The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-17 00:00:00

Tuckett lives at No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road,—be-
fors you ask that question, you should ask anothcr,—you
should not ask him tor a knowledge which he has not.
Mr. WADDINGTON—I am now asking him to another point.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT—Yes, I know you arc, but that other
point must be found first.
Mr. WADDINGTON—I ask the witness what hisThris-
tian names are.

Sir W. FOLLETT--.Alld I object to the question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—PVC may ask what are the
Christian names of this gentleman, who took rooms from
this witness.

Sir W. FOLLETT—I MUM Object to this Course of exa-
mination.

The LORD HIGH STEWARD—The question is, what are
the names of the party who took rooms in this house.
Sir Wu. FOLLETT—That question can have have no
relevancy, unless the person for whose Christian name
you arc inquiring be in some way connected with this
transaction ; and it would be fairer, I submit, on the part
of the Counsel for the prosecution not to take an answer
to a question which is put in the witness's mouth without
asking him whether he does or does not know the fact
which he deposes. Your Lordships are aware, that by
the question which my Learned Friend has put to this
witness, as to the house where he lives, arid the an-
swer, No. 13, Hamilton-place, it is sought to identify
this Captain Tuckett with a Captain Tuckett who
carries on business in the Poultry. I wish my
Learned Friend first to inquire whether he really
knows that fact, and I suggested whether he had
ever been to that house and seen Captain Tuckett there,
and he answered in the negative that he never had, show-
ing, therefore, that he does not in point know the fact,
which is to lead to the second question.
The Lora) HIGH STEWARD—The question is as to the
Christian names of some person whose surname is Tuckett.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The tenant of the witness.
The Loan HIGH STEWARD--h will not he relevant un-
less you connect them.
Sir W. FOLLETT-- It will be far more relevant in the
first instance to put the question and the foundatien after.
wards.

The LORD HIGII STEWARD-1 quite agree with you
that there is no proof that this person lives at 13, Hamilton.
place, New-road.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL— I perfectly concur in what
has been stated. There is no evidence of that at this
moment. But, my Lord, we simply ask what is the
name of that individual who rents rooms of the witness at
the Poultry. Surely there can be no objection to that
question—Y9u know the name of that gentleman?—
The only name 1 know him by is Harvey Tuckett.
Now you have said that he lives at 13, Hamilton-place
—how do you know that ?
Sir W. FOLLETT —That is not the right way to put the
question.
Mr. WADDIN.GTON—How can I put it? If I don't know
how he found his knowledge I must ask him. My Lords,
I ask him then how he knows that Captain Tuckett
lives at 13, Ilamilton-place, New-road ?—As being the
reference he gave me when he took my premises.
Sir W. FOLLETT—I do not know whether my Learned
Friend means to say that this is evidence.
The ATTORS EY-GENERAL—I think that it is evidence in
this case, and ought to be received. There is a person of
the name of Tuckett who takes premises— . _

•
Thu LORD HIGH STEWARD—When was that reference
given?—Last November twelve months.
On what occasion ?—When he took my premises.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Last November twelve
months ?-IVhen he took my premises 15 months ago.
Mr. WADDINGTON— Have you ever, since that, addressed
letters to him there ?—No.

Have 3ou addressed parcels to him ?—I have forwarded
a hamper to him.
A PEEK—What business does Capt. Tuckett carry on
at your place?—East India Colonial agent.
Sir W. FOLLETT—I have no question, my Lord, to put
to this witness,

Edward Septimus Codd, sworn and examined by the
ATTORNEY- GENERAL.

What arc you ?—An army agent.
Do you know Captain Tuckett ?—I do.
Is he in the army now ?—No ; he is on half-pay.
Do you know what regiment he belongs to ?—The 11th
Light Dragoons.
Who pays him his half-pay ?—The Paymaster-Ge-
neral of her Majesty's Forces.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT—HOW do you know these facts?--
I receive his half.pay for him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—HOW long is it since he
retired ?—I don't know exactly; it is about three or four
years.
How often is it payable?—Quarterly.
And you have received it during that time ?—I have.
Have you paid it to him ?—I have.
Where have you paid it to him ?—At 15, Fludyer-
street, my residence.
Have you never seen him except then ?—I have not.
When did you see him last ?-011 or about the 31st of
December.
When did you see him before then ?—About the 30th
of September.
Where did you see him then ?—At my office.
Did he receive quarterly half-pay at that period ?—Yes.
What is his Christian name ?—Harvey Garnet Phipps
Tuckett.—(Sen6ation.)
It was in September you last saw him ?—Yes.
When did you see him before then ?—I can't say. It
might have been about the 30th of June. He usually
came to receive his quarter's pay.
You have not seen him in any place except in Fludyer-
street ?—I saw him after his return from India, at the Mi-
nerva Life Office. _ _

You have not seen him at the Poultry ?—No, I have not.
Sir W. FOLLETT said he had no questions to ask the
witness.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. My Lords, I now propose
to read that card, upon which your Lordships were pleased
to say that you would consider whether it was admissible
in evidence or not; and if your Lordships alit* it right,
I now propose to read it.
Lord BROUGIIAM—Is that your case?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That will depend upon
whether your Lordships decide whether the card is ad-
missible in evidence or not.
Sir W. FOLLETT—I suggest, my Lords, that the At-
torney. General should answer the question, in the first
place, because he is not now in a situation to ask whether
this card should be received or rejected.
The LORD HIGH STEWARD—You object to its being re-
ceived, Sir Wm. Follett?
Sir W. FOLLETT—Certainly, my Lord; and I wish to
be heard on that point.
The LORD HIGH STEWARD—We are ready to hear you.
Sir W. FOLLETT requested to see the card, and after
having examined it, said—l don't think it necessary to ob-
ject to this card bring read again.
The Clerk-Assistant then read the card, on which was
engraved

" Captain Harvey Tuckett,
" 13, Hamilton-place, New-road,"

And on the back was

" Captain H. Wainwright."

Sir W. FOLLETT is that your case ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This, my Lords, is the case
on the part of the prosecution.
Sir W. FOLLETT—This being the case on the part of
the prosecution I venture to submit to your Lord-
ships that there is no case that calls on the
prisoner for an answer. It is an attempt to prove a
case without sufficient evidence. Your Lordships will
observe that in the first count of the indictment, the pri-
soner is charged with feloniously and unlawfully intend.
ing to «hoot at Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett, with a pis-
tol loaded with gunpowder and ball, intending thereby, of
his malice aforethought, the said Harvey Garaett Phipps
Tuckett to kill and murder ; in the second count,
he is charged with intending to maim and dis-
able the same person ; and in the 3d count with
intending to do him some grievous bodily injury. Now,
ray Lords, I apprehend it is not necessary to state any
authority to your Lord:hips in order to show that the pro-
secutor is bound to prove the Christian and surname of the
person against whom the alleged offence is committed, and
if he fails in that he fails in the proof of his case. Your
Lordships will see that there is no evidence whatever
to show that the person against whom the shot was
discharged was Mr. Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett.
The evidence before your Lordships would rather lead to
a contrary presumption. I apprehend that positive evi-
dence must be given to prove the identity of the party.
Your Lordships will observe the evidence on this point.
They call a person named Codd, an army agent, who re-
ceives the half-pay of a Captain 'Puckett, formerly
of the 11th Light Dragoons, and that his name was Harvey
Garret Phipps Tuckett; but is there anything to identifyi.
him with the person alleged to be at Wimbledon Common
on the 12th of September? Mr. Codd never knew anything
of his residence, and never saw him except at his office in
Fludyer• street, and an insurance office. There is nothing
to connect that gentleman with the transaction. What is
the rest of the evidence? A person comes from the
Poultry, who says that Captain Tuckett occupied offices
from him—that he is an East India and army agent—
that his name is Harvey Tuckett, and that he does
not know where he lives. Now my Lords, there is
nothing to connect that Captain Tuckett, spoken of by
Mr, Codd with the party who was an Wimbledon Com-
mon on the 12th of September, therefore, 1 contend that
they have entirely failed in an essential part of this prose-
cution. My Lords, this point is expressly decided in the
case
of the King v. Robinson, in Holt's Reports, in which it
is laid down that it is essentially necessary to prove the
Christian and surname of the party against whom the
offence is alleged to have been committed, and of that
there is no proof in the present case.
The ATTORNE G ENERAL —My Lords, the question is,
whether there can be any other evidence to prove the fact
of the Christian name of Captain 'Puckett, the gentleman
wounded. If there be the smallest scintilla of evi-
dence on this point, we are not to be stopped. We
arc now as if we were before a Jury, and that the Learned
Judge wished to direct them to acquit the prisoner
on the ground that there was no evidence to go
before them. My Lords, I contend that if we had
been before a Jury they would have no difficulty
in coming to a conclusion that the name of the party
wounded was Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett.
How does the case stand? My Learned Friend
withdrew all objection to the reading of the card. Well
then the gentleman who was wounded, and against whom
Lord Cardigan shot on the 12th of September, was
Captain Harvey Tuckett. We have got, therefore,
as far as one of his names, and how does it stand with
regaid to the rest ? Ant I obliged to call the clerk
of the parish where he was baptised in order to prove
the baptismal registry ? Ain I obliged to call his
godfathers and godmothers who attended at the baptismal
font? I apprehend such evidence is wholly unnecessary.
I contend, that from the facts proved, no reasonable man
could draw an inference contrary to that which we wish
to be drawn. There is abundant evidence to go to a
Jury upon that point, and your Lordships will now have to
say whether there is evidence to show whether the Cap-
tain Tuckett who was wounded was the person who
resided at 13, Hamilton-place, New-road. Each times
Dann asked for Captain Tuckett, and each time hanie
me
introduced to a gentleman answering to ha n
'Puckett ; therefore your Lordships will have
i)1 believing that the Capt. Tuckett who Ivrea
no
No. difficulty;3,