The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-05 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)'

CASE OF THE DRYAD.
Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Justice Bosanquet took
their seats on the Bench at Ten o'C'ock, and immediately after
Michael Shaw Stewart Wallace was put to the bar, and
having pleaded Not guilty to an indictment for being acces-
sory to the destruction of the ship Dryad, for which offence his
brother Patriek Wallace was convicted yesterday, and whose
case will be found fully reported in this Morning's edition of
The Sun,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case for the prose-
cution in precisely the same manner as in the former case,
to the report of which, the facts being the same, we refer our
readers. The Learned Gentleman said, in addition, he would
only say that when the Jury should find that the prisoner at the
bar was in communication with Looe at Bristol, that he ef-
fected the fraudulent assurances, and participated in the pro-
fits derived from them, he thought there was no exercise of
Christian charity by which they could conclude that the pri-
soner was innocent of the offence for which he stood indicted.
He would, therefore, only further state that this charge was
first made on the 27th of Novemb,r, when an attempt was
made to take the prisoner into custody at his residence in
Tredegar-square, but he was not found until the 27th of De-
cember, when he was arrested at a little village on the sea-
coast in the county of Lancaster. It had been said the pri-
soner had gone there fur the benefit of sea-bathing, but it was
for the Jury to consider how far it was probable at that season of
the year the prisoner had gone there for that purpose. Before he
sat down, he wished to say one word with respect to a misre-
presentation that had been made with respect to what he (the
Attorney-General) had said respecting the Prisoners' Counsel
Act. It was said yesterday that he had said that Act 'was a
curse tol the country. Now, he had never said so, nor any-
thing that would bear that construction. The facts were, that
in a case for forging a will, which was a disputed will, anal
which ought to have been tried by way of ejectment, his client
had been indicted for a criminal offence, in order to
prevent him (the Attorney - General) from reply-
ing to the prosecutor's case, upon which he "had
said that if such abuses were to be tolerated the Act, which
was a most excellent one, would become a curse to the country.
He had assisted in carrying that Act through Parliament, and
he had never entertained any other opinion of it than that he
had now expressed.
Mr. JERVIS said he would now, with their Lordships' per-
mission, take an objection he had to make with respect to the
jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court in this case. He
would merely state what had fallen from the Court on a
previous occasion with respect to the proper time to
take the objection, that in the • -King and Easterby, re-
ported in Russell's Crown cases, the objection was taken
by Mr. Erskine, when the facts were before the Court. In
that case the offence was a principal offence. By the lst Vic.,'
c. 89, an accessory was made guilty of felony, and subjected to
the same punishment as the principal offender ; and by the
114th section, offences within the jurisdiction of the Court of
Admiralty might be tried in the same way as they were before
the passing of the Act, that was without reference to the Cen-
tral Criminal Court Act by commission, and it went on to
state that the offences of being accessory, procuring, or con-
niving at such offences, might be inquired of, tried, and pu-
nished by any Cowl that should have jurisdiction to try
the principal felon. ffhe jurisdiction, therefore, conferred on
the Court for the trial of an accessory was a jurisdiction at-
tached to the person of the principal felon, and not to the ac-
cessory. The Act said that any Court that should have juris-
diction to try the principal felon, might try an accessory in
the same mariner as if the offence of the principal felon had
been committed at the same place. In that section the words
were important, as drawing a distinction between the principal
felon and the person on his trial. By the Central Criminal
Court Act, 4 and 5 Wil. 4, c. 36, s. 22, it was enacted that it
should be lawful for the Judges and Justices of Oyer and Ter-
miner, and for the Commissioners under the Act " to inquire
into, hear, and determine any offence committed, or alleged
to have been committed, upon the high seas," and it went on
farther to say " and to deliver the gaol of Newgate of any
person detained therein for any offence committed, or alleged
to have been committed, on the high seas." So that the
Court had the power to try any offence committed on
the high seas when the offender was in custody.
But Loose was not in custody, and the jurisdiction of the
Court over the person of the offender depended upon the cus-
tody of the party. In the King v. Easterby, it was decided
that the mere fact of a party being an accessory on land to an
offenn committed at sea would not make him liable to the
jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and therefore the 14th section
of the statute by which the offence sys constituted could not
give that Court jurisdiction to try the offence as an Admiralty
offence. There was another point. It might be said an ac-
cessory might be tried in the county in which the acces-
sorial act took place ; but he (Mr: Jervis) took it from his
Learned Friend's statement that Michael Wallace was at
Liverpool at the time of the sailing of the vessel ; he appre-
hended, therefore, that on this point also the Court, as at pre-
sent constituted, had no jurisdiction "to try this case. He would
merely mention one other point, namely, the doubtful construe.
tion of the Act as to the distinction of the ship being the pro-
perty of the party charged. Thek Lordships knew that by
the Act repealed by this Act, in 'the case of wilfully setting
fire to a dwelling-house, it was not an offence, provided the
house was the property of the party who set fire to it; but, by
the 3d section of this Act, it was made felony whether the
house was in the possession of the party or. not; but with re-
ference to ships it said nothing of the kind. He therefore sub-
mitted these objections for the consideration of the Court.

Chief Justice TINDAL said the Court would take the ob-
jections into consideration if the result of the trial should ren-
der it necessary.
Mr. Herring, ship-broker, No. 12, Bishopsgate-street,
Within, produced the charter-party for the ship Dryad, signed
by Michael Wallace, on behalf of the owners of the vessel.
Witness was an attesting witness, and saw the document signed
by Messrs. Zulieta and Michael Wallace.
_ _

Howden deposed to the same effect as on Wednesday,
as to his part-ownership in the brig Dryad with Michael Wal-
lace. An insurance for 2,0001. was effected on the ship, and
Michael Wallace had a copy of the policy. In January, 1840,
the amount of that assurance was paid to him, of which Mi-
chael Wallace received his share. He also effected a policy
of 3001. at Lloyd's, on the freight, by desire of Michael
Wallace. A total loss was claimed on both policies, and three
fourths of the amount was paid by Michael Wallace.
Mr. Shepherd, of the Alliance Assurance-office, Mr.
Quickly, the insurance broker, who effected the insurance on
the freight at Lloyd's, and Mr. Stott, the ship.broker, who ef-
fected the insurance in the Maritime-office, for Michael Wal-
lace, were severally examined and deposed to the same effect as
in the former case, to the report of which we refer our readers,
no new facts having been elicitet'.
Mr. Stott cross-examined by Mr. Jravis.—l became ac.
quainted with the prisoner when I hied at Messrs. Selden and
Johnson's. I lived with them for twelve years. They are
well known, and carry on a respectable business. Ido not
know that I have any business to tell you why I left them. I
decline answering that question. I do not like to
answer it nor do I intend to do so. I left there
in July or August 1837. After I had left them I lived
with my father. After that year was expired I was employed
in the Metropolitan Gas Company's offices. I was employed
there for four months. I left intending to take a situation in
an attorney's office, but he declined employing me, and be-
tween the two stools I fell to the ground. After that I did
nothing for three or four months. I then commenced busi-
ness in Lower hames-street as a Custom-house agent. I
lived there four or five months. I was in partnership there
with another person. I gave it up because it did not
answer, and then went into business in Seething-lane as a ship
broker and Custom-howe agent. I remained there from the
time I left lhames-street to the March following. I gave up
business there because I obtained a situation with John Nicholl
and Co., with whom I remained until I was taken into custody
on this charge. I was kept in custody five weeks. I was not
examined by the solicitor before I went before the Magistrates.
I had no communication with any one but Mr. Hobler, my attor-
ney. I slated to him what I knew. 'the Magistrates then shifted
me from the bar to the witness-box. I paid 2001. to Patrick
Wallace as the balance of his accounts. 11Iy charges were 53/.
He paid premium and duty on insuirance.
By Mr. CLARKSON—The business in this case was more
than usually difficult. The greater portion of the money was
paid to me for other matters. When my place was
shifted as Mr. Jervis has said from the bar to the witness-box,
the Magistrate expressed his regret that I should have been
placed there. I did not leave Messrs. Selden and Johnson for
any dishonest act, or any thing affecting my moral character.
It was respecting a lady.
Mr. Lendall, Mr. Secretaire, Mr. S. Marshall, Mr. Lodge,
and Mr. Bahr, gave similar evidence to, that on the former
occasion, with respect to the effecting the insurances on the
Druid, and the payments thereon to the prisoner.
Mr. Frost, in addition to his evidence in the former case,
said he knew of the death of Loose by having received his
effects from Captain Cuddy, of the Premier. He received in
July the whole of his clothes, a bill for 4001., and cash
amounting to 971. On the 27th of July he deliveredthe papers
to Michael Wallace. He was then carrying on business at
Crosby Hall Chambers. He had known Patrick do business
for Michael on other occasions and for other slips; one was the
Delta, and another the Lucy.
The Court then adjourned for a short time.

(NEW COURT.)
Henry Jones was indicted for ftealmg a jacket and hat, the
property of Abraham Harris, clothes-dealer, in Rateliff
Highway.
Simon Simons deposed that ,he was standing at his
own door, near Mr. Harris's residence, and observed the
prisoner, in company with another .lad, who took the
articles named in the indictment from Mr. Harris's shop, and
handed them to the prisoner. The former made his escape,
but witness followed the latter, and gave him into custody.
The prisoner, who had been several times previously con-
victed, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard
labour.

Thomas Roser was indicted for stealing two live fowls and a
copper, the property of. John Sellers, of the Torrington Arms,
Poplar.

A policeman deposed to having taken the prisoner into. cus-
tody on the night of the 27th ultimo, with the stolen property
in his possession.
Miss Emma Sellers identified the property as belonging to
her father.

•
The prisoner said this was his first offence.
The RZCORDER said that it was a bad beginning.
Had he suffered a previous conviction be should have been
sent out of the country. His present sentence was that he be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months
!bV

!he DOW, Gazette contains a proclamation,
offering a reward of one hundred pounds for the dis.
covery and conviction of the murderer cf the Italian
at Ratbfarnham.

EXTRAORDINARY PRESENCE OF MIND.--
The Rouen Journal recounts the following terrible acci.
dent which happened a few days ago to M. Napoleon
Gallet, Member of the Council of Prud'hommes, of that
town :—" Observing a trifling derangement in part of the
engine at his establishment, at Mont-Riboudet, he tried to
rectify it without stopping its motion, but was caught by
the sleeve of his blouse, and his left arm was instantly
wrapped like a ribbon round the axle, and his body
whirled round repeatedly, receiving the most sc v. re con-
tusions, particularly in one of his legs, which was i i con-
stant friction. Although the machine made fcrty eyolu-
ti ms in a minute, M. Gallet retained sufficient presence
of mind so too bend his head as to save it at each turn from
being crushed between the machine and the ceiling, where
'the space was too small to allow it to pass. One of the
workmen made as attempt to release him, but was also
caught, and would have suffered the same fate had not
the engineer, hearing their cries, stopped the movement.
M. Gallet was taken away in the most deplorable condi-
tion, his arm being broken into four or five different parts.
Notwithstanding the number and extreme gravity of the
injuries, his surgical attendants ent nein hopes not only
of saving his life, but of restoring him to the use of all
his limbs."

We understand that his Grace the Duke of
Not fvlk has been pleased to appoint Messrs. S. and B.
Solomons, of 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly, his Grace's
Opticians.

It is stated that John Bowes, Esq., one of the
Members for South Durham, has been seriously ill. The
Hon. Gentleman is now somewhat Letter, and has been
removed to Richmond, sear London, for change of air.
Tyne Mercury.