The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-25 00:00:00

THE NA'

REGISTra

correction, to be put to bard labour fur lb months. I. appear.
that whilst be was in your custody he was punished for offences
committed within the gaol. In the month of November, 11120,
he complained he was ill, but on the surgeon's examining hid
the surgeon declared be was not. He was confined in a solitary
cell between which and the punishment an unfortunate inter-
view took place between you and the surgeon, Prior, and ac-
cording to the affidavits he suggested to you to apply a blister
to this man. Whether the suggestion came either from one nr
the other, made no diffentose ; bolt were in the wrong to suffer
au 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, sober
dination will cease. It is important to prisoners to know, that
when gaolers exceed those limits, they 'will be pmdshed. If
wits a blister calculated tis produce pain, but not to have dan-
gerous consequences. For many days be was kept in a straight
waistcoat. It is the duty of the gaoler to report any thing ore
common that may happen in 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 Gardner. You mast have
been conscious at the time that you were not acting correctly,
or you would have mentioned it, that it might have met the
eye of the visiting magistrate, who would have given his
opinion whether it was proper to be continued or no. While
the man was in solitary conlinenteot there was no reason why
the straight waistcoat should have been applied. It was not
a punishment likely to endanger, bat it was a devintitio from
our line of duty. From the evidence it appears he miscon-
'ducted himself; bat that does net justify yea. A good ohs-
racier him heed given you by many respectable persons. It
appears that you were ander the eye of a Capt. Smith for
many years, and had his highest approbation. lit the general
tenor of your duty you hare conducted yoarsetf with great
propriety, which has beentaken into consideration by the 1111011.
It appears that you went beyond your ditty even as a gaoler, in
attending to the comforts of the persons under your charge, and
that you even exposed your person to danger in visiting persons
who had contagious disorders, to see if they had every comfort
their situation required. I sincerely believe it is a solitary in-
staace of a deviation from your duty. The court look whether
' it has not prodneem any inconvenience to yourself. It has con-
tributed to your removal from your situation at Ilchester, and
you have suffered great uneasiness of mind. Too are conscious
that a man will be brought to punishment by this deviation from
duty, and diet you have sacrificed your character. Greet bk.
must be produced by this
~ thought ; yea are conscious
that you are looked upon with aillEferent eye from whet you
were before. What you have suffered will deter another man
porn following your example (For, from what has occurred, it
is not likely that you will be in a situation to commit it again.)
The keeper of &geniis to keep in safe custody all persons com-
mitted to his charge, but is wit to annoy them in any moaner
The court do not think it necessary to visit your offence with
imprisonment, but, for the purposes of justice, the Court du
order and adjudge, that you pay a fine to the King of 501. and
be in the custody of the Marshal of the Muslialses till such Sae
be paid."
The defendant ime.ediately paid the Sue, and bowing res-
pectfully to the court, withdrew.
BREACH OF PROMISE OP MARRIAGE.
ABBOT? 0. YOUNI•
This was an action to recover damages for breach of promise
of marriage. The cause was tried at the York assizes, and a
verdict found for the plaintiff, with 1501. damages.
The plaintiff was a young woman who lived servant with the
defendant, • cornfachor, at Bramwell, near Leeds. Cuder a
promise of marriage he seduced her, and she was delivered of
a child. The defendant finally married a Miss Cuselin, and
abandoned the plaintiff. At the trial the promise of the defen-
dant to marry the plaintiff was proved by Emma Abbott, the
plaintiff's sister. The defendant's letters also were read, on
which the Jory were induced to find their verdict.
Sergeant Bullock, on • former day, moved for a new trial,
on the ground that they had ant been able at the trial to read
two letters from the plaintiff .to the defendant, which would
have led the Jury to conclude no promise of marriage bad bee,'
made by the defendant. At the trial it was st.ited in evidence
that the plaintiff could not read, and consequently the conasel
for the defendant was not in a condition to prove the letters.—
Since the trial Ada% its had been procured, stating that -the
letters had been written by the plaintiff's sister, under the dm-
' tation of the plaintift—Upon those adidavits the court were
induced to grant a rule to chew cause.
Mr. Hahne this day 'hewed cause against the ru:e. In this
case, he said, promise upon promise liarl been made to the poor
girl, and wedding clothes bought. Tuere was, in short, no
ground to disturb the verdict.
The court wished the letters to lie read, for the purpose of
seeing whether they interiered a i.ii the One course of justice.
Mr. Rainie read them. he follow ing are passages :
•• Slit,—This comes with 1., id love, hoping yOU are well.-1
cannot say I sin very well at present. Little Elize in • very
fine girl—yon would hardly know her if you saw her. If you
have forgotten me you may recollect little Eliea. 1 shall be
much 01614..1 if you would get me • situation. I think if it
had been Miss or Miss A— you would have written to
them. 1 hope you will write to me, if conveuicut if hot, you
may do as you please."
The other letter contained this ; assage
sic—Mr. Crowther and Thom.ts insist mi miming to
Wakeiield to father my child. I should like you „u send word
*hat you sill allow fur the keep oi you child."
Sergeant Bullock, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Brougham were
heard iu support of the applieattou f r a new trial ; but the
court held that it would be gross injustice to disturb the
veadiet. New trial refits
i:lsh r. nESSITER.
In this prosecution manhole the defendant, for subornation
of perjury at the trial of an action for auras brought by Sir T.
Champ:ley a, Bart., a motion was made for arrest 01 jadginent.
The Lord Chief Justice stated this day, 'that the coma could
not hear the aigunients on the Viestion d g the present
term. The decision conseimently stands over to nest term.
719: 11151 V. A VAGISTP.Are 4.F nenevo;tl).
Mr. Caniphell moved tor u ruie calling 03 a origistrate of
the cott:ity it Her, ford (whose name lit- did not mention) to
*hew cause why a criminal infortnation should sot issue against
him. The magistrate hail a neighbour 11.1.11 Cd Austin, 14101/Le 11.111
was supplied from a aster-course riming through his grenade.
In Au6ust last, Mr. Aus;tn palpitated • aurkmun to fence And
.Joao the water c mrse, as he had always done a i;liout objectien,
when the magistrate directed a con.ts'ile to (eke one of the
workmen named Probert, into eustudy, and curry him to the
ound-louse. This was dime ; and through Mr. Austin tendered
call and uarred to I:101. to eoroire the ativntian...e of .he
ma.' to answer Nov Octrize ii.ciinst bi.n, the onListr it.• refused
to set him at liberty. hut iletaired I im, met noA win!smit his
,ticket till eight &Mods in the evening, when he permitted In..
prisoner to depert, on a protnivi to at a petty se...atoms
the nett day. On the morrow the moan apptared at the aeseicre.,
w licit he tuouti tofu nmaletrate• brace* the. gentlemen elm

•

311

had detained hint ; they said that there was so grottos to detain
him, and that his seen.er did wrong to .it in lodgment on I is
ow• cause ; but no sooner were they gone. than that aoctissr
ordered him spin to be taken into custody. On the INI of
September he pursued the same conduct towards another of Mr.
Austin's workmen.
Mr. Justice Bayley asked if the men bad dune any thing but
commit a trespass
Mr. Gampbett replied in (fie negstise, and added. that they
were only working in the same way in which Mr. Austin bad
Wets?* directed the wateroinuese to Ise repaired.
Mr. Justice Bayley—The eitar„e is then against a magistrate
in the mention of bin olhce

r!Pl""