Star.
London, England, 1820-04-17 00:00:00

CHESTER, AFRIT. 14.

CIiARGE er CONSPIRACY To POISON CATTLE, doe.
_ • THE XING R. XING AND ANOTHER.
The ATTnRNEY-GENERAL (Mr. BENYON) stated the
ease to the Jury. This was an indictment instituted
At the instance of Sir Thomas Stanley, Bart: for a
eon -piracy of a most extraordinary nature. The de-
fendants were the Rev. Joshua King, who was Rector
of 13ethnal-.,7reea, near London, a beneficed clergy-
man, and brother, Mr. Bryan-King. They were
the sons of the Rector of Westwood, in the Hundred
of Warrel, e here the offence in question was charged
to have been committed. It appeared that the de-
fendant. Mr. Joshua King, was annually in the habit
of visitilie his father and brother at Wa:rel, and
though possessing no property there, was fond of
pan aking of the field sports of the neighbourhood.
Sir Thomas Stanley, wishing to preserve his game,
had frequently, in the most gentlemanly manner,
warned the defendant not to disturb his game. These
warnings were, however, unattended to. And here
he felt it necessary to observe, that the preservation
of game was of great importance to the country, as
it held out an inducement to Gentlemen to reside on
their estates for a great part of the year, and it was
unnecessary for him to expatiate on the benefits aris-
ing to the tenantry and people at large horn their
doing so. It would appeal, however, that Mr. Jo-
shua King thought otherwise. He interfered so fre-
quently on Sir- Thomas Stanley's ground, that that
Gentleman was obliged to bring an action against
him for an infraction of the Game Laws. On that
occasion, a verdict was given in favour of the no-
minal plaintiff, a farmer residing on the estate.—
This was the gravamen of the conduct against which
Sir Thomas now complained. It was a wise and a
true observation, that " a little learning is a danger-
ous thing." Mr. King had, he presumed, been read-
ing some of the eatly Statutes on the Game Laws,
and had come down under the impression that he
might kill all the foxes in the country, they being
considered vet min in the language of the law. So far
he did not pretend to dispute the law with Mr. King.
They were not then in a Court of Honour, and there-
fore it mattered not how far it would be ungentle-
manly to deprive any set of Gentlemen of their sport
by such means—thus far Mr. King had certainly the
law on his side. Mr. King, with these notions in
his mind, arrived at Warrel in September last year.
Before his arrival, Sir Thomas Stanley had got in-
formation that some harm was intended to his foxes
and game; he felt naturally desirous to watch the
movements of the Gentleman from London by whom
it was to be done. An accident, however, brought*
the intention of the defendants more fully to light
than the closest watching could have done. The de-
feadants had a brother who was a merchant in Liver-1
pool. That Gentleman bad a house in the neigh-
bourhood of Tranmere (sixteen. miles from Chester),
in which he occasionally resided. Near that house
there azelt a poor cottager, named Davies, whose
daughter, searching some rubbish thrown out of
Mr. King's house, picked up some fragments of a
letter. Sie stewed them to het parents, and they, ,
on seeing the contents, thought it their duty to shew
the paper to Sir T. Staniey, who was their neigh-
bour. The first half of the letter was torn, and ra-
ther unconnected, but-from it, as well as from the
second part, which was entire, they would find that
the Rev. Mr: King had recommended to his brother
(nothis fellow defendant) not only the destruction of all
the foxes, butalsoof all the other game in the Hundred
of Warrel. This it was which induced him• to say,
that." a little learning is a dangerous thing ;" for no
man in his senses could pretend to argue that a man
had in this manner a right to kill his neighbour's game.
But the clue to all this will be found in the defendant's
having been prevented from sporting where he had
no right to sport. (Here the Learned Counsel
read a letter, which he said he should prove to have
been written by defendant to one of his brothers.)—
This letter recommended the expedient of poisoning
the fazes in Sir T. Stanley's ground, and also hinted
at the distribution of poisoned corn near the hedges,
in order to destroy the patridges and other game.
This letter was sufficient to shew what the writer's
intentions were, and it required great caution on the
part of Sir T. Stanley, to find out if anything, and what
had been done. It happened that a man, formerly
in the service of Sir. T. Stanley, had been engaged
by the defendant (Mr. Joshua King) in this transac-
tion. This man, being in some measure an accom-
plice, would speak with caution; but still, if he told
the truth, he would disclose that which, when corro-
borated by other witnesses, would be sufficient to call
for a verdict against the defendants. The Learned
Counsel then observed, that the first count in the in-
dictment charged the defendants with a.conspiracy
to poison his Majesty's subjects. The second, with
distributing poison for the destruction of cattle. The
third count, with a conspiracy to poison swine.
The fourth, with a conspiracy to poison the swine and
cattle of a man named Hancock, in whose farm the
close or cover where the poison was laid was situated;
and the fifth count, with having laid poison in the
said close or cover. After entering into a detail of
the evidence to be produced, and a variety of obser-
vations on the legal construction to be put on the con-
duct of the defendants, the Learned Counsel con-
cluded by stating, that he wanted neither favour nor
affection to be shewn to Sir T. Stanley ; he felt con-
fident that the Jury would be guided by the evidence
only in the verdict they gave.
The following witnesses were then called :
:4r. George King examined.—l am the brother of the defen-
darts—r,Here a letter was handed to witnessj.—This letter is
addressed to me. I believe it is my brother's band-writing. I I
conclude I received it.
Cross-examined by Mr. JONES.-It was a private letter; I did
intend to give publicity to its contents. The letter was written
in con3equence of a cemmunication made by me to my broiher
of a plan atlopted by a neighbour who was annoyed by Sir T.
Stanley, as my brother had been, and who destroyed his foxes
and hung them on a tree, where its hounds were to pass. That
ntighbour threatened to destroy his game also. He destroyed
nothing else. The letter related to nothing but the destruction
of foxes and game. I have a strong impression that the letter
was taken out of my house, at Tranmere. Tranmere is nine or
tan mites from Sir T. Stanley's house. I received the letter in
Liverpool, in winter, and when I removed to my cottage at
Tratimere I brought it with me. I never missed it. I no not
balieve I ever tore it up.
Itaostamined—l intended to make the contents of the letter
Tetblic. I intended to tell any persons I met that It was my
brother's intention to destroy Sir T. Stanley's game. I wished
scot so much to poison the game as to give tic T. Stanley au idea
that it was to be done. I toid a Gentleman at Liverpool, and
sweet-al in Cheshire, of my brother's intention. It must have
I,):n' to workmen and. other persons about my own person. I

do not know to whoto,lAit it Was In the summer. I took but
little notice of the letter when I first received it. I should not
have thought of sprinkling poisoned gealnnear the hedges for the
purposes of poisoning game a trifling mattet if it was intended
to be done ; but my brother did not intend it. Ile told roe so in
a subsequent letter. I understood my brother to wish the con-
tents of the letter to be communicated to Sir T. Stanley. I be-
lieve the letter was stolen from me, but not before I published it.
The suggestion as to poisoning the foxes =rag' from me, in con-
,sequence of knowing that another person had annoyed Sir
Thomas by killing his foxes. • I mean'a threat by the word an-
noyanze. I don't wish to mention. who the person is to whom
I allude. The gentleman who poisonA the foxes was prose-
cuted by Sir Thomas Stanley fee killing game. lie was not a
poacher. He had a regular license. Ido not mean revenge by
the word annoyance. I never intended to carry my brother's
threat into execution, nor do I b4lieve that my brother did. I
neva knew that any poison was set, nor do I know that my
brother ever set any. I heard from other people that they did,
but never front themselves. I cannot swear whether I ever
beard from others, in my brother's presence, that they had set
poison.

Richard Standan examined by Mr. Witcrams.—l am one of
Sir T. Stanley's game-keepers. On Sunday, the nth Septem-
ber, I was in a fox cover belonging to Sir Thomas, from break
of day to about three o'clock in the aftgrnoon. I saw two men
come into the cover. Ms. Bryan King and a shoemalter named
Johnson were the men I saw. They got out of my sight for a
while, and when I saw them again Johnson had a bag. I saw
both put their hands into the bag, and scatter something In the
open places in the cover. They did this irrsevcral places. I was
some distance off, hut I lay so that I could command a view of
the cover. In about five minutes I got nearer to•thern, and then
they ran away. I followed, and came up with them. Johnson
had the bag, and Mr. King was with him. I told Johnson he
was the man I had been looking for a long time. Mr. King
said I had no right to take the bag if I took Johnson. I took
both Johnson and the bag with nit:. The bag contained some
entrails of fowls, two young hares, some cakes that seemed to
be mixed with heese, and three steel traps. I-gave same of
the things to Davies the groom, and some others to Mr. Oakes,
the druggist. I did not see any of the cake given to chickens.
(By a Juror).—The hares were fresh killed. They had be4MI
opened a little ; the bag was Woody.
Cross-examined by Mr. Law.—They appeared to be little
hares that were cut out of the belly of the mother. The cover
is open. It is gnu cover. A man could ride into it. It Is eget
enough for pointers to go into it. I swear that our smooth
pointers will face a toss cover. After they get into the cover
the goss hid them from my sight. The goss is higher in some
places than in others. I took Johtason up to Sir Thomas sad
his friends. He was examined, after which he might either go
or stop, but he remained, as it was late. lie did not choose to
go home. Ile was examined twice that night, and again in the
morning. I have occasionally seen Mr. King sporting. Ide set
know that I ever gave him ill-language. lie gave me a good
deal more. I never said that I would either hang or transport
the parson.
Ite-examined.—The cover is open in many places. It is epA
to Mr. Hancock's farm. Pigs can get in in many places. The
cover is rented from Mr. Hancock.
(Through the Juntsa).—Sir T. Stanley is not Lord of the Me.
nor in which the cover is situate, nor does he possess say hod
within two miles of it.

Mary Davies examined by the Arroastr-Grattaat..—My fa-
ther lives within twelve yards of Mr. George King's house. I
remember Mr.. King coming to his house in May. Soon after
his arrival I was playing with my little brother, ancil e.iw a
servant bring out some rubbish from the house. I went to
where it was deposited, thinking I should find some playthings
in it. I found a letter (here the letter was shewn to witness).—
I think this is the letter, but my mother can tell, for she can
read it. I gave the letter to my mother.
William Johnson examined.—l know both the defendants. I
have seen them in Chester, but I have not spoken to them or
their Attorney here. I was in Sir T. Stanley's cover on the
12th September. Mr. Joshua King sent me there, and Mr.
Bryant accompanied me. This was about a fortnight after I
first saw Mr. Joshua.. When I first saw him he came to my
house, and said he wanted me to catch some foxes, and to set
traps for that purpose. I was to use nothing but traps. I set
the traps. On the Sunday I was taken it the cover, I saw Mr.
Joshua in his father's stable. I had the bag ix my hand. I\o-'
thing was given to me to put into the bag. I went with both
the defendants into the scullery. I had one trap is the bag. I
got there all the other things found in the bag. I watt not told
what to do with them. I never fotind out what was to be done
with the things. I went to. Irby, and met Mr. Bryiui, who
conducted me to the cover, and there I was found by the
keeper Standan. This was daring the evening service. It was
fiord that we should go to the old field cover. Mr. Joshua did
not say anything.
Edward Davies examined by Mr. Wrusasear—l received a
bag from Standan, and delivered it to Mr. Oakes, a surgeon.
Mr. Isaac Oaks examined.—l am an assistant to a druggist.
I received something
_in cakes, like cheese, from Davies. On
analysing it we discovered the presence of arsenic in small quan-
tities, but probably enough to destroy a man or beast.
Henry Hancock examined.—l know the cover in question.
It is now the property of Sir Thomas Stanley. In consequence
of something I had heard I went to hunt tke cover, and found
two cakes and some entrails of fowls; the formerin an open path,
and the latter near the edge of the cover. Pigs could get into
the cover; they used to go there occasionally. I should think
that if pigs met the cakes and garbage they would have eaten
than. Cattle could go through the cover. When we heard of
the poison, we were alarmed, lest the cattle and pigs should
meet it. We stopped the pigs from going into the stubbles below,
not knowing that all the poison was taken up. There was no
fence between the cover and the stubble.

Cross-examined by Mr. Joxxs.—We sever turn cattle, or pigs
into the cover. We make no use of the cover but for breeding
foxes. There are rabbits killed upon it. I have no doubt but

the rent is paid to me for the

of the breed of

foxes.—Here. the case for the prosecution closed.
Mr. JONES addressed the Jury for the defence. He
confessed that he rose under considerable embarrass-
ment springineroro the peculiar nature of the charge
itself, as well as from the very singular manner in
which' it had been attempted to be supported. He
felt no embarrassment on the case itself—no 'appre-
hension for the result of their verdict, believing, as
he confidently did, that that verdict would not be
founded on prejudice or partiality, but on the evi-
dence, and on the evidence only. The two defendants,
whose case he advocated, held a considerable station
in society. They were men whose characters had
hitherto been not only irreproachable, but highly
distinguished and respected. They naturally felt a
great anxiety upon that occasion, not on account of
any punishment which could follow a conviction,
but on account of the feelings attempted to be-es-
cited, and the pains taken to attract the attention
of the Public to this case, in order to disgrace them.
But the defendants had, by their conduct that day,
shewn to the Jury, and to their countrymen gene-
'rally, that they fully relied on their innocence.—
When the Special Jury could not be made up, andwhen
the Attorney-General would rather put off the trial
than dare to pray a tales, what did the defendants
do? They solicited the Court to be brought to trial.
They prayed a tales, in order to meet their accusers
boldly face to face, and get rid of the charge which
had been so long tending over them. The defend-
ants were anxious to meet this fox-hunting party, in
order to ascertain whether the feelings, liberty, and
character of the Hundred of Warrel were to be held
at nought, compared with the wishes of an indi-
vidual who wished to encourage fox-hunting ?
This was « the head and front of their offending." He
hardly felt it necessary to waste a word on the last
count of the indictment, as he had never met a piece
of technical machinery more destitute of all its legal
object. It had no earthly object on the face of it,
and if it were to hold good, then the disposal of poi-
son for any object, however innocent or necessary,
would be an indictable offence.

When the Learned Counsel had proceeded ais

•
•
length in his charge, their. Lordships interfered, and
said, the counts of the indictment could net be sub-
stantiated.
After tome conversat!on between Mr. Justice- MAitsnAt, ,
Cider_un.ce ! W A D.RILN, the ATTORXET.GILNIRAL, tad Mr. CROSS.,
a verdict was given of—N..l
SATURDAY, APRIL 15.

Matthew Kennedy, a soldier, aged 9.5, was found Guilty of as-
saulting Ann Mien, tilted sirtk/itie, with intent to commit a rape.
In the case Jones v. the Rev. Mr. Nanney, wherein the plain-
tiff sought to recover the sum of £B3, for the keep and training
of race-horses belonging to the defendant, a verdict MS given
fur the Later.