Star.
London, England, 1829-07-11 00:00:00

LAW IN rELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 10.

THE MILE-END UNION.
THE KING V. LANGTON, POOLE, AND BULL.

This was an indictment char ging the defendant,
Langton, who is Surveyor of the Highways in the
Hamlet of Mile-end Old town; James Poole, laboarer,
and Mr. Thomas Bull, a bricklayer, in Finsbury-square,
with conspiring to defraud the inhabitants of the said
hamlet, in the sale of .1 quantity of gravel.
Mr. BRODRICK was Counsel for the prosecution, and
the ATTORNZT GIiNICRAL fur the defendants.

It appeared that a club is formed in the hamlet of
Mile-end, called the Union, which purports to be an li
association for the protection of the parishioners against;
frauds and abuses. The Socit-ty have brought several
actions against out-going parish officers, in most of
which they have failed. The present prosecution was
the result of a parish meeting, and it was also unsoc-1
cessful. The facts were these:—A Mr. John Poole was
employed in October, 1827, to excavate a sewer in Sun
Tavern-fields, Mile-end, and a quantity of gravel was
thrown up at the back of the Robarts Arms. It was
laid on the ground by permission, and was to be re-
moved immediately, Mr. Robarts having threatened to
bring an action if it was not taken off his premises.
Poole commissioned his brother, the defendant, who
was in his employ, to sell it cheap. It was worth 301.,
in the estimation of the owner, but he allowed it to be
sold for 251. James Poole, the defendant, sold it to
Bull for 191. and Bull afterwards sold the whole, con-
sisting of 195 loads, to Langton, the surveyor, for 581.1
The charge was six shillings per load, and the parish
were made debtor in the surveyor's accounts to that
amount. Tnis transaction was the subject of much ob-
servation in the parish. It was considered a job, made
up by conspiracy and collusion, and an attempt to make
the parish pay 581. for gravel which cost but 191.
Several witnesses were called for the prosecution.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, at the conclusion of Mr.
Brodrick's case, submitted that no proof had been of-
fered to support the indictment.
Lord TENTERDEN did not wish to stop the cause in
that state of the proceedings.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL then addressed the Jury,
and expressed a hope that they would not convict per.
sons who had been hooked under an indictment for
conspiracy upon bare suspicion, which was a ground
for inquiry, but not conviction. He should prove that
the gravel bad been bought cheaper than any purchased
the same year for the parish. Mr. Langton knew no-
thing of the price given for it by Bull, and was altoge-
ther free from any corrupt bargain. Pdole, the brother
of the defendant, being called, said he had never seen
Langton. He was compelled to let his brother sell the,
gravel too cheap, because it could not remain.
Mr. Gardner, the proprietor of gravel-pits in the
Hamlet of Mile• End, stated that he had sold gravel to
the parish many years. In some instances be had sold
it for seven shillings a load. He considered six shillings
a load a f4ir price.
Lord TENTERDEN here stopped the proceedings, and
said he thought the evidence would not support the in-
dictment. It was not a question whether an impro-
vident bargain bad been made, bet whether the de-
fendants had made no bargain at all? Unless the Jury
could believe they had corruptly conspired to defraud
the parish by charging 581. upon a pretended contract
the defendants must be acquitted.'
The Jury, without hesitation, pronounced all the de-
fendants Net