The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-24 00:00:00

TUESDAY, NOV. 19.

ST. JOHN O. SIR 111011 Ab LHAMPNEVS, AND COVENTRY v.
TUL

These important cases were 014 morning decided. A rale
was obtained some time back by Mr. Sergeant Lewes, to 'thew
cause why the annuity granted by the defendant, in consider-
ation of the sum of 9,0001. should not be set aside, and the
deed securing the same cancelled, part of the consideration
money having been repaid—the address of the witnesses in the
memorial not having been described—and the names of all the
parties beneficially interested not having been named therein.
Mr. Sergeant Peek followed on the same aide.
Messrs. Sergeants Pell and Vaughiut spoke against the rule
at some length, and
The Lord Chief Justice, in a luminous speech recapitulated
the whole of the case. Ills Lordship concluded by saying. that
neither justice nor law required the interference (Adds Court to
set the annuity aside , and I stiLt'geat, said bin Lordship, for the
consideration of Sir T. Champoeys, whether it might not be
better to take until the neat Term to consider as to the other
case of Gordon, the third annuitant, in which Sir Thomas, who
was present, seemed to acquiesce.
WEIrsEsDAV, Nov. 20.
POST-11011.:1; DUTY.—Lio%bsE V. GARR A7T.

The Court was occupied for some time this morning ha
hearie; the arguments of counsel in this, which was a special
ease. The point to be determined was, whether a pair of
leaders, put in addition to the usual number of horses, to assist
in drawing a stage coach up a kill, rendered the coachniaster
liable to the duty as for post horses, under the provisions of the
post-horse duty act.
Mr. Sergeant LYIIII obtained the affirmative of the question.
Mr. Sergeant Lawes supported the negative.
The Court deferred its judgment to a future day.
The Court rose at a quarter past two o'clock.
THURSDAY, !VIM, 21.

?DR [ISO V. BRIDLE, LATE GAOLER OFILCHESTER!

This was an information tried at the last Summer Assizes,
before Mr. Justice Richardson, on which the dekndant was
found guilty.
Mr. Justice Best read the record of conviction, and the evi-
dence on the trial. The charge was fur cruelty, oppression,
and tyranny towards the prisoners committed to bin charge.
He was recommended to mercy ou account of his good dia.
ratter.

The defendants aflidavirstated, thatithe act of which he was
convicted, was totally unpremeditated. That his fattier was a
tradesman, who failed, and that an early age he left his father,
and never called on him for a shilling. He was private and
sergeant of fencibles, afterwards mate of a prison-ship. That
during a period of sit ysars Is a conduct was never made the
suhject of complaint. The affidavit further sal forth the defec-
tive regulations of Ilchester Gaol, which rendered it difficult
for loin to act. That the prisoner Gardner was • violent and
outrageous character, and the other a female guilty of picking
pockets. That the sogsestion of the punishment of • blister
originated with Mr. Bryer, a surgeon, who suggested it to de-
ponent. That :the irons in use at this prison were reduced in
weight nearly one half. That divers ill-disposed persons had
printed and circulated malignant libels to the prejudice of his
character.
Au affidavit was put in of Sir John Ackland, chairman of
the Quarter Sessions, in support of the defendant's good cha-
racter.
Mr. T. Smith, captain of one of the hulks at Woolwich,
gave the defendant a high character. Affidavit of Anderson,
who cammanded the 2d regiment of the Somerset Fencibles,
likewise spoke to his good conduct as a soldier. Affidavits of
V. Stuckey, Esq. and another, High Sheriffs of the county.
likewise giving a high character of the defendant—of Edward
Coles, Esq. Clerk of the Peace of said county, an excellent
character—of Richard Pike, principal turnkey at flohester
Gaol, that the said R. Bridle was a most Illumine find tender
hearted nian--corroborating the defendant's affidavit to the
violence of Thomas Gardner's conduct, as justifying the pu-
nishment inflicted. Sundry affidavits of prisoners antler his
charge, being employed as his assistants, likewise spoke as to
the good conduct or the defendant, and to the outrageous sod
even blasphemous conduct of Thomas Gardner.
I These affidavits took upwerds of an hour's reading.
Mr. Williams for the defendant stated, that he had a great
many more affidavits to the elike ffect, but which, to save the
time of the Court, he should not read. The learned counsel
was about to address the Court in mitigation, but the Court
thought the affidavits quite sufficient, and asked if the Attorney
General had any thing to say in aggravation.
Mr. W 'nouns then proceeded to observe, that the only
offence that the prisoner had committed was inflicting an un-
authorised poinieldnent. He coati:Weed the punislinient
had
Levu pros abed by the ptiaoner, but admitted the defendant Was

.IMM.F.

not to strike oat a punishment not prescribed by the laws of
the ouuotry. The prisoner Gardner hod been capitally can-
visited, and was to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour ; lie
was only 19 years of age, and had had lenience of death
passed upon him. Gardner represented himself to be ill, and
the Surgeon, Valentine, represented him to be in perfect health.
He had inflicted a wound an inch deep above the knee of his
fellow-prisoner; mud it appears t had beau cursing sod reviling
the magistrates of the county. The very characteristio of
Bridle's life was humanity and tenderuess. On board the
hulks he could go down between (leas among the convicts,
without arms its his bands, when no other dared to venture
among seals desperate characters. Sir John Ackland repre-
owned him as the friend of the friendless, &o.—The prisutiers
who came forward had au interest iu speaking in his favour,
but heartfelt gratitude.
Mr. Justine Bayley asked if the defendant was dismissed
from his situa: ion iii consequence of this and other charges.
Air. Williams said it was so—there were charges voluminous
enough to all the Court, They were produced by that man
who never set his toot but where discord
.was—who was like
the horse of whom it was said, no grass ever grew whore he
sit his foot.
Mr. Erskine, jun. likewise addressed the Court in mitiga-
tion. lie trusted the Court would consider it their duty to
discharge him without any punishment at all. The whole ob-
ject the defendant aimed at was to repress insubordieatiou iu
the vol. No other punishment had been iullicted ou this man
that what his conduct deserved.
Mr. Manning followed on the same side.
The Attorney-General said, it was not his object to with-
draw from their Lordships consideration the topics of mitiga-
tion which had been urged, nor the benefits which would hol-
low to the defendant. His dismissal from office was not upon
this but various other charges. The question for their Lord-
ships' consideration was, how far the detendant had committed
• very serious (Menne, in overstepping the boundaries of the
lew—in the inflicting capricious punishiueut at his will land
pleasure. This be was not at liberty to do even iii the case of
a person who had forfeited his life to the laws of his country.
14.. was not to be tortured by his ;owlet.. Dmendiunt alleged
that the blister was suggested by the surgeou.—Referring to
the evidence of the surgeon, nu such fact appeared, but on
deftudaut's own assertion. Was it to be endured (said the
Beamed gent.) that the gaoler should trifle with t hose commit-
ted to his care ! It was stated, that the violent and unnatural
conduct of the man was the provocation. He stated in the
occureuce book that he bad sentuared this man to solitary con-
finement, but does not enter either the blister applied or the
strait-waistcoat. If ever there was a cause fur public inves-
tigation it was this; to bold example to others. Ilowever high
a 111110.11 character stood for benevolence, it would not sanction
misconduct like this. It must go forth to the public, under
their Lordships' authority, that such conduct in gaolers was
against the law of the land, her the protection of other pri-
soners. In his (the Attorney-General's) opinion this was not
• case of such trilling import as to go unpunished. Au offence
of a very serious nature bad here committed. He thought he
had unly discbsrged his duty in bringing this case before their
Lordships, and of reminditig them of their duty to the oousti-
tuition of the country, which was, by their sentence on this
defendant, to deter other gaolers from following the example
of this defendant, in overstepping the bouudaries of the law—
ns the preteuce of inflicting punishments on unhappy prisoners,
for the support of his authority.
The Bench conferred together for some minutes. .

'hie Lord Chief Justice said, the Court would consider the
punishment to he awarded the deleudatit, and for that purpose
lot him attend again to-morrow.
VIE &ISO V. WILLIAMS.
Mr. Scarlett moved the judgment of the court on the de-
fendant. _ _ . .

The learned Judge then read the record of the trial. The
defendant was indicted for the publication of a libel on the
established clergy, and also the clergy of Durham and the vi-
cinity. The libel appeared in the Durham Chronicle, of which
the defendant wee editor and proprietor. It related to the
death of the late Queen, and contained a statement of voluntary
disrespect on the part of the clergy of Durham, in omitting to
tall the bells.

Mr. Brougham, as counsel for the defendant, moved fur a
rule to thew cause why the judgment should not be arrested,
or a new trial had. His application to arrest the judgment was
made on two grounds. First, there was an error in the decla-
ration with respect tattle clergy alleged to be libelled. The de•
fendant wan charged with libelling the clergy of the established
cherub; secondly, the clergy of Durham ; and thirdly, the
clergy residing near Durham. These allegations were, accord-
ing to Mr. Brougham's argument, vague and indefinite. The
clergy of the established church was too general. There was
nut a sufficient designation of the parties to whom the libel
was said to imply. With respect to the clergy of Durham, the
allegation might be stipposed to apply to dissenting clergy, and
the terms " in ur near Durham,' did not specify any precise
place or residence. Near Durham might mean three miles or
twenty miles from Durham ; iu short, the allegations were
irn-
perfrrt, and the prosecution cold not be sustained. The
learned counsel having disposed of his points fur arresting the
judgment, stated the ground on which he eapected a new trial,
in ease his first objections should he over-ruled by the court.
It appeared that Baron Wood, who tried the defendant, said, iu
his charge to the Jury, „Gentlemen, I inn required to state
whether this is a libel or not, and I must tell you that I think
it is a gross libel." The learned Judge, according to Mr.
Brougham's argument, in thus addressing the Jury, gave a mis-
direction, inasmuch as the Libel Act did nut require him to gibe
boy opinion whether it was a libel or not. The Jury were also
misdirected upon another voila. The learned Judge had told
them, this Court had found it to be a libel, when they granted
the criminal iefinniatimi. The Court could not decide upon the
question ; if they could, of wind use was a trial 2 Upon these
and other grounds Mr. Brougham contended there ought to he
• maw trial.

The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion the learned counsel
had not produced oily feet to induce the court to grant a new
trial. The charge made by the learned Judge was not objec-
tion:Oak. It was not a misdirection. Telling the Jury that
the Court of King's Renal, had considered it a libel, was no
more than calling the recollection of the Jury to the lindin4
of a true bill by the Grand Jury. On the other grounds stated
1..) the letrinid counsel, Iris Lordship thought there was some
weight, arid the court grantbd a rule to show cau►e why judg-
ment should not be arrested. Rule Nisi lliktll.
FRIDAY, NOV. 22.
THE RlhO E. BRIDLE.

The defendant beitix placed on the their of the court,
Mr. Justice !Idyls,- proceeded to ins* sentence on him in the
follosing Orme You have been found guilty by a Jury of
your country, nod are now to stand to remit e the judgment of
this court, for unlawfully punishing s youn4 mini named Card-
o• u .bout Id or 19 years of age. lie was under nent.•on• ofde.ith,
but his **minium was commuted to imprisonment in the house of

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

correction, to be pat to bard labour for 18 montliv. It appears
that whilst he was in your custody he was punished for °Weems
committed within the gaol. In the mouth of November, 18x0,
he oomplsined he was ill, but on the surgeon's examining him
the surgeon declared he was sot. Hv was confined in a solitary
cell ; between which and the punishment an unfortunate inter-
view took place between you and the surgeon, Prior, and so-
cording to the affidavits he suggested to you to apply • blister
to this man. Whether the suggestion Caine either from one or
the other, made no difference ' • both wire in the wrong to suffer
an application of that kind. It is of importance to gaolers to
know that they should keep within the limits of their duty to
preserve subordination, and if they go beyond that limit, either
dination will cease. It is important to prisonet ato know, that
when goo:era emceed those limits, they will be punished. It
was a blister calculated to produce puin, but not to have dan-
gerous consequences. For many days he was kept in a straight

waistcoat. It is the duty of the gaoler to report any thing un•
common that say happen is the course of the discharge of his
duty, in an occurrence book. No mention is made in the oc-
currence book of the punishment of Gardiner. You mast have
been conscious at the time that you were sot acting correctly,
or you would have mentioned it, that is might have met the
eye of the visiting magistrate, who would have given his
opinion whether it was proper to be continued or tie. While
the man was in solitary confinement there was no reason why
the straight waistcoat should have been applied. It wan not
punishment likely to endanger, bet it was a deviation Irons
your line of duty. From the e•idence it appears he miseon-
Clucted himself; bet that does net justify you. A good cha-
racter lass been given you by many respectable persons: It
appears that you were under the eye of a Capt. Smith for
many years, and had his highest approbation. In the general
tenor of sour duty you have conducted yourself with great
propriety, which has been taken into consideration by the court.
It appears that you went beyond your duty even an a gaoler, in
attending to the comforts of the persists under your charge, and
that you even exposed your person to danger in visiting persons
who had contagious disorders, to see if they bad every comfort
their situation repaired. I sincerely believe it is a solitary in-
stance of a deviation from your duty. The court look whether
it has not produced any inconvenience to yourself. It has con-
tributed to your removal from your situation at llchester, and
you have suffered great uneasiness of mind. You are couseious
that a man will he Drought to punishment by this deviatiou Iron,
duty, and that you have sacrificed your character. Great bit-
terness must be produced by this thought ; you are conscious
that you are looked upon with a different eye from what you
were before. What you have &uttered will deter another man
Jrom following your example (for, from what has occurred, it
is not likely that you will be in a situation to eommit it again.)
The keeper of a gaol is to keep in safe custody all persons com-
mitted to his charge, but is not to annoy them in any manlier
The court do not think it necessary to visit your offence with
imprisonment, but, fur the purposes of justice, the Court do
order and adjudge, that you pay a flue to the King of 501. and
he in the custody of the Marshal of the blarshalsea till such line
be paid."
The defendant immediately paid the fine, and bowing res-
pectfully to the court, withdrew.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.