The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-27 00:00:00

I

I

I

R

111 P""

-

the time that Faulkner and his party were committing that riot,"
each rid such things occurred at the hall. Thus, by dropping the
words " informed and believed," they insinuated a positive allege..
elien that Mr. Faulkner was concerned in the not, although thy
Uri jut heave sworn as to their information and belief only of tie
*A lifbeillersera Garter. in his affidavit, said,—first, that fit
MOM all the above statements (meaning those contained in the '
allMavite of Falwaras and Topharn) were true, and he then pro.
sodlo say that a short time after the said John Faulkner had
foss the town ball, he ea. &crowd of the it &Ten.
mrsids+ opposite the Exchange and ;he ..!'lrwen's
-ii she
by Mrs. Leet . • that he saw the said John
. ihollistw addressing lied encouragingthemto aci a of riot and out.
mukiims that they then proceeded to break the windows of that
s, by throwing potatoes, cabbage-stnnips, and other missiles.
Me (Mr. IVillianns) would stop to remark here, that, as to the out.
eerie apes Mrs. Le't's house, all the deponents were to their la
tag present at the commencement of the riot. The next affidavits
were those of two other persons, by the name of Keen and Lewis,
who cettainly did, in some particulars, speak to facts. They state
that they were present in the crowd when Alr. F. came tip with about
'tease throe other persons, that Faulkner then said, •• New, my lade,
*vow away ;" _ and thereupon both he and the inch began to
31Ilb dia 'Wows of the Saracen's Head Inn. teal to demo.
'lllth the elievbeerd : se that they also saw the COMMencoment of
rhllirialie. But having sworn thus far as to tact., they then
Ma Mere information and hearay, and swear that they
Eisrad believed what had been done in the Court by Air.
eel his party. But they, too, failed in statirg from
they bad beard it. It might have been from Edwards
NA Taphole themselves, who were most deeply interested in the
=ram, and whose affidavits he had already shortly stated to
the Court. i But if Keen and Lewis derived their information
far .thee persona, end their names haul been mentioned, it
void have given him an opportunity of animadverting upon the
weidawits of such other persons not Laving been tiled. 'fled,
Lordships would perceive that throughout these alfidavis the
yeeearaings at the Hera, and the riot out of doer, had becn repos-
sessed as one continuous set, as tar to regarded Mr. Faulkner,
mad a simultaneous orte as regarded the conduct of the party;
fee same of the defendants, whose cause had been entrusted 10
Mine efficient hands than his, were charged with riotous eon.
dam in the Court, while all these outrages were taking place
without. But what would their Lordships say, when be
shard tell them that, so far from this being one continued ate,
more than live or six hours had elapsed from the time that
Mr. Faulkner left the hall before any symptoms of riot or dis-
atdarly couduct en the part of the people had been shown. It
would appear, by the affidavits which he should read, that Mr.
Faulkner had been to the house of his friend Mr. Ward, and
had dined with him, before any of these disturbances in the street
sect zexi.
1 ate LORD CIIIEI JUSSTCE—Mr. NI taiano. if there be
contradictory ewer's-1. could not the matter gn to a Jury ?
Air. WILLIAMS replied, that there was not a shadow of proba-
bility io the whale story of the persons applying for this rule • and
be ousted that their Lordships would not send this down to ;Jury
aesinet this young man, who was of the greattet respectability, and
who would be most seriously injured by an inquiry of such a no.
sure being insteuted against him. He would rot rend the affida-
vits throughout, but would state the facts sworn to; and if, in
doing so, he in any degree exaggerated them, he invited to be
recelled to the very words of the affidavits themselves, It ace.
peered by the affidavit of a person of the name of Alallock, that
lee saw Ala Faulkner and Mr. iYard returning from the house of
the latter, where lie had been to dinner. in the dire-thin leading to
the ctowd °lmams assembled before the home of Mrs. Leet, and
that be observed them stop about thirty yards before they tame to
the crowd, and conversed with the Rev. Mr. Hamilton. ale (.Jr.
Williams) had the affidavit of this gentleman, who swore that he
b and the smashing of windows ten minutes previously to his being
aide by Air. Faulkner and his friend. There war also the affida-
vits of four other persons, all of whom swore that they were pre-
vent at the minnsecement of the riot, that they did not see Ale.
l'..t.limer there when it began, but that about ten minutes after-
eethe they did see him, and two cr three of his friends come up.
:do tench, then, for the truth of the ststement that Mr. Faulkner
was present at Ile commencement of the riot. He would pow
just state is, what manner the riot did originate. The independent
warty. having paraded through several of the streets, at length came
alp to that part of the town where Mrs. Le't's house was situated,
witch was tinted by the other party, called the Grosvenor, or Cor-
poration Party. No sooner had the independent party arrived
'at this spot, than the Grosvenor party commenced throwing
potatoes, turnips, dirt, cal other mieeles, at the independent
•perty, while they were passing by, and one c.' the Corporation
party, by the name of Thomas aoutheroh, struck one of the in-
dependrids ; a conflict then took place. and the independent
party put their opponents to flight, who sought refuge in the
house of Alm. Leet, the door of which was testent d. Then, and
no: till then, upon the spur of the occasion, and when, their feel-
ings were violently outraged ar.d irritated by the conduct of the
Corporation party, did the indepeadenis begin to break the
windows of Airs. Le't's house. This, then, was the cause
which did not, in his opinion, look much like a premeditated
riot on the part of. and urged on by the rresence and speeches of,
Mr. Faulkner ; but it was rather a justifiable expression of resent.
mect at the vioent at rack that had been made upon persons who
were peaceably passing along the street. He would not in this
Court pretend to say that any thing that tended to a breach of the
peace was justifiable, but, in a popular sense, he certainly did con.
calve it was such, as being the natural result of injured and in-
sulted feelings upon the spur of the moment. He had now gone
through the affidavits so far as to show that Mr. Faulkner was not
present at the beginning ot*the riot, and also how that riot corn.
minced. Ile would now read to their Lordships what Mr. Faulk-
ner did when he came up to the mob. Ile had the affidavits of four
persons who saw the beginning.' and who also saw el. Faulkner
come towards the people ; they farther swore that Air. Faulkner en-
deavoured to get the people to disperse. and that shortly after he
did prevail on them to do so ; but they did not hear what he raid
to them. There role, however, a person who swore to the language
of ?Mr. Faulkner : he stated in his affidavit, that just before the
people dispensed be heard Ale. Faulkner say, " For God's sake,
be quiet," and they were so soon after. Ile had also the affidavit
of a person by die name of Roberts, who swore that he wet looking
out of a window near the scene of riot, and that after the win-
dows of Mr. Leet's house were broken, he saw Dlr. Faulkner
tome up and prevent two boys from throwing stones; he further
stated that John Garner, who is described as a gentleman (proles.
atonally so of course, not in any other sense), was present, and that
he (Roberts), heard hint say to one Davis, " take notice of some-
body," and that Davis soon after turned round and said he had no.
ticed Mr. Faulkner, and to which Garner replied. " that will do,"
but Davis refused to criminate Mr. Faulkner, because he said he
was endeavouring all he could to prevent the riot. Ilerc, thee, he
(Mr. Williams), had a deponent swearing to what had actually
taken place. The only person who spoke to the outrage on the Ex.
change was this same Garner ; it rested on his evidence alone, a
person who was intoxicated at the time; for Roberts, In his of&
davit, stated, that lie verily believes both Gurney and Davies to be
in liquor while they were together at the riot. There were a variety
of other affidavits which be had in his power to produce to their
Le:ditties ; several of them made by persons who lived oppodte
the Exchange (for to that part of the charge lie now addressed
himself), and who said that they knew indeed that there ens a riot!
within, but that they did not know of any without, nor did they
' believe that the windows were broken by persona on the outside.
He would trouble the Court with one affidavit more, because it
came from a person who was a partizan of the opposite party to that
to which Mr. Faulkner and the other defendants belonged. It was
that of a person who was a confectioner of the city of Chester, a
f:eeman, and of the Corporation interest. Ile swore that he knew
Alr. John Faulkner, that after the clove of the election of Sheriff
is October last, there was a riot at which he was present ; that the
said John Faulkner carne up to him and stood by him for
some time ; but that, while he so stood by him, he did net
urge the independent party on to attack the other, nor did
he in any way encourage the disturbance, but on the con-
trary, he expressed his regret at the conduct of all the persons
who were engaged in the riot. Hem then, had lie (Mr. Williams)
the affidavit of one honourable man on the other side (among whom
Le had no doubt there were many. more such) giving an honourable
acquittal to his clime, in opposition to what this drunken attorney
Lad bad the brazenness and effrontery to charge and swear against
• • him. But he could not avoid asking why was this zeal evinced so
strongly on the part of the magistrates, wbo came forward to swear
to mere hearsay In support of a criminal information? It was
semewhat difficult, perhaps, to answer this. But one of these gen.
denten is known to have come up to Mr. Faulkner, and to have ad-
dressed him somewhat in these terms:—" You, I understand, are
the person who Is fishing out the grounds for a quo warrattio
against the Mayor," to which Mr. Faulkner replied, that, if It.
were to be &Hewett to appear before the magistrates, be would soon
convince hint oft ie groundlessness of his information. Alight not
this circumstance account for the earnestness of feeling chows by
the Mayor and Magistrates against his client ? It was well known
that a quo sourral. to had been replied for against the Mayor, and
that the matter was still pending against him. He would not
worm* to say in 'hat Court anything which would call down the
displeasure of tbeir Lonlettnps upon him; but he could not
Tear obsereirg, In conclusien, that, if under any circumstances,
any thing like a justification or palliation of a breach of the
peace multi be made, it was what an attack had been tnost outrage.
ously made en men who were peaceably exercising a public
right, and when these persons acted under the momentary impulse
oe the irritated f. ring produced by such an outrage. And as lie
haul in his defence of his dire:shown what were the circumstances
out of which the riot charged against him and other defendants
erase, he trusted that their Lordehtps would extend the benefit of
rho exculpation wieeh he hz.l so cotneletely afforded on the'part of
fir. Faulkner, to all the other persons included in this proceeding,
as it ass only right that the head and front of the nee:niers,
bens treed from the charge, the subaltern delinquents shou%d be
so too.
Mr. CitsT.T y followed on the same side. After the able manner
is erhich Air. Williams had addressed their Lordships, it would
hot be necessary for him to trouble them at any length. He hoped
their Lordships would not grant a criminal information &Leine: his
'tient without a strong and probable cause of suspicion was assigned
Mk their doing so. Lord Holt said that great caution ought to be
fatten b•' ire a criminal information was allowed to be tiled, foe
tba retsco, that no action for a malicious prosecution would lie,
.a :d that though the party charge should be successful, pet he had
ro remedy for his costa. Here there could be no action for perjury,
fir, with the exceptian of the affidavit or Keen, who, it was stated,
had been convicted of a crime, and was not worthy to be believed
on his oath, rot one of the persons had sworn except as to his ita-
formation and belief.
. . Me. PARR appeared for the defendant, firiffith.—The charge
ICiabst Alt. UttNth had nothing to do with the riot which took
.lair's but only to what occurred in tlit lour. Thc principal

charge was, that lie endeavoured to prevent theelection of Mr. Sheer-
ing taken place, and that when it was becoming favourable to that
gentleman, he got upon the table and interfered with his being
sworn in as Sheriff, and frequently exclaimed to the Mayor,—
" You sr.: not Mayor,—you have rot been legally appointed, and
you have no authority to act." This was sworn to by ose of the
two clerks spoken of by lilt. Williams, but not by the Mayor or
M setter.. te.
The Loan fritter JVSTICE—The Mayor and Magistrates
swear positively ea to the nut, and that they verily believe Mr.
Griffith anti the otffirs were rorcerned jot it.
Mr. PARE said, that it was rather extraordinary that the Mayor,
who was elevated ebove the Teat. should not have been able to
swear posttieely to the persons win insulted him. But he had
affidavits, in which it lirt• sworn that Slr. Griffith sat next to the
check c:erk from the beginning to the r d of the election ; that lie
left the hall when it eloaed, berate Mr. Sheering came to be sworn,
and that in doing so heves obliged, from the crowded state of the
ball, to walk iieroswthe table towards the staircase. One of the af-
fidavits stated that the wie.dows of the hall were broken from the
i oder, but thee Mr. 04th was then ecne.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—The affidavits state that the riot cont.
meeced before the close of the poll.
Mr. PARK said, he would address himself to that presently. The
other clin-ge he conceived to be the most serious, that of preventing
the swearing in of the Sheriff: Having eizproved that part of it,
he would este what degree of credit was due to those who made it
for any o her portion of the rwtatentent ? They, in their affidavits,
said that in the course of the election Mr. Griffith and others fre-
quently told the Mayor that he was not the Mayor, and had no
legal authority to act. Now Mr. Griffith, in his affidavit, said that
he was cheek clerk, and hail frequently. toexcent to votes, and that,
owing to the crowded and inconvenient state of the Hall, he was
obliged to get on the table three times to address the Mayor. He
stated that Edwards; who was a poll clerk, had refused to register a
vote for Mr. Whittaker, and that the Mayor had directed him to
do it, but he still refused. and was so vociferous in his conduct, that
the Mayor threatened to have hint turned out of the Hidlif he did
not sit down and be quiet; end yet that was the person who was
chereing his client with a disturbance. As to the expression used to
the Mayor respecting his authority, even supposing Mr. Griffith to
have used it. he hoped their Lordship would nut grant a criminal
information for suck an etpreesion, when there was. a quo searrarsto
lying against the 3lsyor, iti which the freemen of the city must
naturally feel interested, and on sr ch an occasion might be induced
perhaps to express their opinions rather freely upon it.
.Mr. Pears. appealed on behalf of Harris, Evans, and another.
His arguments were similar to those used by the Counsel who pre-
ceded him and he produced affidavits contradicting the allege-
tior.s against his clients, in much the sante explanatory manner as
in those already read to the Court. He hoped their Lordships
would not grant a criminal information, when the charges were so
directly dealed. In refusing this, the complainants would not be
denied of a remedy. They might still go to the Grand Jury anti
proceed by indictment. Then sby should they be favoured with a
criminal infomiarion under such en cumstances ? In a case of quo
a:ern/do, where :here were contradictory affidavits, be should there
perfectly well understand why a Rule should be granted • because
there the party had no remtdy, but here the cam was very different.
The Learned Gentleman then explained the conduct of his
clients, and accounted for those acts which bad been construed as
being riotous; and endeavoured to show that they were nothing
' tame than whet Might be done with the greatest propriety by any
one. In conclusion lie observed, that the uniform contradiction
that, had been given, not only to one or two particular facts, but to
the whole train of them, as act out in the affidavits in support of
the Rule, did in his mind afford a strong reason for doubting the
accuracy of the statements altogether. Acd their Lordships would
not fail to perceive that this was a case different in its circumstances
from arty that had hitherto occurred ; and he hoped for this and
the other powerful reasons that had been urged by his Learned
Ftienda, that their Lordships would refuse to make the Rule for a
criminal information übsolute.
Mr. Scanserr replied in support of the rule. He said the
fasts had not been denied by the other side. That a riot did occur
in the hall, and that a riot did also occur before Mrs. beet's house,
and that tlto windows of that house were broken, were all admitted.
In the nth-levied' Roberts it was stated that the persons did get
up upon the table, and for what? to remonstrate with time Mayor;
quietly to remonstrate wi.h him—quietly to brandish their arms (those
which nature gave theor)—quietly to insult and intimidate hint,
and quietly to tell him that he was not Mayor; that he had no au-
thority, anti had not been duly elected. But what right had they
to get up on the table, and remonstrate with the Mayor ? His ar-
gument was, that as their words and conduct were caleulaidd
to irritate the feelings, they were answerable for any riot that might
ensue front such a state of feeling. He did not find that Mr.
Faulkner had, in his own affidavit, denied his knowledge of any
riot being about to take place; there was no negation of his
knowledge of the assembly of the mob. Ile certainly denied being
cone.asted Latheir ptoceedinga, but that was a very different thing
from being ignorant of them. It bad been asked, why. was not
this sent to a Grand Jury? The reason was very obvious. It
hail been stated, that time feelings of party were very high in the
county of Cheshire : if so, it would rot be desirable to send this
matter beide a Grand Jury, becalm it was lc-atonable to con-
clude that some of the partizans would be on that Jury. lie cer-
tainly felt that sutlicient had been Adduced before their Lordships
to call upon them to grant the application now made ; and lie ap-
prehended that it was important, in order to ensure the people the
quiet use and enjoyment of their rights, that their Lordships should
interfere.
Mr. TAUNTON* followed on the same aide, and said, that he
looked upon their Lordships us in the character of a Grand Jury
in this case; and that, in reviewing the whole of the case, it was
for them to determine whether there was not a suspicion er pro-
bable cause strong enough against the defendants, so as to justify
their sending it to a Jury of the country. The motive of the
defendahts in causing a disturbance in the Hall was obvious. The
election had lasted three days, and was now upon the close,
while the Independent Party, as they were called, had several out-
voters still to arrive and be poll,d ; and their wish, therefore,
was to prevent the election being closed on the third day. The
Learned Gentleman then commented upon certain parts of the
several affidavits bled on both aides, and contended that enough
had be,en shown to give a probable cause of suspicion against the
defendants, and to warrant their Lordships in making the rule
absolute.
Their LORDSHIPS then consulted together a short time; after
which
The LOAD CHIRP JUSTICE said, that they would look into
the affidavits. There were so many persons, and so ninny affi.
davits in the matter, that they required time to be considered.
3--etsaw--

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER,
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 26.

_WICCS V. CLUTTERBUCK.

This was an action for trespass and false imprisonment, tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Park, at the last Summer Assizes for Hertford.
fur plaintiff; with damages 33/.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, fur the defendant, subsequently obtained
a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be had.
Mr. Justice IiASELEE now read the Judge's notes taken at
the trial.
It appeared that the plaintiff' was on the 17th May angling with
a rod and line in a certain piece of water called the Reservoir, nt
Aldenham' situate on what was formerly common land, but it had
been inclosed, and was now the private property of the Hon. and
Rev. Mr. Capel. On the information of that gentleman, the de.
fentlunt (a 31agistrate of the county) granted a warrant for the ap-
preheosion of the plaintiff; who was accordingly taken before hint,
and summarily convicted, under the Act of 6 Oeo. HI. cap. 14,
and ordered to pay a penalty of 34, which on refusing to do, lie
was sent to prisen, where he remained In confinement for seven
days. The warrant of commitment did not state that this was an
inclosed ground. The defemlant directed the gaoler to let the
plaintiff have a bed, and to %mike him as comfortable as possible ;
but the plaintiff refused any indulgence which was not extended
to other prisoners.
Mr. sergeant VsunTIAN rose to propose the Rule for a new
trial being made absolute. Ile admitted the very great importance
of the cause, both as it regarded the Magistracy and the subjects
of this country; but he entertained a confident hope, notwith.
standing, that the Court would net think proper to disturb the ver.
diet; for no one who had heard the Report read, but must be
satisfied that a more moderate and reasonable verdict had never
been given. This was an action of trespass and false imprison-
ment ; but, in fact, there were two trespasses the first was, that
period of detention which the plaintiff' suffered under the warrant
of apprehension; the second was, the imprisonment under the
warrant of conviction. It was strange that this harsh mode of
preceedlng should have been adopted against a person of respecta-
ble station in life. The pLantiff had formed/ been in trade, but
had retired from business. He (Sergeant aughan), would its.
some, for the sake of the argument, that the plaintiff in fishing in
those waters, was a trespasser, but would any man have thought
that the Rev. Mr. Capel, a Clergyman and a Magistrate, would
, have applied for a warrant without giving the plaintiff any notice
that be was a trespasser; and if he were so, why not proceed against
him by action at law. The Learned Sergeant proceeded town.
tend, that every commitment must mention the crime for which the
person is committed, or it would be false imprisonment. For this
he cited Boucher's case in Hawkins, chap. 13, sec. 11. In the pre.
sent case the conviction was drawn up a considerable time after the
commitment.

Mr. Justice 817 RO cclt—That is matter of every day practice;
there is nothing irregular in that.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN admitted that such was the practice.
and where every thing else was regular. it could not be complained
of; but his objection went to this, that a man might be taken
before a Magic:rata for can offence, which might turn out to be no
offence, by a reference to one Act of Parliament ; hat if the Magis-
trate had ref:Tred to the proper Act of Parliament, he might have
been convicted; but he could not be allowed therefore, inouths
afterwards, to convict him of a different offence, which had not been
inquired into at the time of the commitment. The Magistrate
must pursue his commitment ; for this he had a very recent care
in pond, tried before Alr.Justice Park, at the last Summer Assizes
for Hereford, the ease he alluded to was that of Rogers v. Jones, as
*reported in Ryan and :Sloody's Nbri Prise Reports. In that ease
the plaintiff was convicted of having cut down certain ash trees,
for which he was fired 2W. and in default of payment committed
to prison. He brought his action against the Magistrate who com-
mitted him, and on the trial the conviction was put in, but it was
objected hy the plaintiff's Counsel, that it did not pursue the com-
mitment, inasmuch as the commitment was under an Act, 4 Car. 11.
tend the conviction under 6 Geo. 111. and the Learned Judge ob.
served that for aught which appeared to the contrary the conviction
produced was as to this cause mere waste paper. The Jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff, with 2:V.-damages. A motion was sub-
sequently made in the King's Bench for a new trial, on the ground