call the particular attention of 'lie Jury ' LI
preamble was somewhat different from the enaic. tile Tr*.
amble mentioned oetly such persona an engaged in te parwitli!:,
maidens, who were orheritare, under the age of shoo., sit of
and who were married against the consent of their parent'
guartliana. The words of the preamble were, " Anil IA kir Lit
punialiment of such as shall take aw sy maidens that Ic itheriee,—°
beittg eddlin the age of sixteen years, Of that marry them isi,hu,..—'
the consent of their 'toreros." From this it would emelt, tits,;*
Ace was not intended to apply to any woman not an ini,,rir he
. or, ana
in the case now for the consideration er the Jury rids Act die
apply, became the father was now living. However, the er_wft
parts of the Statute applies to women not inheritor. The '''''''te
were—•• ll'here maydens and women, children of noblest, ''s
gentlemen, and others, as well such ea be heirs apparent to tbell'u,
ancestors or other., havittg left unto them by their tadier, eenrhe'r
ancestor and friends, land., tenements, and hereditaraenta pother
great substances in goods an chettelts, moveable for and to the M.
tent to advance them in marriage somewhat like according to chirp
degree', and might be more for surety and comfort, era well fa
themselves as of all others their friends and kinsfolk, he of„tiron-
UlOlWere to their said friends or is inefolk, by flattery, trifling stip '
and fair prowiees of many unthrifty and light perannegee'rejel
thereto by the entreaty of persons of lewd demeanme, and other' that for reward, and buy and sell the said maidens it'd children
ire,eretly allured ti, and even to contract matrimony with the said
thrifty and light personages, and, therefore, with shght or forte, by
taken or carried away front their said parents, friends, or king{
tithe high displeasure of the Almighty Hod, &c." gm
whereof be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful to any pelq
or persons to take, or convey, or carry away any maid or "fovea
child unmarried, being under the age of sixteen yeah, eu.teri
or from the proseoelon, custody, or governaree. and SpaiSst tbe
will of the father of ouch maid or woman child, err other per.ork
or person+ to whom the father of suet, maid or women thee by
his last sill and testament, or by any other set in his lifetime,
bath or shall Rppnint, assign, give. or grant 'the
era",
keening, eMealtnii, or governance of such maid or vermin eritil,
" And if acy person or persons, above the age of towage.
years," &e. shall unlawfully take or convey away, or cause re
be taken or conveyed away, any maid or womawehild out or
the posseseion, ace., such person or persons FO offending, shall
have, and starer imprisonment, of his or their bndfes,-liy the
space of two while years, without bail or mainprim ne tap
shall pay such fine for his ()fence as shall be mussed by the
Council of the Queen's Hie:linens, and in the Star Chamber at
Westminster." fly this statue, the taking away a child under
sixteen years of age, without the co/I%one of the parent or guardian,
acc • war made an offence. By the first clause no punishment Iris
awarded ; but he need not tell the Jury, that any thing
prohibited to be thine was punishable by the pmper tribunal
He had thought it fit to call their notice in a particular manner
to that Act, because it was likely, judging front the depnsitiom,
that it was under that Act thst the prisoner w, old be Milieu'.
There was another section in the same Art, which award.; an
imprisonment of five years to the offender; but that was undo
circumstances which were not applicable to the present care, as
far as lie could judge from the deposition., which were, of course,
the only ground on which his opinion could be farmed. lie had
now eller' ly stated to them, as well as he could, what the law of
the case was; and as he ha heard from the profession that gen.
tlemen of eminence had been retained for the prosecution, be had,
no doubt that care had been taken to frame the iodietment pro.
petty. In conclusion, he had only to remark, that the calendar
Icontained a most inhuman charge of murder, conmittted under
circumstance+ which made it difficult to account for the motive'
of the perpetration, unless it were supposed that they iniendol
to rob the house after having murdered the Xmases, Before
. I he concluded, he would recommend them not to proceed tame.
. I dimly in the case of murder or the charge of abduction, as it would
be untair to detain the poor people who might be attending oa
other charges of felony, on account of one or two particular prose.
cutions.

CIVIL. SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baum Ht• t.t.oc .)
There were no cases of importance taken at this aide of theCaurt.
There were altogether 231 cases set down for trial t and it is a tat
strongly illtaitrance of the commercial distreas which has tereuay
revaded. that (ot of nearly 30 ca‘es which were taken. In-day only
one was defended. In all the rest the defendants had only delead.4
the actions in order to gain time.

DOME CIRCUIT.
MAIDSTONE, At:G.9.
CROWN SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice HOLROYD.)
THE KING I'. STRINGER AND ANOTHER.
This was an indictment for an assault and Wee imprisonment
The ease, in itself', was not of general impor ance, hut it gale riet
to a dierussion upon Mr. Peer* late Act far facilitating proceedings
in crieniral mums (7 Oeo. c. D 4. a. 20), deserving of some
public notice. That Act passed on the 96th of May last, and by
the 20th section, after reciting that justice had been of en decree
in criminal eases by formal objections appearing on the record,
it enacted in substance, that no judgment should he stayed eras.
rested, by lesson of any defect apparent on the fate of the re.
cord, after verdict Of outlawry, or after judgment by confession,
and that the want of the words " with force and arms," "against
the weaute," ageiest the peace," &e., in any indictment, should
not be a ground fur staying or arresting the judgment. The
indictment in question w,s found at the last Aseiats, before the
passing of the Act, and was traversed till the present Assizes. It
charged the defendants, Thomas and Albert Stringer, with as,ault-
ing end falsely imprisoning Thomas Humphreys, at Cuttham, on
the 17th of February, in the seventh year of the reign of George the
Third, and concluded in the usual form, " against the said King's
peace, his crown, and dignity." It was an old printed term, of the
time of George the Third, and had been filled up to suit the pre-
sent occasion, but omitted to alter the reign in which the offence
Was supposed to have been eiimmitted. In answer -to the first
question put to the prosecutor, it appeared thit the transaction in
question took place on the 17th of February last, and not on the
17th of February in the 7th year of •the reign of George the Third.
A question thereupon arose, whether the defendants could be fried
on such an indictment, the offence being alleged to have taken place
at a time when none of the parties were in existence.
Mr. LAW, for the defendants, contended that this was an ob-
jection available before verdict, as matter of variance between
the record and the evidence, and that Mr. Peel's Act was inappli•
cable to the case. In the first dice, this indictment was found be-
fore the passing of that Act; and therefore, muntieg it to be in-
tended to cure an objection of this nature, it could rot be construed
retrospectively, unless the Legislature hid, in express terms. 411*
dared that it should have an ex riot facto operation. which it led
net done. But, secondly, the Statute was only intended to cure
formal objection., apparent on the face of the record, after verdict,
and was not intended to deprive the party of the benefit of such
objections, if taken before verdict. Thi., however, was not an ob.
jection on the reeerd, for on the face of it the indictment was
perfect. The objection was not one of form but of substence,
arising out of the evidence, which showed that the fact was not
committed as alleged in the indictment, and therefore the Statute
did not help the case. If, linked, the objection had not been
taken until after verdict, then indeed (assuming the Act to be re-
trospective). the judgment c Add not be staved or arrested, even if
it were an objection eppairent on the record; because the ehj•rt of
the Legislature was to prevent a failure of justice by reason of the
technical objections therein enumerated. On,these grounds be aub•
tnitted that the defendants were entitled to an acquittal.
51r. A x Derws, contra, submitted, first. that as the Act wae ex•
pressed in general tern,,, without any limitation of time as to the
commencement of its operation, it must, by consequence, be car.
strued to embrace the failure
case. Secondly, the object of tile
statute was to prevent a failure of justice by allowing of objections,
in point of form, wholly beside the merits of the case, and ro
pense with the proof of immaterial averments. The present objec-
tion was of this nature, for it merely rent to the time when the
offence was alleged to have been committed. which was wholly int-
ma:erial. and might he 'ejected as surplusage. Proof that as as-
sank had been committed in the county of Kent, was quite out&
dent to give the Court jurisdiction, without gologav to show that it
Was committed at the precise time alleged. 1f ma skiftliell WSW
to prevail, because it happened to be taken before verdict, it would
go to render the Act of Parliament wholly inoperative and nue-
tory, and would reopen the door to those objections of lotto. clutch
the Legislature, in it, w:s.lotre had intended to cure. The Act,
indeed, would be wholly unelem If it were edit competent to a
party to avail himself of mere formal objection+, se that care was
taken to moot them before verdict.
Mr. Justice floertoer) said• in subetaneet—lt appears to me
that tee 20th section of the Act of Parliament does not in terms
ex end to this particular case. Whether it does eir tionn queen is
another question, upon which I have at present formed no opinion.
At first WAS clearly of opinion, that as the indictment was found
by the Grand Jury at the last Assizes, and as the Statute did t.ot
pass until afterwards it could not by possibility be brought within
its operation ; but I do rot find any thing in the dome to restrain
to indictments "to be preferred," which words are generally found
in Statutes intended to have a prospective operation; and therefore
it seems to me that there is nothing repugnant in giving it a retro-
spective construction, so as to embrace a case actually brought to
trial after the passing of the Act, though the indictment was rowel
'previously. The question then is, whether (auseqmieg the Art to
have a retrospective t . oration) this case comes within it by conse-
quence, though it does not in terms. Adverting to the terms of tile
clause, I should say, as at present advised. that it was meant merely
to cure objection,' on the face of the indictment, and to prevent them
front having any effect, so as to respite or arrest a judgment, after ver-
dict found by the Jury, or after outlawry, or after judgment by con-
fession. But I find nothing to prevent such objections from having
full effect. it' taken before verdict. Re. The present objection does
not arise on the record, but is an objection founded on the failure of
evidence to establish the statement in the indictment, that the
assault took place in the seventh year of the reign of George
the Third. The question, however, is, whether it is Material to
prove the time when the fact took place, and whether tie averment
of the reign of George the Third may not be rejected as sur-
plusage. According its my recollection, some decisions have oc-
curred upon the Statute of Ant), which requires penes not to be
taken from the hundred, but out of the county at large, in which
it has been held that the allegation of place, in which the
transaction occurred, is wholly immaterial. Whether the :terse
Principle may not extend to the present case, is a matter sbich
may be further considered. Undoubtedly this is an Act of
Parliament which ought to be construed strictly, anti, as
.1 ell-

Art to
r Cnlne-
s or the
merely
nt thee,
ver-
by WI.
baying
no doe*
ilure of
tlott the
Geerge
trial CO
Trnhernt •
a% MO.
nye Or-
t
to be
3 which
ieh
e !woe
ibbich
Act of
I I en-