Star.
London, England, 1819-07-30 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

CHELMSFORD, JULY 48.
SPRING GUYS.--,ILOT R. WILKES, !IQ.
This was an action against the defeneaat, the pre-
sent High Sheriff of Essex, by the plaintiff, the son
of a respectable farther, in the parish of glmdon, hi
this county, to recover a compensation in damages
fur an injury sustained by the explosion *of a spring<
gun, alleged to he unlawfully set in the defendant's
close, called Chrishall Park Wood. The declaration
averred a right of way over the grounds. in question.
and that the defendant had unlawfully set spring
guns thereon, loaded with .powder and shot, without
sullijent notice ttereof, in consequenceof which the
plaintiff trod upon one of the wires of the. skid gtins,
which exploded and wounded the plaintiff in the leg,
whereby he had sustained great bodily pain and in-
jury. There were seven counts in, the declaration,
alleging the grievance in various ways, to all of which
the defendant pleaded the general issue.
Tiiis was a case which excited universal interest,
.particularly amongst the preservers of. Fame.
Mr. Anot,rtit:s stated the plaintiff s case to the
Jury. After some preliminary observations upon
the importance of the case, brought now under con-
sideration, he s tid, that it involved the question,
whether, in a Christian community, a man might as-
sume to himself the ri,ent of dealing out death and
destruction to any of the King's subjects, who, from
accident or design, might be deemed trespassers of
his land ? The Learned Counsel was projeeding to
state what he conceived to be the law of the case, when
Mr. Baron Clannow interposed, and said, he con-
ceived it unnecessary in this place to enter into any
d..itail.l discussion upon the law of the case, because
deemed it to be a matter not likely to rest here,
whatever might be his direction to the Jury upon
the subject. The better course 'therefore to be
adopted, was to confine the attention of the Jury to
the facts, and leave the law to more deliberate dis
cussion elsewhere. He thought it necessary, how-
ever, to state, in the onset, that he should charge the
Jury in point of law, that neither the
_defendant, nor
any other person, had a right to set spring guns, or any
other deadly weapons, in his grounds, more espe•
cially in grounds where a common right of way was
claimed and exercised by the King's subjects. The
question involved in this case had occupied a good
deal of the attention of the Judges in Westminster
Hall, and had been fully discussed in a late case in
khe Court of Common Pleas, in which Sir V. Gibb;,
Chief Justice, and the present Chief Justice, Sir Ro-
bert Dallas, were of opinion in favour of the right to
set dog spears in private grounds. The other Learned
Judge's cf the Court, Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Jus-
tice Burroughs, were of a contrary opinion, and con-
sequently no judgment was given in that case. His
Lord;hip, however, confessed his entire concurrence
in the law laid down by the latter Judges, and in
conformity with that opinion he should rule in the
present case against the defendant in point of law.
It was undouteedly A question of vital importance,
and supposing the Jury should find their verdict
against the deter.dant, the question might be discussed
in any shape the parties should chuse, in order that
it might be brought to the most solemn and most.de-
liberateadjudication.

• Mr. ApoLem:fa, abstaining from any detailed ob-
servations upon the law of the case, proceeded to
state the facts, which were proved in evidence as fol-
lows :—On the 12th of September, 1819, in the after-
noon, about three o'clock, the plaintiff and two other
young men, inhabitants of Elmdon parish, agreed to
go together to get nuts in Chrishall Wood, the pro-
perty of the defendant. The plaintiff and one of his
companions entered the wood by a cart-way leading
into it, by a shifting bar. They left the cart-way
about nine or ten rods, and whilst the plaintiff was
reaching at a bunch of nuts he trod upon the wire of
a spring gun, which immediately went off, and a
great part of its contents, consisting of
.No. 4 shot,
lodged in his leg. He fell against a tree, bled pro-
fusely, and in a mangled state he was conveyed to
his father's house, where he was confined to hii'bed
for about a month, and was not able to do any work
until the December following. It appeared that there
had formerly been a path through Chrishall Wood,
but which had since been stopt up by the defendant's
orders; that eight or nine bell-muzzle spring-guns
were set in the wood loaded, night and day, cf which
notice was stuck up in three places, not conspicuous,
on the outside of the park, in the following words :
" Men traps and Spring-guns are positively set in this
wood—John Wilkes." The wood was of considera-
ble extent,•being about sixty acres.
On the cross-examination of the plaintiff's wit-
nesses, it appeared that the plaintiff was aware that
spring-guns were set in the defendant's grounds, and
had been cautioned by his mother and others to be
careful how he went into the wood in question.
Mr. Lynn, the surgeon, of Parliament-street, who
happened to be subpoenaed in another cause, gave it
as his opinion that the plaintiff might for the remain-
der of his days be affected, more or less, ley the inju-
ries he had received from the accident. There were
now a great many shots in his leg. The plaintiff's
case being closed,
Mr. Ma RICZA rr addressed the Jury on behalf of
the defendant, and professing his unwillingness to
enter into the general question of law, for the reason
already alluded to, contended, that there were three
questions raised for their consideration upon the evi-
dence adduced by the plaintiff; first, whether there
was, in point of fact, a footpath in the wood in
question; second, whether the plaintiff at the time
of the accident was in the fair eiercise of any right
of foot-path ; and third, whether he had not had,
sufficient notice of spring-guns hating been set in 1:
the grounds to warn him of his danger? If the
Jury should find all these questions in the affirmative,
he submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to ex-,
tremely moderate damages.
Mr. Baron GA RROW charged the Jury in point of
law in the way announced in the beginning of the
case, and upon the subject of damages ; he was of
opinion that•they ought rot to deal them out with
a niggardly hand.
The Jury, after considering the case a few mi-
nutes, found for the plaintiff—Damages, £5O: and,
it was agreed that the defendant should have liberty
to move to enter a nonsuit ; and if the Court above
should be of opinion that the case ought to be turn-
ed into a special verdict, the plaintiff was to hate,
liberty so to do.
James Tuck, the person who was tried and ac-.

•
•
quitted two years ago at the Old Bailey, for the
murder of a man at Enfield, by throwiug him into
a welteat the back of the publie•bouse occupied by
the prisoner, was indicted foe stealing a chest of
Alleges from, a waggon, in the parish of Epping,
9n the 2€.ld of April last.
There were some circumstances of doubt in the
' case, and the Jury found the prisoner Not
Maria Peacock, a girl about twenty years of age,
was capitally convicted of, a burglary iu the dwel-
ling-house of John Waterman. in the pariah of Hat-1
field Broadoak, on the lath of May, in the day-time,
noon being therein.
This being the second time the prisoner was con-
victed of the like offence, the Learned Judge, in
passing sentence of death, held out but small hopes
of mercy.

Mr. justice PARK fined a javelin-man in the sum
of £5. for presuming to take sixpence for the admis-
sion of a spectator into the Court ; and, after being.
in custody for the whole day, ;he Learned Judge
kindly consented to remit the fine, upon the offen-
der's expressing his contrition, and be was discharged
after a suitable admonition.