The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-02-21 00:00:00

LAW INTRLLIGENCE.
COURTOP KING'S BENCH, Fee. 20.
THE 11110 D. DANIEL CLOUGH.
An indictment spies, the Defendant, as Over-.
seer of the Poor of St. Mary; Bow, for a neglect
of duty. The facts are detailed by the following
witnesses :
Elizabeth Clack, a single womat4 deposed, that
on the 24th of September last she was pregnant, and
being very near her time of delivery, she went late her
parish of St. Mary, How, and applied to the mis-
tress of the workhouse, about 10 o'clock in the morn.
ing, who referred her to the Overseer of the Poor,
the Defendant. Nut being able then to go farther,
she remained at the door of Pasman, the constable
of the paeish, until Defendant was brought to her.
He asked her why she claimed that parish, and what
was the matter with her. The-causes being explained,
lie enquired of the witness why she did not fall trou-
blesome in the parish of St. George, Southwark,
where she had slept the night before. He told her
she must go back again, and being answered that she
was not able, as her labour had already begun, he
said it was deception. The witness requested him
to send for a surgeon ; but he observed that be would
have nothing to do with her, she most go back. The
witness said that she must go to a sorgeon, if he would
not believe her. She went with difficulty to an apatite-
cary's near, Mr. Fairhead, who refused to interfere, as
he was not the parish apothecary. He referred her to
Xr. Wallis, a surgeon, over the way. She went
there, and enquiring for him, a young lad said that he
wai not to be spoken with ; bet a boy was sent to
Clough's to learn why, he refused to receive the wit.
mess into the workhouse as a Parishioner. The an-
swer was, that he would have nothing to say to her.
The witness begged again to see the surgeon, but
could not. She then endeavoured to go to Mr.
Cooper's, where she bed lived, and gained a settle-
Dent by living in service two years, but was enable,
and remained lying upon the grass for nearly two
hours. Afterwards she went back to the constable's,
and saw his wife, but could obtain no relief. She
again called upon Mr. Wallis, and from thence went
to Clough's,w here she was told that he was gone out,
sod they did not know when lie would return. She
was afraid to remain in the street, lest she should be
delivered. She had a brother who lived just over
Row-bridge, and in great pain she got there, and
piing to bed almost directly, she was delivered at about
if O'clock at night : her brother's house was in the
ptrish of Westham, and there she had been main-
tained ever since, having latterly been taken into the
workhouse.
Cross-examined.—This happened on the 24th of
September : on the 22d she had been in place in Lon-
den, and had not been turned away on account of her
pregnancy, as her mistress did not know of it. She
had gained the settlement in Bow about four years
before. The Defendant asked why she did not bring
'with her en order from some Justice. She told the
Defendant that the pains of labour were upon her,
and she wanted instant aid, in the presence of Pax.
man, the constable: she told Mr. Fairhead that she
was on the point of being delivered.
Mary Clack, sister-in.law to the witness, con-
firmed part of her testimony : when she came to the
house of the witness, Eliz. Clack did not confess
that she was in labour
Mary Golf was called in about ten at night to
Elizabeth Clack, and finding her in great extremity,
procured a midwife: she also went to Clough next
morning, who said he would dome in half an hour:'
he did 'lot come, and when he called upon her two
hours afterwards, lie said, 64 Good woman, I have
twilling to do with it, you must apply to the Strat-
ford officers." As the youiig woman had no aid, some.
}lance, nor money, the witness supplied what was in
her power.
More nitnesses were about to be called for the
prosecution, when
Lord ELLENBORouun put it to Mr. Gurney, for
the Defendant, whether he was in a condition to
meet, at least, the latter part of the shove case?—
Supposing it admitted doubt, whether, when the De-
fendant first saw her, she was actually in the pains
of labour, or even whether she was pregnant, yet
the last witness spoke to a distinct refusal on his part
next morning to give any assistance.
Mr. GURNEY replied, that he was prepared with
evidence to show that Elizabeth Clack, when first
seen by the Defendant and by Fairhead, did not
state that she was in the' pains of labour, but merely
that she wag pregnant: as to the subsequent appli-
cation by Mary Goff, it was to be observed that the
pauper was at that time actually in the palish of
Westham.
Lord ELLEstsottoonn observed, that the Defendant
had done away with that objection, as lie consented to
come, but failed. His Lordship would not use a
harsher term than that he first repulsed the young
woman from the work-house door, althoegli he was
bound to have given her relief as casual poor, sup.
posing it not to be her parish; the second refusal
was certainly a neglect of duty, as the Overseer was
then aware that his suspicions that the young woman
was an impostor were not confirmed. If a verdict
of guilty were recorded, it would be for the Court
on a future day to consider of the mitigating circum-

stances.
Mr. GURNEY, after some hesitation, consented
that his Client should be convicted, Lord Ellenbo.
rough leaving the question to the Jury, whether at
the time Elizabeth Clack was seen by the Defendant
gm the morning of the 24th September, she was in
such a state ns to require the Defendant, in the eze-
cteionnf hii duty, to makeenquiry whether she stood
in need of assistance?
The Jury instantly decided in the affirmative, and
• verdict of Guilty was entered against the Defendant.
TILE KING 17. JONES.
Mr. RAINE stated the case for the prosecution,
which, he said, was aggravated, inastnuch as the
assault had been committed by the Defendant mlcr
pretence of his office, as constable of the parish of
Shereditch.
• !Sir. Gower,:ttite Prosecutor, a coach-maker in the
Citpeoad, related the facts as follo*s :-:--Ott the
14th of October 11.4, he was returning home with his
:wife, and. saw the Defendant dragging two respect.
able lookieg females in a most shameful manner: th
witness remonstrated, but in vain ; and a won&
.time .interfering, the Defendant struck the nitoesi
t.everal times with-his staff; seised him by the collar,