The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-04 00:00:00

waived every advantage which they might have derived from
the diffictilty there would hove been in proving the identity.
With regard to what passed on that occasion, as the depositions
were not before the Court, it was utterly impossible that his
Lordship could have had any knowledge of the circumstances of
the cast, esleept what he could derive from the indictment
itself, which werit nn fUrther than to show that an assault had
been committed, without Aating anything as to the circum-
stances attending it, or the nature of the injuries inflicted upon
the individual. It was Well known that in cams of assault nothing
was more common than It jet the prisoner speak to the pro-
secutor—that was, to suffer him to make compensation
to the person injured, And if his Lordship had s,;,,rested any-
thing of the sort on the present occa,ion it Wad ha-v.. 7 been
nothing more than what was constantly done—but his Lora-
ship had done no such thing ; whatever had been said on the
subject of compensation to the person injured, had been said
by him (Sir Pollack). This was not a case calling for
very severe or exemplary punishment. These young men
had not been guilty of any premeditated assault. Their meet-
ing with the policeman was a matter of accident, and he must
say that he considered the sergeant was much to blame, seeing
the state of intoxication in which they were, to enter into any
conversation with them at all • his duty was to have recom-
mended them to go home quietly, instead of which he got him-
self embroiled with them, and then commanded the policeman
who came up to take one of the parties into custody, having
done which, he rode off. The friends of Lord Waldegrave
having rescued him, Captain Duff, who was assisting in free-
ing his friend, walked off, and it did not appear that up to
that time any serious injury had been inflicted on the
policeman, because he was afterwards enabled to run after
the plaintiff, and to seize one of the parties, and it was in
the scuffle which ensued after Captain Duff had left that he re-
ceived
the injuries from which he was suffering. He com-
plained of the gross exaggerations which hail gone forth to the
public in the newspapers as to the conduct of his client on this
unfortunate occasion, and contended that if the assault had been
committed by persons in a lower station of life, it wouldhave been
passed over with little or no observation. Captain Duff, through
him, was desirous of submitting himself entirely to the justice
of the Court, and he deeply regretted what had occurred, and
was, and always had been, extremely desirous of making every
reparation in his power.
Mr. MARTIN followed on the same side.
Mr. Tn ESIG E It, for the Earl of Waldegrave, said he had the
misfortune to appear there for a very young nobleman,
who had for months past suffered from the exaggerations of the
newspapers in respect to this unfortunate affair. He did not
complain that the affidavits for the prosecution should have
been given out for publication ; but he did complain that those
affidavits should have been published before the affidavits
for the defence had been heard, that an ex-parte statement
of the case should have been given, calculated not indeed to
prejudice or influence the judgment of the Court; for he was
well aware that it was out of the power of any publication to
do that, but to create a prejudice in the public mind, and
excite public animosity against his client. No one had more to
cease to rejoice in the arrival of that day than Lord Waldegrave,
for now the whole case was before the public ; what did it
amount to? Was it, as it had been represented to be, a case
of premeditated, malicious, unprovoked, and almost murder-
ous outrage? No such thing. Had his Lordship, which it
was clear he had not done, recommended that some
compromise should take place—that some reparation
or compensation should be made to the injured party, and the
case should not be proceeded with further, he (Mr. T. )
was prepared to contend that such a course would have been
perfectly justifiable, would have been in accordance with what
was constantly done in cases of assault even upon policemen, and
would have amply met the justice of the case. The whole of this
unfortunate affair was owing to the imprudence and indiscre-
tion of the police-sergeant. What, for instance, could be
more likely to aggravate a party of young men, heated with
wine, than his order to the constable to throw his light on
them, and his second order to him, to go and see the number
of the fly. The unfortunate sufferer himself had also
acted with great imprudence in attempting to seize one of the
party by the leg, after he was in the fly, and while the fly was
driving on. Wat could have been his intention ? Did he
mean to drag his prisoner from the fly to the ground while
the fly was proceeding at the rapid rate that had
been represented ? Had he succeeded in doing so the
consequences might have been still more severe than
they had been. It was evident that the injury to the
brain had not been inflicted by the blows which he had re-
ceived in the scuffle, but had been occasioned by his falling from
the fly while it was proceeding at such a rapid rate, and that was
proved to be the case by the fact that it was then, and not
until then, that he found himself incapable of moving. It was
a most unfortunate accident, and advantage had been taken
of it to prejudice the defendants, because they occupied a
high rank in society. Had the assault been committed by
persons of humbler rank, although it might have occa-
sioned some little observation at the time of its occurrence,
all remembrance of it would have long since passed away from
the public mind. Whatever might be the judgment passed
upon him, Lord Waldegrave was anxious, and ever had been,
to be permitted to make such reparation to the man as would
prevent him feeling the consequences of the occurence in any
way beyond the bodily suffering which he had endured.
Through his counsel he expressed his deep regret for what,
had occurred, and his anxious desire to submit himself with
all humility to the judgment of the Court.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY followed on the same side.
Their Lordships having consulted together,
Mr. Justice PATTESON proceeded to deliver the judgment
of the Court. The defendants were charged with having,
on the sth of June last, a saulted Charles William Wheatly,
a police-constable, at Hampton Wick, and interrupted him in
the execution of his duty, and with having inflicted divers in-
juries upon him. To that indictment they had pleaded guilty.
The Learned Counsel for the defendants had complained that
this transaction had been made the subject of [gross and
exaggerated comment in the public newspapers, and such most
likely was the fact, as the Learned COunsel had so stated it to
be ; but it did so happen that not one of the Judges who were
on the bench at the time the defendants had pleaded guilty had
seen any of those accounts, not but what' tilt" might have
seen such statements—not that if they had see 2 them
they were at all bound, as Judges, not to read
them—but it did so happen that they had none of
them seen them, and consequently could have no know-
ledge of the transaction except what they had derived from
the affidavits ; and the Learned Judge who presided when the
plea of not guilty was withdrawn, and the plea of guilty entered,
had no means of acquiring any knowledge of what had taken
place except from the indictment, which merely set
forth the fact, that an assault had been committed
without stating anything as to the nature of it.
It appeared that the defendants, in company with several others,
had teen dining with the defendant, Lord Waldegrave, at his
seat at Strawberry-hill, on the 4th June last, and that being
under the influence of wine they had all set off to go to King-
ston fair, and on their return from the fair it was that the as-
sault. complained of had taken place. It appeared they had met
police sergeant Churchill, and had asked how far down the road

his beat extended? to Nvhich he properly replied that his orders
prevented him from replying to such a question, whereupon
some of the party began making use of disgusting and abusive
language. The defendants swore that neither of them
had made use of the language complained of, and he hoped such
was the case, but still they admitted that such language was
made use of by persons in the company. It was not stated
who those persons were, or whether they were of the
same rank as the defendants, or occupied a lower
station. This was at all events certain they must
have been persons of very low minds, and persons
exceedingly unfit to he the associates of the defendants. It
appeared from their own affidavits that after this they pro-
ceeded to take hold of the bridle of the man's horse, conduct
which, although not of a gross or outrageous nature, was yet ex-
ceedingly improper, and that when, in the execution of the
commands of his superior officer, Wheatly proceeded
towards the fly for the purpose, as he said, of see-
ing the owner's name, although perhaps they might have
imagined it was to prevent their getting into it, they pushed
him down, and then, and not till then, did the sergeant order
him to take one of the party, who turned out to he Lord Wal-
degrave, into custody. The defendant Duff admitted he as-
sisted in rescuing the other defendant from the custody of the
police officer, and that he left before the other assault was
committed. That made a slight difference, but a very
slight one between the two cases. Lord Waldegrave,

however, got into the fly, and the policeman followed
attempting to recapture his pri,.oncr, and seized ono of the
party by the leg ; they then drove on, a person on the box hit-
ting at Wheativ at random with a stick, the defendant, Lord
Wahlegrave, hitting him on the knuckles with a cane to make
him leave go his hold, and the person whose leg he had seized
kicking him ; in consequence of this he fell to the
ground, unable to move, and the wheel passed over
him. Now, if those in the fly knew that the
wheel had passed over him, and there was nothing to show that
they did not, then their conduct was must inhuman in driving
away, leaving, him in the road without assistance. It had
been said that the conduct of the polioeman had been indis-
creet ; but, even admitting it to have been so, although
he by no means said that such was the case, still
that was no excuse for the defendants. It was not to be borne
that persons should commence an outrage, and then, because
the persons who had been attacked in the first instance had
not acted as discreetly as they might have done, that those who
commenced the outrage should turn round and plead the
indiscretion as a reason why they should escape punish-
ment. Those wbo commenced an outrage were re-
sponsible for every thing that might subsequently occur.
Without meaning to impute wilful misrepresentation to the
defendants, he was bound to accept the version of the circum-
stances from •,the affidavits of the policeman, rather than from
theirs, because, according to their own showing, they were at
that time under the influence of wine, and therefore could not
be supposed to have a very accurate recollection of what had
taken place. The man who drove the fly, it appeared, was sober,
but he had made no affidavit ; neither had any one of the
Dart), except the two defendants. The fact of the being under
ii:_4llcnce of wine was pleaded as an excuse for their conduct,
• of the land admitted no such excuse. If a man chose
himself in such a position as that his pas-
over his reason, he must take the
er, be taken thus far in mitig,a-
-• - they set out, it would
to commit, some
'-nces, did
that

but the la,.

foitintvily to pu.
Lions shook cont.—

consequences. It tniglit4 bowe._
tion. Ilad they been sober at the tins..
Piave served to argue a premeditated dessg..
outrage, which, 117 M-osier; under the eireums,.
not appear to be the cast`. it often happenen
assaults of this nature were cominitte4 by persons of low
.tt,otori while in a state of intoxication ; and ish, those cases,
althottgh the public safety required that such persons should be
punished, yet some pity might be felt, and some sympathy
might be manifested towards them on account of their having
had their education neglected, of their having been left to
themselves, and their crime being, perhaps, more the
consequence of their misfortune than their faults. But when
men, occupying a rank and station in society to which the public
generally looked for example, and in which they were not often
disappointed—when such men voluntarily degraded themselves
to the level of the unfortunate class to which he had before al-
luded, they had no right to pity, they could expect no sympa-
thy. It had been stated that their rank was an aggravation of
their offence, and so it was to a certain extent ; not, however,
that they were to be punished solely on account of their rank.
The law had marked these cases of assault on police-officers in
the execution of their duty as cases of a more aggravated
nature than cases of common assault. The defendant had
offered compensation and reparation, but it never could be
borne that any man could be permitted by his wealth to pur-
chase the privilege of committing outrages of this na-
ture. He must, as well as others, pay in person
for his offences. In ordinary ewes of this description
the offence was generally committed by a class of persons
whose poverty was such as absolutely to preclude them from
paying in purse, and on whom the infliction of a fine, accom-
panied as it always was by imprisonment until the fine should
be paid, would be tantamount to a sentence of perpetual im-
prisonment. But in eases where persons could afford to pay
in purse as well as in person, there was not, any reason
why the Court should not inflict a fine as well as sen-
tence them to pay in person. " I have already observed,"-
concluded Isis Lordship, " that there is a slight difference, al-
though a very slight difference,between your two cases. Taking
all the circumstances of the case into our consideration the
sentence of the Court upon you George Edward, Earl of
Waldegrave, and upon you William John Duff, is, that you be
each of you imprisoned in the custody of the Marshal
of the Illarshalsea, that is in the Queen's Bench pri-
son, for the space of six calendar months, and that you
George Edward Earl of Waldegrave, do pay to her Majesty
a fine of 2001., and you William John Duff, a fine of 20/., and
that you be further imprisoned until such fines shall be paid."
The defendants then left the Court in custody.

Mr. Robert Gordon, M.P., for Windsor, has
resigned his office of FiLaucial Secretary of her Majesty's
Treasury.