The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-13 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IVEnNEsDAY, APRIL 12.

EASTER TERM.
This being the first day of Easter fern, the Lord Chief Justice
and the other Learned Judges of the Court of King's Bench did
not take their seats until half-past one. Many motions were made,
among which the following wax the only one of public interest.
ABDUCTION.
TUE NINO V. WILLIAM WAKEFIELD.
This defendant, who is charged with having assisted his brother,
Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, in the recent extraordinary ab.
elution of Miss Turner from Liverpool. was brought up by
Habeas Corpus from Lancaster Castle, whither he had been taken
only last week. Within the past fortnight he was married to the
daughter of Sir John Sydney, Bart. at the English Ambassador's
Chapel in Paris, and had arrived at Dover, when lie was instantly
seized by the police, taken from his bride, and conveyed forthwith
to Manchester, and thence to Lancaster Castle after his final
examination before the Magistrate. lie is a young man about five
feet six inches high, light complexion. dressed rather fashionably
than otherwise, of good exterior and demeanour, though not a pre-
possessing countenance. and seemed in very good spirits when he
took his station on the floor of the Court.
Mr. TINDAL moved for the return to the writ of [bairns Corpus.
The Messenger from tne Governor of Lancaster Castle then
handed in the writ, and the return to it, containing the warrant by
which the prisoner was committed, the depositions of Miss Ellen
Turner, her school-mistress, Miss Dalby, her father, and other
peering. which narrated the facts that have been already before the
public in many. shapes, and they were all read by Mr. Deeltry.
The deposition of Miss Ellen Turner, after going through the
introductory matter relative to :he manner in which xhe had been
conveyed from Liverpool, identified the prisoner in the subsequent
parts of the transaction, and stated positively that she would not
have married Edward Gibbon Wakefield, unless she had been as-
sured that it was by the request of her father and family, and to
save them from ruin.
Mr. TINDAL—Now, my bards, I humbly submit that this
commitment being only for a misdemeanor, under the statute of
Phillip and Mary, the prisoner is clearly entitled to be admitted to
hail. 1 have listened very attentively to the. depositions Vlid) I
have now heard for the first tittle) while they were reading, and
front beginning to end I can discover nothing which makes the of-
fence of which the prisoner is accused any thing more than a mis •
demeanor.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Why not?
Mr. TINDAL—No force has been used to bring it Within the
statutes which render abduction felony.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The words of the statute of 3d
Henry VII, cap. 2, are " against her will." If then this young
lady was carried oft' by means of fraud, I apprehend that is quite
enough to satis'y the words of the statute. In the case of burglary,
where a peraon enters a house at night by fraud, that has always
been held to be constructive force; and here it appearing that this
young lady was carried off by fraud. that i apprehend will be suf-
ficiently "against her will" to be within themeaning of the statute.
Mr. TINDAL—The commitment, your Lordships see, is clearly
for a misdemeanor, upon the wording of the statute of Philip and
Mary.
The Crime JUSTICE—That may be ; but if the Court think,
upon the depositions, that the commitment ought to have been for a
felony, the mere commitment for a misdemeanor will not alter the
offence.
Mr. TINDAL—I am far from fraying that the Court may not
take a different course from that adopted by the Magistrates; but I
should think your Lordships would not, without mature delibera-
tion, express an opinion that might very greatly prejudice the pri-
soner in the future stages of this case. I apprehend the only two
statutes under which this case can tall, are either the 33 of
Henry VII, cap. 2, or the 2d of Philip and Mary. cap. 13. The
first is a statute against the forcible abduction of women and thei.-
euloequent marriage; and the second Is a statute passed to prevent
the fraudulent abduction of women end their subsequent marriage.
V.'ith respect to the first statute, that it applies only to cases of fife-
cible abduction appears not only from all the text writers, but also
from decided cases. Your Lordships are aware of Fulwood's case,
Croke Charles, 483, where it was held that there must be force in
order to bring the offence within the statute; and if the force was
only the original taking in one county, and the party had after.
wards voluntarily gone him another where the marriage took place,
it was held that the trial could be in neither, because there was no
continuinkforce.
BAYLEY—The prisonets in that ease were convicted
anti executed.
Mr. TINDAL—This is what was said by the Court, however ;
and in the case of the Cordons, For carrying off a lady of the name
of Lee, which was tried at Oxford, it appeared that Mrs. Lee had
voluntarily consented to go from one county to another county, and
in consequence the prosecution was stopped.
The Loan Crites JUSTICE—That was not a case of marriage.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—In the case of the King and Brown, the
*roman consented to be married.
Mr. TINDAL—It has always been held that where the original
taking is forcible, and the marriage takes place in the same county,
the law will suppose that the original force continues. But the dis-
tinction I have taken, borne out by the two authorities I have cited,
is, that where there is a forcible taking in one county, and a going
into another voluntarily, there the necessary force is not complete,
and therefore the offence itself is not complete.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—In one of the cases the objection was,
that the woman was seized in Middlesex, and there was no force
appearing in Surrey. The Court, however, presumed that the force
continued.
Mr. TIXDAT.—That shows that force is a necessary ingredient to
make the case tome within the Statute.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—In the case of the King and Brown, I
think no force appeared. The rote I have of that case is "John
Brown was indicted upon the Statute 3d Henry VII. cap. 2, for
forcibly taking away and marrying one Lucy Itamsy, having a
portion of 5.0001. She was inveigled into Hyde-park by one Mrs.
P. a confederate of Brown, who had a coach for the purpose, to
take the air. When the coachman drove from the
rest of the corn.
pany Brown came to the coach in a mask, and addressing himself
to Mrs. P. soon persuaded her to get out of the coach ; and also
a maid-servant attending Lacy Ramey, and then got himself into
the coach, and detained het until the coachman catered them to his
lodgings in the Strand. The next morning he Prevailed on her
(having threatened to carry her beyond seas if she refused) to
many him. He was the same day appvelunded in the house.
The Court held that Lucy Ramey was admissible as a witness;
and the evidence being clear as to all the points of the Statute,
viz.: Ist, that the taking was by force; 2dly, that the woman had
substance • and 3dly., that marriage ensued, though it did nail ap.
pear to halve been consuthmated, the Jury found him guy.
Whereupon judgment was given; and he was hanged." That is
In lat Venttis, 231. It was • trial at bar.
Mr. Tiazaa—There your Lordship sees something appeared

'

•
its inu;ila7l. Every thing-she did she did by compulsion. II t tan*
is another case, " The King v. Hagein Sweenron," which was ified
by'llolt. Chief Justice, and the other Judges of this Coen: in
• 17t12. If your Lorbthips look at that ease, you will see, by the
evidence of firs. Plesaant Rawlins, that throughout she toted edia
der the impulse of terror, and the inarrhtge took piece agaugt kyr
will. 'ln that cite it appeared that the yeisoner and his cant/dlr.
retro, pretending they had a writ againtif ?dr. Ilawlina, entailed Ilief
DU her way t, church. They carried her to a !rouse nest the Sewell
Dials, and thence to a house in Holborn, where they compelled bee,
to be married. The nest day she was tecoverrl by her friends ;
and after the evidence was given, the Court held that both the aria
glnal taking was by compulsion and the marriage was one whldi
she never would have entered into except by force. It is not often
that this subject is looked into, but all the text writers and all the
decided cants concur in laying it down that a continuing force is a
necessary ingredient.
The. Loan CHIEF JUSTICE obseried. that the preamble of
the statute of Philip and fiery did not IRAQI oat a distinction ben
tween fraud and force. It merely recited 'the( many women were,
carried off by trifling cheats, by fair prdmises, or by force, front
their friends or kinsfolks.
Air. TINDAL said it was perfectly clear, from the beginning td
the end of thin transaction, that a system of very abomlitat le imps
sition had been practised. He did not pretend to stand up in do.
fence of that which had been none. This young lady had been InJ
duced by stratagem to leave the protection of her friends, and 'feted
wards to he married in a foreign country—because Scotland, for
this purpose. was no part of England ; but he submitted that if
any offence was committed at ell in England, it was only a niisde.
meaner. Suppose the party taking the lady away had rope fed et
his conduct and brought her back, that would be no offence tindat
the statute of Henry VII. In this case there was only a taking
away by force, supposing that force could be implied ; and there
was no marrying at all in England, for what the mann of the mark
Tinos was, even in Scotland, was extremely dodbtful.
The LORD CHIEF Jusrtct —How is gadtriage made neefa
airy under the statute of Henrycl I. ? " his therefore ordained,
evablished, and enacted by our Sovereign bard the King, be the
advice of the bowls Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commonsle
the Raid Parliament assembled, and by aursority of the same,-
what. person or persons from henceforth that taketh any woman fee
against her will unlawfully, that is to say maid, widow, or *My
that such taking. procuring, and abetting to the same, tad aleHnit
ceiving wittingly the said woman so taken against het will," ear
be felony. s s r,
Me. Tie bar. submitted that in an important a eats
Lordships would be reluctant to express an opiniat
might overate to the prejudice of his client, in the
which he stood. Ile hoped therefore that, as the defends.!
committed only for a misdemeanor, the Court would ranee IL
Due notice had been given to the other side, and proper bail were
in attendance.
The ATTORNEY-OLXERAL said that, as this tfas a case of
great importance, and involving considerations of considdeable..
ment, he was sure their Lordahips would nut decide on it in a eat.
mart way.
The !Mtn C:IIF.F Jusv rce—Supposing it a felony, mss*.
capital letonv. The capital punishment which was inflicted by the
statute of Elizabeth, is repealed by the let Geo. IY. cap. 11S.
The ATTORNEYitiENERAL, in answer to the observation.
urged by file. Tindal, submitted that this was clearly a Meet
under the 3d Henry VII. It gas not necessary that there eintaill
be emusl force, for upon the analogy between this and other cailey
rod' as burglary, where constructive torte was frnplied. if dreg
I;ordsbips were of opinion that fraud was employed to gain postwar
shin of this 'mane lady, and that fraud was continued up to the
period of her marriage, that was a sufficient abduction against her
will to conic within the meaning of the Act.
Here their Lordship% consulted together for some rrtintitee:
The Cu lEFIJORDJ est i CE—TheCOUrt IS exceedingly Unwilling
upon this motion, to give any opinion whether this is felony woes/
Supposing it is felony, however; it is eergyable felony% sod shift
the question is, whether it is not better, even for those who may
be the prosecutors of the defendant on this occasion, that we should
abstain from giving an opinion, end admit the defendant to bail"
The Court is able to take care that the persons who are teceived
bail shall be responsible persons to a sufficient amount.
The ATroastEr.fiegenat then urged that this, Bien sop:
posing It only to be a misdemeanor, was of such a heinous rut,
tore, that the Court would not exert the discretion it had to admit
the defendant to bail.
fir Justice BAYLEY inquired of the Attorney-General wbethes
he had tbuid any case in which the marriage, after forcible abduct
tion, bad taken place out of the hingdoch ?
The ATTORNEY.GEN Cum. replied in the negative.
After some further discussion, and the Learned Judges bad costa.
suited together for a long time,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, this is a question width wit
think it necessary to take a little time to consider, whether ws
should admit the party to hail or not.' Therefore, at present, be
will remain in the custody in which he came up to town, and pro.
izably, at the sitting of the Court tomorrow morning, we shall be
prepared to give our judgment.
•

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IVIDNEsrAY, A pRIL 11)

This being-the first day of Term, the (7nurt assentbled eunit
at a late hour, and no business of importance took plaoc.

PEROGATIYE COURT, WEDNEsDaY, APRIL 12. '
nEw D. ntanieli.
Yesterday Sit Joust Nit:Hots proceeded to deliver the judges
mcnt of the Court in the aboVe cause. As its details have been id
frequently before the public during the previous stages, it will be
unnecessary to repeat them here. it may however be necessary W
reiniad our readers that the suit is promoted by Mrs. Dew, for the
purpose of revoking and setting aside the will of her deceased
rather,who, under the influence Ma strange delusion with regard to
her moral character. bequeathed the bulk of his property and effects
to strangers. While every one who knew her united in praising
the tenderness and affection with which she treated her father. and
the propriety and decorum of her genera! conduct, her parent
stigmatised her to friends and strangers as a profligate and aban-
doned creature; and peraecated her with a relentless and unnatural
cruelty. The question for the Court to try was,whethet the deed was
dictated by the testator under the influence of a deluded and Ms-
ordered imagination ; or iolicther he was of sound intellect at the
time ? In order to illustrate these propositions, the Learned Judge
reviewed and commented upon the evidence at considerable
length ; the chief portion of which, he said, hare him out
in the assertion, that the extraordinary impression of the ter.
tutor was a (fielded proof of insanity. He particularly dwelt
on the festimonjr of the Rev. Mr. Dartlet, who had been indu ed
by the represeitations of the testator to visit h'ur daughter, the lei-
ter having described her as one poises ed of satanic art—to be m
chinning as the Devil—and to embitter his life by her Shocking this-
conduct. That gentleman, however, found her to be quite the reverse,
and was stuck with the peculiar propriety of her behaviour—with
the anxiety she manifested to be reconciled to her father, in spite of
the treatment which she had always received from him—and with
the keen delicacy which she displayed when meeting of the indig-
nities to which he had subjected her. It vines remarkable, be coo-
tinued, that her father praised the affectionate interest he took Milts
welfare of his child ; and gave himself credit for the utmost purity
of feeling. • After the Learned Judge had concluded his analysis of
the evidence, he alluded to the circumstances under which the deed
was granted; and here, he observed, that the care with which
it was revised by the testatator, and the bearing of the
instructions given by him, made out a strong case of tri-
nity. But when these circumstances were opposed to the
mass of evidence which he had detailed, the presumption was en.
tirely changed. That &towed that, up to the period of the tests-
tor's death, the original delashon kept hold of his mind ; ter
although he was seized with paralysis some time before that event,
the effects of which might have been supposed to reduce him
imbecility, yet it was clearly proved that after this affliction had
happened to him, he rejected every overture of being reconciled to
his daughter, breaking out into the most violent exciamatioos
against a friend who attempted this humane act, and declared that
the Devil could only have swayed him in making such a proposi-
tion. The various marks of eccentricity against the testator might
not of themselves have been sufficient to determine the judgment of
the Court; bit, as corroborating the predominant delusion wig*
possessed the testator's mind, they strengthened the conclusion at
which it was disposed to arrive. It was evident that that delusion
was deep rooted, and that under its influence the testator had dic-
tated the deed which was the subject of the suit. Notwithstanding
the excellent character of the daughter that had been sworn to, her
father had !wailed her of depravity, violence, 'vice, hypocrisy,
lice and every thing that could disgrace the human character, and
had construed her Conduct into a species of revolt and rebellion
against his paternal authority. Ile had subjected her also to
great harshness and indignity, by tying her to bed-peens, pulling
out her hair by the roots, stripping her naked, rubbing her back
with salt and wafer, and imposing upon her different kinds of
household drudgery. These acts he represented to be so many
proofs of paternal affection and tenderness, and himself to be a
perfect pattern of purity—as pure as the Deity himself. These
considerations had led the Court to come to the conviction, after
carnally guarding itself against all compassionate feelings towards
the daughter, that the testator was not of sound mind, or was
emnpor menar, when he executed *e will, and that therefore it
ought to be revoked and set aside.