The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-08 00:00:00

ships whether it was possible to conceive a statement so
utterly unfounded, and so grossly malicious—so calculated to
arraign the conduct of the Duke in his magisterial capacity,
and to impair his efficiency in the discharge of those im-
portant functions with which he was invested?
His Learned Friend, Mr. Erle, suggested to him to
touch upon the minor charges •as to the drinking
of the ale and other matters, but they were so perfectly in-
significant that • it was hardly worth while to occupy the
time of the Court with them. In fact, from beginning to
end, with the solitary exception of the magistrates' meeting
at thee" Kennel Farm House," there was not a single word
of truth in the statements which had been made. And now
he would ask their Lordships whether it was to be endured
that at such a crisis, when disturbance was likely to arise
and an appeal to the passions of the people about to take place,
that charges such as these were to be brought against an in-
dividual in his magisterial capacity, and whether, being made,
the Court would hesitate for one moment in exercising its
summary power of giving instant protection to one thus
assailed. He would now proceed to another charge which,
if no answer was made to it, would make a very serious im-
pression upon the public mind, but which was as false as all
the other charges his friend had been instructed to make. In
another part of his friend's address to the electors of Wood-
stock, he said—" There's a man standing there—Castle.—
(Hear, hear.) He made a coffin for the remains of the late
Duke of Marlborough, and has not been paid for it to this
day-. The Duke will not pay him, because he said he did not
order it.— (Hear, hear.) Whv, what do you think of
prosperity to the trade of Woodstock' after this? Mr.
Whateley—Yon have been misinformed upon • this
point, Mr. Humfrey. Mr. Castle—lt's all true. Mr.
Humfrey—The question is, is Castle paid ? (Castle
`Nei The. Duke is buried in Castle's coffin. Castle has
applied to his son to pay for making it, and the son has not
paid.—(Hear, hear) This, I think, is a climax." Now, what
were the real circumstances of this ceee ? The late Duke of Marl-
borough left a person of the name of Glover, his residuary le-
gatee and executrix. She had given orders for the funeral, and,
amongst those orders, one to Castle for the coffin, when the
present Duke arrived at Blenheim, and requested to have the
sole superintendence of the obsequies of his parent. It was
conceded, and all the expenses, under the direction of those
who had been employed by him, had been paid. The whole
amount was between 400/. and 5001., and this had been fully
paid. It is true the Duke had not paid Castle, and the reason
was, that his charge was a fraudulent and an unjust one.
Castle had charged for the material for making the coffin,
which material had actually been supplied from the timber
stores at Blenheim. The Duke expressed his determination
to pay for the labour and the workmanship, but he refused,
and properly refused, to pay for that which Castle had no
right to charge, and then this was made the ground of ore
of the most serious charges of dishonesty, and of an attempt
to defraud. Now, he (Mr. Thesiger) would go to another
charge. Mr. Humfrey, in the course of his address, said—
" Gentlemen, I will tell you a tale about the park, which
will give vou another example of the petty tyranny of the
house of Marlborough. There was, a short time ago, in this
town, a Mr. Jardine, a respectable tradesman. You all knew
him. His wife was slowly recovering feem a serious illness
after her confinement. One day Mr. Jardine took her out
into the park in a garden chair. She was very ill, and com-
plained of being shaken by being drawn over the gravel.
Her husband drew her on the grass. He was seen, and
summoned. A fine of one farthing was inflicted, and
the costs were I don't know what. Good God Almighty
if there is any justice in heaven or on earth—if there
is any right feeling between man and man—let us join
in denouncing such conduct as this." Their Lordships would
see how necessary it was that his Learned Friend should
have instructed himself in the real facts in this case before he
made so serious and solemn a charge. He would best answer
that charge by reading the affidavit of one Elliott, the park-
keeper to the Duke of Marlborough. (The Learned Solicitor-
General here read the affidavit, which deposed that Jardine
was constantly drawing a carriage over the sward in the park
and destroying it ; that he had been frequently desired to desist,
and had always replied he would make the park a public
road, and that the park-keeper had at last, in pursuance of
his , duty to the Duke, been compelled to summon the man
before the magistrates, in order to prevent the continued re-
currence of th damage.) Having finished reading this, the
Solicitor-General proceeded to say, these and all the other
charges were thus similarly disproved by the most incontes-
tible evidence; and he thought he was not praying for too
much from the Court when he asked the exercise
of its summary jurisdiction to protect the character
and feelings of the Duke of Marlborough.
After a consultation between the judges of nearly a quarter
of an hour,
Lord DENMAN said the words quoted as having been used
by Mr. Humfrey, impud grievous charges, which it was by,
no means to be elondered at his Grace the Duke of Marl-
borough was anxious to rebut. There was however
only one ground on which the Court could even
for a moment think of exercising their summary jurisdic-
tion and that was * a repeated attack on the Duke
of Marlborough in his magisterial capacity. On
the other grounds stated, the Court could not for
an instant think of interfering.. And even upon that on
which himself and brothers had hesitated for a moment about
their unanimous opinion on consultation was, that as the
attack was not on the magisterial capacity of the Noble
Duke when in the actual exercise of magisterial functions,
which would have made the case assume a very different
aspect, the Court would be making a precedent where none
already existed, and must therefore decline to interfere.
Rule refused.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
William Haime, 28, a young man of very respectable
appearance was indicted for stealing a quantity of muslin
and other articles, value 12/., the property of George
Jordan, his master ; and Amelia Eliner, 22, and Eliza-
beth Eliner, 45, were indicted for feloniously receiving
the property, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Williams conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Ballantine defended the prisoners.
It appeared that the male prisoner had formerly been
in the service of the prosecutor, who is a linen draper at
Reading, as shopman, and he was discharged from that
service in April last, at that time there being no sus-
picion that he had plundered his employer. The
prisoner Amelia passed as his sister in Reding, and the
whole of the family, it appeared, came up to London.
The prosecutor having occasion to go to Woolwich,
found the prisoner Haime in custody, upon a charge of
robbing a lineudraper at that place ; and a quantity
of property was then produced, which he identified
as having once formed part of his stock. Evidence was
adduced to show that this property had been taken from
a place at Islington, where all the prisoners lived to-
gether, the younger woman passing as Haime's wife.
The prosecutor could not distinctly identify the articles
produced, and the evidence did not appear sufficiently
conclusive to make out the charge.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict of " Not
Guilty."
The prisoner William Haime was then arraigned upon
another indictment charging him with stealing a quan-
tity of Irish linen, the property of his master, John
Goss Fleay.
Upon this indictment the prisoner was convicted, and
sentenced to be transported for seven years.