Star.
London, England, 1803-03-29 00:00:00

YORK ASSIZES.

Tits Knits v. IYoiisorr.:-Theprifoner flood in-
clined on the Aft of ad Geo. 11. tor attempting to
(educe artificers out of the kingdom.
Laft Pontefraft Seffions, the prifoner was tried
upon an indinment on the fame Ate, for taking
models or plans of the manufanuring machinery
of this country, for the purpole of introducing
them into a foreign country, upon which indict-
ment he was found guilty, and fentenced to one
year's imprifunment, and to pay a fine of 2001. to
the King.
Mr. Boca, in fupport of the profecution, in his
addrefs to the Jury Paid, that the extenfive perfec-
tion rf the manufaflures of this country, was the
caufe of its pre.eminence in the world ; that if we
coffered our artificers to be reduced into foreign
countries, then the very foundation upon which we
flood was taken from under us ; we fhould lofe
that rank we hold amongft nations,who, if they got
poffeffion of our artificers, would alfo get poffetlion
of our machinery, and fo the espence of living be-
ing much more lower in other countries than in
this, they would not only be able to rival us, but
confiderably to underfelt us ; but, he thanked Goa,
, that by the wife laws enafted by our Government,
they had rendered, he hoped, fuch a thing impof
fible ; for fuels fevere punifhment was inflined up.
on thofe who made the attempt, that, if they once
were detefted, they would not be likely to make
the attempt a fecond time. The Learned Counfel
Elated the prifoner to be an Engliftiman by birth,
who went to France at an early age—that he af-
terwards eftablifised a manufaaory in the call
iron bufinefe; chat at the conclufion of peace, he
returned to this country, and went into Lancafter,
and came into Yorkfhire, to get models of our
machinery, for which he had been indiaed, and
was now ay enduring the punifhment of the
law ; and hpe was now upon his trial for endeavour-
- ing to (educe our artificers. Mr. Buck Paid, he be-
lieved the painter at the bar to have been fent
over by the French Government; but he wonder.
ed that a Government that had mannfattured fo
many Conaitutions both for themfelves and other
people, (bould not be able to invent a (pinning
machine; but he was fare they would be as little
capable of rivalling us in the invention of Coati.
mons, as they had been in rivalling us in our
machinery : Mr. Buck then called
John Archer. He faids that the prifoner came
from Dieppe, in Normandy, to this country that
about the 25th of February, 5802, he told the psi-
liner, that his mother had told him his father was
going with him (the prifoner) to live in France;
that he eked the prifoner the particulars of their
agmtment ; the prifoner replied, you (hall know
that hereafter—that the prifoncr (aid, that he had
a plot of ground in France, on which he meant to
era! a mill, &c. he raid the building and flock ne-
eeffary would colt him at leali ;cool. and that he
could raife that rum without any Alliance ; upon
eking the prifoner if lie meant to have any Eng-
liat workmen ? he (rid no, he could have had a
regiment of them at Norwich and London, bin he
would not; that the prifoner (aid, that the object
of his coming into Yorkfhire, was to get plans and
models, and to take his father with him ; that he
was going to Mancheller, and had letters of re.
comnendation there, and that he meant to fee
their machinery.
Upon being crofs.examined by Mr. Lasts for
the prifoner, he confeffed that he had had a quar-
rel with his mother, and was not upon good terms
with her.
Thomas Butterfield oroved, that be. knew
George Archer (the perfon whom the prifoner
flood charged with having attempted to (educe'
and that he was a machine maker.
Mr. LAMB, on behalf of the prifoner, obferved,
in reply to Mr. Buck, that our eminence as a ma.
nutaauring country did not arife from the per.
feaion of our machinery, but from our fuperior
capital, our indußry, and the honour of nigh&
merchants I indeed, Mr. Lamb kid. that when the
prilneer was indiaed at Pontelratt Seifions, for
'akin models of our machinery, he called on one
the molt eminent merchants in Yorkikire, (Mr.
L Atkinfon of Bradley Mill) upon whofe teflimonv
it appeared, that the French were in poffetiion of
alenoe all our machiner:, etcept, perhaps, tome of
recent difcovery, and therefore that our diltinguifh-
cd pre-anitsence did not depend upon our fupaior
machiaery, which. it appeared, we pelletal not
eicluliealy„ buts DIM what be had before Qat-
ari, our capital, our it dailry. and our hcnottr.—
Mr. Lases then. on behalf of the prifoner, called
Archer. foe of John Archer ; he laid.
that be raw :he pritoner, Dobfon. he had
f• rue thonflits goir.g to America, and to•IJ Dola. I
(4,. I be pertoner, e t his intention. that he inter.ded
n. be,,,„;,, his bausa, was bad ; that he ailed the
rinsing what prol-pi.a there ass for 111121 it i.e %scut I
to Frame t The pi tioner replied, o her may An t
to France. bit I (ball not adviie r • n to it ; I lia
Ind a great deal th tc tilt; is ; I 0i..11 n adrift.
7.4 srs do it—)nuts know o.thiri„; La the cua.t; y,

and ynn area Rranger to the language." Witnefs
the priinner always objeCted to his going to
i•• lance —lllizabeth Archer, wife of the preceding
wil Lei.. corroborated his teitimony.
The Learned Judge then recapitulated the evi•
."..nce to the Jury, and obferved upon the wifdom
fnor Lliilature in inflieling fuch fevere penalties
upein thole who (truck at the very exiitence of the
state ; that the only queßion for them to confider
%,‘ as, the credit they fhould pay to theteßinumy of
J. Archer, after it had been contradided by his
father and mother.

The Jury found the prifoner—Guilty. Sentence,
One gem'. impi ifonment and a fine of Soot.
John Gore was indiaed for killing and Baying
Henry Gotham, of Sherburn, in the Eaft Riding.
It appeared upon the evidence, that the deceaf-
ed was a young boy, who lived with his uncle at
Sherburn, and had puflied a child of the prifoner's
into fhme water, at a time that he was ill ; there-
fore the prifoner (truck the deceafed a flight blow,
which caufed him to (tumble over a (tone, by which
be was thrown againit a wall with his head ; the
quellion then to be decided was, whether that
blow which the deceafed's head received againa
the wall, had been the caufe of his death ?

Mark.Johnfon was called upon to prose, that
the deceafed had complained of being poorly a
week or a fortnight before he received the blow;
that he was accuflomed to a pain in his head.
Mr. Smart, furgeon, proved, Ist was the firft
perfon called upon to attend the deceafed, about
ten days after be had received the blow ; that the
aunt of the deceafed told him, that the opening in
the head of the deceafed after his birth was longer
in doting than is ulna' in infants ; the witnefs in-
ferred from thence, that the head was fubjed to
more than ordinary complaints, particularly water
in the brain ; that there was no difcolouring in
the exterior of the head, as if a blow had been re-
ceived ; that he opened the head of the deceafed
after his death, and found a great quantity of wa-
ter in the brain ; a greater quantity than he, the
witnefs, thought could have been colleted from
the time the deceafed received the blow ; that the
blAv might have battened that colledion of water,
but could not, in his opinion, have been the im-
mediate cattle of it ; that there is a &in which ad-
heres to the interior of the skull, and that the ad-
hetion is fit thong in a healthy objeft, that it would
require a confiderable weight to feparate them;
p that on the left fide of the deceafed's &nil, he diC
covered not only a feparation, but almoft an entire
decay of that (kin • that that could not have been
rattled from the blow received; that the blow re-
caved might have battened the deceafed's death,
but was not the cattle of it.

The Jury found the prifoner—Not Guilty.
Mr. Pear, who fat as Judge, faid, that though
the prifoner had been found not guilty. yet he
would not fuffer this cafe to leave the Court with-
out making Tome remarks upon it :—he obferved,
that though the prifoner had been brought to the
bar upon a charge, which originated in the dii.
charge of a molt- (acted duty, namely, the pro-
teetion of his own child, yet the law had Pet bounds
to that duty; we were not from an overflow of
affedien to our own children, fo violently to inter-
rupt the laws of fociety as to caufe the death of
others; it was to be difcriminated in fuch cafes by
a Jury, whether our children were in fuch danger
as to juflify the extent of our proteflion ? if we
had exceeded the fair boundaries of that protec-
tion, the law will pupil% us for 't ; but it was our
duty. and the law would proteel us in the difcharge
of it, if we etercifed that proteEtion only equal to
the •'anger; if our proteltion exceeded the danger,
we were amenable to the laws of our county; and
therefor: he would caution every parent. not to
fuffer his parental affeaion to lead him beyond
thofe wife and falutary bounds which the laws of
the country had prefcribed.