The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-22 00:00:00

. THE QUERN V. HILL AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment charging the defendants,
Nicholas Hill, Henry Hill, Joshua Bill Crane, Samuel
Taylor, Wakeman, and Pinfield, with having,
on the 14th of February, 1839, with divers others, un-
lawfully and riotously assembled and assaulted the
Rev. Thomas Cary Moore, curate of Bromsgrove,
in the county of Worcester. The circumstances oc-
curred at a Vestry meeting, held for the purpose of
making a Church-rate for the parish. Previously to
the day in question a Vestry had been held, when the
mation for a Church-rate had been negatived by a
large majority ; and on the 14th of February a meet-
ing of the parishioners was called, and a Mr. Green-
hill took the chair. The curate, the Rev. Mr. Moore,
arrived shortly afterwards, but was unable to obtain ad-
mittance. An adjournment of the meeting to the
Town-hall took place, and several resolutions
were there passed, and meantime Mr. Moore
presided at a meeting of another body of the pa-
rishioners, in the school-room, when a motion for a
Church-rate was proposed and seconded—Mr. Crane,
one of the defendants, who had been previously attend-
ing the meeting in the Town Hall with the other
defendants, came to the meeting at the school-room,
made a speech against the rate, and objected to the
meeting as illegal. After a good deal of noisy discus-
sion, a rush was made to the chair, and an attempt
made by Mr. Nicholas Hill (who was one of the
Churchwardens) to obtain possession of the vestry
book, in the course of which the assault took place.
The defendants having appeared on the floor of the
Court to receive judgment,
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, before whom the indictment
was tried, read over the evidence.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD observed that the judg-
ment of the Court would not be prayed against two
of the defendants, Wakeman and Pinfield, they having
expressed contrition for the part they had acted.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW said he was instructed to
move for a rule to show cause why the ♦erdict should
not be set aside, and a new trial had. He objected in
the first place to the legality of the meeting, and in the
next place, the evidence was not sufficient to establish
a conviction for either riot or assault. The Learned
Counsel then went into a detail of the facts of the case
connected with the original meeting and the subsequent
one on the 14th of February in the Vestry-room.
The adjournment took place to the Town•ha I !I and
meeting also took place in the school-room, and it ap
peered that Mr. Moore went to the latter and took the
Chair, although he certainly was not entitled legally to
take it—he was not either rector or vicar or curate,
being only a short time in the parish, and was not called
to it by the voice of the parties assembled. He sub-
mitted, therefore, that the meeting was altogether ille-
gal for the purposes of the Act of Parliament. While
that meeting was going on, another, which he should
term the legal meeting, was being held at the Town-
hall, and at which Mr. Greenhill presided. Mr. Crane,
Mr. Hill, and others, after attending at the Town-hall
meeting, went to that in the school-room. A Church
rate was proposed, which Mr. Crane (as he was fully
entitled to do) spoke against, designating it a tyrannical
Tory trick. Shortly afterwards a rush took place to
the upper part of the school-room, behind where the
Chair was placed. Mr. Nicholas Hill being a church-
warden, seemed to have been anxious to procure the
book, in order that the proceedings at the Town-ball
meeting should be entered in it, and took the book
from before Mr. Moore, who, ho (Sergeant Ludlow)
apprehended, had no title to it. That was the only
assault which could be proved against Mr. Hill, and
he submitted that it was not sufficient evidence to sus-
tain an indictment for assault. If that were so, Mr. Hill
had been improperly found guilty. He would now come to
the evidence as regarded the riot charged against Henry
Hill, Taylor, and the others ; he would observe that to
constitute a riot it must be proved that the parties were
illegally assembled and for an illegal purpose, which
they had predetermined to do. Now although there
might be evidence to support a charge of an affray, there
was certainly no evidence which would support the
charge of riot against any of the defendants. On these
grounds he submitted that there must be a now trial in
the present case.

The COURT, after conferring together, said they were
of opinion the..there wag no ground for granting a rule
for a new trial. It was given in evidence that after
these disputes had been carried on for some time, Mr.
Hill waved his hand, and a rush of persons took place
to the chair, and the prosecutor deposed that the book
was dragged from him with violence, causing him a great
deal of pain. Now the facts had been left very clearly
to the Jury by the Learned Judge, and they had found
them affirmatively, namely, that a riot and assault had
taken place.

There being no affidavits in aggravation or mitigation
of punishment, _

Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW briefly addressed the Court
on behalf of the defendants. They had been subjected
already to very great inconvenience and much expense,
there being no less than four special trials had ; and he
believed the ends of justice would be sufficiently an-
swered by having them bound over in their own recog-
nixances.

Mr. GODSON followed on the same side. He feared
very much that the course taken by the party prosecuting
would not tend much to the peace of the parish. It
was pressing matters to extremity to bring up respect-
able tradesmen and inhabitants to receive the judgment
of that Court. He trusted the whole circumstances
would be fairly considered by their Lordships, and that
they would consider a nominal punishment fully equal
to the exigencies of the case.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD (with whom was Mr. Ri-
chards) addressed the Court on behalf of the prosecutor.
The evidence before their Lordships was that these par-
ties had been conducting themselves in a most illegal
and improper manner. That had been established by
the verdict of the Jury, and he must say that it was
rather unfair to complain of the conduct of the prosecu-
tor in the present case, when no contrition or sorrow
had been expressed by any of the defendants now on the
felt, as floor
against
of the Court for their conduct. Two of them had
done so, and the prosecutor had at once declined to
ims e l
f. themand
the; andr
respectable
tRa
be
lve.
Gpreensstlemfoar judgment
it e
Gentlemanto
gentleman by whom he had been supported on the pre-
sent occasion to leave the entire case in their Lordships'
hands.
The COURT said the four defendants had been con-

victed at the last Worcester Assizes, three of them of
a riot, and the fourth, Nicholas Hill, of an assault on
the Rev. Mr. Moore. If the meeting had been illegal,
or if the vestry-book had been improperly withheld from
them, the law was ope❑ to them, and they could have
established these rights in another and more peaceable
way. Two of the defendants who had been convicted
had expressed their contrition, and had been permitted
to go at large, and in that the prosecutor had acted
most properly and leniently. The sentence of the Court
under all the circumstances was, that Nicholas Hill be
imprisoned in the gaol of Worcester for six weeks, and
that the other three defendants be imprisoned in the
same gaol for four weeks each.
The defendants were then removed in custody.