The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 5.

THE KING V. JEREMIAH 3IATHER.
This was an indictment for perjury, assigned to
have been committed by the defendant, in the state-
ment which he gave upon oath of his property, in
the Court of King's Bench, where he came up to
justify as bail for a Mr. Charles Proby Bowles, who
had been arrested.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS stated the case. Bowles
gave notice, that his two bail, the defendant and a
man of the name of Eastwood, would justify as his
bail in open Court on the Bth of November.—
The defendant on that day did endeavour to justify
in two actions, one at the suit of a Mr. Stultz, for
1811. and the other at the suit of a Mr. Myers for
781. The defendant swore he was worth 5181.
after payment of all his debts; and on being examin-
ed, stated that his property consisted of a house in
Sidney-street, Commercial-road, of which he had a
lease, of the furniture in that house, of a garden of
which he had also a lease, and in which he swore he
had erected a coach-house, stable and buildings,
which cost him 3001., and were worth that sun).—
The Court, however, would not permit him to jus-
tify, but granted time for the plaintiffs in the two
actions to make inquiries concerning this property.
An inquiry had accordingly been made, the result of
which was, that the defendant did live in Sidney-
street, but had no lease of the house ; his furniture
was very trifling, and he had not erected either
coach-house or stabling. Mr. Stultz felt it his duty
under these circumstances, to institute the prosecu-
tion. The Learned Sergeant called several wit-
nesses, who substantiated his statement.
The COMMON SERGEANT, for the defendant, took
an objection to the indictment, which stated that
the perjury was committed in the Court of King's
Bench, whereas the oath was administered in the
Bail-court, where the defendant was examined, and
gave the statement of his property.
Lord TENTERDEN over-ruled the objection. The
Court of King's Bench could at all times sit any
where, the act under which one Judge sat in the
Bail-court to take the justifications of bail, and to do
other business, gave the Court the power it did not
possess before, of sitting in two places at one time.
One Judge constituted a Court, and the Bail-court
was therefore the Court of King's Bend', and the
defendant's answers were properly stated in the in-
dictment to have been made in the Court of King's
Bench.—The Jury found the defendant Guilty. •

DRL'MMOND ACAINST FRASER.
This was an action of trespass.
Mr. CMITTY opened the pleadings, and Mr.
BROUGHAM stated the case. The plaintiff, Mr.
George Harley Drummond, a gentleman of large
fortune, and heir to the wealthy banker, has found it
absolutely necessary to bring this action against the
defendant, who is a respectable tradesman, for a
trespass committed upon his property at Stanmore.
People who are fond of sporting ought to enjoy it
at the right season of the year, and at all events in
the right place ; but the defendant chose to trespass
in the beginning of last March upon the soil and
freehold of the plaintiff near Stanmore, in spite of a
notice which the plaintiff had distributed and fixed
up throughout the neighbourhood, and which was
printed sufficiently large for the defendant, who is
an optician, to have seen it without the aid of his
instruments. This notice was given in last August,
and on the sth of March, the defendant, with a
number of persons in his company, came upon the
plaintiff's ground after a hare; and the defendant,
on being stopped by the plaintiff's gamekeeper, as
he was in the act of breaking down a gate, told the
gamekeeper that he had as good a right to be there
as he or his master had, and that he was imperti-
nent. Mr. Brougham supposed the defendant meant
to set up some title; but this would not do, for the
land was in the occupation of the plaintiff himself;
and as the defendant actually did damage to some
amount, the plaintiff did not bring the action for
mere nominal damages, but called on the Jury to
read the defendant a lesson' how- ,he ventured to
trespass again upon other men's grounds. •
David Jones, gamekeeper to the plaintiff, exa-
mined by Mr. CHITTY.—I stuck up notices, warn-
ing- pt-upie rnmn spernng-over the n s lan a,
in last September. I put up one near the defend-
ant's premises, and another near the plantation of
the plaintiff, which surrounds the field called the
Warren. In last March I was about 500 yards
from the gate in the plantation, when I saw the de-
fendant ride up to the gate. There were about ten
people with him on foot; he was on horseback.
Nichols' hounds were with him. He rode up to the
gate, which was fastened with a staple, and pushed
it open. He was in the warren field when I got up
to him. I said, " Gentlemen, call your dogs off,
there are a good many hares here, and I wish you to
go off." The defendant answered, that lie had as
much right to be there as 1, or Mr. Drummond had.
I said, " There are three young leverets in the
warren, and you ought to be ashamed to come this
time of the year." I beat the dogs out of the planta-
tion, and followed the defendant out. There were
five gaps broken down in the fences of the planta-
tion, which were new. It occupied me a day and
half to repair them.
The notice was produced, and the collector of
Stanmore proved that the plantation field was
situate in the county of Middlesex, and that the
plaintiff was rated for it.
The COMMON-SERGEANT.—My friend has not
quite made out so serious a case as he anticipated.
I do not mean to deny that the plaintiff is the heir
to an immense fortune; but he might employ his
money much better than in bringing ill-natured ac-
tions. In this case a hare started in the defendant s
ground, and ran through the plaintiff's land;
and the
defendant could not, in the heat of the moment, re-
sist the temptation of following it. My friend has
alluded to the business of the defendant—the notice
was printed certainly large enough to be seen with-
out the aid of optical instruments, but I trust, if a
verdict is found for the plaintiff, that the damages
will be of so very small a coin, as will require the
aid of optical glasses to make it visible. The plain-
tiff has already brought one action against Mr. Ni-
chols,, for this trespass,—he has submitted, and pa'"
the costs. The defendant, however, feels that he
ought to resist this action, and his defence is, that he
had a right to be where the gamekeeper found him)
for he had the leave and licence of Mr. Bateman)
and the warren in which in fact the trespass was com-
mitted, was in Bateman's, and not the plaintiff's oc-
cupation. As to the gaps, which may have been
broken through the hedge by other people, de-
fendantly has nothing to do with them; head n
rid his horse a few yards through the land of the
plaintiff which separates the two fields ; and neigh-
bourly feeling should, if nothing else did, have pre-
' vented this action.
Samuel Nichols, examined by Mr. PLATT.---I am
a farmer, residing near Stanmore. I was out with
my hounds on the sth of March. We started a
hare on the defendant's park, near Cannons. The
defendant was not then with us. The hare crossed
over several fields, and went to Stanmore Park,
which is in the occupation of Bateman. The de-
fendant was in his farm-yard at Cannons looking
over his men who were at work. He did not then
follow us. I saw him afterwards crossing the
avenue in the pathway in the warren-field. He
did not cheer on the dogs. I opened the gate
nearest the warren-field. The defendant was then
close behind me. I do not knew who opened the
first gate. The keeper swore at the defendant, and
abused him terribly, and said he would have an
action against both of us. He kept his word with
respect to me. There were three of us named ih
the writ. I paid four guineas, and the action was
not proceeded with against me. The defendant and
I were on horseback—there were several labouring
men with us.
Cross-examined by Mr. 13Rotionaal.-'-1 don't
think I was favourably used by Drummond. He has
not at all behaved kindly to me. I do not in the
least feel obliged to him. I did sign a paPer of
apology.
Did not Mr. Drummond behave kindly to you, ill
itecepting the apology, and not proceeding with the

action P—He would have behaved kindlier if he had
not brought any action at all.
How came you, then,rto sign the apology ?—I
am not fond of law. Jones, the gamekeeper, was
very abusive. He did say it was a shameful thing
to hunt at this season of the year.
Mr. Bateman proved that he used the road be-
tween the two gates to cart his hay from the warren-
field, and he also used the road to go from one field
to the other. He did not consider it unsportsman-
like to hunt hares in the early part of March, and
never objected to the defendant coming on his
ground. The plantation field was about ten acres.
The gate was not broken, only the staple.
Mr. BROUGHAM replied. His friend was a high
authority in civil, and a still higher one in criminal
matters, where he was a judge; and he (Mr.
Brougham) would bow to his opinion with the pro-
foundest deference, if he were pleading before him
as a Counsel, or if he were even to stand before
him in that situation that his friend would have to
tell his fortune, as they phrase it, and which fortune
when prognosticated by his friend, would be more
likely to prove true than the prognostications of
soothsayers generally proved. But with all this,
his friend was, perhaps, the very worst possible au-
thority on any question touching the chase, because
he has no fellow-feeling about the sport of hunting,
which he only knows by the effect. That indeed,
in common with every good citizen, he relishes
when he sees a young hare smoking on the table,
but he has no love of the sport itself, unless, indeed,
it be on an Easter day. The plaintiff is desirous
ofi keepingv his property to his own use, and does
lot-kishto have a mob of people trespassng upon
that portion of his ground which he keeps in his own
occupation. The defence has failed,—there is no
colour for it ; for though the Warren-field and Stan-
more-park are in the occupation of Bateman, the
plantation between them, consisting of about ten
acres, belongs to the plaintiff, and there the trespass
was committed. Jones swears that he saw the de-
fendant break open the gate, and he is not contra-
dicted by the evidence of the rattling young farmer
Nichols, who has so soon forgot his debt of grati-
tude to the plaintiff. He says, indeed, that Jones
was abusive; that he might possibly have been, he
does not deny it; but is he contradicted in his state-
ment that the defendant did break open the gate ?
I call upon you to give the plaintiff such damages as
a man ought to be made to pay who, in such a sea-
son and in such a manner, trespasses after notice,
upon another person's ground.
Verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages ls.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 5.
WIGGINS V. CHAPMAN AND OTHERS.

This was an action of assault and false imprisonment.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY stated the case. The plain-
tiff was a very respectable person, residing in Tot-
tenham-court-road, carrying on the business of a
builder, and was now compelled to seek compensa-
tion at the hands of a Jury for an injury he had sus-
tained from the three defendants, two of whom were
officers of the Thames Police, and the other a con-
stable. On the 26th of April last, Mr. Wiggins
was going from his house in Tottenham-court-road
to superintend the building of another house he was
erecting near the Regent's-park, having in his hand
a rope, which it was customary' for persons in his
line of business to use. When he had nearly arrived
at the Regent's-park, he was stopped by the de-
fendants, who insisted on his immediately going
before a Magistrate. The plaintiff was of course
very much surprised, and remonstrated with them,
saying he was guilty of no crime to be carried before
a Magistrate. The defendants, however, paid no
attention to his remonstrances, saying, "You have
got some rope about you, and if you don't come
directly, we will handcuff you." The plaintiff then
told them who he was, and requested that they
would at least go back with him to his house,
where he could convince them of his respectabi-
lity. After some time, the defendants consented to
this, and they all went back to Tottenham-court-
road, a great mob following them. When they
got to the house, Mrs. Moore, one of the • lodgers,
and severalitota.
tiff was, but they still insisted on taking him to
Dow-street, which they accordingly did, leading the
plaintiff through the streets in the middle of the day,
to the gaze of all the rabble who were assembled
about them. When they arrived at Bow-street,
however, no Magistrate was there, and the plaintiff
was taken on board the Thames-police boat on the
river, where he was detained for some time. ,Indeed,
the affair altogether occupied the whole day ; but
in the evening the plaintiff was allowed to go home,
and on appearing the next morning at the Thames
police, he was informed that he might go about his
business, there being no charge against him. These
were the facts of the case, and the Learned Sergeant
thought they were such as would call for very serious
damages.
Several witnesses were then called, who established
the charge against two of the defendants, but not
against Chapman.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE appeared for Chapman,
and Mr. Sergeant WILDE for the other two defendants.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE submitted that Chapman
should be acquitted.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE inquired whether Mr.
Sergeant Wilde intended to call witnesses; and on
being answered in the affirmative, said he could not
acquit Chapman until those witnesses had been
examined, as their evidence might perhaps criminate
him : if it did not, however, he would allow Mr.
Sergeant Wilde to call him as a witness.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE then addressed the jury for
the other defendants. After having adverted to the
responsibility of a police-officer's situation, he said
he would call witnesses, who would prove that the
plaintiff would never have been taken into custody
had his conduct been proper when he was first ac-
costed, by the officers, who could not be supposed to
know the respectability of his situation in life when
they saw him dressed as one of Ins own workmen
would have been, and instead of answering the ques-
tions put to him by one of the defendants, as to how
he came by the rope he had about him, imme-
diately became exceedingly abusive to them, and
refused to give any account of himself. The de-
fendants then, as in duty bound, insisted on his
giving them the information they desired, and
threatened, if he did not, to take him into custody.
The plaintiff, however, persisted in the course he
had first adopted; and refusing to give any account
whatever, he was taken on board the Thames-
police-boat, where he remained, rather voluntarily
than otherwise, for some time. These were the
real facts of the case; and when proved by the wit-
nesses who would be called, the Learned Sergeant
thought very trifling damages would be sufficient to
compensate the plaintiff.
Several officers and constables of the Thames Po-
lice proved that when the plaintiff returned to his
own house with the officers, he was told by them
that he might go, as they were convinced
not stolen the rope; but lie insisted on going before
he ;had
a Magistrate. They also proved, that when on board
the Thames-police boat he was very abusivesto the
officers and constables. None of the witnesses, how-
ever, said any thing to inculpate Chapman, and
Mr. Sergeant WILDE proposed, accordingly, to call
him as a witness.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY objected, when
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE said he would put the
question to the Jury, whether they thought any of
the evidence criminated Chapman.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY submitted that he had a right
to address the Jury on that point.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, such a course was
quite new, but he might do it if he chose.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY was accordingly commencing
his address, when
The LORD CIIIEFJUSTICE said, with some warmth,
,c After this I will have no adjournment. If the
gentlemen of the bar will not assist me in the dispo.
sal of public business, I cannot help it:ti
Mr. Sergeant rw
, ILDE said he wouktwithdraw his
application.--The .LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—You do
very right, brother Wilde.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY addressed the Jury in reply.
The Jury returned a verdict for all the defendants.