The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-08-18 00:00:00

2`.. OR 7 711.: UM Olt C rtr.

,LAWCASTI.;:t ASSIZE.;.-I,,soaarua, duo. 13.
The Judges arrived here this evening, and opened the Cntn.
miavlon ,• and after hearing divine service to-osorrow, will pro-
ceed to their reapectita !'outs.
The criminal calendar is extremely heavy, consisting of forty-
four cases, of which, oght are Mr murder, eight for forgery, iii for
tortglary, two fur arson, two fur rape, eight for robbery and other
charge,

causes entered at the Civil side are, its peportion, equal:Y
nutuaroui.

WEST ZIIN CIRCWT,
BRISTOL, ASSIZES, dicocar 11.1.

The Comr num was opened I.erc yesterday, asir this monde%
huainess commenced tifore Ile. Juvice LtvELEnaLE.
There are oily ten eases mitered on the cause paper for trial, fire
or six of winch were referred ear otherrise disposed d this morn-
ing. Two are Special Jury cases, ant remain over fee to-rnortow.
ACCIDENT FROM i- SPRING-GUN•
citnio7::lekrin.s:SeginbautrttoenhEuexcirdeheoptoerble:wraedtt:tiitonchnetimpil,CithttvbptaehlrvesAtyptliforiaping:ttLhiselle—h;;Th:halse.
dserenadnansett, wionho few'
a spring-gun in his garden without affixing due notice of the Nun.,
received a severe wound and injury in Itia leg. There were .thee
Norm" enoftethriiile eghafrghee.enci°"l4
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the case to the Jury, and expressed
the great anxiety he telt in undertaking the conduct of this caae-,,
an anxiety that was considerably hicreased by its important natiare
and the vety short time be had been enabled to devdte to its dm-
sideration, having only received his brief on the preceding night ;
a circumstance which operated the more powerfully, d pude his
fears, being well aware that even the largest port lime, and
the amplest attention and care which his limited: s wosld
enable him to bestow, wolild scarcely have been s t to flt him
for conducting a case like the present, in the man- e great im-
portance of the consequences involved in it required. ' independent
of this difficulty, he felt it to be increased by the knowledge that
many must learned,: able, and humane persona differed from Mai
seen tbe subject ot the propriety of seturg spring-guns and ocher
instruments of a chattily nature for the protection of property.
Under what circumstances it might be fit and propeethat an indi-
vidual should he allowed by law to place incturnents of death in
a wood or garden for that purpose, was indeed a `fry grave and
' important question, and one which had occasioned considerable
difference M opinion among the most enlightened politicians, :ot
the highest legal adthoritirs. Two cases in which the principle
had been brought in question were tried, and in one the Judges
had come to no satisfactory decision, and i.- Me other: to no deciliters
at all. A man cominittiog a trespass i .t property of another
was liable to an action for dainagm, a . would be in proportion
to the nature of the injury clone al,. „why, the violation Of the
admitted right, or the circumstar es ..t agistravatiott accompanying
the trespass; but if it were to b contended that persons were at
liberty to inflict death as the pu .shment of a trespass, the quanta&
of damages would so sink into the studs as to be lb finareign-
worthy of consideration. His Learned Friend would, no donbt,
point out with his usual ability the necessity that existed to ptelfeet
property from depredation--a necessity in %Midi he entirely con..
mitred. All he wished the Jury to recollect was, that the gee/thin
was nut whether property should be adequately protested, but
whether death was the mode proper to be adopted as a itteeention
and punishment of a trespass.. Here was a garden in the posses-
sion of the defendant, one side of which was by a wall six
or seven feet high, and the others by lower walls, which were
fences more in the nature of a hedge than a wall. If the defendant
in this action had opposed tn.: eutrance of the plaintiff' into his
garden by putting a loaded pistol to his breast, and death had en-
sued as the consequence of that acto he defendant wouldjhava been a
murderer; and net, although such was the case, and his Learned
Friend would admit it, yet he appeared disposed to come here to..
day, and say in his defence--" true, if I had so opposed the plain.
tiff's ingress, I should have acted illegally in holding a pistol to
hit breast, although at the moment restrained by my sense of hu.
manic', and the &scour lability of a human creature here and here-
after • but although I might not act thus without commitlng an
illegal act, I claim the right to set an instrument in my garden
which shall be beyond my control, and has caused the injury and
Might have occasioned the death of this plaintiff:" As he had in-
timated, die question had already been tried on two occasions, once
in the Court of Common Pleas, and again in the Court of King's
Bench. In the former instance the case was that of a dog, winch
had been wounded by a spear placed in a wood, to destroy such
animals as might trespass on the premises. On the subject of
the legality or illegality of so placing an instrument with
that view, the Court of Common Pleas had been equally di-
vided; two of the Judges holding it was lawful so to do,
and too of them that It was not. The second case was th:d.
of Ilett v. Waits, and had been tried in the Court of King's
Basch. A spring.gun had been set in a wood,• and a person
who entered it with the Intention of gathering nuts was wounded.
The Court decided against the claim of the individual who had sus-
tained the injury to recover damages, on the ground that he had
received a particular and distinct notice that a spring-gun had beets
set in the place; and therefore they held, that whatever injury her
had sustained he suffered through a voluntary act on his own part.
. art here was a question of a nature entirely different, and much
stronger Aar the resent plaintiff's and it most now be determlnad—
aye oc . a man was entitled to prevent acts of troves*
by setting enginve calculated to put men In peril of their lives. In.
firts case the defendant bad given no notice of his intention to set a
spring.gpn, and when he actually did fix up the instrument, that
had occasioned the accident and injury now complained of, he had
kept hie act equally secret. Farther than this, it had been sug-
gested to him he should affix a notice to some part of his premises,
and the propriety of doing so was pressed upon his attention, but
he positively declined. It was matter of rd ret to him that the
Court did not, on the occasions to which he had adverted, hear
Counsel on both sides, and not content themselves with attending
to the arguments used by the plaintiff's Counsel only. Though
they agieed with the views entertained by the defendant's Counsel,
lie would have been glad they had acted On the principle adopted
by that high legal authority, the Lord Chancellor, who always made
a point of hearing Counsel on both sides, anti was
.particularly de-
sirous of hearing those with whom he agreed in opinion ; because,
as he himself had stated, he oftener found Out his own fallacies and
errors by hearing his own arguments stated by other persons, and
seeing his own ideas diffecently dressed under the hands of other
n:en than by the arguments of those opposed to him in opinion..
But it was said the weapon was not placed in order to occasion
death, but only for the purpose of terrifying and preventing persons
from committing acts of trespass. In support of the legality of
doing so with this object, it was also urged " that a man could
place glass bottles on his wall," but that was a wholly different
thing. They were placed there to 'resent persons entering, but the
gun was for •ne purpose not of preventing ingress but of occasioning
death. The facts of the ease were bristly these :—The defendant
was the oivner of a garden, in which he kept a spring gun, set for
its protection In the manner described, without, as.he had said be-
fore, any notice of its being so set. The plaintiff was a lad, who,
for the most innoeent purpose imaginable. entered the garden, and
the accident occurred. The plaintiff's motive in entering the pre-
mise,' was simply this :—A person in the neighbourhood, a 31r.
Morgan, lost a pea-fowl. which had been traced through one or two
gardens into that of Mr. Holbrook. The owner, or, he should
rather say, the servant of the owner, was considerably distressed at
its loss, and this boy volunteered his services to get into the garden
for the purpose of finding and bringing back the fowl, He did so.
He mounted the wall, and, while on the top of it, called out re-
peatedly, but receiving no answer, and no person appearing to be
there, he descended into the garden, where he almost immediately
met with the accident in question which had at the time and idler..
war& occasioned him much in:tiering, and might have been this
cause of loss of life to the unfortunate and harmless youth. h
seemed the prosecutor had previously lost some valuable dowers,
and the excuse he pleaded fur setting this instrument was, that it
Was in order to preserve those flowers, which had east hint much
time and trouble. But he (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) thought the Jury
would not consider this a sufficient justification ter his conduct.
He would ask, was it to go forth to the world that it was the law of
England that every petty injury and offence was to be prevented and
punished by death r If 50, our system must become one of blood.
If it were not the law, and the existing regulations were found tot
sufficiently severe fur the preservation of property, we had a Pasha..
meat competent to alter the law. He did not see the limits to the
principle sought to be established. If an individual, fm order to
prevent a trespass, might place a spring-gun in his garden, ha
might place one on a common, and a man might be prevented trout
wandering out of the path at the peril of his life. From a common
they might go up to woods, gardens, and every species of trespass.
It should be recollected that this was an offence different from as
attempt to break into a man's house at midnight, and that trespass
was not felony, and should not be so treated, punished, or provided
against. The question of damages was peculiarly the province of'
the Jury, and was to be regulated by a consideration of alt the cir-
cumstances of the case. Here was no *once of a gun being set ;
and although he could not tell what value the defendant might set
upon his tulips, yet, whether or not, he had formed an improper
estimate of the value of human life when he set the preservation of
his curious flowers in an equal scale against it, was a subject tor the
Jury to, determine. No thanks to tEe defendant that the boy had
escaped with his life and was here to-day. lie might have been a
corpse had it not been for the protecting care of Providence. If ho
were naked for his doctor's bill to show what should be the amount
of the damages he had none to show, for the plaintiff' was too poor
to employ one, and had cot sequently gone to an hospital. Under
these circumstances he asked of the Jury such damages as the injury
inflicted, and sit weeks which his client had spent stre:ched upon a
bed of suffering and sickness would seem to them to inquire.
Mr. Justice LITTLEISALE, at the close of the Learned Ser.
gpreoapnriisetaydidjeases,
esexinangliunpedonthme casswiling
to suhstantiatteo the
facts, which %mild be necessary in order to evi the
.cese .
subject to the
Court above. The Jury could find a special verdict,
o th legal right of
subsequent decision upon the point of law as
of
_ property.
suggested the
setting destructive engines ter the preset% st: r
~on
Teefen"idenietto‘ and
this place, and it would be therefore
ter the
his Lordship, to take evidence to o necessary
had fallen from
which could be afterwards discussed in another place. It ase
otrfoluitbeicelahrehdt,exthp:hnswe
hpossible, fait,:
facts,
Learned Judge. Sergeant
udg e. IT' El
This al. wasen
ti
areqlyuiagT't weeintdeit:tt: law,ittnh a the
inc not
tit toI
tkeiewe . dwieettittlloedfurt.thinn:
the sake
could more regret the occurrence of the accident which formed the
subject of this lovestigation. •
Mr. Sergeant WILDE concurred I. what had fallen from the
Court and his Learned Brother; and celled the following witnesses
his object
oft othdeopilhalisn twiffi t'las"hise•el leastl
sa
to prove the facts of his case.
Mary Collins deposed to the eitemnstancea of the loos of a pea.
hen, the property of her master, Air. Morgan, on the 21st March
last, and the attempt of Bird the plaintiff to recover it by walla'

V

_. ~a

S

.e