Star.
London, England, 1819-08-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

sca

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 21.
THE BEDFORD CHARITY.
In the matter of the Bedford charity, which has
been so long pending, respecting the admission of
Jew children into the charity school at Bedford, and
also the propriety of Jewish parents being permitted
to live in the charitable alms-houses, his Lordship said
this morning, that he was of opinion that the chil-
dren could not he considered as entitled to admis-
sion, as they could not possibly observe the rules of
the charity ; one of which enjoined that the children
should attend morning and evening prayers, and
that they also should attend some place of public
worship on the Lord's day, on pain of being deprived
of the benefit of the charity. These children there-
fore who were of the Jewish persuasion, could not
possibly attend to this rule ; and as it formed an in-
dispensable requisite in all candidates for admission
into the School, they therefore must be excluded, as
the founder of the charity never could have intended
it for them. lie would on Monday, perhaps, give
his judgment oe it, and state the reasons which in-
duced him to come to that conclusion.
AUGUST tn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on his entrance into
Court this• !naming, stated at length the reasons
which had influenced him to pronounce his decision,
respecting the non-admission of Jewish children into
the Charity School at Bedford. The charter of the
charity which was dated in the reign of Edward the
Wile and the several Acts of Parliament which had
since passed relative to it, were, as it appeared,
so'.ely for the advantage of Christians. The first
instance which occurred of the admission of Jewish
children to the school, took place within the last 30
ears, but since 1809 no children of that religion
had been however, admitted, in consequence of the
necessity which such children were discovered to be
under of attending, at particular times, to the festi-
vals appointed to be observed by the ritual of their
religion. One lof the last children who had: been
admitted had been exempted by an order of the
Trustees, from the obligation of attending at mous-
ing and evening prayers, and of corning to the
School on Saturday, the consequence of which ex.
emption was, that the boy did Lot keep pace wish
his schoolfellows in ineroverneet. It was not to be'
fisrgotten that the religion of the country was Chris-
t:stiety, and that the encouragement of its tenets was
not easily practicable in a school in which diversity
of sentiments as to religious belief was tolerated.—
The date of the charter proved that the admissibility
of children other than those of Christians, was not
an object within the view of the founder. Until
ehout thirty years ago, no Jew was resident at Bed-
ford, and within that period, althouglt some chil-
dren had received the benefit of -the school, it was
fatted difficult to carry the deign of the founder into
eilet with respect to there. Under all the circum-
stances of the ca'e the Coen t was of opinion that chil-
dren of the Jewish religion could not be considered
a 3 comprised within the number of those whose be-
nefit was the object of the founder, and therefore,
that they could not be entitled to the enjoyment of
the privileges belonging to the charity.
HEALD applied to the Court for permission to
take the Costs from the funds of the Charity.
The LOltD CHANCELLOR observed, that the Trus-
teee were allowed by the laws of the Charity to take
their costs from that fund, but that it could not be
contended that the Jewish petitioners were entitled tol
the same benefit.
RECEIVERS IN CHANCRRY.
The Lonn CHANCELLOR—In Lord Loughborough's
time he made an order that the Master should reeort
to the Court, from time to time, the state of the
Receiver's accounts. Some of the Masters have fa-
voured me with such a report, and I find that some
Receivers have not sent in their accounts for two or
three years. I therefore give this notice, tu all Re-
ce:vers who do not send in their accounts on or be-
fore the first day of 2'slichaelmas Term, that I will
have their recognizences acted on.
MILTON OYSTERS.
On the motion of the Aeroeery Grseaners, the
order of the Court directing the trial of an issue,
respecting the title of the different parties in this
Oyster Bank at Milton, was made absolute, and the
trial ordered to take place as pon as possible.
SUMMER ASSIZES.—NORWICH.
John Hook, aged 24, was convicted of having stolen
two wedder hog sheep.
This case contained no incident of interest, and no
point of legal difficulty ; yet it was impossible to wit-
ress it without much painful reflection and sympa-
thetic regret. The prisoner was an uncommonly
good-looking young man ; he had been two years in
business as a butcher, in Morpeth; he had main-
tained the best character: when first challenged for
this offence he confessed it, wept bitterly, and said he
bad never been guilty of any thing of the kind before.
Mary Murray, aged 27 (a person committed since
the'calendar had been made up), was tried for utter-
ing forged British Linen Company's notes, knowing
them to be forged. It was proved In evidence that
had uttered several notes in payment of articles,
for which she had silver enough without getting a
note changed. All the notes were proied to be forged.
The prisoner, a single woman, acted with singular
Modesty and discretion. Haying no Counsel, she
proposed no useless or irrelevant question, and list-
ened to a negative upon very important questions
proposed by her, with composure and resignation.
—Not Guilty.

NEWCASTLE, AUGUST 16.
WATSON 5,. DAVIDSON.
Mr. BcAnnErr opened this case to the Jury. The
--- pitman in South Shields, had had
get his leg fractured, and had got
surgeon in the same place, to attend
the brutal neglect of the defendant,
disabled for life. lie was a poor
and two children, and consequently
st serious loss which a man in his si-
iffer, in being deprived of the full use
therefote applied to them for suds
damages could afford to him.
itnesses proved that the accident hap-
-1818 ; that Mr. Davidson attended
dressed his leg ; and that he reflood
examine it, when repeatedly sent for

surgeon ia South Shields, was called

' in on the en of September, and found the leg bound
up with bandages and iron splints.. He cut off the
bandages, and found an ulcerous sore on the unin-
jured part of the leg, occasioned by the splints. Mat-
ter and maggots had generated abundantly in the
wound. The hones were found protruded, and ap-
peared as if they had never been reduced. It was a
compound fracture. Mr. Irons, a surgeon, who'svas
called in by Mr. Clcugh on the 29th, and under
whose care it still is, disapproved of the treatment of
the leg, and was fully convinced it never would, in
consequence of that ill treatment, recover its former
strength.
Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK addressed the Jury for the
defendant. He was very sorry for the misfortune of
this poor man; but the Jury would be satisfied, by
the evidence he should lay before them, that Mr. D-
avidson had exercised great skill and due attention.
The Learned Serjeant began by calling witnesses
to prove Mr. Davidson's character for humanity and
skill in his profession; but
Mr. Scant Err objected, as the charge was neither
general inhumanity of character nor want of skill in
his profession, but inattention to the plaintiff.
His Lordship thought the evidence unnecessary.
Mr. Mason, a surgeon, of South Shields, knew Mr.
Davidson to have been regularly educated, and to
have a degree from the faculty at Glasgow, and a
diploma from the College of Surgeons in London.
Mr. Davidson's treatment of the plaintiff's case sp-
ared to him %ery proper. Witness himself used
lath-splinters, but Worthing's were fully as goo&'.
Mr. Sca RLETT was happy that he had another op.:.
poitunity of addressing them upon this subject. If
this question were to be decided by the opposition of
evidence, he could contend that there was uo con•
tradiction in the evidence laid before them. He had
proved that Mr. Davidson, after having regularly
attended for four or five days, never came to see his
patient, and even refused to come when called. This
was not contradicted. Now the only defence for not
calling upon his patient was, that there was an abso-
lute time of three weeks, or some other period,
during whidit the bandages and splints were not to be
removed. Yet Mr. Moore said it was abstard to lay
down a general rule upon the subject. N.:y, even
Mr. Winterbottom, a witness so connected with the

defendant, that almost a legal objection could be
made to his evidence, even he said, that if he saw
matter flowing, or saw any of the symptoms which
were proved to have appeared in this case, he would
have opened the bamlages and looked at the wound.
But the real state of the case was quite obvious. Mr.
Davidson had got into the good graces of opulent
patients, and he had been anxious, of all things, not
to neglect them. The plaintiff was a poor man.
At the same time Mr. Davidson Cid not choose to
neglect him at grst—he did not refuse to attend
when first called, because, Mr. Clcugh, peritis, or
some other surgeon, was treading close upon his
heels. But Geatlernen would admit that if a sur-
geon once undertook to cure a fractured limb he was
bound to give every necessary attention, in order to
effect that cure. In tnis case it was manifest that
that attention had not been given. Mr. David--on
attended for a feW days, and then neglected this poor
patient, for the sake of his more opulent patients.
He did not blame his attention to them; but he ought
not to have undertaken the eve in this case unless
be could give it the necessary attention. That he
had not given that attention was manifest from the
state of the leg. Even Dr. Winterbottom admitted,.
that the length of time that the splints should remain
untouched depended upon the peculiar state of the
patient. In this case the defendant had refused to
see the patient, and to ascertain whether any change
were necessary. Here then was a young man, only
25 years of age, with a healthy and strong constitu-
tion, disabled through life by the neglect of a man
to whom the cure of his leg had been intrusted.
That the failure of a cure had been owing to his neg-
lect they could not doubt, since he had not only not
attended for a long time after the first application,
but had refused to look into the state of the wound
after he had been particularly applied to for that pur-
pm:-... T,lie only question therefore was what da-
mages they should give? His Learned Friend had
said that a wife aad two children had nothing to do
with this question. They had not, he admitted it.
But if a poor man lost the only mzans of supporting
a wife and two children, the does was a strong ground
for damages. The limb of a poor man was cf as
much value to him as the limb of the most opulent
was to that opulent person. It was even of more
value, for high as the rich valued soundness of limbs,
and readily as they often would give half of their
wealth to recover it, yet it was not so essential to
their comfort as to the comfort and welfare of the
poor. Deprived of the use of his limbs, the rich
man might have many enjoyments, but the poor man
could support neither himself nor his family. Health
and soundness of limbs were the only means of
wealth which the poor max possessed, anAl he there-
fore hoped, that when he seas deprived of these by
the neglect of a man in opulent circumstances, they
would allow him ample compensation.
The Judge summed up with grt'at care and im-
partiality, when the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages £2OO.

Thursday morning Abraham Abrahams, convicted
at the late Kent Assizes, with two other Jews, of
hiring men to commit a burglary• at Sheerness, suf-
fered the sentence of the law on Penenden Heath.
The corpse, after hanging the usual time, was taken
away in a hearse by several Jews, to be interred at
Chatham on the same day, according to the custom
of their religion. He was a good-looking man, and
but '24 years of age. A great number of people at-
tended, though not so many as was expected.
Wednesday morning James Wiittford, convicted
of robbery in the toll-house at Hopetoun Wood, Lin-
lithgowshire, on the 27th of March last, was exe-
cuted at Edinburgh, on a gibbet erected at the head
of Libberton's Wynd, pursuant to a sentence of the
High Court of Justiciary. After some devotional
exercises in the Lock•up.house, the unfortunate man
was conducted to the place of execution, supported
by the Rev. Principal Baird and Rev. Mr. Pon
Twos, and preceded by "tallies SMITH and PATI•
sow, in their robe % about half-past eight o'clock.
When part of the fifth hymn bad been sung, and an
impressive prayer delivered by the Principal, the
criminal took his station on the drop, which is now
on a level with the scaffold, and, within a few mi-
nutes of nine o'clock, was launched into eedefiity.i

Dlr. oun na.br I
plaintiff, a poor
the misfortune to
the defendant, a s
him. Through ti
the plaintiff was
man, with a wife
t : sustained the mos
'Ol 41'
tuation co,ild suff
i:
of his limbs. He
separation as dam,
Several witness
pcned in August,
the plaintiff, and
to conic and ex
by the plaintiff.
h 1 Clough, a