The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-22 00:00:00

THE SOHAM FIRES.

Josiah Munson, aged 30, was indicted for setting fire
to a stack of straw, the property of Thomas Peek, on
the Ist of Nurember last, at Soham. _ _ .

Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Dasent were counsel for the
prosecution.
The prisoner is a basket-maker, residing at Soham,
and it may be remembered that at the last March assizes
he was tried and acquitted on a charge of attempting to
set fire to a barn in that town, where several incendiary,
fires have occurred within the last twelve months, by in-
serting into it a bundle of combustible matter, which
was fortunately discovered. As soon as the prisoner re •
turned to Soham, he was taken up, on suspicion of having
been the author of the fire at Mr. Peek's, which had
occurred before the incident of former inquiry, but in
respect of which no proceedings Mid been taken against
him at the last assizes. It now appeared that Mr. Peek's
fire broke out about a quarter past seven o'clock in the
evening of the Ist of November, and consumed the whole
of a straw stack, and portions of two stubble stacks.
On the following morning there was discovered a blacking
bottle with the neck broken off, and bearing marks on
the inside as if it had been filled with some combustible
matter. This circumstance at once satisfied the
authorities that this fire had been the deliberate act
of some incendiary, who was also the author of the.
other fires in the same town ; for in many of them
similar bottles had been found. In order to connect the
prisoner with this outrage it was shown that on the let
of November, which was a Sunday, he partook of break-
fast, dinner, and tea at a public-house where he boarded,
and that he quitted the house at a quarter to six o'clock
in the evening, saying he xas going to chapel. He was
next seen to emerge, at a quarter past six, from his
workshop, where he must have had a light and a fire
too, for sparks were observed to issue from the chimney.
For a few paces he was traced up Church-street, to-
wards Mr. Peek's premises, but was soon lost sight of in
the crowd. At twenty minutes past six, however, he
was met going into the house where he lodged, when he
said he was going to change his coat, and go to the
chapel, which began at half-past six o'clock, and stood
next door to his workshop. In five minutes after-
wards he was again met, going in a direction from
his lodging to the chapel ; but it did not clearly ap-
pear at what time he entered the chapel. According
to one account, he made his appearance there in the
first singing, and according to another he did not come
till the second singing. At any rate the witnesses
agreed in saying that the cry of " fire " arose in the
chapel about half an hour after he had taken his
seat ; so that if he really were its author, he
must have accomplished his object by throwing
some combustible substance into the stack, which had
smouldered for nearly three-quarters of an hour before
the flames broke out. As soon as the cry reached the
chapel the congregation rushed out en masse, and re-
paired to the spot indicated by the glare of the flames.
with the exception of the prisoner, who coolly went to
the home where he boarded, and changed his coat, again
obseriong, " Well, they can't blame me for this fire, at
all events, for I was at chapel." In addition to there
facts, it was further shown that the prisoner had endea-
voured to borrow a black pair of trousers on this day,
from two People, under the pretence that he Ranted
them to wear at a funeral at Milden-hall, at three
o'clock, though he could not by any possibility have
reached that place by that time; and when he was
taken in custody after the last assizes, he observed,
"This is a worse job than the last, and it' I get clear of
it I'll take care never to set foot again in Soham."
This being the whole case aghinst the prisoner,
Mr. NATLOR addressed the jury on his behalf, con-
tending that the evidence only went to raise a suspicion
against the prisoner, and that, too, of the very slightest
character, so that it was quite impossible for them to
come to any conclusion hostile to the prisoner.
Mr. Justice ParrEsoN said, that it was very clear
that the prisoner had got a bad name at Soham, and he
quite agreed with him, that if he got clear now he would
do well not to return to Soham, for this case was an
illustration of the old adage about giving a " dog a bad
name." There was nothing against the prisoner here
but suspicion and conjecture, created by previous
events, and it was for the jury to say whether they could
safely convict a man on such testimony as that adduced
by the prosecutor, who was bound to make out the
charge clearly, and so as not to leave any reasonable
doubt of the prisoner's guilt. Here the prisoner was
not shown to be at any time of the evening nearer to the
stack than 400 yards, and the bottle was not by any
pretence traced to him, whilst it was very likely that
every man in Suham had such a bottle in his possession.
The Learned Judge then went through the rest of the
case in detail, and at the conclusion of his observations,
as might have been expected,
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
His LORDSHIP then, addressing the prisoner, told him
that if he took his advice he wquld not go back to
Soham, as it was clear be bad a bad name among is
neighbours.

The prisoner bowed his thanks to the jury and retired
from the dock on this "his second appearance in the
same character," expressing it to be his intention to take
the Learned Judge's hint, and " never go back to
Soham no more."

In the other case of arson, wherein the mother of
this prisoner was charged with having set fire to certain
premises at Schaal, soon after the committal of her son
for trial at the last assizes, the grand jury ignored the
bill.

REGLNA. U. BEDWELL.-JUDGMENT.

In the course of the present assize,
Mr. Justice PATTESON delivered the judgment of Mr.
Baron Parke in this case, which was an indictment
against the defendant for disobedience of an order of
two justices under the statute 53 George 111., chap. 127.
for the payment of 16s. assessed upon the defendant
for church-rate in St. Botolph parish, in this town,
together with 1/. 12s. 3d. costs thereon. The case
was tried by Mr. Baron Parke at the Spring
Assizes for 1845, and judgment deferred, the de-
fendant having been found guilty subject to certain
points which were taken in the course of the trial, which
it was then arranged should be fully argued in town be-
fore the Learned Baron. Mr. O'Malley was after-
wards heard in support of these points, and Mr. Conch
in opposition thereto, and, further time having been
taken to consider the questions then submitted to
him and Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Justice Patteson
now proceeded to pronounce the decision to which
his Learned brother had arrived. The indictment
contained three counts, and with reference to the second
and third the opinion of the Learned Baron was,
that the defendant was entitled to a verdict on questions
which were merely technical; but with regard to the
first count, he thought that the verdict of guilty ought
to stand. It had been objected, in the first place, that this
count was bad, inasmuch as it only alleged that the rate
in question had been duly made, and allowed as by law
required, and that the defendant had been duly rated
therein at the sum of I 65., whereas it ought to have gone
on to set forth the facts which by law constituted a
legal rate and rating. The general rule was undisputed,
that the facts and circumstances constituting the offence
ought to be averred in an indictment, for, otherwise,
the law resulting from those facts would be a question
for the jury, but here there were two answers to this
objection. In the first place, there was a distinction
between the allegation of facts which constituted the
offence, and those which ought to be averred by way
of inducement, in which latter case a more general alle-
gation is sufficient. In the present case (proceeded the
Learned Judge) after quoting and distinguishing several
cases (to which express reference ma) be deemed super-
ffais), the offence for which the defendant is indicted
is the disobedience of the order of the justices, and
the introductory facts are only alleged with the view of
showing that that order had been made by parties having
a jurisdiction so to do, and that it was consequently
obligatory on the defendant. These facts are, there-
fore, mere matter of inducement; but the other portions
of the count show that the justices had jurisdiction to
make the order; for it then appears that the informa-
tion was sufficient, and was given to them by com-
petent persons, these persons being the then church-
wardens, whose duty alone it is to collect and receive
the unpaid church-rates. They alone can sue for
them in the ecclesiastical courts, and their information to
of
sense,the
7ththe justices
egfi vtehs theme sta jtue
,r itsadki cetni o n
in.
thTeheorwd ionradrsy
make the fact of a rate being duly imposed on a party,
and unpaid by him, conditions precedent to give the jus-
tices jurisdiction to enforce the payment of an order ;
but the proviso that the justices are to examine
upon oath into the merits of the complaints, and
the power of appeal to the sessions, lead to the in-
fereace that they are not conditions precedent, and
that the information on oath that a rate is duly made in
which the party is rated and of his refusal to pay, is
enough, if supported by sufficient evidence, of which the
justices g
are to judge, to give them power to decide
and
make an order for the payment, so that the order
when made would be valid,andbe enforced
whether or not there was de could
proper rate and
demand, and refusal. This sfthaecicoasaegnerally speak-
ing where the justices act
tame, for the words of that statute
poor-rate under 43 Elizabeth, judicially. The case of a
chap. 2, sect.differ. 4,
Thereis not thethe
validity of the rate is essential
to jurisdiction of the parties to issuea thedst power of the
so that if the rate has not been duly distress warrant,
published,
the
css
or
I party proceeded against be not an P occu ierandwithin
e
the parish, the warrant is unauthorised,
justice is liable to an action of trespass. Whether
the fact of a demand on, and refusal by the occupier,
is essential to the jurisdiction of the justice to issue '
his warrant, or his decision on the evidence before him
given on oath be sufficient, has not been decided, as I
believe ; but I have always thought that it would be
sufficient, and that in a special plea by a justice to an
action of trespass, it would be enough to state that a,
I Ste was duly made and published, and that the plaintiff
was an ce anniae cad -fetid tr-at rigs Ittdid
,:omplaiat oa oath by 'ha overseer ri .a he
not pay on demand, and that that fact R 29 proved to
the satisfaction of the justice. I hulk that in this t

case, if there was a sufficient information on oath of a
church rate on which the defendant was assessed, and of
the demand and refusal by him, the justices had juris.
diction and the order was valid ; for why are they to
inquire into the merits of the case and adjudicate on
them unless their adjudication is to be binding, especially
when it may be made the subject of appeal f If this
be so, then the information is sufficient, as averred in the
first count. It shows that the magistrates had jurisdic-
tion, for the rate is alleged to have been duly made, and
no case has been cited; nor can I find any, to show that the
order of a justice is not valid if founded on an informa-
tion which does show jurisdiction merely because the
information is open to the objection of informality in
making a mixed allegation of law and fact. The first
count, therefore, is good, as far as it relates to this ob-
jection. The second was that it does not appear that the
churchwardens are authorised to receive and collect the
rate when they demanded it. I think it is sufficient if
they were so when the rate was refused, for that is the
offence. The third objection was that the averment of
the warrant was defective, because it is stated that it was
" recited as therein recited," without stating what was
recited; but enough of the warrant would be stated with-
out setting forth the recital. Then, also, it was objected
that the warrant was not averred to be addressed to any
one; but I think that it is so averred with sufficient
clearness. Another objection was that the warrant was
not averred to have been served a reasonable time before
the day of appearance; but it must be assumed that the
justices satisfied themselves on that point, otherwise they
would have acted unjustly in making the ord r in the
absence of the party, and the intendment is always fa-
vourable to the validity of an order. Another objection
was, that the order should be set nut verbatim according
to the tenor. There are precedents both ways. But as
it is not necessary in an action on a judgment, I do not
see why it should be so in an indictment or an order;
and I think it is enough to set out the substance cor
rectly. There are two more objections—one that the
church rate is not averred to have been in force when the
order was made ; the other that the warrant was with-
out date. As to the first, it is averred that the rate con-
tinued in force at the time of the indictment, and that
the justices found the portion of the rate assessed on the
defendant to be due to the churchwardens' complainants,
which I think is quite sufficient. As to the second, the
date of the order is immaterial. This is not a warrant
of commitment in which it is necessary to describe the
time when imprisonment is to commence. For these
reasons I think that the judgment ought to be arrested.
At the conclusion of this address, _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Justice PArrEsoN inquired of the defendant
whether he was in a situation to pay the costs of the
prison, for, added he, if that be so, I shall content my-
self with ordering you to enter into recognizance to ap-
pear at the ensuing assizes to receive sentence.
The defendant—My Lord, 1 have not got a shilling to
bless myself with ; and as the thing has been hanging
over my head for two years I would prefer that your
Lordship should pass sentence on me at once. There is
not the least probability of my being able to pay the
costs.

Mr. Justice PArrEsoN—Very well ; I had hoped that
you, or those who have backed you in this matter, and
have discovered what they deemed to be informalities in
the proceedings against you, would have saved me the
necessity of passing any sentence at all beyond a nominal
one. As, however, there is no chance of your being able
to pay the costs, I infer that it would be equally impos-
sible for you to pay such a fine as I should deem it my
duty to impose on you, and I am driven to pass a sen-
tence of imprisonment on you.
The defendant—Certainly, my Lord ; certainly.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—The offence of which you
have been found guilty is one which is of a serious
character, no matter what the subject of the order might
hare been. When justices make an order which is
within their jurisdiction, and there is a right of appeill,
which is not exercised, it becomes the duty of the party
to submit to it. It does not become any individual to
set up his own private and obstinate opinion in opposi-
tion to the law, and if such a course is carried on it
will certainly turn out that the law is the stronger. You
have agreed to pay a church rate, for which you were
duly assessed and rated, and of which a proper demand
was made ; and you have subsequently refused to
obey an order of two justices, issued to enforce that
obligation which the law imposed on you. Tiie sentence
of the Court on you is one which mast be of a serious
character, and it is that you be imprisoned for six
months.

Mr. KEANE was instructed to request that the de-
fendant, might be confined among the first-class mis-
demeanants.

Mr. Justice PArrEsos—Oh, certainly ; that must be
so understood. _

The whole day has been devoted in the Nisi Pries
Court to the two special jury causes, both of which
arose out of certain corn spt•culations, but did not afford
a matter for the reporter.
The assizes terminated at 6 o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

It will be remembered that on Saturday last John
Findley was remanded to yesterday, on a charge of utter-
ing two forged cheques for 1/. each, on Messrs. Coutta'
bank, both purporting to be signed by Lord Skelmers-
dale, in order that he might have an opportunity of going
to Birmingham to seek a person named Williams or
Wheeler, who he said had given the first to himself and
the second to his father. This person had been found,
and was brought up yesterday. He had given the
name of Walter Dupont, but he now admitted that his
real name was Walter Wheeler.

Mr. Mullens said that he was at present only prepared
to go on with the case as to the first cheque, as he was
not prepared to prove the uttering of the second, which
had been uttered to Findley's father. As soon as he
could be brought to London from Birmingham, he (Mr.
Mullens) would proceed with that charge also.

The evidence *given on the former occasion was re-
peated, and Findley was examined as a witness. He
repeated the statement he had given in defence on the
former occasion—that he had received the first cheque
from the prisoner in payment for a pair of trousers.
The officer Thompson, F 69, who had been sent to
Birmingham with Mr. Findley, said, that when he took
the prisoner into custody he said it was not a forgery,
and he would be able to set it all right. Witness also
found an envelope addressed to Mr. Charles Wheeler,
and a pamphlet, both of which he produced.
Mr. George (Messrs. Coutts' clerk) proved the enve-
lope to be in Lord Skelmersdale's handwriting ; and it
appeared that the pamphlet was a prospectus of the
" Ladies' Society for the more effectual Suppression of
Cruelty to Animals;" it was dated 1834 ; the prisoner
was the secretary, and Lord Skelmersdale was a sub-
scriber in the amount of 1L

Mr. Wooler objected to this evidence.
Mr. Mullens insisted on it, as showing a probable
communication between the prisoner and Lord Skel-
mersdale, which might prove of importance hereafter.
Mr. HENRY having expressed his intention to remand
the prisoner,
After some discussion as to the most convenient time,
it was agreed that the prisoner should be remanded till
the 19th of August.

Mr. Findley complained that a report had appeared in
some of the papers highly injurious to his character as a
tradesman.

Mr. HENRY said, that as the case stood on the former
occasion there were strong grounds for suspecting Mr.
Findley; but as evidence had now been given which
completely exonerated him, he (Mr. Henry) had no
doubt the same publicity would bre given to it as to the
statement complained of.

THAMES.
This morning inspector Horn, of the K division, re-
ported to the augistrate that there was a charge on the
sheet against a person named Parker, who was incapable
of attending, and his wife, who was present, was very
anxious to get home to him on account of the serious
nature of the injuries he had received.
It appeared that the unfortunate individual, who is a
commercial traveller, was charged by a policeman of the
K division with being drunk, and having assaulted him,
and it seemed that in the struggle Mr. Parker had re-
ceived a very severe and dangerous injury in the ankle-
joint, which confined him to his bed. His wife, who ap-
peared in the deepest agitation and distress, handed in
the following certificate:—
" This certifies, that having been called in to attend
Mr. Parker for injuries to the ankle-joint, he is unable
to leave his bed.

" ALEXANDER STEWART, Surgeon,
" 43, Alderszate-street."
Mrs. Parker, with tears, informed the magistrate that
it was much feared that mortification would ensue, and
that even should things assume a more favourable turn
Mr. Stewart said it would be at least a month before he
would be able to leave his bed. The case was a very
hard one, as her husband's situation, on which they de-
pended for support, was oue which, in consequence of his
absence, would require to be filled up ; and, from what
she could gather from her husband's statement, he had
been most grossly ill-used by the policeman, and the
surgeon was of opinion, from the nature of the injuries
inflicted, that the constable must have knelt on his leg
and forcibly broken it.
Mr. YARDLEY said he could not now enter into the
merits of the case, but that Mrs. Parker might depend
a most searching investigation would be made into the
matter, and in order to do that her husband's bail must
be enlarged. Whilst he would protect policemen in the
due and proper exercise of their duty, cases of gross
brutality or of unwarrantable violence should always
meet with the punishment they deserved.
Some time after the gentleman who had bailed Mr.
Parker attended, and informed the magistrate that he
had just left that gentleman, and that he was very ap-
prehensive as to the result. In addition to Mr. Stewart,
two emiaent surgeons had been called in, and from their
united opinions it had been determined on that a❑ ope•
ration was advisable and necessary.
Mr. YARDLEY also assured this gentleman that at the
proper time this case would be fully gone into. Under
the circumstances he should enlarge the recognisances
for a month.