The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-18 00:00:00

CHINIINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE COUNTY OF BECKS.

Air. Taunton Said, that lie was instructed to wove the Court
for a new rule to anew cause why a criminal information should
not be granted against the inhabitants of the county of Becks,
for the refusal to repair a bridge situated within the county.-_
The bridge Iny in the direct line of the turnpike road, and bad
always be n used by the public. It was built across the river
his, in the road from Aston-line, iu Oxfordshire, to Furring-
don, iu llerksh re. In 177$ it was erected by the trustee► of
the road*: part of the expense of its erection b ing defrayed
out of their funds, and part by voluntary contributions. In
1779 it was taken down, and the prasent bridge was erected
in its place. The allidavits stated that this bridge was in Berk-
shire; that it had been completely adopted by the public;
and that it hail gradually fallen to decay and become even dan-
gerous to passengers. At the Sprin,f, Sessions in last year ap-
plication was made to the Magistrates on the subject ; they
appointed two gentlemen, named 'Bandy and Mills, to inquire
of the state and local situation ui the bridge ; and on their
report that the bridge was in a state of dilapidation, and situ-
ate w;:hiu the county, they moue an order for repairing Gee
bridge, buf directed that payment should not be made until
the que►tion of' liability should be decided. Some repri.a,
thereime, were tune, but nu payment made on account of the
expenses. A bill was referred against tit county at the hest
Lent Assizes; awl thought h'tr witnesses swore to the local
situation and CondiliOn of the mud, the Grand Jury threw tout
the bill. At the Mid►uorwer Session: spottier bill was pre-
ened, which shared the saute fate. Again it the Michaellltta
Sessions, a bill was preferred, which certain circumstances
occurred which lie (stir. Taunton) would rather 1,8.4 frolli
the
allidai its than filial himself to detail, as they were of a :+clus-
liar nature, and involved hide% iduals of high station au:
character.

The Lord Chid' Justice.—Why need you state ►hem at all
In the event, your bill was, Ipl ratline, ugain throv.o out
Mr. Taunton.--Yes, my Lord.
The Lord Chia Justice.—You have stated enough to en-
title you to a rule to ►hew cause. Do you propose to sene it
on the Clerk of the Peace ?

MI. Taunton.— s ; and on tv.o 31agistrates to whom the
parikul..rl) refer.
The bort' Chief Justice.—Take a rule to 'Lew cause.
nol•. 12.
TIIE. KIM; c. 111.1.5 E.

Mr. Sergeant Pell .moved for a new trial in this prosecution.
It was au indictment tried at the Bothnia Assizes for lt'2l.
'fhe 'dahlia wss charged with bribery at the St. Iveselection.
The learned Sergeant alleged as the ground of his motion, that
the defendant had been taken by surprise, and obliged to go on
trial unprepared for his defence. The attorney for the prose-
cution hail given him reason to suppose his trial would not come
on, and in consequence of that representation be dirt not pro-
cure the evidt nee necessary for his defence. It was also urged
that the principal witness fur the prostcution, a person named
DUOII, hail been convicted of perjury since the trial.
Ile Court wire of 00111011 the alhdavit of the defendant
required affidavits in answer, and upon that ground they allowed
a rule to skew cause.
rENs tl. BADCOTI'. AND OTHERS.

The Common Strum:tit moved to net aside the verdict in this
care, on the erotind of a misdirection.
It was an action to recover 11141114 g CN fur false imprisonment,
tried before Baron Graham, at Vs arwick. The Jury found a
verdict fur the plaintiff. with one farthing damages. There
were two pleas ; first, the general issue : the second was % jus-
tification under a late statute, the first of Geo. 1%. which giv,s
authority to any constable or owner of property, without the
warrant of a magistrate to seize, apprehend, and take before a
magistrate any person or persons committing damage to pre-
mises, garden, fences, plants, crops, and other property. In
this case the defendant endeavoured to prove, that the plaintiff,
on a Saturday night, left a public house with ■ loaded gun.
which he fired into the window of a public house opposite.—
he wife of the shop-keeper and several customers were in the
shop at the time, and they narrowly escaped personal injury.—
Twenty-four panes of glass were broken. On the Monday fol•
lowing the plaintiff was taken before a magistrate, who felt
some reluctance in committing him under Lord Ellenborough's
Act, hot recommended the parties to proceed on the Ist of
Geo. IV. offering at the time to commit him for maliciously
breaking windows. They did not adopt the magistrate's sug-
gestion, and the plaintiff was discharged. lie then brought
his action, and the defeedant justified upon the Act of Parlia-
ment. The plaintiff attempted to prove an alibi. lle alleged
that lie was in the public house at the time the gun was fired ;
but the defendant had evidence to show lie was leasing the
house at the time the damage was done. Notwithstanding this
fact, the Jury found a verdict tor the plaintiff, The mitdirses
tint, on the part of the Judge was, omitting to state to the Jury.
that the deftinlanta were justified under the Act of Parliament,
independent of the general issue.
The Lord CliiefJu►tice.—The question at the trial seems to
have been, whether the plaintiff was the man who fired the gun.
Comitiou Sergeant—Yes.
The Lord ChiefJustice—Perhaps a constable is not justified
in arresting a man, unless there is at least a strong suspicion
that a felony has been committed.
Judge Bayley—l think you bad not proof the plaintiff was
the man who did the act.
The Common Sergeant then said they bad proof of that fact.
A (purel between the shopkeepei and the pleintiff had taken
place previous to the injurious act. The Court granted a rule
to show cause.
THE KING V. FIELDER AND ANOTIIV.R.
It!r. Adolphus said, he was ready to submit his objections
in layout of the defendants, and loose either to enter a verdict
for the defendants, or to obtain a new trial.
It was an indictment against the two defendants for keeping
a Laming-house, in Rennet street, St. James's.
Mr. Adolphus at the trial objected, that the house was nut io
the pari►h of St. James, and also find no evidence proved the
defendant was the keeper of the house at the lime one of the
witnesses fur the prosecution swore lie saw hint acting as such.
—1 he learned counsel was asked before he made Isis motion,
whether the defendants were it, Court ! lle answered no.
Judge Bayley—l donet know whether you can mese if they
are ;dismal. Tha Court may wish to know whether judgment
has passed on a former conviction. There is a rule in criminal
cases which precludes connsil from moving fur a new
unless the defendants are in Court.
Mr. Adolphus—Will your Lordship give me leave to men-
lima the application when the deleudituta are in Count