Star.
London, England, 1822-04-11 00:00:00

and
in
Ifg

Plea,
into

allegan
present

spiral
had

hills

was ,
of Par)

passed, Ind such a Meeting was not penal at,the
time Redford was represented to have attended it.
With the other drilling matches the plaintiff had no,
concern ; and therefore the Jury would disconnect
him from the acts spoken to at those drillings, of
whatever character they were. The Learned Gen-
tleman strongly enforced the claim of his client for
the protection and relief of the Jury, and entreated
them to found their verdict upon the facts of the
case alone, and not upon. the idle alarms and surmises
which were so unsparingly spread around this case.
lle said, that to a person of so little experience in his
profession, and so unaccustomed to lead a cause,
the Jury must he struck with the difficulty, nay, the
impossibility, of his replying in detail to all the weight
of evidence adduced throughout three days on the
part of the defendants: so strange and conjectural a
body of evidence had never been before adduced upon
any trial : lie had, however, endeavoured to unmask
its character, and perform his duty to his client to the
best of his power. He trusted that he should have
the benefit of their attention, and that they would at-
tach to his observations whatever weight they were
fairly entitled to among calm and dispassionate men.
He left the case of his unfortunate client-.for unfor-
tunate he was, whatever verdict he could receive—
to their judgment with confidence, perfectly assured
that the humble man's poverty, instead of being
a bar to his obtaining redress at their hands, would
-only. 'the more strongly recommend him to their
consideration, their humanity, and kindne.s. If
they thought he had been wantonly and unjustifiably
wounded, then they would give him that protection
Which the law equally extended to the poor as well as
the rich; and which wo.al 1 s:lew to the country, the
desire.they manifested by their firmness to uphold and
preserve the liberties of their fellow-subjects.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD rose at twenty minutes be-
fore four o'clock to charge the Jury, and stated that
the time had then arrived, when it became his duty
to direct their attention to the mass of evidenie which
had been given in this case, and to the law as appli-
cable to its several parts. This was an action brought
by the plaintiff Redford, against four persons, one of
whom, Birley, was Captain of a troop of the Man-
chester Yeomanry ; another was an Officer of a dif-
ferent troop of the same corps ; a third was a private
named Oliver, and the fourth was Meagher, a trum-
peter; and the action was brought by the plaintiff to
recover compensation for an injury which Redford
alleged he had sustained by an assault of the said de-
fendants on the 16th of August, 1619, at Manches—
ter. The Jury had heard that the defendants were
Yeomanry, and the law made this distinction in cases
like this:---that if they (the Yeomanry) went am.ong
the people on that day, by command of the Civil Ma-
gistracy, and to execute a lawful purpose, and that
one of them, while so engaged, committed an unlawful
skct, then the others being lawfully employed, and not
participating in the unlawful act of one of their party,
were not answerable for his conduct. If others went
•
in a body to do, not a lawful, but an unlawful act,
then all were by the law held responsible, their ori-
ginal intent being alike illegal. But even in the lat-
ter case, if one of the party separate from the rest,
and does an act not in pursuance of the common de-
sign, then they who were so separated from him are
not involved in his particular guilt. If the military
were called in for a lawful purpose, they were bound
to execute the commands of the civil magistrate, and
only those who shall act unlawfully in obeying those
commands can be held responsible; for the law said,
a man might act unlawfully in executing a legal pur-
pose—for instance, in the forcible removal of a pub-
lic nuisance. The Learned Judge here recited the
pleadings (which we published in the STAR in the
first day's proceedings of the trial) in detail, and
commented upon their technical import. In the de-
fence upon some of these pleas, it was contended that
the Meeting of the 16th of August, I bl 9, was, if not
actually riotous according to law, at leait what was
denominated a riotous Meeting, and one which might
become riotous if permitted to carry its object into
effect; and that they (the Yeomanry) were called in
to disperse such Meeting by the order of the magis-
tracy. There were other parts of the pleas which
led to a great deal of evidence—namely, that there
existed a previous seditious conspiracy to excite dis-
content in the minds of the Kings subjects, and that
divers persons were at that Meeting engaged in the
designs of the conspirators. Now upon the subject
of the drilling it was right he should tell the Jury
that whether the drilling was clandestine or not, if it
was intended by those who were so drilling, for the
purpose of overturning or overawing the civil govern-
ment, then it was unlawful. A great deal of evi-
dence had been adduced for the purpose of shewing
that the magistrates' warrant could not be executed
without the aid of the military. As to what consti-
tutes, in the eye of the law, an illegal assembly, he
,could not explain the point more clearly than it was
laid down by his learned coadjutor (Mr. Justice Bay-
ley) at a former trial in York. In the first place, a
riot consisted of . three or more persons unlawfully
meeting together, with or without cause of quar-
rel, so as to endanger the King's peace.—A riot-
kius- assembly was where the parties met for
a common purpose intending to do something in a
riotous manner, but /et not remaining long enough
' to accomplish it. An unlawful assembly was any
meeting convened under such circumstances as the
law could not with safety to the public allow ; Itsk
would state to the Jury some of .the circumstances
which brought a Meeting within the scope of kite law,
and copstituted an unlawful assembly ; and here,
again, he begged to be understood as speaking in the
language of his excellent coadjutor,• who had fa-
voured him with some notes ofhis charge on the trial.
at York. According to the opinion of tb.a& Learned

that
,rgth.he innocent ; but was it so here? Drillint,
was a part of military discipline, and regulated under
the prerogative of the King—a prerogative, rept-
-1 'in modern times, under controul of Parliament.
Formerly the King's military tenants, uncontrouled
a t e d
by the authority of Parliament, and holding their
estates in fee, were bound, by their tenure, to give
the King their military service when required ; and
they were even bound in many instances to assist the
Civil Power of the country in the performance of its.
civil duties; and he found, to his surprise, when he
had occasion in the former case of Sir Francis Bur-
dett, in which he was Counsel, to refer to ancient
records upon the species of service required by the
military tenures, that in several statutes of the Henrys
and Edwards, Officers were appointed expressly to
go about the country and see that the military tenants
of the Crown had their armour, arms, horses, &c.
ready and in fit condition; and for what purpose?
—to assist the Sheliff,who was the King's Civil Offi-
cer, to raise the posse came:alas. He stated this to
:hew how early the , Military Authorities had been
called ir. aid of the Civil, for the purpose of executing
the law. Indeed he hardly knew how the posse cond..
talus could now be called out ; he knew not how the
Sheriff was to raise them. Not so at the former
period to which he alluded,when there were military
persons expressly enjoined to assist in calling the=
out. Referring back to the question of drilling, he
must say, that if the object of it were so to arrange
the parties at the Meeting as to secure, by a confi-
dence in their own numbers, an attention to the
speeches to be then made, and having the ultimate
object of attaining the complete purpose they had in
view, by a demonstration of their strength, then such
a Meeting so got together was clearly illegal. If,
from the general appearance, and all the accompany-
ing circumstances of the Meeting, it excited reason-
able grounds of alarm and apprehension, then it was
generally criminal and unlawful, and all persons at-
tending it in such a manner as to evince a determi-
nation to co-operate in the attainment of its object,
were equally criminal. The appearance of the Meet-
ing and the intentions of the parties could only be
collected from the evidence. If these were of such a
nature as, when taken together, to excite alarm, then
it was for the Jury to say whether it did not become
the bounden duty of those who were sworn to keep
the peace, to take such steps as were calculated to
avert from the peaceable inhabitants the apprehended
mischief. It might be, that had they refrained from
doing so, they would have incurred, as Kennett,
Lord' Mayor of London had, in the year 1780, a
criminal prosecution. At that period Lord George
Gordon, the brother or son of the then Duke of
Gordon, had collected together an immense body
of people, ostensibly for a lawful purpose—it was
to petition Parliament not to repeal certain Acts
on the score of religion in favour of the Catholics.
After accompanying Lord George Gordon with that
petition to Westminster, they committed several acts
of violence, burned houses, broke open and fired one
of the prisons, and did immense injury for three days
to public and private property, until at length the
military were ordered into the city, where they acted,
and by doing military execution upon the rioters, at
length suppressed the tumults. A prompt and timely
interposition of the civil power might have prevented
these consequences; and for not acting with firmness
and due precaution the Lord Mayor was fined 1,000/.
Now Lord G. Gordon's first meeting in St. George's-
fields was for a purpose ostensibly legal, but in its con-
duct had afterwards incurred the penalties of the law.
The Spa-fields Meeting was also convened fora legal
purpose, and yet they saw how a party of those who
were concerned in it broke out from the spot, and
carried riot and tumult into the City. With reference
to the character of the Manchester Meeting, and
whether, like the others, its circumstances rendered it
clearly illegal, or whether it was an exception to them,
and only meant for the lawful exercise of the right of
pe:ition, the Jury must determine for themselves by
an attentive consideration of the voluminotis evidence
before them in this case ; and which, if they pleased,
he should read over to them in detail ; or, if they pre-
ferred, be would confine himself to an abstract of its
principal bearings.
Two or three of the Jurors here rose, and stated to
his Lordship, that the outline would be quite sufficient.
The Learned JUDGE enumerated the different heads
of the evidence, and commented upon the previous
drilling of the parties who had been seen at this Meet-
ing—their assault on the constable, and on Murray
their hissing before the latter's house when marching
into Manchester—their hooting before the Exchange,
and again at the soldiery ; and, after dwelling upon
these topics for upwards of two hours, he left the case
to the Jury ; who, at six o'clock, retired for about six
minutes, and then returned with a Verdict for the
Defendants.
The decision seemed to give great satisfaction to
the Manchester Magistrates, and some of the Yeo-
manry, who were present when the verdict was given.

At the Suffolk Assizes, last week, William Aldous
was charged with having, on the 6th of February, set
on fire and burned the barn, stable, and other out-
buildings of Mr. Davy, of Stradbrook. The prisoner
was only seventeen years of 'age. He was found piny,
and left for execution. •
At the above Assizes two travelling gypsies, 'Lewis Boma
and Ferdinand Smith, were convicted of a burglary in the house
of Mr. Jacobs, of Great Livermere. When the verdict of Guilty
was returned against them, Boswell struck one of the witnesses
a most violent blow; cryiag out. " That's the into that has
murdered us." A great Uproar took place both the prileners
continually screaming our that they Were wilfully murdered.
A shocking murder WM committed et Corday, near Wm-
minster, on Manley aveeleg, the 25th ult. on a pm ntam eiret4
John wAo eggs remain Lame fro* his on at
.11N-
.
Taunton's mill.

. _ ,
Mid friends *ho would &IA him fer £5O to`telt
better dancer that the defelidant; This Was at the
pmvocatiotrthat had been given, and Without futther
ceremony the defendant, Who was a More athletic
and powerfol man than hit Client, and who, fromhis
practice on the Stage as findertin; was exceetfingly
alert with both foot ani hand, immediately gturied
the plaintiff, • struck him Several times with' his fist
' and with a stick, and continued beating him till be
was rescned by a by-stander. The Learned Counsel
said, he understood no person appeared for the de-
fendant; he should not, thetefore, attempt to add a
single word to the plain statement of the facts, in ol-
der to enhance the. damages.
Paul Wreitch (known in the theatrical world 24
Signor Paulo) was called, and proved the 411tercation
and subsequent assault.

William Bennett, the waiter at Tloneyman's Coffee-
house, stated, that he did not see the commencement
of the array, but he heard the plaintiff tell Mr. Ilidg7
way that his Iroys were very clever, and asked were
they under any other master ? to which the defendant
replied, that if he repeated that, he would.chastise him. •
This was the case for the plaintiff, and no defence
being offered—
The Lortu.CHIEF JUSTICE. left it to the Jury to say,
on the evidence, whether one shilling damages would
be enough ? It did not, his Lordship observed, vet y
clearly appear who began first.
The Jury, after a moment's consultation, found a
verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages Is. and Costs Is.

I

, . . .. ..--•
: - --1 ' '77'res"----- '-'79tt"Wjqrr-7-••erVgf""7"7'V'r'" s'""'l''''-7771•717watrillrirtgrreTIXPer , - ..-Itert, 719.711177: , ..•:, -.1-,... e ...._
' • •
, ~ • . .
.'. ' . '
. , . . . • •
. . .
i . .
‘ • I .•.., . . • '.
. .
- •
• • .• . .. ,
; • .
. .
1 - • ~. .
3, . • '. '
lvance of the cavalry towards the hustings ; and Ito al,ppi,nkt eincesconfirnted hal -4704114.4444a1ig4111011:114. . 4PAILiaI ;,,,
)to that tins, 110614 hid beeedone either to es- ((WM-5116T 14,141Wilthilitli jilfg -. . 1
to or to propagate alarm, except on the part of those Coortriitsy seued4 et* unlisellel. *lids af - •
.. • Tb• tit th 10.A.:-.._,±.. ' - • •
ho had by sprenffmg previous reports infused ilarin, to 40W reillids,o4.4flins jesoinswed ass 4
1
17.,3""ve5 "te. gP Ae4lllll X reetnemenced
id doubt into those arouid them, by diSSOrnitinh the' C • 40141 tounm,....A.ll*“Pse Illt bfi_.
his sal* at Grillabelf 4isit :rippii4 bt .itifet.-' - -
g their own fears, 4 ppreheniions, 'and danget4.lsemblect to .' • any object which Vris ealculatal undefended causes. -,•5.. ;, „ ,
. .
conspiracy 'be alleged by the 'defendants in their Ito produCe sad aq wet e illegal. iNti tai miter-' ' , . 11PstiST9***, yrtvor,.4xt
ea, he defied any man whose name was introduced ' lain how far this eertng of the lath of August
,6rM.ivirr. Seunatonfttirlvwvii'sinterino
li!itititi4i
noitmc.tai,
ro
rtr'iiiandPliianentir at •
to that plea to have the power of rebutting the came Within any of esedescriptions; they fintsrMak
legation by any other means than those used bribe at the mode and manner. of its assembling...what were tbeSdrilyThlibt ' ibit de dittntlatstfik eili. ploi,,ed • . ,
'esent plaintiff. But, after all, what proofs of con- all the cirtaatstancoa.rweeejing and attending its or. at thit'Tbeitie _ .„'EsliesikiikediNeWeiiitavika% -en •
Tracy had been proved •against his client? 110 ganizalOns-,-who were the ifeAders On brought the the edin,hg 'Oleh'ettleer Mat test dit•ittiblertard ~
id never been at White Moss, where the assaults divisions to the
,Meeting—What Were the banneti, the ilifen'ant sitrein tile; tortvfobtil ilditiftilltrift
ere committed ;• he had been once only at Tandie. and how the bearers of diens condoctedtheniselves Coffet-fiensei ?Writhe duties of the ?hit* iiiii ereft:t*
Ils ; and suppose he were drilling on that spot, that •on that oceision—ivho had beet drilled, and what, *bib *tin* tntiVeliatfoit d rose 646 the swebtlfive
LS no legal offence at the time alluded to: the Act was the apparentollect of thatdrilling. The Learned • merits of the parties A •tfatictis ; the dialegde teen
'Parliament against drilling had been subsequently Counsel for the plaintiff had truly said that drilling becathe very aninrated,'"ltrifffhe plaintiff obseried be
asset). and such a Meeting was not penal et,the might.be innocent : but was it .m 1 here nrillitic• hid •146ndc *fro would 'Glad/ hint for ['got 1w0...-.