The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 3.
[BEFORE A SPECIAL JURY.]
THE KING V. THURTELL AND OTHERS.
This was and indictment against the defendants, Thomas
'Thurtcll, William Anderson (otherwise Ennison), and J. B.
Snowden, for a conspiracy in setting fire to their premises,
situate in Watling-street, in the year 1322, and for defrauding
the County Fire Office of the sum of 1,930/.
;Ir. SCARCE TT opened the case, and began by calling upon
the Jury to divest themselves of all prejudice, and to forget, for
a time, and. past transactions that might attach reproach to the
name of Thurtell. The case he would prove was a very simple,
and, he believed, also a very clear one. One of the defendants
(John Thurtell) was now no more. He had formerly been
in the Navy. In 1321 he .came to London, and entered
into some speculations, and, becoming bankrupt, took the
'benefit of the- Insolvent Debtors' Act. A public-house was
kept in the Haymarket, in the name of Thomas Their-
tell, but evidently for the benefit, and under the direc-
lion •of his brother John. A warehouse was taken by the de-
fendants in Watlingsstreet, near St. Paul's, in November, 1821.
Immediately afterwards John Thurtell commenced operations
,on the warehouse, and altered it so as to answer his purposes.—
( Here Mr. Scarlett exhibited a model of the warehouse, and en-
alsavoured to shew that these alterations were for the purpose of
concealing from persons on the other side what was in the ware-
house, and for preventing discovery if fire should break out.)—
He mentioned a variety of other suspicious circumstances, such
as John Thurtell refusing to get out of bed when he was in-
brined the warehouse was on fire ; there being no remains of
intrnt goods found among the ruins ' • and persons having seen
from tite opposite side that the warehouse was nearly empty.—
But this he Would leave-to be proved by the witnesses he in-
- -tended to bring forward.
Joshua Penny—Resides in Watling-street; is a wine-mer-
chant; let the upper part of his premises to Thos. Thurtell for
-WT. • had not received payment.
HILL—Had you any still on the premises, or any thing
'likely to set the house on fire ? Witness—No.
Witness 'continued—Left the house on Saturday night, at
,past ten o'cloCk; came to the house daily ; saw one parcel
brought to the warehouse ; no communication betwixt his
xemiscs and those of the defendants ; never had any coat-
i •
plaint from John Thurtell or his porter about smoke.
By Mr. SCARLETT —Saw a parcel brought on the Saturday.
There was no fire nor candle on the Saturday on my premises ;
:I left my servant in my warehouse, and no other person ;
-heard a noise like that made by carpenters.
J. Davison, carpenter, employed by John Thurtell to alter
a warehouse in Watling-street, in November last. Under-
stood from John Thurtell the presses were for the purpose of
slizeping •goods. Saw the inside of one of the presses on the
• 14th or pith December, by accident. Nothing in the inside.
Knew Cason woman connected' with John Thurtell resided Ihr
-some time on the premises. She left them on the day that the
-witness leftooff working. All the goods witness, ever saw in
the warehouse did not amount to more than eight or nine rolls
of bombazine.
A. Williams.was acquainted with John Thurtell in January
1823 ;he lodged at her house, Garlic-hill ; came on the Wed-
nereley before Christmas. A woman came with him, called
Mrs. Thurtell; slept there; stopt with her till after the fire.—
Recollects some conversation betwixt John Thurtell and the
roman. She (the womans said to John Thurtell, "if 1 were
• you, John, I would sell all the goods and set fire to the ware-
house." He replied " Don't talk so, Mary." John Thurtell
-came home on Sunday morning about five, the rooming the
took place: he said ,to witness—" What are the rattles
,springing for ?" Witness did not hoar any. AVasherwoman
-came about-nine.; said there .was a great fire. Witness knocked
at Thurtcll's door, and told him there was a large fire in Wat-
ling-street. He asked if it-was about Friday-street. .Witness
.. did not know, but sent the was!ierwornan- to inquire. Mrs.
Thurtell then said to John Thurtell, the warehouse is on fire ;
she did net hear the answer, but he was a considerable time,
about a quarter of an hour, in getting up. . Witness was re-
:quested by John Thurtell to grease his boots before going out;
slid not leave the house hastily.
Bv My. Serjeant VAUGHAN—Did you let your rooms for
-the flour or half hour ? . Witness—No.
Who did it ? Witness—l don't know.
You mean to swear to that ?—I don't mean to swear to Any
thing of the kind. (A laugh.)
Von were examined before ; did you not say " I have-got as
;much sometimes for a night as for a fortnight ?"—Never.
Von swear that, very well; did you ask if Thurtell and this
• woman was married ?—No; I never interefere with conversa-
tion between man and vfife.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN—No; you don't ask every couple
that conic to your house if they are married; if you received
,-none but married people, you would not have many lodgers
perbaps.-31r. B. Beaumont came to me and examined me
about John Thurtell; could not recollect when.
William Williams had a warehouse near to that of the de-
fendant. The tire broke out about five. Went to the ware-
house door and knocked, and the door was opened by Samuel
-Wilkinson. Saw no fire on the ficor when the flames were
issuing from Thurtell's .window. Went to secure his own
papers, and canoe back 20 minutes after.; saw no fire on the
floor than• Could discern the remains of almost every thing
that had been burnt-
Looked at Thurtell's warehouse, but saw
no remains of goods. Never saw any thing In the conduct of
Wilkinson to make him suspect that he was in the habit of
drinking. Mr.
Simoa Wilkinson.---IPenny, of Wading-
was porter to
street, who lived next door to Mr. Thurtell at the time the fire
occurred. I went to bed about half-past ten o'clock on the
night of the fire. Before I went to bed I put out the fires
..rem_ .
in the house,.lighted a candle, and took it,with me up to bed;
but that was the only light at that time on the p ises
When I went to bed I put out the candle carefully. iseotild
see into Mr. Thurtell's premises from my bedroom.l was
awakened:by the watchman knocking at the .door. I got out
of bed, went down the step-ladder, and opened the warehouse
door. The warehouse• was quite dark; I saw a light in the
first floor. There were a number of persons in the street.
attempted to break open,. the door from our warehouse into
,Thortell's, but I could not succeed further than to break one
panel.. I then went and dressed myself, and broke open my
master's desk, to get out some papers. I then went anti got a
light from the street. During all that time the fire Was burn-
,,:rig in the first floor. Through the panel of the door I saw the
fire burning on Thurtell's staircase. . When I went to 'tied
there was no fire hi the coontinoohouse.
Richard Mackay--.I am .principal firem' an_at the Globe In-
surance Office; I have been afireman 21 years; I was on the
,premises on theanorning of' the fire, and observed the. progress
..of it. I was in about three days afterwards. sent to examine
the ruins, to look after salvage stock for the -Illobe Insurance
Company. Air. Penny's premises . were 'insured by the

Globe. Mr. Williams's. premises were on the right of Thur.
tell's. I examined Mr. William's premises, and saw half-
burnt bales of goods, but on Thtertell'tt, premises there were no
such things. From my experience as a fireman, I can say,
that in five cases out of six we always find some remains of the
property.
Joseph Jepshson—l was employed by the Globe Insurance
Office to search Mr. Penny's premises, where I found some
wine, spirits, ginger beer, and other goods ; there were also
remains of bales of bombazines.
John Cresont—l am in the employ of Messrs. Todd and
Morrison, silk-mercers, in Fore-street; I knew John Thurtell
about five or six years ago in Norwich, where he carried on the
business of a bombazine-manufacturer. In the year 1822- he
applied to Todd and Morrison, for the purpose of purchasing
goods for his brother Thomas He selected the goods; but to
what amount I can't say. I don't know whether all the goods
which he selected were delivered to his brother. This took
place, 1 believe, in December, 1822.
• John Dillon—l am in the employment of Messrs. Tood and
Morrison. I remember John Thurtell coming to the ware-
house to purchase goods ;' he always paid cash before the goods
were sent to him except upon one occasion, when he gave a bill
for 301. Some of the goods which are entered as returned were,
in fact, never sent out of the warehouse.
Mr. Barber Beaumont—l had a communication with John
Thurtell respecting the invoice now in my hand ; he stated it
told a true account of the purchases made by him from Leith.--
This invoice was given to me by a person who stated himself to
be the clerk of .John Thurtell'a attorney. '
Mr. Leith said the invoice produced was a true copy from his
books; we were paid cash for all the goods sold by us to John
Thurtell.
James Rigglesworth—l lived with. Messrs. Margraves, who
were silk and bombazine warehousemen in
o ; Breal au
l-street.__
nowtreet.—
I left their employment about a year ag
an accountant. 1 saw John Thurtell at the ware-
house three or four times in 1822, when lie called upon
a person named Snowden, who was agent to persons at Nor_
wich. On the 21st of December 1822, Snowden and John
Thurtell, having had some conversation near the fire in the
office, they applied to me to purchase some bombazines and I
Norwich crapes, but I declined to have them, although they I
said I might have them at my own price. John Thurtell told
me that Thomas Thurtell was a manufacturer at Norwich.
On the next day he brought me patterns, and the prices were
so low that I agreed to purchase them. In two or three days
afterwards, I found a box of goods in my warehouse; it was
brought, I believe, by a porter, who delivered the goods which
I had previously bought from John Thurtell. I paid for the
first lot by a cheque, which I gave to Mr. Snowden. The box
contained a general assortment of silk goods. On that day Snow-
den came to me and said the box contained another cheap lot of
goods. I opened the box and saw Todd and liorrison's invoice
on the top of them. I declined buying them, because I consi-
dered them to be Todd's prop2rty, and said I should get into
some disgrace, but Snowden said he would take his oath they
were paid for. I replied they must have been paid in had
bills ; there must be some roguery in the transaction,
.and I
II would have nothing to do with them. On the next morning
Snowden came again and brought me Todd's invoice, with
Todd's receipt annexed. I still objected to buying them, and
said, if you were to go and lay out 1001. with Todd and Morri-
son, and come to me to-morrow and offer them for 75/. what must
be your motive for so doing? He said it was of no consequence,
that there were many people who would buy them if I did not.
He then said there was a grand plan made ; the explosion would
take place, but that I had nothing to do with it. lie then went
away, and on the same day I got an order from Mr. Margrave
to inspect the goods, and to put them to his account. Several
parcels came afterwards through Snowden. The invoices
now produced are the invoices sent with the goods. The first
invoice is dated the 27th of December, 1822, on which day
I bought the first lot of goods. The second invoice is also
dated the 27th of December 1t:22. It is an invoice of the same
goods of which I saw Todd and Morrison's invoice. The
prises charged in this invoice are considerably less titan the
prices charged by Todd and Morrison. The date of the next
Invoice is the 28th day of December. In this invoice the
bandanas are only charged at 19s. 2d. per piece. (The witness
here read from the invoices the various description of the goods,
and upon reading the invoices of Todd and Morrison, it ap-
peered that about the same time the same descriptions of
goods were purchased from them by J. Thurtell.)—The first and
second parcels appeared to hare been brought in the same pack-
ages in which they were purchased by Thurtell. The other
parcels appeared as if they had been opened, part taken out, and
the remainder packed up again. The piece of silk now pro-
duced is one of the pieces I purchased from Snowden. I know
the piece, because it was marked by me at the cost price. Be-
fore I heard of the fire I did not know Mr. Beaumont, nor any
person connected with the County Fire Office ; but having ac-
cidentally seen in a Newspaper a report of the trial of " Tur.
tell v. Beaumont," I made an observation to a Mr. Pottery,
who communicated it, as I have been informed, to Mr. Beau-
mont. Whilst these purchases were being made, I saw John
Thurtell once or twice with Snowden, whom he asked to pay
over to him the proceed. The last time I saw John Thurtell
was about the 7th or Bth of January, in company with Snow-
den, at the Poulterer's Arms, Honey-lane-market..
The witness was cross-examined to chew that he left .I`,lr.
Margrave's employ front misconduct.
Re-examined--Then 1 left Mr. Margrave's service he gave
tne a character which got me into employment.
Mr. Barber Beaumont—l am Managing Director of the
County Fire Office. The policy now produced was executed
at our office.

Cross-examined—l cannot say whether the policy now pro-
' duced was signed by one ; it was filled up. I know all the de=
fendants. About the Bth of February, last year, Thomas
Thurtell made application at the office for indemnity for the
loss alleged to have been sustained by him in consequence of
the fire in Watling-street ; he delivered me a statement of
the goods alleged to be destroyed. In consequence of some
previous information which I had received, I asked him
of whom lie bought the articles ; he mentioned the names
of Messrs. Todd and Morrison, Dawson, Leith and other
persons, whose names I don't recollect. I asked him if
the goods were all on the premises at the time of the tire,
and he said he was sure they were, as they had not begun to
dispose of any goods; he said the last time at which he was
at the premises before the fire, was at four o'clock the pre-
ceding evening, but he said his brother John was there at a
later period before the fire. I then asked him other ques-
tions, but he put his hand to his forehead—said his wife was
at the point of death—that he would not answer any more
questions,--and that lie would send his brother John to explain
every thing. I said I. should make inquiry about the invoice,
and the persons of whom he purchased the goods; and lie
said he would furnish me with the invoices. In half an
hour afterwards John Thurtell called, and I asked him
similar questions to these that I asked Thomas ; and he
answered them, and said he would send the invoices. In a
day or two afterwards, M r. Hemstt's cleric came with the
original invoices, and proposed to leave them with me, to
be copied ; but after having gone to the door, he returned, and
said he was not authorised to leave the originals, hut that he
would send-me copies. In two or three days afterwards John
Thurtell brought me those invoices, which he said were exact
copies of the originals. Both the Thurtells told rue distinctly,
that none
.of the goods had been sold. Snowden, whose in-
voice of goods sold was given to me, called on me, and I
asked him if he had sold the goods mentioned in the in-
voice to Thurtell ; and he replied that he did, and that he
received in payment a bill for 1001. and the. remainder in cash.
I asked whose agent he was in negociating the sale, but he re-
fuced to tell me, I asked him in what way the goods were de-
livered; he said they Were sent to Watling-street. I asked
him by whom they were sent ; but he seemed to be confused,
and could not give a distinct answer. Ile said some of them
had been left by himself, and he did not recollect who took the
other parcels. I asked him where his warehouse was, and he
said I would hear of him at the Poulterer's Arms; I traced
some of the goods to Mr. Margrave's warehouse in consequence
of what I learned at the Poulterer's Arms ; I made inquiries
about Snowden at Mr. Margrave's warehouse. This was be-
fore the trial which took place in the Common Pleas. On the
day after I made the inquiries at Mr. Margrave's, Snowden
called upon ace, and seemed very indignant at my having made
any inquiries; lee then said that he never sold any goods to Mr.
Alargrave, nay ever acted as the agent of the Thurtells, except.
-in one instance, in which he purchased .for them goods to the
amount of between 2001. or 3001. from a person named Daw-
son, at Leeds; I frequently afterwards saw John and Thomas
Thurtell, and their account of the transaction was always
the same. Jelin Thurtell said all the goods which came
from -Norwich, amounting to 7001. or 8001. came through
Dawson; that he received two boxes of goods in Novem-
ber 1822, some in December 1822, and a small paper parcel in
January 1823. I told John Thurtell that I had traced some
of the goods from Norwich to the Cock in die Haymarket. He
said it was so, but they were afterwards sent to Watling-street.
I then refused to pay the .demand, and Thurtell brought his
•actioal- On the day after the trial in the Common Pleas, a
gentleman named Pottery called upon me, and-through him I
was introduced to Mr. Rigglesworth.
Mr. &ABLE T T said, this vsas- the ease for the prosecution.'
Mr. Sergeant Vann RAN. addressed die Jury. After a long
and painful inyestigation:for nearly eight hours, it became
his duty to address them on behalf of the defendants, Thurtell
and Anderson, upon the merits, or rather the demerits, of this
prosecution. Ile was sure that the Jury
wesotarlar ddiivneasrttheneselves of all the prejudices with which it was
endeavoured to,taiut their minds. .The only question before
did. the defendants enter intoconspiracy to Barberde-
frauda Beaumont arid the other members-of the
Cftrhoaeuujadstly7lr.
Fireic lnsurance. Company ? The Learned Serjeant then
commented at .considerable length upon the evidence for the .

prosecution, and concluded by expressing his firm conviction,
that he should be able to offer such evidence as would at once
justify them in finding the defendants.not guilty.
Mr. Gun NEI' then addressed the Jury on behalf of the other
defendant, Snowden. ' •

. Several witnesses were then examined to shew that Thurtell,
from time to time, received a considerable .quantity of goods.
Wm. Reeves—l was foreman •at the Beacon Fire-office; I
examined the premises of Mr. Thin-tell in Watling.street
shortly after the fire.; found near'the door about a bushel of
pieces of burned bombazines and silk velvets ; I was near the
premises whilst the fire was raging ; there was a great explo-
sion, and in consequence of the
fire the flames were very high, quantity of spirits which took
Cross-examined—l gave evidence on the trial in the Common
produCed is not in my hand-writing, neither
directions ; I never told Mr. Beaumont
twPh:latesta
it.pwo
nrTi
tcertainletterym:t
con,
ditions I would blow up the case of the
Thurtells and enable him to resist that claim : I was astonished
when Mr. Beaumont called upon me in Whitecross-street
Prison I did not acknowledge to Mr. Beaumont that I had
ehrism ; I never 'told the turnkey Baldwin to
on who might come to inquire for I. I.
referse nt thisto
ml ee t
at enryt op
Re-examined--When Mr. Beaumont called upon me, he
said, if I could give him any assistance about the fire, he would
see if he could not do something for me when I should get dis-
charged from prison.
Another fireman belonging to the Phcenix Fire-office said,
that he went to the fire in Watling-street about five o'clock on
the Sunday morn*, and the fire was then burning fiercely.
A. Windsor, a fireman Of the Phenix Fire-office, swore that
when he first came up, about a quarter before five o'clock, he
saw the smoke issuing from the lower part of Mr. Penny's
premises ; the back part of Mr. Penny's warehouse was burnt.
Mr. Thomas Margrave_The witness Rigglesworth was for-
merly in my employ. I remember purchases having been
made in December, 1822, from Mr. Snowden. There was not
any communication made to me that-the goods were purchased
from Todd and Morrison. Rigglesworth never told me that
the goods had been offered to him at 20 per cent. less than the
cost prices; if he had I would not have bought the goods. I
am not a judge of such goods, and I therefore employed a
buyer. The goods were afterwards sold in small lots to country,
shopkeepers, and the gloss profits was only 12 per cent. 1 dis-
charged Rigglesworth becauie I 'was:informed by goodjudges
that he hat made injudicious purchases for me ; in consequence
of having been informed tliat he borroWed 301. in my name,
without my consent, from a Mr. Lenney Smith, of Paternoster-
row, to pay, as he said, a returned bill; I mentioned that to Mr.
Rigglesworth. The tale about the returned bill was a false-
hood. I had sufficient funds to meet my bills.
John Taylor—l buy Manchester silk and woollen goods on
my own account; I also buy for those who employ me; I have
known Rigglesworth for 15 years ; from what I know of him I
would not believe him on his oath. . .

Mr. Lenney Smith was called to prove that Rigglesworth bor-
rowed 30/. from him in Mr. liar; rave's natne.
.'►lr. SCARLET t• objected to that species of evidence.
His lionnsntP held that the evidence was inadmissible.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—That is the case for the defendants.

Mr. SCAItLETT then called Mr. Barber Beaumont.—l went

to Whitecross-street prison, where I inquired of the turnkey
for J. J. or 'l'. T., in consequence of having received this letter ;
I was introduced to Reeves, who admitted that he had sent this
letter to Mr. Barber Beaumont, whom he believed to be my
father.

The letter wag then put in and read. It was dated August
8, 1823, signed ." A Fireman," and directed to Mr. Barber
Beaumont. -

The writer wished Mr. Beaumont to call upon him, and
stated that he could elucidate many things which were connect-
ed with the trial which had just taken place at the Common
Pleas, where a verdict was found against the proprietors of the
County Fire Office. When I went to him, he said he could
lay open to me the whole of the plan, if he could get appointed
foreman at our Office; as he had lost the situation which he
formerly held. I refused to comply with his request. In con-
sequence of having received another letter from him, I called
again, but I refused to give him any money or employment, or
any promise of money or employment:
Cross-examined.—lt is not true that I told him if he did any
thing to elucidate this business I would see what could be done
for him ; but I said that if he could refer me to any persons
whose evidence would be useful, _we would reward them for
their trouble. An inhabitant of the neighbourhood was called
upon by an individual, who said he could give important evi-
dence about the fire; and an advertisement was put into the
newspapers, requesting that person to call on me - but I did
not, through the medium of the newspapers, apply for any
other information.

Mr. Serjeant \rational( said, at this late hour of the night
he would abstain from making any observations at length, but
he could not help saying that Mr. Barber Beaumont would
stand on higher ground if he had disregarded anonymous let-
ters, and had manifested rather less zeal in the discharge of his
duty as Director of the Insurance. Office.
At a quarter to ten o'clock Mr. SCARLETT rose to reply.
The Learned Counsel, in support of his argument that this fire
was the result of conspiracy, relied mainly upon the fact, that
although the warehouse in which, if there were no fraud in-
tended, the invoices would have been deposited, was destroyed,
yet the invoices of the goods wsre preserved.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, at II o'clock last night,
began to sum up the case to the Jury. He first gave a de-
scription of the offence, as stated in the indictment, and then
called upon the Jury to banish from their minds every
thing they had heard before they came into the Court
relative to this important proceeding—important as it
affected the accused, and important to the public gene-
rally. They would, therefore, not allow the decision which
had taken place in another Court to prejudice their
minds; for he was well convinced that the Jury who
tried the case in the Common Pleas, returned a conscientious
verdict according to the evidence then adduced before them.—
In this proceeding other evidence had been brought forward by
Mr. Beaumont, and it was very important'evideace, because, if
it was true, there was some fraudulent scheme in concoction by
the defendants, just prior to the conflagration taking place.—
, Upon the present occasion, he was satisfied the Jury would
Weigh well, and with a deliberation due to the nature and con-
sequences of the inquiry, every fact important to the issue, for
the offence was very penal, and would give such a verdict
as was the result of their calm, dispassionate, and unbiassed
judgment. His Lordship , then read the evidence, making
such comments thereon, as he proceeded, which appeared to
be important. He said, it was by no means essential to a
conviction that it should •be proVed to have been a wilful
fire, for if they (the Jury) Were even of opinion it was ac-
cidental, and were convinced that the accused had con-
certed to defraud the Fire Office by false representa-
tions, fictitious invoices, &c. they were not less guilty of
the offence imputed to them. The case was not that goods were.
not conveyed to Watling-street or removed front thence, or
that goods were not destroyed there, or that the fire was
or was not wilful ; but the gist of the case .was, that
the. defendants made a claim at the Fire Office for com-
pensation. for losses, which the; knew never had been
sustained by the conflagration. His Lordship adverted to
the evidence of Wrigglesworth, as confirmatory of the
charge against the defendants, if credit shoUld be given to
that witness's evidence. The Jury would take all the circum-
stances of the case into their consideration, and say, if all or
either of the three individuals who had appeared to take
their trials, were or were not guilty. The charge being of
ii criminal nature, be was sure that they would as he had
before desired them, dismiss from their minds all they had
previously. heard respecting the case at issue, and upon a
fair and mature
unbiassed verdict. If they entertained a doubt as to the guilt
judgment upon the evidence, give a just and
of any one of the accused, and there did appear less to affect
Anderson than the other two he was sure they would give the
party the benefit of such doubt ; if on the contrary, they should
be of opinion that the whole or any of the defendants were.
guilty, they would unhesitatingly pronounce that verdict.
Verdict—Thurtell and Snowden Guilty, and Anderson Not
Guilty.
The trial continued till twelve o'clock, and the Judge and
Jury appeared much exhausted.

On Monday morning, the 31st ult., about four
o'clock, a slight concussion was felt by a number
of persons in this town and neighbourhood, which
they compare to the shock which would be oc-
casioned by the falling of a house at a distance,
but which cannot otherwise be accounted for than
by supposing it to 'have been an earthquake
(Bury Post.)