The National Register.
London, England, 1818-11-15 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGTSTER

conspiracy as any of the defendants • and that James Bow.
ditch had every reason to believe her 21 years old. The
Learned Counsel then read the third letter which Miss Glenn
had denied when at Mr. Oxrnhanfs, with her uttcteos well as
at the trial. This letter expressed a strong wish to see Mr.
Bowilitch; and he pat it to the Court whether all thethres were
not in the same hand writing? (The letters were hare hand.
ed up fur the inspection of the Judges.) These letters had
never been submitted to the inspection of the jury. There
were three principal points on which he had supplementary
evidence. He would not say, that out of the 50 new wit.
mists he was ready to produce, some might not speak to the
same facts as might have been deposed to by some of the 17
witnesses who had already been examined ; but he would say,
that by far the greater part of the facts deposed to by these
50 new witnesses, were such as could not have been furnished
by any of the 11, mid such as the defendants could not have
been prepared to produce on the former trial. As to the
letters, he had the affidavit of Mr. Kingslade, au attorney at
Taunton.
Chief Justice Abbott.—How cants' the defendants have
been taken by surmise by Miss Glenn's denial of the letters,
when she had denied one ot theM before Mr. Oxenham, their
own attorney ? !Bead your affidavit ; though it is not clear
that it can be admitted, unless you skew that the parties were
taken fry surprise.
Mr. Scarlett said, he wss aware of the difficulty, but Miss
Glenn had distinctly admitted one of the letters at Mr. Ox-
enham's, and this had put the defendants off their guard.
Chief Justice Abbott.—Was she etta iii i i tett as to what passed
at Oxenham's?

Mr. Seariett,—She was; and denied her admission there.
The ordinary way of proving baud-writing was by calling
persons who had seen the party write, and were acquainted
with the hand; but when Ilse hand-writing is unexpectedly
denied, there are cases to show that supplementary evidence
may be resorted to. Witnesses were called who were ac-
quainted with Miss Glenn's hand-writing; and Mr. Kingslade
states io his affidavit, that Mr. Tuckett's solicitor had .aid,
that in case Miss Glenn denied the hand-writing, M r. Tuckett
would examine competent persons, and if their opinion was
against the lady, he would drop the prosecution. Could the
defendants after this have supposed that the letter would
have been denied, unless the lady was the basest of woman
•
kind.
Chief Justice Abbott.—Yon express yourself somewhat too
strongly, Mr. Scariett.
Mr. Scariett.--Perhaps I might, my Lord ; bnt it was ne-
cessary for me to express myself strongly, in order to pave
the way to affidavits of the most competent and respectable
persons in the Post-office, Bank, and other public offices,
who all state that the handwriting of the letters is not a
feigned hand, and they have no doubt of their being the SUMP
hand. lam aware that such evidence could nut have !wen
given at the trial.
ChiefJoistiee Abbott.—Then how can we receive it beef.?
Mr. Scarlett.—My Lord, the Court often receives evidence
that could not he admitted before a jury. As, for Instance,
affidavits made by the defendant him.. if.
Mr. Justice Bayley. —That is to remove some wrong iin.
passion that the Court might otherwise form.
Mr.Scariett then contended, that when the rale of evidence,
rejecting the opinions of competent persons concerning hand-
writing, was laid down, it was thought that all men were
equally competent to form a judgment upon the subject ; but
now, since the establishment of the post-office' and other
public offices, which did not then exist, it is known that
persons concerned in those offices are snore skilled in judging
6(lmnd-writing than others he hoped, however, that part of
their affidavi:s might be received which stated that the bands
were ant cosnterfeit.
Mr. Justice Bayley.—Was Kingslade called ?
Mr. Scarlett.—No.
Mr. Justice Bayley.—You did not expect his presence
would be necessary.
Mr. Seariett then stated, that ()embus swore, that before
the occasios mentioned at the trial, ie had Dever set eyes on
Miss Glenn. She swore that she met him in the street; and
there are affidavits to show that lie never quitted his office
till the night of the day on the morning of which sloe swore
she met him. There was a good deal of theatrical effect in
the description site gave of Oxenham's person, his having a
sweaty face. ace. ; and this was not without its effect upon
the Court esti Jury. Here there was one material contradic-
tion in the Lady's evidence. He should now mention another ;
she was present at the christeniug of Mrs. Molraine's child,
but all the others who were present were among the defen-
dants except the parson and clerk. She denied having been
there. Could the defendant have anticipated this? These
were now 14 witnesses who swore to facts which could not
have existed unless she had been present. If these were all
perjured, the conspiracy was broad indeed. They swore that
she desired to be godmother, and went into particulars of
her dress ; when she first went to Mrs. Bowditch's she wore
a very plain dress, but she west to the christening in Mrs.
Bowditch's gown. and with a spencer and parasol of Miss
Susan Bowditch's. In this dress she met an acquaintance of
her's, named Goldsworthy, an i afterwards stated that she
was so well disguised he did not know her. He had also the
evidence of a ainsic•master, who attended at Mrs. Bowditch's
est the evening of the christening. He stated, that she played
on the harp, and he accompanied her on the piano ; that she
said she had been present at the christening that morning ;
that it was meal to kiss the godmother on such occasions,
and proposed that he should kiss her; that James Bowditch,
looking displeased at this, she sail it was only nonsense, and
went immediately to stand by him. It was true the clerk,
who was present at the christening, was called, and said he
could not swear she was there. But the clergyman, who us.
fortunately was now dead, bad prepared instructions tar an
affidavit, which instructionscould be produced,and his hand.
writing proved. The learned counsel, however, expressed
his fears that these instructions could not, consistently with
the rules of evidence, be introduced into the affidavit.
The Court.—You may make affidavit of the clergyman's
death.
Mr. Scarlett.—lt amid be proved that this clergyman, Mr.
Clapp, was too ill to attend at the trial. He should now pro.
need to that part of the case which respected Miss Glenn's
familiarity with J. Bowditch, and be should divide this into
two parts—the familiarities that took place while Miss Glenn
resided with Mrs. Bowditch, and those that occurred during
the elopement. He should show the familiarities 1 that
took place at the farm, by Yo witnesses. if they were not
all ured, she must be so: but their evidence proved the
defendant's ease completely. She appeared publicly. walked
oat repeatedly with James Bowditch, boasted of her intimacy
with bins, said that in her country young women were married
very early, and was surprised that was net the case here.—
She wished of all things to be a farmer's wife, and longed to
aoakt•the butter, and attend to the pos1117; as she bad no

•
Nov is

certain expectations, she said th a farmer would by no
meansibe a bed match for her. He Mr. Scarlett) was sorry for
the young lady, but justice must e done, and the origin of
all the business had proceeded frotn her. He should now
speak of the familiarities that took place daring the elope.
went; he had 30 witnesses to speak to these; that she had
'myriad times lett her uncle's house by assignation; that she
find been seen often walking in the town with James Bow.
ditch ; and frequently at the honie of William Howditch.—
These were strong facts; but be had to explain the evidence
of Sarah Northam. who said that on one OCCASiOII she saw
Miss Glenn walking with James Howditch, and on looking at
her in Court stated that the lady there was not the same
person ; now he had to produce three persons who were pre-
sent on the occasion in question ; who swore that the person
with James Howditch was Hiss (Henn, and that Sarah North•
ham had said so herself to them. Phis was the case of the
defendants. There was no reason why the Paula should have
been joined iu the indictment, except to exclude their evi-
dence.

Mr. Jngtice Bayley.—llitt for their concurrence there
would have beeu no evidence of any conspirucy is the connty
of Dorset.

Mr. Scarlett.—That was true. It was of infinite import.
ance to public justice, that a iiiimreAti. and r..
unify should be cleared of the stigma that unjustly rested
on them, lu consequence Of this verdict. I:thr 4fridavits
which he rested were all false, be must have brought with
him a vol of pet jury. such as never before disgraced a
Court. lie had also an objection in point of low. The in.
dictment was preferred in Dorsetsbirt ; but the cunspirary,
it any, took place in Somersetshire; all that occurred in Our.
setshire was the reciiition given the parties by Mr. Pouf ; and
there should be at least some evidence to slow that he
knew of a criminal design. If a young lady who ii.id every
appearance of being of foil al.te (-hose to einpr, it was very
hard that a friend who received the parties, ktc4wisig inching
of the circumstances, shoutd also ae implicated. An affidavit
of William llowditch Mated. that lo• amid sill his faintly balite.
ed from Miss Glenn's repeated :iNscitaeo;s, that she was 11
years old ; and that whit they arrived at 'dr. Paul's. .ind she
denied her bring of age, he advised tits orother to give the
thing up, and prrventrd the iiiturtittre.
MI. Justice tioylcy. —She st.it.4l at fri. 'ri .1, hat an elderly
imitleietati at Mr. Paul' ttad askt••l spun its be-
ing stated, ;4141 th. mart iiiac ^t...4 tilt
Mr. Sc.tilei t .4141, he h... 1 ..4 witnrssas to rontradiel
her state tient of se It pasted is P4:.tc's. At "Ire late trial
Mr. Tenn at 184.4 slated, 11131 dieser :s
and extlitu:ed no sign. of distre.r.; 44(1 two mute 4111.3tsses
n 0,% stated, taut she was .it.tny cut jumes kitowaStc.M..klier
playing at 11 tot, with her aiiza retina 14:s ..tek. 'lto' pro.
s-ristors did not e..h Mr. Lee, (Mr. l'il,•*.e.Vt-ic:ic;tei,) Who
Imo ft telted Mtss Glenn bar v. from ei44l'4, 1.011/11;:i. tie VAS :"
Court isti the nine, agat4 4: :'tilt at ;he akirrht..,llt, wtl
the swarms.; Itsvatte been 0re...7?3 out of Culin the
trial.

Mr. Aaariee 5m..5.,1,t!v0. Lee vas Elbortivevi, i it
Ms.;isk. '...!1e..;..:rr..,::.wntues eiectigra . y ,uktia re_
tam biro a% a %vitae's., or nemei oln Cwirtrt. Ya objee..
lion was made zq gayir,r 4.:11,rt.
_

Mr. Scarlett '..oe ought to have twcn called,
and added, that rt +cc Awn, tire dO'r A:. m t.ey, , wrote •
note to desii it that Lee ,night retire, lie trusted this, on the
grounds he had stated, the Court would grant a rule to show
cause why a new trial should not be granted in this matter,
and insisted that, in point of law, the untie of the indictment
ought to have been in Somersetsbire.
Chief Justice Abbott.—The Court don't think yon likely to
succeed as to the last part of your rule respecting the venue.
Bat as this is a case of great importance, and it is impossible
for the Court to proceed with too much caution in the admi-
nistration of justice they think it proper that the business
should be sifted to the bottom, and grant a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be had in this case.
Mr. Scarlett then objected, that husband and wife bad bees
improperly joined in the Indictment. But
The Court said, ;hat being but one in law, they could not be
joined for the purpose of constituting a conspiracy when there
were no other parties; but as there were other parties here,
no objection could be taken.
Mr. Searlett then stated, that the part of the affidavit con-
taining the instructions left by the clergyman should be struck
Gut, and asked that the remainder might stand, to which the
Court assented..

In order that both parties might be prepared, the argument
was postponed till seine day next term.
One of the female defendants wept during the while time
she was in Conn ; as did James Rowdich, when Mr. Scarlett
read that part of the evidence at the trial which mentioned
Miss Glenn's apparent regard for him.
WEDNESDAY.
CARR T. RZT. --'RAPTOR.

SZDVC7IOII.—This was an action brought by the father of
a young woman in the service of Mrs. %arm, for the sedne.
tine of his daughter, as we understood, by the husband of her
mietreu. The plaintiff was !moulted, on the ground that the
relation of master and servant did not subsist between him
and his daughter. Mr. Scarlett now moved for a rule nisi to
set aside the aonsait, on the ground that the young woman,
being under age, and the father receiving her wages, he had
suck an Interest in her person as entitled him to bring this
action. A parent bad suck a commit over his daughter he'
fore she came of age, that he could prevent her making any
contract for a service that he disapproved of; and in case of
ill.treatment, could have her restored to his custody by writ
of Habeas COrpns • while be could not interfere with her en.
gagements or conduct after she was of full age. He refer-
red to 3 Barrow, 1878 ; and to Dean and Peel, 5 East,4s.
contending that the latter, (which denied that the distinction
eetween the female's being a minor, and her being of full age,
bold!l make any difference in the action) was not sufficiently
considered. But

The Court said, that though it might be regretted the law
was so, the relation of master and servant must subsist, in
order to enable a plaintiff to sustain this action. Where a
plaintiff was father as well as master, the jury might, pe!.
haps, increase the damages ; but there must be some serv►ce,
however slight.
Mr. Justice Bayley referred to the ease of Satterthwaite
v. Dewliiirst,23 Gee. 111. decided by Lord Mansfield..—Rolt
refused.

mason V. WILLAW.

CARRIXIIII.—This was an action against a carrier, for the
loss of some cloth. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff
to the amount of 30 per cent. on the valne of the cloth, though
it had net been entered at Willan's olke.
Mr. Searlett Row moved to set aside the verdict, on the
ground of deconstruction to be pot au defeadaot's notice,
which wes,Altat be wonW net be answeraWe to a greater