Star.
London, England, 1822-12-20 00:00:00

••

. , •
ante ; though -it was eivag *mkt asatin
cases these from wbans the stiserentien was'
held would be contiunally'
.12usr tb Weaken
destroy the force of the title. lie tird.t„howeeer-
apprehend that any dealings with the land could
the effect of an ouster of the .psegmty of the maL
under them. There might ik cases in 'which the
ouster was not, effected, and let the sondocunight
have been such, that a Court of Equity would refuse
to interfere, Parties -might be proved to lave be-
haved so as to induce the Cant to leave them tolho
remedy of an action at law. The simpli'question
'was—whether (le not the parties were entitled to know
the contents of the deeds ? not for the purpose of
proving their title only, but to identify the several
parcels of land which were declired by the defendants
themselves to want identification. wis of opinion
that the deeds ought to be produced. But to take
the most temperate course, he would call on Mr.
Vernon to inspect the deeds, and insert a statement
in his answer, whether or not there was any reservoir
don of coals and minerals in the conveyance of 1708.
It was agreed, that in case the deeds contained the
reservations, the plaintiffs should be furnished with
copies of the passages which included them.
WHITLCHURCR V. ROLWORTRY.
This was a question as to the right of the Lord of
the Fee, to enter and cut wood upon the copyholder's
estate. There had been various trials of the case, and
the present motion appealed from the certificate of
the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, which des
nied the Lord's.right ; the grounds of the judgment
being, that as the Lord could not enter to dig for
coal, or to sink mines, and as the tenant had as much
and the same interest on the trees as in the soil, the
Lord could not enter the copyhold estate to cut timber.
Mr. PEPYS traced the practices and doctrines re-
specting copyholds, acted upon in the Courts through
the whole series of precedents. He maintained that
as the origin of copyholds was a sort of encroach-
ment upon the will of the Lord, so the law had al.
ways been cautious of assuming any right for the
tenant over the appurtenances of the soil which were
inconsistent with an estate for life. He skewed from
the cases, that the right of the Lord to the timber
had always been assumed, -whether in those which
went to stay the waste of the tenant or to hinder the
Lord from taking so much as to leave not enough
for the tenant's bote and estovers, and the repairs of
the estate. He 'hewed also, that in all the old cases
the authorities, together with the very form of the
pleadings, implied the right of the Lord to the tins.
ber. This was the condition of the law until the case
.of Ashmead and-Ranger (10 East), when the judg-
ment of the Court of King's Bench, and that of the
House of Lords upon a subsequent appeal, over
turned the whole series of cases. He maintained still,
that the particular case must be considered with re-
spect to its particular merits, as it could not be suffi-
cient to set aside the force of all the doctrines, cus-
toms, forms, and authorities, by which it was esta-
blished, that the Lord might cut down his own trees,
provided he left enough for repairs.
Mr. PRESTON followed on the same side, and ar-
gued, that as the tenant could have no right to the
timber, the Lord must have the right, unless it were
contended again..t common reason, the Lord could be
dispossessed of that which he had no intention to give
away, because he had given away something else.—
If the tenant had no right to cut the timber, the Lord
must have the right, or the timber must be left to
rot on the ground. Wherever the law allowed right,
it furnished a remedy. The Lord must have the
right of entry to cut, or his right to the timber would
avail him nothing.
Mr. SHADWELL supported the decision of the
Judges, that neither the copyholder nor the Lord of
the Fee could cut the timber, except by mutual con-
sent. There were many rights which the law could
not enable the owners to exercise A parson might
work a mine, already opened, belonging to his glebe,
but he could not open a new mine; yet he was seized
of the minerals as parcel of his glebe. A. landlord
had the right to the timber, but he could not enter to
cut it unless that right were reserved in the deeds, or
by special custom of the manor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it would be im-
possible for him to give judgment without knowing
what was upon the record of the Court of King s
Bench in the case of Ashmead v. Banger,- and also
what were the questions put to the Judges in the
House of Lords upon the same case. If it should
turn out to be the same case as this, he must be ruled
by the judgment of the House of Lords. They were
at liberty to correct their judgment—he was not.
The Solicitors in the suit were directed to inspect
the record of the Court of King's Bench, and his
Lordship undertook to have the Journals and Calen-
dars of the House of Lords examined, to see what
questions had been put to the Judges in that case.
On the application of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed that the Court,
should not sit on Tuesday next, that being the day
before Christmas Day.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 19.
THE KING v. Wi&LIAM MEAD.
This was the first of a series of eighteen indict-
ments preferred against the witnesses for the Crown
on the trial of six informations in the Exchequer,
against parties accused of being engaged in a static
gling transaction on the 20th of August, 1820. This
indictment was prosecuted by James Law, who was
alone acquitted on the informations, the other de-
fendants on that occasion being convicted.
Mr. CHITTY stated the substance of the charge as
it appeared on the record.
Mr. D. F. JONES opened the case on the part of
the prosecution. The evidence on which the assign-
ments of perjury were framed, was given against the
prosecutor, Mr. James Law, on the trial of an in-1
formation in the Exchequer, at the Sittings after last
Trinity Term. On that occasion it fell to his lot to
conduct the defence, and therefore the arduous duty
of leading the case for the prosecution now devolved
on him, which he felt the more, as it was an. excec
tion to the usual habits of his professional life. i
'offence which was charged on Mr. Law was, that he
had been concerned in a smuggling transaction as-
long. ago as August, 1820. In that month, a voila
consigned from Flushing, laden with tobacco and gin,
effected a landing beneath rocks called the Salt Pena,
on the eastern coast of Yorkshire. For a participa-
tion in this offence, Law was proceeded against an
the Excheq.ner ; and William Mead, the present de-
fendant, was examined as a witness for the Crown,
when he gave the testimony for which he was this

,

. .

. spirits. WWlntw,
spot; tree also that on part'of that evening be
from home; and these circumstances heated ito
basis on which the informers bad worked, and
which. they depended for sweets. It would appear;
however, that on the day in question be want as usual*
to the parochial chapel, and after the, service was
over rode with the clergyman to his' ow! Woe at
Selby, about two miles distant. He then returned
to the house.of a man named Gibson, wisb whom be
had engaged to drink tai, and these remained with
two men, named Hanby and Baker, until ten d'cloek
in the evening. He had appointed two men, Wild
Hogg and Crouch!: to meet him at this place, and
accordingly they joined him as he was leaving Gila-
son's premises. With them he walked to his owe
house, and then, after he had supped, prepared to
set out for a purchase of wood which he had made
at a place called Hawley Wood, about thirty mike
distant, and prepared a cart with a load at
which he was to leave on his way at Mr. OMANI%
Pickering. About two in the morning, he and H?gg'
set out with the waggon, and arrived at Pickering,
where they saw Grason, who would be called as a
witness, and to whom full credit might be given, as'
he was a respectable tradesman entirely uninterested'
in the transaction. In addition to this evidence, Scott,
the son-in-law of the prosecutor, who was sworn by
Mead to be at the Salt Pans with Law, would be
called, and would positively state that he never was
there, but that being in a state of infirm health at the
time, had retired early to rest. Unfortunately it was
impossible for Law to call Gibson, for he died sud-
denly the very week after the transaction ; neither
could he call the wife and children of Scott, as the
children were too young to be examined, and the
mother could not leave them to undertake so long a
journey. In cases of this kind, it was not unusual to
deprive parties, charged with partaking in the same
offence, of the benefit of each other's testimony, by
including them all in one indictment for conspiracy
but, in this case, the prosecutor had felt it right to
prefer separate indictments, so that all the defendants
in the other prosecutions might be witnesses in this;
and he challenged the Counsel for the defendant to
call them. In conclusion, he adverted to the array
of Counsel on the other side ; all the power of the
Crown seemed put forth to protect the defendant ;
but he trusted that if his guilt should appear, the Jury
would give such verdict as would satisfy public justice.
Mr. Jenkins, a short-hatrd-writer, proved the evi-
dence given by Mead at the trial. It was substan-
tially, that Law came with Scott between ten and
eleven on the evening of the 20th of August, 1820,
to the Salt Pans, with three horses, and that they
took away with them twenty-one half ankers of gin,
and two bales of tobacco. _ _ _

Mr. Law, the prosecutor, gave an account of his
proceedings, similar to that stated by Mr. Joites.—
He potitively swore that he was not on the spot on
the night in question, and that he was not on that
night concerned in any smuggling transaction; but
he admitted that in 1818, he had been convicted on
an information for smuggling.
To support his testimony in its several parts, the
Rev. Mr.Grundon, curate of Selby, Haxby, Crouchby,
Hagg, Grason, and the other parties alluded to, were
called, who deposed to the several portions of the
night which Law passed in their company.
John Scott, the son-in-law, positively denied being
present at the Rocks, and, on cross-examination,
also denied having absconded to avoid being taken
into custody.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL (the Attorney-General
having retired) addressed the Jury for the defendant,
He reminded them that on the trial in the Exche-
quer, when the Jury had to decide on conflicting
testimony, they were bound to acquit the defendant
if they entertained any doubt of his guilt ; and there-
fore it did not follow from thitt verdict that they
were convinced of the falsehood of the charge. He
proceeded to comment on the evidence, contending
that it was improbable-and inconsistent, as far as it
was material, and that the greater part of it was
quite consistent with the prosecutor's guilt. It was
true that he went to church—true that he drank tea
at Gibson's—true that he remained there till ten
o'clock at night; but the question was, what he did
after that period ? Now to shew that he was at the
Salt Pans, which were very near Gibson's house, he
could call not only all the witnesses who had given
evidence in the Exchequer, but others who had been
discovered since the trial; and he would contradict
the principal witnesses for the prosecution on colla-
teral points of their testimony, which would shew
them to be undeserving of credit. In conclusion he
observed that he felt ne peculiar interest in the re-
sult of the proceeding. He was an Officer of the
Crown,init he was also an Officer of the Public, and
could have no desire that the crime of perjury should
escape. He only wished that the case should be well'
sifted, and fully considered; and when he had seen
this done to the best of his power, he should leave
the decision in their hands.
Mr. Tauvern, a short-hand-writer, was called to
correct an alleged error in Mr. Jenkins's notes of
Mead's evidence, as to the time when be said that
Law came to the Rocks. This witness understood
Mead to fix it at between eleven and twelve, instead
of between tea and eleven.
John Holmes, Thomas Walker, Jonathan Bailey,
Thomas Scott, and Robert Mead, all defendants in
other indictments, swore in the most positive manner
that Law and Scott were both present at the Rocks
between eleven and twelve in the evening, and re-
turned with three horses lades with gin and tobacco.
John Doakes gave evidence to the same effect.
John Dobson deposed, that he called on Sunday
evening at Mead's, to buy gin, and waited his re-
turn, when he came witligm, and sold him a large
quantity.
John and Robert Robison, of York, and William
Brown, said they were Rube Salt Pans, and heard a
man called Law, but did not know him.
Mr. Hayes, a naval officer, proved the seizure of
113 tubs of gis, which were concealed among the
rocks, and an attempt to rescue a boy who was found
guarding them.
Witnesses were also called to prove Scott ran away
when the officers came to apprehend him.
In reply, several witnesses were called by the pro-

S

. .
. to disiredit Walker, thottris Rcotri
and Bailey, aho swore that they would
their oaths.

,tonort-Gartirtat. replied on thitevidencet
replied on the whole case.
JUSTICZ began to sum up the
evidence at a guano* before nine o'clock, and com-
pleted his charge at three minutes before ten. In the
course of his remarks, he observed, that it was pain.
Jul for him to say, that on one side or the other there
just have been very wilful and abundant perjury,
He left it entirely to the Jury to say to which side
the truth belonged.
liniJury consulted together in the box until twelve
Minutes after ten o'clock, and then desired leave to
withdraw.
• Mr. CLARKS applied to the Court to have the lir-
sees Scott detained for the other causes, in case they
should come on. •

The LORD CHIEF Jusrica directed that the Hake
Cotpais should be brought to him at the sitting of the
Court to-morrow morning, that it might be endorsed
for that purpose. His Lordship then retired from
the Court. _ _

The Jury returned at twenty minutes before twelvel
and pronounced a verdict of GNiity.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 19.
TOVII. V. 110w10ER.

Mr. Serjeant VALIONA* (with whom were Serjeant
li/ULLOCK and Mr. CAMPSILLL) stated this case to Ole
Jury. It was- an action to reco►er the valite of the
brig Findon, which had been run down at sea by the
brig Blossom, in consequence (as was allei!ed) of the
negligence of the crew of the latter. The defendant
was the owner of the Blossom, and was answerable
for the conduct of the crew, who-were to be consi-
dered his servants. It would appear that, on the
20th of April, the Findon sailed fiom Sunderland
with a cargo of coals. At about half-past two the
next morning the Blossom bore down, and, for the
want of a careful look-out on the part of the crew,
struck the Findon, which almost immediately wait
down with the shock. The crew wete saved by get-
ting on board the Blossom. Witnesses would be called
who would prove that the accident was wholly owing
to the negligence of the Blossom's crew. If that were
established to the satisfaction of the Jury, they would
find a verdict for the plaintiff : the amount would not
be disputed.
The mate of the Findon was called, and his evi-
dence went to shew that the accident occurred by th
negligence of the Blossom's crew. Had they at tended
to the call of this witness, the accident might have
been avoided. The Blossom had a light on her bow;
the Findon had one in the binnacle.
Several of the Fiudon's crew were also called,w•ho
corroborated the mate's testimony.
Mr. Serjeant LENS (with whom was Mr. Serjeant
TADDY) contended, for the defendant, that the cir-
cumstance was not owing to the negligence of either,
but was to be attributed to one of those accidents
which could not be prevented by human skill. He
would call several witnesses %. ho would prove that
the night was extremely dark, and that it was impos-
sible to discern a ship at twice her length a-head. It
would also be proved that, it the Findon had had
light at her bow, she would have been seen by the
Blossom, which would have thereby been enabled
avoid her. If thase facts were clearly proved, a he
was instructed to state they would be, he was sati)fied
that the Jury would find for the defendant.

A great number of witnesses, consisting of some
of the Blossom's crew, and several Captains in the
coal trade, were called to prove that it was a very
dark night; that a ship could not be seen at mole
than twice her length a-head; that it was the custom
in fleets of colliers for all ships to carry lights on dark
nights; that the Findon had no such light; and that,
if she had, the accident might, in all probability,have
been prevented.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN replied at considerable
length to this evidence.
His Lordship summed up, and the Jury, after con-
sulting together for a few minutes, returned a verdict
for the defendant.

• • .
1 atipooa
mob slay to answer. Mead then dolt est the night fecntor's Coonsel to
with- of Sunday, the Seth of germ*, ab.otehi Robert Mead, and 8
t and Mead war present at the ildt nor IMO JONI Font, pot believe them on
'ever, his sou.in-law, was with him; tint Abe), ease with Mr. SollialTolt-Gi
d have three horses, and took away e quantity of tobacco Mr. D. F. Jost* z
manes and spirits. Now it was true that Law er.4*. near Ole The Loan Clues
•_. ...: a..., &rammer tie wits evidence at a muuti