The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-12 00:00:00

HORSE-STEALING.

Robe►t Botahicr was tried for stealing a hone, bridle, and
saddle, the property of James Church.
It appeared that the horse, with the bridle and saddle, was left
in the owner's stable, at Alban, on the night of the sth June, and
on the following morning the animal was missed. In the course
of the following day the property was seen in the prisoner's pos-
session, at a distance of tome than 20 miles from 51r. Church's re-
sidence, where he stated that he had been robbed, and asked a
farmer to lend hint whiney, saying he would leave his horse for
security. This circumstance exciting suspicion, the prisoner was
detained; and printed bills having been circulated, the prosecutor
came forward and identified his property.
In his defence, the prisoner said that he had received the horse
from a man. named King, and was ignorant that it was stolen.
lie declined calling any witness to support his defence.
Verdict, Guilty—J' of sentenced.
ROBBERY.

Wm. Swarm was charged with breaking opea the dwelling.
louse of Samuel YAWN and stealing a quantity of wearing ap-
parel, house linen, and other articles.
It appeared that the prosecutor's house, which is situated at
Westbury, was left eitirry by the occupants on the Ilith March lest,
for a short time, during the middle of the day, and in their absence
it was entered, and the articles in question stolen. In a few days
after the property was found in the prisoner's possession; anti as
he could not aatisfactorily account for having it, he was found
Sentence of death was recorded against the prisoner, but the
Judge intimated that his case would be taken into consideration.
John Millard and John Lloyd, were tried for breaking open the
house of John White, at Vt eatbury, on the 20th March, and
taking front it a quantity of wearing apparel, Ac. The prosecutor
stated, that his horse was broken open after he had retired to rest
on the night above mentioned, and upon rising in the morning he
found the door open and the property named in the indictment
taken away. A part of the property was afterwards found in Ma-
lard's house, concealed in the tickingof a bed, and it was proved
that the prisoners had disposed of the remainder of the property
he
to
an old woman who dealt in rags and bottles at Westbury. T
prisoners also sold a woman's inside garment, which was stolen
from White's house, to a poor woman who sold nuts.
The prisoners severally charged each other with the robbery, and
denied all participation in the guilt of the transaction. They were
found Guilty of larceny, bat were acquitted of the burglary. They
were severally sentenced to be transported for seven years.
Thomas Wallace and James Nash were charged with breaking
and entering the house of William King., at Pottaut, in the day time,
and stealing therefrom three one pound notes, and various articles
of wearing apparel. King, who is • poor labourer, left his home
soon after day-break on the morning of the 2d of this month, in
company with his wife and daughter, to work in the fields. The
door was locked and the key placed in the thatch, as is usual in
the country. ‘Vhen the faintly returned to dinner at noon, they
found that their house had been entered in their absence, and the
property In question taken. The prisoners were observed loitering
about King a house on the day of the robbery. The prisoner
Wallace was subsequently detected exposing some of the property,
and when Nash was taken into custody, a small purse, belonging
to the prosecutor, was found on his person. The prisoners were
found Guilty of the capital offence. Sentence of death was record.
ed, but Mr. Justice Littledale said their lives should be spared.
LARCENY.
William Archer was charged with stealing a tortoise-shell snuff-
box, mounted with gold, the property of Francis S. Long. Mr.
Long deposed that he resided at Warminster, that on or about the
21st of March he missed his snuff-box, and in consequence of some
information which he received, he searched the prisoner, who was a
servant in his employment, and discovered the snuffbox about his
person. Upon leaving home a short time before, witness had left the
box in a drawer, where it was usually kept. The prisoner offered
nothlug in pis defence. fie was therefore found Guilty, and Kn.

• ‘;.4

a.,~;;

THE BRITISH PRESS.

enced to be imprisoned and kept to bard labour foe threw calendar
months.
COW STEALING.
John Goddard was charged with stealing three cows, the ProPeflY
of John Thomas, Esq. It appeared that the cows were seen on
the 20th May, grazing in the park of Mr. Thomas, at Widcombe,
in the county of Somerset, anti on the following morning they were
missal. 'fury wire traced into Wiltshire, and it was sworn that
the prisoner was seen driving them in different parts of the country.
Ha was apprehended, with the cows in his possession, at Wilton, a
few miles from Sarum. Not being able satisfactorily to account
for the manner in which he obtained possession of the property, ba
was found Guilty. Sentence not pawed.
CIVIL SIDE.
HEVIR J. ELLISONAND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by Mr. Bevir, an attorney, for pro-
fessional services. against the defendants. Colonel Ellison and John
Gordon, Esq. the unsuccessful candidates fur the borough of Wot-
ton Basset, in this entente. at the contested election which took
place for that borough in 1020.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS stated the plaintiff's cam. He said his
client was engaged as the defendants' agent at the period referred
to. Mr. Bert, himself did not attend the election, but Mr. Mul-
lings, who was then the plaintiff' 'it articled clerk, and was a gentle-
man in every way quaiihed for such a eitisation, discharged the
plaintiff's duties. For these services the plaintiff claimed 1441..
the amount of his bill, for which sum he submitted his client was
miffed to a verdict.
3lr. dlullings was the principal witness in support of the plain-
tiff's case. Ile stated that he is no* an attorney ; that he attended
for the plaintiff at Wolton Basset. as agent to the defendant
during the contested election of 1820. 14 itoess was articled to
plaintiff' at that time. Subsequently, when he was admitted en
attorney, he was chosen by the defendants to conduct a petition which
they presented to the House of Commons, praying that the peti-
tion referred to might be set aside. The netennants failed in the
object they had in view in presenting that petition. Witneas was
not at present on intimate terms with the plaintiff; there is a cold-
ness between them. The amount of plaintiff's bill is 1441., and in
witness's opinion all the charges are reawnublc. The disbursements
of the defendants exceeded 1,5001. during the election. Witness
discharged the tins, but Mr. Bevies was not amongst the dis-
charged *mein a. Mr. Gordon and Colonel Ellison deposited
1,0001. with plaintiff in the first insnince, and dtlol. was 'hero/ads
paid by Sir. i'i.t, who has great intaence in the borough.
Mr. We:fo 11, another attorney, stated that he had examined the
plaintiff's bi I, and considered Mat the charges were reasonable.
Ile considered the last witness, Mr. 31ullings, in every way com-
petent to conduct a contested election in 1020.
The plaintiff's case having closed here,
Mr. Sergeant WILDE addressed the Jury for the defendants.
He said, it it were admitted that Mr. Bevir was the principal on
tile occasion referred to, and 31r. di ullings only the agent, the bill
must assuredly be considered excessive, as the attorney's clerk
could not be entitled to as much fur his services as if the master
himself had acted. The plaintiff's bill charged at the rate of five
guineas a day during the election, and three guineas a day before
and after it. Now it that was the remuneration which it was usual
for an attorney to receive upon such occasions, it could not be in-
stated that the attorney's clerk had a right to expect the same sum.
lie made this observation in reference to the cars made out by the
plaintiff; but the fact really was, that the witness,
was the principal, and th it the plaintiff, Mr. Bevir, had never
acted, nor did the defendant* know any thing of him as their
agent. Mr. Multiply' was the Assessor in loaner elections; he
was engaged by the defendants in 18211 ; they entrusted him with
the payment of their bills, he followed in their train, and to lain,
and not to Mr. Bevir, were the Candidates indebted. In support
of this hrgunient, he need only observe, that the bills were made
out in Mr. Mullings's name ; that all letters toncerning the elec-
tion were directed to that Gentleman, and answered by him in his
own name and that nobody heard Mr. Bevir's name during the
whole contest. These were circumstances which the Jury could
not leave taut of their consideration ; nor should they forget an.
other circumstance, which was, that the plaintiff' had allowed five
years to elapse after the termination of the election before he com-
menced the present action. This, to say the least of it, was a sus-
picious circumstance, as no man, who had an unquestionable claim,
would sleep over his rights, as Mr. Bevir had dune, for four or five
earl.
There were no witnesses called for the defendant, and the Jury
having consulted for a few minutes, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages, 144/.
BLAKE V. HARDING AND OTHERS.
This also was an action arising out of electioneering interests,
and the parties wen connected with the same borough, that of
Wotton Basset. •
Mr. Serjea nt WILDE and Mr.' MEREWEATIttIe conducted
the plaintiff's case, and Mr. C. F. W. ILLIAMB and Mr. MANNINO
appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the plaintiff's case. He described
his client as a very Ohl woman, who had resided for many years at
Wotton Bassett, whew, site had a holding of a house and garden.
that descended to her through several generations. The defendants
were Mr. Harding the Mayor of the Borough, Mr. Ribblewaite,
one of the Magistrates, and two other persons remotely connected
with the Corporation. The cause of sawn was so alleged trespass
committed in March last, when the defendants forcibly entered the
plaintiff's garden and dispossessed her. The question turned upon
the plaintiff's right of property% which was supported by the evi-
dence of many aged witneasesail wany documents, some of which.
were very voluminous.
There was s ring presumptive .evidence to support the attention
made by plaint Ire Counsel, that the object of the defendants, ism*.
rating the garden from the plaintiffs's cottage, was to it anufacture
an additional wee fur the next election.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS addressed the Jury for the defendants.
, contending that his clients were armed with sufficient authority
I from the real owners of the garden, when they took possession of at
and ejected the plaintiff.
After an investigation, which continued for several hours, the
Jury returned a ye:diet for the plaintiff—Damages 101.