The Sun.
London, England, 1801-01-13 00:00:00

CLERKENIVELL SESSIONS,

• •
YESTP.RDAY the Sessiohs cornmcnced
trial of i‘smults and iViistiemearlor,.

Robert Tbotintott, the 'driver of a cart, was
indieted.for assaulting Captain Durnford.
It appeared from the evidence, that Captain'
Durnford was driving a one-horse chaise some.
where near Kilburn, when he perceived the De.
fendant about two hundred yards before his cart,
and the cart on the wrong side of the roati.---
Apprehensive of danger in attempting to, pass
the cart, he, whipped one of the horses, in or;
der to turn it the right side ; tbe Defendant
ran up, and not only prevented the design. of
`the-Prosecutor, but made use of a deal of impro.
per and violent language towards him. Upon
this Captain Durnford got out of his chaise to
take the number of the cart, but the Defendant
elbowed him, kept him at bay, and obliterated„
the number with mud. The Captain persisted
in knowing to whom the tart belonged, and fol.
lowed `it into, a field into which the Defendant
droVc it. Here the Delendant struck the Cap.
tain, who retorted with such agility and dexter
ty, that his adversary was, in the twinkling of an
eye, hill prostrate in a ditch. He stood over his
fallen and vansuislied foe, and swore he Olottitt
never rise, unless 'he told him to whom the cart
belonged. At this moment the Captain looked
round, and saw two men approaching with pick.
axes and shovels ; he concluded they had come
prepared not only to dispatch, but to bury him
nfterwards. Attuated by this impression, hit
ran to his chaise, and seizing his sword, returned,
to the field, 'W'ith this weapon he kept his
three 'opponents, at arm's length, and at last
succeeded in discovcring that a lions:: at a short
t2,nce front the field was occupied t the owner
of the cart. He appliied to the Magistrates at
Ilow.street, Who spr;trned the Defendant., and
not only fined him for refusing to let his number
be tak.en, but recommended the present Prosecu.
tint% The faEts being clearly proxed, the De;
1-.l,dant's- Counsel, Mr. CorrsT, had little else to
.
urge,'but, that; contrary to every prmciple of
English Law, the Defendant had .been already
twice 'punished : he had not only hcen fined by
the Magistrates, but had been soundly threshed
by the Prosecutor ; and, coirsequently,
,that a
further punishment would be the extreme of
se'erity.

Tile CH AI R MAN observed, that the Public were
much obliged to Capt. Durtiford for instituting
this prosecution. He hoped it ,would.be a warn-
ing to persons who drove carts; not to prevent
their numbers being taken, whether they were
conscious of bluing, acted impropeily or not.
The Sentence of the Court was, that the Defen..
dant should be imprisoned one month..

PUBLIC7OFFICE, to . L.
N-HAt.l. Y,cter
two persont of the names of F.,;;;iiir {faller and.
son), were_ charged titith entering an inclosed
ground belonging to Mr. 'ratlo;:k, of Stn.,*
ham, and stealing th •t lamb, enct
severo , one of the sheep they Llct
ed : being acconed by one or `l'utlocJ
servants as to the ohjeEt of so unseasonable
a visit ,at four o'cia,:k in, the Morning in an
incto,,cd place, they ran away. , A Search-
warrant being granted by Lora \VI Rus.
the two prisoners were tippre!..ended sooa
after the commission of the theft ; the print
of the shoe of the son, who is ahont t j. 'years of
age, exaaly corresponded where he leapt
,over
the pztliogs. The prisoners were committed to
separate apartments for reexamination,

A Da.ler in old iron was convieled in the pe.
nalty of 405. for having on his premises a large
quantity of.copper, solder, and other articles,
which h could not account for tlitc possession of,
au3 whitth by Law became forfeited.

There were some circumstances erroneously
stated in the account of the unfortunate affair, in
consequence of which Mr. Shore, a respeaahle
farmer, has been committed on a charge of mur_
dering his wife. It is not true that Mr. Shore
attempted to mike his escape ; neither is the ser-
vant maid's arm broke, nor has he sustained any
injury whatever. With reBpeei to the circom_
stances attending it, it would be improper to state
any thing, which at best must be of doubtful ac..
curacy. The whole matte; very soon by left
to the decision of a JP/T.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH.

TuEsnAvi 'NOV. 2S.

THE KING RUSBY.

Tiits was a Case which came on to be heard
on a motion for a new Trial. It was an India-,
•. merit against the Defendant for Reg rating Corn,,.
and tried before Lard KENYON and, a ,Special
Jury in Guildhall, London, on the 4th of July
last, when'the Defendant was found guilty. ,
Lord KENYON reported the case as it appeared.
before his Lordship, at Nisi Prius, and which ap-
'peared in our Paper of the ph of July.
Mr. EitSKlNE.shewed cause against the Rule,
which he said was for a new, trial, anit if that
'should be unsuccessful, hiS learned friend, Mr.
LAW, who moved it, had reserved hiinself for the
alternativeof moving in arrest' cif judgment.---
He should therefore confine himself now, to the
motion in its present shape, because, if there was
•any error on the Record.the Defendant would.be,
entitled to avail himself of it at any time before'
Judgment was .pronounced.—He should say no-
thing of the quality of the offence, nor of its
tendency irLsociety; in its.preSeat stare, forthese
would be considerations for the Court when the
season for pronouncing its. judgment should arrive.
The question now: was, whether this was a Ver-
dia contrary to the Evidence ?, For it-was upon
.that point alone, their,Lordships would pronounce
today. It appeared by the Report of the Trial,
that under the idea, of the: liberty of trade, the
greatest •of all possible :oppressions 'had 'been
suffered by the consumers of this article of the
very first necessity for the support of human life,
the effeas of which no man could contemplate
without fear and trembling---It appeared,' among',
. • other things, that Corn was not sold at the Coro;
Market in' bidk, but by sample, while the ,bulk
remained in Ships in the River. These samples
were-pat in small bags upon stands 'at the Market,
specifying the quantity in bulk, by a fiiark
upon the bag: That there • are Jobbers who
,deal in thii corn; and who go round, and by
•. their artifice, a.fr,,,a the price Of 'the Market
most alarmingly ; for it appeared by the: evi-
dence of Smith, althinigh he was the Partner
of Rushy,' this' Very. Defendant, that the price
Visulreetedini One day faits 4o to 45 shillings'
per cittarter, by this very JObblng.—These JO_
beri procured, by artifice, a pre-etnption to them.
"selves,, because thL'y said, « if it conies to sucli'a
Trice,. let me bare it ;" so that. when the Con-
sumer came, he could never !Live it helOw.t it
price,. nor tor that- price, for the jobber came ,
round again, and if that 'eii-er. oriee WaS uttered,
.are would give more, and so's6enre, hirwself,
'events the, pre-emptino, so thlt thaarr. I)C4ler
could never have' any Corn q't, all, of any Wily; ►
but the Jobber.; aria the Jobber, havh)g got. it
into his oWn hands, and king- Oat of a f6v,
yho always agreed in order to pat stoney in tlitir
:poekets,• he would haye' price,
`,lle-,plPased, for the article must be had; apd,
not be. 'waited tor. This war the subSianeeof
the, prefit.v. With Which' the 'lndiaineni' eharit
the Defending, and of :this he Was prOVed tb' :be
guilty, the jtiry' believed, the EviaCtici'and they
therefore conviaed- him. Botbthe Defendant
and his Partrier, Smith,- Who thought fit to
come 'his Witness at the trial,. were in the daily
prigliceol this traffic. The'Conti would see
.by
the evidence of Mr. Richard Snell, 'that Rusby
himself bought the Corn, as had been stated, and
Carried it from the 'Stand of ShriMptiao.aod,
to his Own, that is,, to tht: stand "of Will and
Rushy, where it was-told the same day at an ad.
vanced Price—that is, 'in a few minutes rafter'_ •
wards' the same sample of Corn was seen oil the
stand' of ,Nattrass anti Company. . It was trite,
that Smith, RuSby's Piirtner, -swore, that Rub
bad nothing ,whatever to do With the' te-side 'of
this Corn, ,for that he, Smith, re-sold it against ,
the will of Rushy ; lint Mc. liaSx IN> contencred,
that it wa.s clear? from the' Whole cif the trial,
that Rusby was naive iiithe 'whole business-7
that indeed, the ails he had *ti stating, Were
the aaS of Ru'sby find not Smith,,: The first ads,
those.of,the buying; were cleOly Rushy's, and
'that inded was not disputed, and; therefore rio-
thing remained bat the
,Reerariug, which was
the selling again on the same d'ay: To - prove
this part Of the case, Mr': ERIK't E said, he .was
obliged to call Mr. Nattrass as 'a, Witness, -which
was seeking for assistance from' the Enemy's
quarterS, and their Loolships could only have,
upon the,Report,..the Answeraus they :appeared
drily; they could not hasc'anyidea of preva-
rication which preeoeil. theme.,` nor of the.rnaoner
in whitl they, were screwed oat, of the Witoe*s ;
came, he said, ifropsof blood from
the Witness, arm lit .
,to dcd:l6, that a
:more disgract7fw prn,eercling Aiever AMA
said 'tat this wail, the .feeling _of the whdle
Court, which was thronged at this trial: The
attempt was to shewi. that thi3 sets not a
sale by Rushy to tile. Witness, but by Smith ;
and, in4ead of hit real book, Where the transai.
lion was entered, and which". h, bad, notice to
produce, and which the Defetidatit's Attorney
honourably advised hint to produce, Mr. Nittreass
thought fit to prOduce a copy of theboolz, which
he si as silly enough to say he thought would
as well as the boo le itself, and that enpY'avas ne;t
a copy of the origin ii entry, bat of a fitbrieated
entry; made by the desire of Rusty he had no
doubt, and the alteration of the entry took place
after the .oilence was cornriiiited, and Icnavvb to
be an offence—for these weakape ple, the'Cdrn
Jobbers ,and Regraters, thought that they were
doing only that which they were .y.'arranted by
Law in dying. It ippeareil also, that. Nattrass-1
'bid conversations over and over'again'with Rus-
by previous, to the trial, and had seetaini on
the morning of thei;lial, What was the el'itry'

as it 4peared 'by the copy proposed to bk
given in' evidence by Nattra: ,watt ar
retry of a sale by
,Tli,,m3s Smith. The hook it.

I.(
At r:,A. StT=o*Ficr, N

self, containing the entry made 'at ihe time the,
event happened, was sent for in the middle of the.
trial, and so` far was the entry froin being what
the Witness stated 'it to be, that the'book had,
, .
been.altered for the ~very purpose, and it ap-
peared that neither Smith nor Rusby sold any.
Corn in this particular way before nor sineei.
,and, Mr. ERLiKINE contended, that the conduit
of Mr. Nattrass was extraordinary and highly 're.,
prehensible•on this occasion ; and he maintained,
that neither the Jury, ner arty man in Court, be-1
lieved one 'syllable that was sworn by him tend-
ing- to screen.the Defendant; :and as to the evi-
deuce of Mr. Smith, his Lordship had reported that
'he thought the Jury -were warranted in not be-
lieVing Mr. Smith. Thus stood the outline of
the. Case upon theevidence, and upon which the
Jury, had found the Defendant guilty. .
As to the liability, of Partnership, supposing
e-
the, rsale. of the Corn to be the ad of Smith
Mr. ,EISKINF, said, he: apprehended that these,
persons, who were in partnershiptogether, were,
bound by the ads.of ontanother -; and, he appre-
.hended, that .in all Misdemeanours. it was
when the object of th.e-ad is the common profit,
of the trade of the .Partnership: He knew that
if two or three Booksellers were in partnership,
and one of them happened- to sell a book which.
contained a•Liheli. they would 41 three be sub.
jest to indiameni, although it be ever so clearly
proved the other,two knew nothing of, the sale
of
.the book,—This:had been expressly .decided
,by
the Court, and that against ,and over-rulingall
thearguments which he had. been able to offer
on the subjed, and he believed that he had been
as persevering as any body on that topic ;- there
was therefore no colour for,.the .objection that
the Defendant here was not liable, because.the
was the aft of his Partner and his own.:
But it was contended by the Defendant's Coun.
sel, when the Motion was Made fore the new
Trial, that the. Verdid Wl:* contrary to .Evi-
dence, inasmuch •as the Re.salewas by Smith,,and
not by Rusby, and Mr. Lsw.then contended that
there was no Law against buying Corn by Sample,
the bulk of Which, in this case, was in a Vessel in
the River; that the buying was.lawful;,and that
there were no: proofs of any unlawful Sale; that
the averment: that the. Defendant bought the Corn
unlawfully, was not proyed, arc. TR,,,MINE
.said,-there did not appear,to him to be any, thing
in this. argument::, and, as to same parts of the
Record in this Case, which was stated to con.
tain AvermentsHwhich •were not, proved, Mr.
• 1,-'4 SKI NE. quo tektite, Case of the KING and Hennas,
,t() shew that whatever' part of. the. Record stated
that: which was certain, must be proved, but that
therest'may be rejeded .asisurplusage;, so might;
the word " unlawful," be here reteded,as stir-
pluS4e, as it 'applied.:merely to. the buying, and.
thit the word; unlawfully might. be made to
,ply co the :Whole of the conduct, of .the Delen.
_dant, as Stated on he Record, and covered by:
the: general Verdid of Guilty. However, this
ebjettion, if there:was any ,weight in it, -would.
be available to IMendant in a Minion in
,4r,rest.ofjthigment,l because it was an objection.
can tht:Lsre....c.if;the,:itecord, .the fans mightv
a.
.oy. to it. upon his Lordship's. Notes.' The only.
question. here:was, - whether the IndiaMent was
supported' by .the Evidence For ,if it 'was, the.
Verdictwns..right; .10hethee.any, Judgment could
inliovror nOr, and-that was enough to dispose of
the:present Motion.

Mr, GARROW contended' also, that the word
" unki,viully," as applied to- the original Pus,
chase' of the Cbrn by Ausby, was to be regarded,
as surplusage, and need not be proved, any more'
than the words " craftily and subtilly, intending
to deceive and defraud," need be proved against
Det."aant in '1 6Onialon. Mion or Aisumpsit :
Or, " ror having the fear of Gosl befpre
but being timed and seduced by the instigation
of thd Devil to starve the Poor,". need, be proved
in this Case, any more than it would be neces.
nary to prove it in If ease of Murder.

With regard to the ll:fendant's not being an-
swerable for the saie of this Corn, because it was
the ad of Smith, he ivory contend, that even
supposing, for the sake of the Argument, the la
to be so, yet Rushy was, in'thts case, li d
able
and hopeful wciuld be the state and condition of
the Msrket, &Rushy was not liable, for Rushy
might come at eight o'clock in the morning and
It)' until ten; and Smith might come at ten, 4nd
stay until twelve, and sell so that the,misclit'il
would be compleat, and neither could he punished,
because the practice was split and divided be-
tweet( them ; but this was not the way in which
the Justice of this Country was to be admini-
,tered.

Mr. KNAPP followed on the same side.
Mr. LAW said, he'rose to address their Imrd.
ships, under a very considerable degree of atocie.
ty, because it wotild be most painfUl to him, if
-„„ ut much
from vulgar violence,' and brutal rage; should
suffer any further injury from the impeilenions
of his Ad.vocafe in the conduft of hi, Cause on, the
present Occasion: Indeed, that he was in a con-
dition to. speak at all upon the Subjea, was mat-
ter almost of accident, for that the Defendant
was now existing, was matter mere of good for.
tune than, at one time, he hailed for, or, was
agieeable to the willies Of those Who 'expressed
their rage against him, and who had, indeed, en-
deavoured. to destroy him. • Fit.should now pro..
ceed to the question ota- new Trial; and reserve
to himself the right which,
.indeed, the De-
fendantmust always have, to 'move in Arrest of
judgment. He should, take the liberty of Con.
:ending, that the word unlawfnlly,” which oc_
carted in this Record, and which applkd to the
Purcliase% of the Cpyn queitioni was by, no
trreans,so trifling, and frivolous, or fdolish, in a
Ca:e which is to fastett,it crime upon a Man, as in
this Case it wag at4empted, or, is his Learned
.Friends would have it'under4tood. This was nut
a case of Forestalling, nor was there any ob-
jalion to the Defendant's first Purchase of tht.,
Corn, and there 'was no eViden,:e of his Navin

been guilty of Regrating, whieh;Consisted in dig
second Sale. He observed, tharit was not ne..:
cessary for him to give the.Court.much trouble;
for the case appeared,- to him, to -be a ()lain
oee.—lt did not !cone under the same_ range,
nor into the same class as the Case of the
Knso and Hoarse, for here the word'"
lawtully," could not be surplusage, inasmuch as
the Indidment stated that' the !Defendant did
corm* and unlawftilly
.buy, and 'then -re-
sell, &c. so •that there would femain no Offence
if 'the word " unlawfully" was rejected as sur.
.phisage.—So muchsfdr the word unlawfully.---;
He should now hurnblk address their Lordships'.
on the subject of the evidence given at the trial;
and he took the liberty of saying, that the-Pre-
ponderance of the evidence was, in point 'of fad;
in favour of 'the Defendant, there beirig
ness to contradid Smith, who swore most posi-
'tively that the resale: was not only against thPI
consent, but against the remonstrance ofth„De..!
fenclitet ; that if,-this be true, and there vias:nd
evidence to contrddht it, the Defendant,.
Rusby, could, not upon any principle 'of Justice),
nor of Law, which' he was acquainted with, be
involved in any crime by what was done. Bei
admitted that one Partner was bdtind anciani,
werable for !the aa of another, as it b mioht ailed
•
his civil property;,
,and that he would Eye so 'if
there was any collusion :between the Parties 7—.
lie woujd 'admit also, that the one Partner would.
be answerable for the 41'of another in a criminal
Sense, where shey both c:t rried on a general, illicit'
trade.—Theie were 'propositions which he would
not dispute ; but where one Partner was so far,
from authoriSing, 'that he refus,-.1, so far from:
assenting that he resisted, so far from consentisli
that he remonstrated, upon the Ad, she ap-
• rehended there was no Law which pronounced
him criminal, ; and that was precisely the cast of
• the !Defendant, Mr. Rushy.
Mr. Justice La Btaise said, he did not onder_
stand that to be contended for on, the other side,'
but that the Prosecutors insisted that the Defend..
ant's resistance was'a mere pretence.
La.sv then
.ob`sert,ed, that possibly the
• jury might have 'iniScOneeived the Noble and
Learned Judge at 'the trial, upon the subjeft of
the criminal liability of one Partner for /the ad
of another.—That one Partner 'Xs 'sis• liable in
eases where hi's interest is concerned, 'was true,-
but then, if no,distintlion ble drawn, such a aoo.
trine might haVeled to a coneftl4lM that* the
Defendant was iniplicSted in the criminal con.
sequence, althOugh he protested against the cri.
minal'ad, which:would be. unjust ; and as this
!Might have happened., in the present Case,
seemed but 'fair that the D4endatit.shanld!haVe
a new As to what Mr. GARitol,r's'iticl,
that one Partner might buy in the morning,-and'
the other might sell, it was observables-hat if
such a thing shauld happen, and• the one who!
bought protested against the sale, and tl7; 'sale'
afterwards took place at the risk and on the.
account 'Of himielf, the, seller, •there was no:
Partnership in that ad and therefore whatever'
criminality there was in,the thing, irepuld attach•
only to the person selling, for here•would be .no.:
Partnership, there being in that at, no commus •
pity of interest.—Now, that this was, or was
not so.--whieh way did- the evidence, not lightly,
but infinitely; preponderate'? 'Be would say ..its
infinitely preponderated'on the-side of 'the De-
fendant. • His' Learned' Friends, of Counsel for
the ProsectitiOn, Would istiplieate Mr. Rusby in
the situatihn •of the book of Mr. NattrasS ;-s..
that was not "a' bciok over *which the' Defendant
had
.ever had any. power ; the Defendant had
. never 'given Mr, Nattrass notice to. produce his :!
book ; 'this was the
,incliVidual id of Mr. Nit!.
truss, and whatever weakness or folly. might
have been exhibited concerning that book, it re..
ferred solely mi. an alt which was done bet Ween
Smith and
.Naterass,- and:. therefore shOuld' not
operate to the prejudice of the Defendant- ;
whateiser alterations might:,have been made in
that lidok; the Defendant, was_ not
.privy to any
of them, nor .w:ts therce Least ,evidence
hatever to conns4 tag Defendant with. that ,
b00k..--"Under these cireurnstances, • the ii eight
Of di:it twitter ought to be taken out of the scale
on the side orthe
.Prosecution,.although it.might
have had some effect Upon the minds, of the- jury
at the trial, and if it had, that
,was an additional
reason for granting the. Ders•ndant a new Trial.
In a word, tmless the Court were prepared to say
they,believed that'the clear, positive and
tradided e•Videnee of Mr. §inith, who was warn.
ed before-hand, !that every word of hieevidence
would be taken down, by a Shorthand Writer,
was a tale .of perjury from the beginning
.to the
end, the. Defendant. ought to have a new Trial,
for Mr. Smith although
.he was; told. that what
he should say :would be taken down.for the pur. •
.poses of carrying on a Prosecntion against hint)
swore Most positively that Mr. Rushy had:
nothing whatever to do kith the re-sale of. the
Corn io,question.—lnsbissboth 'Milian! Smith
ttnd rehOplaS' Smith stood wholly Uncontmdieted,
a 11d if 'that svere 'so, it Was •abs-Olutely irnpos-
sihle for , Mr. }Lusby to have been guilty upon
this Iniiidnient.

opinions, of the judges on this important
Case in.our next, if possible.

MARRIED

Mr. Tylor, of fiattun Garden, to Mrs. Hepworth,Gesell...street. 7 ,

On the 9th of August last, at Fort St. George, in the
Fit,st Indies, Mr. loan Locke, of the Hop. East-India
Cionpany's Ship Marquis,' Wellesley, to Miss Cullen,
d ighter of Colonel Cullen, of His Alajesty's Scots Bri-
gade, and grand-daughter of Sir Archibald Hope, of kin-
kie, Bart.

PRICE C

HAGS.
Xent;lsl. r6l! "Ds.
Sussex, 1510.5. to 101. cot.'
Essex, Ist. ps. ,to 141. os.