Star.
London, England, 1830-10-25 00:00:00

THE " AIR 61'N sliOo i ERA."

On Tuesday heat a king account appeared in one of the daily papers
the detection of two young gem omen in firing clay bullets from an
rir•gun. and demolishing several et ineitiws, to the alarm of the good
;plc of Richmond. Upon inquiry, it was ascertained that the parti-
riii..re of the transaction, as related before the magistrates, had been
:,oppressed by the wish of the offenders, who were anxious to keep their
delinquencies from the public as much as possible. However, our in-
formant succeeded yesterday in procuring an account of their examine-
tie ti before the magistrates, and every tact connected with the affair—The
ing, therefore, are the particulars :
Between six and seven o'clock in the evening of Friday se'nnight,
windows of Mr. Blanchard, the Hare and Hounds public-house, at
b.e Sheen; also of Mr. Thorpe, grocer; Mr. Barnett, baker; Mr.
'Lomond, of the Bull inn; and Payne, the tallow-chandler, were
1.-Awn by round pieces of clay about the size of a sloe, which were sub-
sequently picked up by the owners of the houses. They ran out im-
:railiately expecting to detect the individual who had broken them,
tot were astonished at not seeing any person near, that could be
Aullenged with the act. A gentleman's chariot was seen proceed-
wg towards Richmond it great speed, but no suspicion arose
thot the windows had been demolished by any person in-
•,de. and the sufferers were obliged to put up with their loss.
When the carriage entered George-street, Richmond, a little boy, named
Haddaway, got up on the seat behind ; and as it passed the
,hup of Mr. Morrill, the grocer, lie licanl the windows in his shop
:quashed, and, a little farther, the boy heard another window
troken at Mr. Steven's, the staymaker. The boy then got down,
are' the carriage proceeded on at a rapid rate towards Richmond.
hill. Subsequent to the boy leaving the carriage, the windows of Mr.
Dean. the grocer. Mr. Rudwell, the hair dresser, Phalin, the fruiterer,
a. d Mungo Dick. Erg. the magistrate, were demolished. The err-
:t: astance soon became the subject of general conversation, and nuttier-
:at were the opinions of the inhabitants respecting the manner,
to which they were broken. At length Holiday, the officer
happened to meet with the boy liaddaway, who related the story of
heating the windows break whilst riding behind the carriage, which
hr described as being of a green colour, and bearing a coronet. Holli-
die imtantly pro:ceded to the Star and Garter, taking the boy
with him, and in the yard he saw a green-bodied chariot, with
an Earl's coronet on the panels, which the lad immediately
tteiatgnised as the one behind which he rode. Holliday at
once entered the house, and requested the head waiter to introduce him
to the parties to whom the carriage belonged. lie was shown into a
ream where lie saw two tell gentlemen, elegantly dressed. On entering
the room. the officer apologised for his intrusion, and said, " Gentle.
it en, there are sad complaints against you." One of them said, Ge Com-
plaints, what about ! what have we done, have we committed murder?"
Holliday—" No, sir, you have not committed murder, but you have
been breaking windows." The other then said, "Oh, is that all;
o ell, here arc our cards, you'll find us at home." He then gave the
officer two cards, elegantly engraved, one bearing the name of the Hon.
I'. D. Ryder, 39, Ormivenor-square, and the other Captain C. Begot,
grenadier Guards. Holliday told them complaint would be made be.
reirt. the Magistrates in the morning, when they said, " Very well; let
1: he early, for we shall leave at 11 o'clock, and we are going to the
Theatre to-night with the Duke of Cumberland." The officer, having'
sifted the matter thus far, left the room, and on passing the carriage
atain he opened the door, and in the bottom he found some clay balls,
exactly corresponding with those with which the windows had been de.
nalished. Holliday lost no time in making this discovery known in
the town and in East Sheen, and in the morning a summons was granted
against the gentlemen, desiring their immediate attendance. They
. tame to the office, amidst a vast crowd of persons who had assembled to
he-ar the examination, and amongst them were all the persons whose
wii,dows had been broken; and also a youth, apprentice to Mr. Hart,
the plumber, who was struck violently upon the arm by one of the
bullets, whilst standing at his master's door.
The lad Haddaway, Mr. Hart's apprentice, and several others de.
pos-el to the above facts, and the defendants, in answer to the charge,
slid they were very sorry for being so foolish, and that they were ready
io pay the amount of the damage they had done. They then paid for
squares of glass compensated Mr.llart's apprentice, and the expenses
altogether amounted to seven guineas. The defendants having paid the
money left the office. The Honourable Frederick D. Ryder is the Earl
of Harrowby's son.—About three months before•many windows were
broken in the town in a similar way.

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 23.
BALDWIN V. rErrEav •ND ♦NOTHER.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS stated that this was an action brought at the in-
stance of the parith authorities of St. Bartholomew the Great. in the
rizv of London, to recover 51. and a fraction, due front the defendants
to: rates payable by the houreholders under an Act of Parliament, for
paving and lighting the parish. There had been some doubts whether
the rates were payable for empty houses, and this action had been
b-ought to try the question.
Mr. DENMAN, tor the defendants, at once admitted the liability,
but pleaded payment. The parish solicitor had summoned several per-
ms before a magistrate to compel payment of the rates, on the 17th of
April last, and a friend of the defendant who was present, heard that
there was an intention to bring an action against them. He immedi.
ately gave then' notice of the circumstance, and on the lath or 20th of
April he, by their directions, paid the money, not that they were satin.
lied as to their liability, but because they did not think proper to con.
Pro the matter at their own expense. The writ in this action was sued
out on the 24th of April, so that the money was paid before the action
war brought.
This fact was proved, and put an end to the cause.—Verdict for the
defendants.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SaTustIAY.

WIILLIANS AND ANOTHER, V. WOODWARD, GENT. Ore' Ike.
—3lr. Serjeart %Vti.nn (with whom was Mr. NICHARDS) stated that
this was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs to recover a
sum of 1541. which they alleged had been paid by them in mistake.
The defendant had pleaded the general issue. The plaintiffs were
bankers, carrying on business in Birchin-lane, and the defendant was an
attorney residing in the City. The defendant hada private account at
their house. and he also drew cheques upon them in his character of Se-
cretary to the Independent flu-light Company, by whom an account
was kept at their house. On Saturday, the 3d of November last, a
person named Jones, who was a brother.in.law of the defendant, re-
amed at the plaintiffs counter a cheque, fully written out in his
own hand, but signed by the name of "C. 'Woodward," in such a
manner as to induce no suspicion that it was not the defendant's hand-
writing; it was accordingly paid. On the Monday following, the de-
fendant called at the plaintiffs' house, and on observing this cheque
marked in his pass-book, said he knew of no such cheque. It was then
shown hint, when he pronounced it to be a forgery, and said that he
would take his oath it was not in his hand-writing. It appeared that
either on that day, or on the preceding Saturday. Jones had run away.
Several interviews took place between the partners in the banking-house
and the defendant, and the result was, that in the early part of the month
of December, believing the defendant's assertion that the cheque was a
forgery, and knowing him to be a respectable man, they con-
seated to debit themselves with the amount of the loss. Some
time afterwards, Jones was discovered and apprehended, at
Hull, and, on being brought to London, was taken before the Lewd
Mayor. Mr. Woodward attended as a witness, but did not then seem
se positive as formerly that the signature was not his, but stated at first
most distinctly that the instrument was not his, and that it had been
fraudulently filled upon a signature in blank. which he had made for
some other purpose. He afterwards qualified that assertion, and said
that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, he had not given the pri-
soner any authority to fill it up. As such a filling up, if unauthorised,
was u much a forgery in law, as the counterfeiting the name of an in-
individual, the prisoner was committed for trial. Mr. Woodward was
one of the witnesses who went before the Grand Jury. What be
then mated it was impossible to say ; but the result was, that the bill
was thrown out. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs now con-
tended' that the defendant was bound to reimburse them the money they
had paid him. The case that most resembled this was that of Young
v. Grote, in which the Court held a man liable for the amount of a
cheque ;hat he had signed in blank, and which was afterwards fraudu-
lency filled up, in consequence of the negligence of the person to whom
he had entrusted it. These were the facts on which the Jury had to de.
tertian*, and he felt satisfied they would think the plaintiffs fully en.
titled to their verdict.

Mr. Wm. %Pi!hams, ,cashier of the plaintiff", house ; Mr. George
Pollard, a clerk in the house; Mr. Cope, the City Marshal ; and Mr.
James, from Mr. Shelton's office, in the Old Bailey, gave evidence in
support of the learned serjeant's statement. A letter from the defendant
to a person connected with the Independent Gas-light Company, an-
nouncing the fraud committed by Jones, and warning his correspondent
against the possibility of Jones's attempting, by means of the defend-
ant's signature, or in any other way, to dispose of Shares in the Com-
paq, was put in and read.
Mr. Serjeant RUSSELL, who was assisted by Mr. Sergeant dorms,
contended that die plaintiff's had established no right to recover in the
present action. Although, however, the defendant might be saved front
the pecuniary loss which this action was Intended to throw upon him,
it was to be feared that an unfavourable.and an unjust impression might
be created against his character. The defendant, who was still a young
man, had begun life as a solicitor, but bad since quitted that branch of
the profession, and was now pursuing his studies at College. To him,
therefore, it was of more importance that his character should
stand right with the world, than that he should be saved front
this pecuniary loss, and he had therefore a double interest in de-
fending this action. Now what was his conduct throughout this affair?
It was that ofa man who had been defrauded by a person whose si-
tuition made the fraud easy; bet every one must admit that the de.
fondant himself gave the earliest possible notice of the fraud to the -
ties concerned, and not only as them, but to others who might
dosbeZ
be affected by it. The letter Nth which the plaintiffs' evidence
shoved choir 411160 fide bitter that they had been defrauded. It had
reffirmusli as as tramilaany that the defendant had at first de-
hied his Amstar*, awl than alssitcod it, but denied the instrunientto
which it was attached. !Were was nothing surprising in tea

Every one must know that when a man saw an instrument which
he knew not to have been his, he was strongly, hastily,
perhaps rashly, but honestly, inclined to deny the whole instrument,
signature and all ; and it was only upon a very deliberate conside-
ration that he sotnetimes subsequently discovered the signature to be
genuine, though it had been fraudulently employed. The plaintiffs
wanted to make a strange use of the dismissal of the bill by the
Grand Jury. Because the Grand Jury had thought the forgery not
proved, the plahniffit wished the Jury to assume that the whole in.
moment was the genuine instrument of the defendant, and that he
must bear the loss of his own negligence. That was an assumption
too strong for them to make on such weak grounds, and they would,
of course, feel the necessity, under these circumstances, of returning a
verdict for the defendant.
The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the ease, and then told the Jury
that unless the plaintiffs had, subsequently to their re-crediting the de-
fendant's account, discovered something to show them that they bad
been in error, they could not recover in the present action. If the Jury
were of opinion that the re.aedit had been given in mistake, they must
find for the plaintiffs; but, if otherwise, they must give their verdict for
the defendant. .

The Jury, after ashen deliberation, returned a verdict for the plain.
tiffs ; but observed, at the same time, that they wished it to be under-
stood that they did not cast the least imputation on the character oe
conduct of the defendant.

EAST KENT SESSIONS.—FaIDAT.

These Sessions commenced this day at Canterbury, before Sir E.
Ynatchbull, Bart. Chairman, and a very full bench of Magistrates,
among whom we noticed the Marquis Camden, Lord Lieutenant of
the County, and the Earl of Winchilsea. There appeared in the ca-
lendar eleven prisoners charged with breaking thrashing-machines in
different parts of this (the eastern) division of the county. Of these,
two, George Youeus and Ingram Swain, who surrendered themselves
to the magistrates, are, it is intended. to be admitted as approvers.
There are else for trial two cases of assault, with intent, &c. both from
the parish of Sutton, near Dover, and in one of them the parties charged
are boys of ten and twelve years of age.
On calling over the Grand Jury, one of them, a Mr. Quested, from
the neighbourhood of Ashe, where several outrages and burnings have
taken place, wu excused attendance, on the ground that there had been
a second fire last stgla at his place, which occasioned his absence.
Sir E. KitaTennnu., in addressing the Grand Jury, alluded to the
cases of the persons who stood charged with breaking thrashing ma-
chines in the county. It was not a little extraordinary that in not one
instance were the offending parties identified by those whose pro-
perty they had destroyed ; hence the necessity of having recourse
to the testimony of accomplices. He would not undertake to
say what the cause of those disturbances was t if it were
owing to the want of employment, he need not say that an
exertion should be made use of to remove that cause. Those who were ,
unemployed had a reasonable right to have employment procured for
them. If necessity were the alleged ground of complaint, they were all
aware that no applicant who came to the Magistrate was denied redress,
but all found ultimately such relief as the law of the country afforded
them. But whatever cause had led to these unhappy transactions, the
supremacy of the law must be asserted. There were other offences of a
still more serious character, by which the county was afflicted. These
offenders were undiscovered for the present, but they might depend they
would speedily be detected, and become subject to the awful respon-
aibiliq and punishment of the law. It was a species of consola-
tion, that the great number.—and a great number they were, Heaven
knew—who had engaged in the breaking of machines, felt the same ab-
horrence as themselves of the burnings. He trusted all who heard him
would exert themselves to put the people in their neighbourhood into
the right course, and endeavour to procure them employment.
Mr. D. PoLLocx, Counsel for the prosecution of the machine.
breakers, applied for leave to have the two approvers examined by the
Grand Jury on the bills sent up to them, which was allowed, and the
Jury soon after returned into Court having found the bills.
The trials excite the greatest interest. The acts of the incendiaries
have not ceased. The guard of the mail which left London on Thurs-
day night, states, that lie saw four stacks of corn on fire at a small ham.
let, called Upstreat, about half a mile from Sittingbourne.