The National Register.
London, England, 1814-04-03 00:00:00

APRIL 3•

PROVINCIAL ASSIZES.

SUFFOLC—At Bury, Maurice Griffin was found guilty of the
wilful murder of Thomas Mac Mahon : on the trial it appeared in
evidence, that they were both privates in the 69th regiment of toot,
stationed at Woodbridge, and the death of Mac Mahon was comp
sioned by the prisoner driffith stabbing him with a bayonet in the
Let groin, of which wound he died.

SCRREL—Yesterday week, at Croydon, James Smith was in-
dicted. for wilfully firing at, and wounding Thomas Carrington, at
Walton upon-Thames, in the month of January last.—The prose-
cutor stated, that about ten o'clock at night, he was ringing at the
bell of the prisoner's bowie, whet e lie was going to see the prisoner's
wife, when he heard the report of a gun from the opposite side of
the way, and felt himself wounded in the leg. His leg was badly
fractured. He admitted that he was visiting the wife against the
wishes of the prisoner, and that he knew the prisoner disliked it.—
/Wither witness, a labouring man, just as the gun was fired, saw
the prisoner at the door of a public-house, nearly opposite, with a
gun in his hand. He said to him, 44 what have you done? you have
shot the man:" he replied, " yes, lie had, he had been waiting for
him for some time, and had caught him at last."--Other witnesses
proved the expressions of the prisoner, stating his determination to
injure the prosecutor, whom he suspetted of an improper intercourse
with his wife.—The Jay found him guilty.
On Thursday last, at Kingston, Charles Callaghan was tried for
tine murder of Moses Merry, Miss Goinpertz'i footman, at Vauxhall,
the particulars of which were detailed at the time of. the prisoner's
apprehension. The trial occupied six hours ; twenty-three wit-
nesses were examined, including the accomplice Hylas Parish, and
certainly a more complete connexion of circumstantial evidence
uevs>• was presented before any Court. He was found guilty, and
sentenced to be executed on Saturday, the 2d of April; lie is only
20 years of age.—Parish was ordered to be deliverod over to
his father, a publican, in Southwark, on his engaging to send him
to sea.

BURLEY V. BETHUNE, D. D.

This was an action against the Rev. Dr. Bethune, a Magistrate
of the county, for misconduct in his office, in falsely imprisoning
the plaintiff' for seven weeks.
Mr. Serjeant Best stated, that the plaintiff was a farmer, residing
at Seal, in Kent, where he managed a large farm in the occupation
of his mother. He had, however, the misfortune to have been mar.
tied to a very abandoned woman, who absconded from him, and
lived in an adulterous intercourse with a man of the name of Mid-
burst. After some time she left that man, and then would have
returned to the house of her husband; but he, with the natural
feelings and honest indignation of an Englishman, refused to receive
back the adultress to his arms. She then applied to the parish for
relief, and at a Board of Magistrates, at which Sir Thomas Tinton,
a lawyer, presided, she was refused to be made chargeable to her
husband. She, however, afterwards applied to Di. Bethune, who,
either iu malice or shamethl ignorance of his duty, sent his warrant
and apprehended the plaintiff, and then proceeded to convict
him as a rogue and vagabond for having deserted his thwily. This
was so far from the truth of the fact, that the only family he had
was a daughter by that woman, which daughter he had always fos—
tered and protected ; and, notwithstanding all these facts were well
known to the reverend Magistrate, as be should prove, yet-he had
the boldness to convict this honest farmer as a rogue and vagabond,
end to send lririr to_ prison for seven weeks, because he had refused
to provide for a wife who had abandoned her duty, and had openly
cohabited with another man. The law was, that a woman who so
conducted herself, forfeited her claim to her husband's protection.
linen the conviction was moved into the Court of King's Bench, it
was quashed as a matter of course, and the plaintiff was immediately
restored to his liberty. He now sought redress for the injury he
Lad sustained, by bringing the present action ' • and to this action
the defendant had pleaded that he had tendered two-pence as suffi-
cient satisfaction for the injury which he had done to the plaintiff:
The Jury would say whether they considered this as sufficient coin-
peusation for illegally causiug au honest man to suffer an imprison.
snout of seven weeks.
The conviction of the plaintiff by the defendant, and the Order
of the Court of King's Bench for quashing it, were put in and read.
—The fact was also proved by the daughter of the plaintiff, that
her mother left her father's house, and that she always was brought
tip by her father.—lt was also proved, that the wife cohabited with
a man at Liug6eld, of the name of Midhutst.
Marryat, for the defendant, submitted that there was sin
roof a(actual alailist the plaintiff is the detc.udant, and that

ISTER.

211

the action could not be supported agais,st a magistrate' fur nivr
error in judgment, uokss actual malice was proved.
Mr. Serjeant Best, on the coufrary, argued, that m ►lice was; an
infefence of law from the facts, and that where there was suds
gross misconduct, malice would be presumed.
The Learned Judge havin4 heard the C.mnsel on both sides at
considerable length, was of opinion that express nuast be
proved, and that ignorance or the law an I error in ju,ignient.-
in tee Magi,tratet would not subject him to an action.—Plaustie
nonntited.

OXFORD.—This was an action brought for the-breach of a pro•
mise of marriage, in which Mr. O'Nei., an architectural' drawing
master, of. Oxford, was p 1 aintiff. and the Rev. Mr. Evfins and wde,
defendants. The plaintiff O'Neil formerly attended Mrs. Evans,
then Miss Ireland, daughter of John Ireland, Esq as Ea drawiag.
master. During this time the pronthe of tuarrialfe was stated to
have been made. The intercourse be,2an when Miss Irvland was
.under age, and was carried on without the consent or approbation
of her parents. Several letters were nal, to estahash the cause of
action. It was, however, strongly re,isted by the Counsel fur the
defendants, on the ground of violation of faith and confidence
which a teacher must be gnilty of. when directing, his views to ob-
jects unconnected with those for which he was introduced as an
instructor. Under this impression, and in a city and neighbourhood
distinguished for its aristocratic principles, the Jury (which was
Special) marked the case of the poor plaintiff with one farthing ila-
inages.—Mr. O'Neil has himself published a narrative of the ciz.
cumstances which led to this Issue, in which he appears to hare
been " more sinned against than sinning."—Miss Ireland's father is
an apothecary in Oxford. The farthing damages was more owing to
the false (nncontradicted) colouring of the defendant's Counsel,
than to the want of merit in the plaintiff's case.