Star.
London, England, 1827-08-04 00:00:00

Wee appeared on the road. He knew not the cause'
of his death, not having been called upon to examine
the body—(The CHIRP JUSTICE here expressed his
amazement at this indifference of the witness).—He
could form no judgment of the cause except from what
the passengers stated.
James Waters was a passenger on the Celerity at the
time ; the deceased Gentleman sat ea the box.; he ob-
:erred him two or three minutes after the accident
lying under the body of the coach, and bleeding very
much from his eyes, nose, and ears. The Celerity was
travelling down hill at the rate of nine or ten Exiles an
hoar. The Celerity had nine outside passengers, though
it was painted on the body of it that it was only licensed
to carry—
CHere an objection was taken to the finishing of this
answer, on the ground that if an illegal number of pas,
sengers were urged against the prisoner, the fact as a
matter of law must be ascertained by the production of
the licence. Lord Chief Justice Bur expressed his
regret that where overloading tock place, the pro-
prietor could not be crinsinally reached as well as his
servants. Perhaps at present it was unnecessary to press
the questioo.3
Witness observed the Defiance at the foot of the hill,
before the coaches came into contact.
In his cross-examination, he said, that in his opinion
the Celerity was "travelling at its own proper side of the
road. The Celerity was half an hour later than usual
on that night, and therefore the coaches met at an un-
accustomed place ; they were not exceeding their usual
pace► The proper breadth of a stage-coach was six
feet. He thought both coaches had at the time an equal
share of the road.
Barnett, the coachman of the Defiance, proved he was
driving at the rate of five or six miles an hour, while
the Celerity was going near eleven. The Celerity goes
faster now than heretofore.
In answer to a question from the COURT, he said that
coachmen were in the habit of pulling up a little on
dark nights in narrow parts of the road. Ward (con-
tinued the witness) was the regular coachman of the
Celerity, but he could not say whether prisoner was not
one also. He believed, however, that he was not accus-
tomed to drive a night coach.
Mr. Whitmarsh, the Coroner, merely proved the fact
of the inquest. He said he was likewise a surgeon;
there could hardly be distinguished a feature of the face
ache deceased, from the bruises which the unfortunate
man had received.
This was the case for the prosecution.
The prisoner. on being called upon for his defence,
said, that about 50 yards before he came up to the De-
fiance, he hauled in towards the turf, and kept, as well
as his best endeavours permitted, a line clear of the
other coach.
An unimportant legal objection was here taken to
the form of the indictment, which did not set forth that
the accident occurred on a highway, and some precedent
was tendered in support of this objection, which the
Lord Chief Justice rejected, observing, that there was
nonsense enough to be found in precedents. Another
objection was. taken to the absence of proof of the Sd
and 4th counts, which stated the Celerity to have been
drawn by two mares and two geldings. The first count
sins urged to be sufficient to send the case to the Jury;
but on examining that, it was found to contain an'
assertion of the name of the deceased being Strange, of
which there was no proof in evidence.
Lord Chief Justice Bear hese mentioned a singular
fict relating to the description of the mares and geld-
ings, the objection founded on which was. he feared,
fatal to the indictment, When Mr. Peel consulted the
Judges upon his Bills. he proposed a chusse which would
have swept away objections of this name. and (the
Lord Chief Justice) for one supported that clauses the
majority, however, of the Judges were against it ; and
Mr. Peal. acting upon a wise principle, preferred the
opinion of the larger number, who thought that the
clause would introduce too great a laxity in the form
of indictments.
The Counsel for the prosecution said they would ad-
duce evidence to supply the defect as to the description
of the animals drawing the coach. and the Court said it
would admit any evidence to dispel a technical objection.
Mr. Woodward, of the Star and Cartier, Andover, a
pals proprietor of the Celerity, was called; but !savior.
an immense number of horses in his stables, he was us-
able to tell the description of horses which his stable.
keeper supplied in this particular case.
The COURT repeated that the objection was fatal.—
'the Jury, however, manifested the greatest reluctance
to find a verdict in favour of technical law against the
apparent reason of the case.
Lord Chief Justice BEST at length informed them,
that these was no use in any verdict of conviction, for
the objection would be on record, and Gould not be
got over.
The Jury again, after considerable hesitation, found
verdict of Not Guilty of murder; but before they had
finished the sentence of their verdict, it was again ins-
pressed upon them, that they bad ne course but to ac-
quit on this indictment; to which recommendation they
at length reluctantly yielded, and returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
Lord Chief Justice Bear said, that as it appeared

the prisoner was only an occasional and onacetiaonsed
driver, he should not, in the event of conviction, have
punished him severely, although the blame of the pro.
prietors of coaches was greatly increased by their not
always having experienced and accustomed drivers.—
And he now gave this public notioe—that in every
future case in which a conviction followed a charge of
furious dtiving, he would, beyond all doubt, transport
for life the offender. It was most scandalous and in-
tolerable chat coach proprietors should, to gratify the
propensities of restless beings, who were never easy in
one spot, and who always wanted to be exuicated from
their present position, accelerate in this dangerous man-
ner the rate of stagecoach travelling, and sacrifice and
endanger the lives of his Majesty's subjects. He re-
peated his positive determination to *take a memorable
example upon conviction in such cases.
There was another indictment again .t the prisoner for
furl nu driving, but he traversed till neat Assizes, his
Counsel remarking that the paragraphs in the news-
papers of outrageous driving in this case had evidently
prejudiced their minds..
Lord Chief Justice Bur said, that with these para-
graphs he had nothing to do; if improper, the law
afforded the injured party a remedy. But in justifica-
tion of the apparent feelings of this Jury, he felt bound
in sly, that whether they saw the paragraphs or
not, the facts as disclosed in evidence would justify
any expression of their feelings, unless they were
made of different materials from what be could imagine.
the outrageous conduct of these coachmen. and their
motets iend become intolerable. In this case he was
ore Wag to believe that the accident had not been imam*,

tweak,/ to belicre that the
• •
•
•