The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-11-16 00:00:00

/

_

he, the Defendant, had been employed to put out
Pets on the beach, as a sign for smugglers to land.
He then struck the Prosecutor, and knocked Lim
down several times; a large moh collated about
him, armed with mops and broomsticks, who joined
the Defendant in assisting to beat and abuse the,
Prosecutor; his coat was cut and torn in piece,,, and
he never after recovered the beating he had received.
The Defendant produced no affidavit, nor did he
make any defence by way of mitigation, except that
of having been ten months in confinement. The
Court sentenced him to twelve months' imprison-
ment in Maidstone gaol.

TUE KING 0. ISAAC JARVIS.
The Defendant in this case was convieted at the
last assizes for Devon, for assaulting one Bridge-
water, and two other Excise Officers, and for pre-
venting their entrance into his house to search for
spirits, said to have been concealed.
Upon the trial it appeared, the Prosecutor had
'one to the Defendant's house, about twelve o'clock
an the day time, and having shewn their warrant to
the Defendant's wife, were proceeding to make
their search, when the Defendant himself came in,
put his back against the door, and taking Bridge-
water by the collar, swore he should not starch
there; and at last having colltded a great number
of persons about the door, obliged him to retire.
In mitigation of his pnishment, the Defendant
produced the affidavits of the Clergyman of the
parish of South Devon, and also a Magistrate of the
county, which stated, that the Defendant with an-
other man took out a boot, nod went for the purpose
of rendering assistance to the crew of a prize ship,
which had struck near the shore, and at the risque
of his own life, saved the lives of seven of them : in
a short time after, the vessel went to pieces ; for
this alt the Defendant never received the least com-
pensation. Some time after, he seized and brought
back to prison, three French officers, who had
broke from their. parole, and refused a very consider-
able sum, which they offered to him to let them es-
cape. It was also stated, that the Defendant had a
wife and eight children, all depending upon his in-
dustry.
Mr. Jca rt., on behalf of the Defendant, admitted
that the obstruetion of the officer took place, but no
sort of personal violence was offered, nor did any
thing occur from which an inference could be drawn
that the Defendant was a smuggler. The affidavits
were made by two most respeditable persons, the one
A clergyman, and the other bearing a military com-
mission and a magistrate. On the score of his hu-
manity and loy, ahy, the instance of bravely saving
the lives of seven poor seamen, apprehending three
French officers, and refusing a bribe to let them
escape, were sufficient proofs on that head : he there-
fore, under these circumstances, trusted to the w.ll
known clemency of the Court, and begged, should
they think it expedient to pass seritei.ce of impri-
sonment upon him, that he might be sent to the
gaol of Exeter, where he would be near his family,
and might have an opportunity of assisting, by his
industry, in their support.
Mr. DALLAS, on the part of the prosecution, ob-
served, that the Defendant had been guilty of suf.
ticient violence to deserve the judgment of the
Court : it was a common practice of the people of
that country, when a Revenue officer appeared, to
coiled a mob against him, and then plead that they
had 'sot struck Lim. -

Mr. Justice Gs as At lamentesi that the men of
that part of the cot ,try horn whence the Defend-
ant came were es er forward to resist the laws. In
this case it was evident the Defendant knew for
what purpose the officer came, and there were
grounds to susp• a, he had good reason for resist-
ance ; however, .he affidaviu shewed, that lie was
not a man of a base and malicious temper ; and,
taking all the circum•taaces into consideration, the
Cruet adjudged that he should be imprisoned for the
pace of three months, in the gaol of Exeter.

TNL Lll,O 7. 101IRT MOODY.
This indictment WAS tr ed at Winchester, and
the Defendant was conviied of assaulting and
obstruding an Excise Officer in discharge of his
duty, and also of endeavouring to provoke him to
fight.
The Defendant was a common brewer, and called
on the Prosecutor, Gregory Tomkins, who was a
Colleftor of Excise, to pay his ditty on Malt, amount-
ing to 441. The Prosecutor asked him, if he were
gorlg to pay his father'sduty (who was alsoabrewer)
as well as his own ? be replied, he was tot; and the
Prosecutor then asked him, it he were not hidather's
servant ? Upon this question. he became irritated,
words ensued, and he swore he would pull the Ex-
ciseman's nse.e, told him, he was a d—J trouble-
some fellow, and ever quarelling with evety body in
Winchester ; the other retorted upon him, and called
him an insolent puppy ; upon which the Defendant
threw down a guinea on a table, and swops he would
fight him for it ; he then struck the Prosecutor two
or three times.

..... ---
The affidavits in mitigation stated, that the
parties both got into a violent passion with each
other, and the whole dispute arose from the heat
of the moment ; they further stated, that the De-
fendant had a wife and large family, and his con-
finement would be their utter ruin.

Mr. Justice Gauss observed, that it would be ut-
terly impossible for colledors of the revenue to do
their duty, if they were thus to be treated with in-
dignity and violence. He then pronounced the
judgment of the Court, that the Defendant be
imprisoned one month, in the gaol at Winchester, to
pay a fine of 301. and find sureties in 2001. for his
goal behaviour for the space of two years.