Star.
London, England, 1819-03-22 00:00:00

CRAMP AND ANOTUER V. BAYLEY, CLEKK.

This was a case of rather a singular nature. It
was an action -if trover by the plaintiffs, as Church-
wardens of the parish of St. John the Baptist, Mar-
gate, against the defendant, as Rector of that parish,
to recover the value of certain black cloth which had
been put up in the Parish Church in respect to the
memory of the late Princess Charlotte of Wales, but
which the defendant, the Rector, had converted into
hi, own use by having it made up into coats, waist-
coats, and other articles of apparel.
After healing the evidence, which merely went to
the alleged fact, Mr. Justice BAY LEY, in his address
to the Jury, laid it down as the rule of law, that no
person had a right to hang up what are called orna-'
meats in the Church, without the leave of the Rector,
because the freehold of the Church was in him, and
be might make his own terms for that leave. In
general, where private individuals hung black cloth
in the Parish Church, with the concurrence of the
Rector, there was a kind of understanding between
them that the cloth became the property of the Rec-
tor. In the present case, however, there had been no
bargain between the plaintiffs and the defendant, with
respect to the terms upon which the cloth was to be
hung in the Church, and consequently the latter had
no right ►o take any portion of the cloth, because by
law he was not entitled to take such a property, un-
less by matter of arrangement or agreement between
the parlies to whom it belonged. Under these cir-
cumstances the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict
for tie value of the cloth which the defendant had
converted to his own use.

The Jury found for the Pl3.intiffs—Damages £l5.

MARCH 20.

THE ICING V. WILLIAM WRIGHT AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment against the defendants,
William Wright, Hoary Dirm, William Ebers, James
Waters, and SA Smith, for a riot committed at
Gravesend, on the 4th of July last. There was a se-
cond count, which charged them with an assau't
upon Robert Pierce Cruden, Esq. Mayor of the town
of Gravesend, in the execution of his office, while
endeavouring to quell the riot above-mentioned. •
It. P. Gruden, Esq. was examined. He was pro-
ceeding to state, that in consequence of complaints
made against watermen, for the exorbitant demands
they were in the habit of making, the Corporation
had published certain Regulations, which had been
stutic up in various•parts of the town, when
Mr. GURNEY interposed, and objected to any refe-
rence being had to such notices, contending that the
Corporation had no right whatever to interfere with
the boatmens fares.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY said he had no difficulty in
declarin:7 that it would be an act of extortion for a
boatman to take a larger fare than he was legally
entitled to, and he would not say that it WilS not
liable to he criminally punished ; at the same time,
however, he was not prepared to give any opinion
as to the proceedings of the Mayor in the regulation
of the fares.

Mr. Cruden then proceeded in his evidence, and
r:ated, that in consequence of being disturbed by the
noise in the street, at Gravesend, about eleven o'clock
at night, on the 4th of July, he got up and called.
to his assistance Robert Barnett, Serjeant at Mace.
There was a mob assembled, cemisting of about SO
or 100 persons. He advanced to the head of the
mob, and seized a person whom he afterwards dis-
covered to be William Wright, the defendant. There
was immediately a violent struggle made to rescue
him, some people crying out, Rescue him—We
are a'.l freemen here—Why are we to be taken by
one man ?" Witness endeavoured to secure his pri-
soner, by taking him towards a door that was open,
but he was prevented by being struck down by one
of the persons in the crowd. Ile saw the defendant
Taylor afterwards, who stated to him that he was
en:;aged in offering him assistance and in getting him
on- the ground when struck ; and witness did not
know that that was not the case. He could not swear
to any of the other defendants.
Edward Collyer,, a boatmaster at Gravesend, re-
membered the disturbance on the night of the of
July : he heard the noise el laic mob before he saw
thew he went to his-door, and he saw that they.
pla:ing a fiddle and blowing a horn. Witness
Lad gone to the Mayor at seven o'clock the same;
evennig, to complain of so= waterrach who bad

u;0,1 one of the masters of his boats. Witness lived
three doors of the Mayor. The mob groaned
and hissed as they passed the Mayor's door, and did
the same as they passed witness s. The mob con-
sisted of all descriptions of people—toen, women, and
•children. lie did not know any of them.
Cross-examined by Mr. GunlZEv.--There was not
the least disposition to riot amongSt the people. He
did not see them insult any body. 'Hwy had been
disposed to insult any one, be believed it would have
been himself. They had one fiddle and a fog-horn,
blown on the Thames in foggy weather.
Robert 13arnett, the Serjealit-at-Mace, gave nearly
the same te,tiniony as the Mayor. He heard one
horn bho.vinq ; the mob consisted of about 83 or 100
meat, WO!!"Cil, and children: he did not sec any blow
struck by any body. lie was himself thrown down
by the pressure of the c,-owd ; he heard some man
say, " All go, or none." John Taylor was in the
crowd, but he did not see him take any active pact.
He did not see the other defendants there.
William Parsons was called to prove that he saw
placards stuck in the hats of some of the crowd.—
lie only saw two or three pieces of white paper, but
he did not see what was upon them. He saw none
of the defendants there. There was no disposition
in the people to riot. There was nothing but blow-
ing of horns.
-Mr. JtiviCe BATLEY here interposed; and after
' commune sting with the Counsel on both sides, told
the Jury he thought that the defendants must be ac-
quitted upon this evidence. As to the propriety of
the prosecution he had no doubt, and he thought
the public were very much indebted to the Mayor
for the courage and activity which he had shewn in
endeavonting to suppress the disturbance, which
might hisve ended more seriously. It was the ditty,
however, of the Jury, on the evidence adduced, to
acquit the defendants.—Verdict,Not