The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-30 00:00:00

kid not And hr. Constable at hap*, but learning that be was it
the boon of Mr. Brown, hision.in-iaw, I went there and found
him. He was then sitting in the front-parlour. I delivered him
up die papers which had been given to me by the Justice's clerk.
One Of them was a warrant of cotnnaittinent. He signed them all,
ler the bestof my knowledge, ithd Ore them back to me. Baker
i was not brought n, nor were any of the other persons. None of
the parties were examined. The prisoner, and the men and girl,
were just ontaide in the street. They were never called in. (laving
got the papers sack again, I delivered Baker to the keeper of the
watch-house tolock ham up.
Cross-exainined.-1 as standing at the bottom of the park be-
tween two and three o'clock in the afternoon of that day, when I ,
saw the mole coming alJfif following Baker. 1 did not hear what
Ferguson said to him. nor Mid I hear Baker say any thing. At the ;
time of the examination. of the two young_ men named Ferguson '
anal Abbott., he was present, and heard eat they said. After,
the commitment was bade out, I took raker down to Mr. Con.
amble's.
. .
Williath Crouch examined.—l am *minable •of Deptford._
Whilst Baker was confined in the watch-honse, four other comas.
bk. and myself waittel upon Mr. ConstaWaiond stated to him that
we had known Baker a considerable time, and: that he was a man
who bore a good character, as far as we knee-Some Qf the officers
knew bins a considerably longer time than I did. We went to
speak as to his charecter. Mr. Constable then Tegnertil us to go
to Mr. Bicknell's office, and desire that the loan should be die.'
charged, if it co* be so. We all went to Mi. Bicknell'. office, j
and saw his clerk. Mr. May, to whom we delivered Mr. ecoratableN
message. 'Mr. May said it was a commitment in execution, and
could not be altered. That was what lie said.
Cross-examined.—Baker used to go about with • horse anti cart,
and carry goods as a higgler. 1 knew he lived in the town, and
carried goods. I always considered him a decent man in his way j
of life.
Maria Baker examined—l am the wife of John Baker. I re.
member his being taken into custody and sent to Maidstone gaol.
At that time he had a horse and can, and used to move goods. i
timber, bricks, or any other things which he might be emploaed to ;
carry. He also had a grcen-grocer's shop, which 1 used to mind,
Since that time he has not been able to keep either horse, cart, shop,
or house over his head. He has been totally ruined. On the Ist of I
August he was taken to Maidstone gaol. I came to Maidstone on
the 7th. At that time the Assizes were going on. 1 saw Mr. Con.
stable at-the Star Inn in the evening. I petitioned him to release
my husband. He told me to be with him to.morrow at eight o'clock,
that he should release him, and that I should take my husband
home with me, fur lie (Mr. Constable) had never seen him. I
called upon him at eight o'clock, scathing to his desire. Ile gave
;me an order to see my husband. lie told me he should go into
Court, and that there should not be a stone left unturned but what
he would serve me. I saw him again repeatedly during the As.
sizes. I saw him on the last evening of the Maize', just before his
carriage was ordered to depart. He then told me to meet the Bench
of Magistrates at Greenwich, and lie would then see what could be
done for me. I saw Mtn no more after that. I addressed the
Learned Judge at the Assizes. representing the injustice which had
been done my husband ; but the Learned Judge said be could do '
nothing for him.
Cross.examined.—l did not afterwards attend the Bench of Jim-
tires at Greenwich. I stayed is this town, in order to be near my •
husband.
By the CH yea Jc3TICE.—The reason I have for taping that ;
my husband wee totally ruined is, that he was obliged to part with '
his hbrae, cart, and shop, in consequence of being shut up in pd.',
son, and 1 wished to be near him to do what I could for him. I •
was not able to attend his business.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. MAIRVAT (with whom was Mr. BoLLAwI) then address.
ed the Jury on the part of the defendant. The Ju would observe ;
that the indictment did not Impute to the defendant any corrupt I
or malicious motive in this transaction, and therefore lie was at • ;
lass to conceive how this prosecution could be sustained, it appear. 1
login point of fact that tnere hail been a conviction of the prosecu. '
VA. Whether it was an irregular or erroneous conviction was not
the question. It was perfectly clear that there could be no inten.
Bond ill *ill on the part of the defendant towards the prosecutor,
for neither had seen the other in the course of their lives, and con.
sequently there was a complete absence of every thing like
at malicious motive. On die 22t4 June, 1822, the New Vagrant
Act had parsed, and on the3oth July, in the same year, this cont.
Ildtenent under that act took place. The Act had so recently come
Ifni* operation, that probably its provisions were not generally '
'been. It was to be observed that there were a greatnuinber of pa. ;
oses which required the mere signature of a magistrate without his
easerference ministerially or judicially. A charitable view of the'
defendant's conduct might fairly justify the presumption that he
thought the papers which he was called upon to sign in this in.
Hance, were papers of the description to which he (Air. M.) had '
'shaded. Perhaps the defendant acted indiscreetly and incorrectly
not inquiring further into the nature of the papers. He (Mr.
je.) had no disinclination to make that admission. It was quite ;
leartain, however, that as soon as the error was called to his ;
attention, he manifested an anxious desire to set it right, by
ordering the man to be liberated if it could be done. But being I
Informed by the Magistrate", clerk that it was too late, the war. I
rant being a commitment in execution, he could do no more. His 1
subsequent conduct also evinced the same desire to interest
himself on the man.* behalf; for, according to the expression• by Mrs. Baker. lie said he would leave no stone unturned I
for the purpose of fa using her husband. So much, then, fur the
defendant's feeling, temper, and disposition, in the transaction.
The question for the consideration of the Court and the Jury I
was, whether, in the absence of July imputation of corruption,
malice, or ill will, the conviction of Baker regularly drawn up
would nest be a complete answer in point of law to this indictment.
By the 3d Geo. IV. c. 40, upon which the conviction took place,
ales appeal was given to the Sessions to any person aggrieved by
goy thing done in pursuance of its provisions. Mr. Baker, how.
weer, neglected to appeal. Poverty was suggested as the reason I
' his neglect, and yet he could find means to bring this indict.
mat, which was a much more costly proceeding, and go to the
mrpense of empanelling a Special Jury. To him (Mr. M.) there
&fags were not quite comprehensible. It would be proved that oiler
the conviction took place, it was regularly drawn up and transmitted
in the usual course of business to the Sessione, which were held in
October, 1822. No appeal, however, took place. A quashed
conviction, he admitted, would not afford a Justlee of the Peace
the same protection as one remaining in force :, but, as already inti.
mated, the question was, whether in the el:Renee of all uncorrupt or
unworthy
.motive, this indictment amid be maintained in the face
of a conviction which remained unaffected in point of law. Ile
admitted that if' corruption or malice were alleged and proved.
the conviction drawn up by the Magistrate would he no tie.
fence to an action or indictment for an unlawful imprisonment;
but, in the absence of corruption or malice, he contended I
that a conviction, unappealed from, and remaining in force and '
unaffected, would be a complete defence to the action. By ,
sec. 20, of the 31 George IV. c. 40. in cam of any proceeding'
against Justices for any thing done under the Act, in execution of
the duties of hie office, by action, models, rule to show cause,
indictment, or information, treble costs shall be given them,
if the party instituting such proceedings shall fail. And by
sec. 23, all actions, suits, or other proceedings, against Jus.
flees, shall he commenced within three calendar months next after
the cause of complaint arise; and the Justices may plead the
general issue, and give the special matter of defeoce in evidence.
Now tkis indictment hail been preferred long subsequent to the
expiration of three calendar months : nay, two years bad elapsed
before it was instituted; and therefore, contending, as he did, that i
the 2351 section must be construed in purr materin with the 20th
section, the word " prozeedinge" in the former must be understood
to comprehend indictments, which were nientioned in the latter, the
prosecution was out of time. and could not be supported. Exclu-
sively, however, of that dissection, it was material to consider
whether the prosecutor, Baker, did experience any imprisonment
which he had not deserved; and whether the defendant had really
done any substantial injustice towards him. Ilis friend (Mr. 04
had launched thine extraordinary philippics against rogues and I
idle v.gabonds supposed to infest Greenwich Park, for the purpose
lof seeking whom they could unjustly charge with crime, in order
to pat money in their pockets. Nothirg had been proved to justify
these obeervetions. Now it was manifest, upon the prosecutor's
own showing, that there was something in his conduct on the ma- I
sion in question to justify suspicion. But the case could not stop
there. lie (Mr. M.) would call the pertons who witnessed his
conduct in the Park, and the Jury would judge from their evidence I
of the truth or falsehoOd of the charge. The Learned Counsel I
entered into a detail of citcunistencest, afterwards proved by the
witnesses whom he called. in cosmtlusior, he restni mainly upon
the legal effect of the conviction, whkh remained in force, and con.
tended that, in poiht of law, it was a complete defence of Mr.
Constable, and an answer to the indictment.
Before the evidence for the defendant was gone into,
Eggleetene„ the consteble, was called up again, and examined j
by the Lottb CWIFF J varier.. In addition to his former evi.
dente, he said—l took the papers given to me by Mr. Beale to the
defendant. I told him that I had the prisoner and the accuser;
outside ready to be called in and examined. I told him what the'
prisoner was charged with. I delivered the paper, up to him. lie
I read them, and signed them. I distinct!) told him the witnesses
I were all outside.

The following evidence wns produced for the defence.
Mr. Thomas Beale, clerk to Mr. Bicknell, the Magistrate's
clerk, produced a certified copy of the conviction of John Baker,
the original of which had been transmitted to the Clerk of the
Peace.

The copy of the conviction was then put in and read. It was
drawn up in the him: given by the Statute. It stated on the race
of it that Raker had been duly convicted by the defendant upon
the oath of Abbott and Ferguson, who were sworn before the
defendant. _

Cross-examined.—l did not transmit the Conviction to the See-
sions. It r. as not my place to do se. The conviction was drawn n
up just before the Sessions.
The CHIEF JFSTICE interposed, and intimated to the defend.
ant's Counsel a doubt whether the conviction, assuming it to be
valid, would be an answer to en indictment framed as this was,
whatever might be the effect of it in the case of an action.
:Br. I<fAnRYAT MI Mr. 1501.1.19 submitted that there was
n o sound distinction between a civil and a criminal proceeding
against a M agistrate. In each ease his conviction, if rot quashed,
must be taken as conclusive evidence of the truth of the matter
which it contained, and afford a complete defence. This rule was
well established in civil cares. Titer referred to Brittain r. Kin-
naird, in Mr. J. B. Moore's Reports, S. C. in Brod. and Bing.
No objection could be raised as to the time when the conviction was
drawn up, because it was well known that a Justice may draw up
his conviction at any time.
The Loan CHIEF Jrsrlcr admitted the truth of the latter
observation, according to decided cues; but lie doubted whether.
attending to the frame of this indictment. the prosecutor was not at
Itbetty to allow that the defendant had acted altogether illegally.'
He was not charged with having done anything In execution of his
office. The charge against him was, that, under coLur nod pretence
• et his office, to had made out a warrant, reciting that lisker had