The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-29 00:00:00

THE DRUID-COLLISION

Dr. Lushington delivered his judgment in this case. The
occurrenceprinciple ly hi
ni which
is mustandgovernother
courts—the e was
ruleon t,
and
devery d
doctriney
applied to cases of principal and agent, master and servant.
cas
The liability of a master for ignorance, neglect. or want of
honesty in the conduct of his servant, in the transaction of
the master's business within the proper scope of his employ-
ment, was a rule universally recognised, and was indeed, es-
sential to the protection of mankind in the transaction of their
affairs; but he would at the same time observe, that it ap-
peared difficult to define the meaning of the phrase " within
the scope of his employment." It had been contended that
fro such liability exists where the servant, though occupied in
the transaction of the affairs of his master generally, occa-
sions an injury to another party by his violent, wilful, and
malicious conduct. Before he resorted to authorities, it
would be satisfactory to consider upon what reasoning such
an exception could be founded, and how far it was consistent
with the principles of justice and public convenience, and
within what limits, if the exception existed, it ought to be
restrained. It was consistent with reason and natural jus-
tice that a man should be responsible for the skill, diligence,
and honesty of the agent he employs in the transactions of
his business, and whom he holds out to the world as fit to be
trusted : in effect, be may be said to contract with those with
whom he deals for the existence of these qualities in his agent,
Unless the principal were so responsible, the business of the
world could not go on; those who treated with an agent would
have no remedy, and all just confidence would be destroyed.
Those he apprehended to be the reasons on which the re-
sponsibility of principals for the acts of their agents rested.
But the present case was one of violence and wilful aggres-
sion, and was said to be distinguished, so far as the principle
is concerned from fraud. Why ? if the distinction existed,
there might be strong technical reasons as to forms of action;
but the solid distinction in point of justice was not at first so
apparent. It might be said that fraud and forgery occur in
the ordinary transactions of business, whereas force and
violence cannot be contemplated in the discharge of any
duty. This reasoning might be true, but it was not alto-
geeher satisfactory. The safer ground appeared to be that
such cases were cases of implied contract. Criminal respon-
sibility alone could not form the distinction it might occur
that the master of a ship would be criminally responsible,
and yet the owners liable for the damage ; or in the case of
a steamer going through a very crowded roadstead in a dark
night, occasioning collision, and destroying ship and crew ;
if so, in a case of general malice, in law the owners would
be responsible ; in a case of particular malice they would
not. Perhaps, however, there might be another reason ; it
might be said that to make principals responsible for the
wilful and malicious aggression of their agents, would be not
only to make them answerable for acts done out of the
scope of their employment, but expose principals to such
risks as might seriously impede the despatch of business,
and impose too severe a responsibility upon principals. If
he were to say what the principle is upon which the cases
went, it appeared to be this—that fraud may be incidental
to the employment of an agent—force never. All the cases
as to master and servant, principal and agent, were more
or less applicable to the present question, for they must all
proceed on common principles. In " Macmanus v. Crick-
it," 1 East, 105, the servant of the defendant wilfully drove
his chariot against the plaintiff's chaise, and the court
incidentally stated that the action would not lie. In
" Bowcher v. Noidstrom," 1 Taunton, it was held that a
master was not responsible for the acts of a seaman who wil-
fully injured another vessel, though the master was on board
at the time, and though it had been held at common law that
generally the master is responsible for the acts of his crew.
If the cases had rested here, notwithstanding the high autho-
rity of Lord Kenyon, in " Macmanus v. Crickitt," he should
have had considerable difficulty in understanding what the
doctrine of the common law was. But there was a much
more recent case, in 1838, that of " Lyons v. Martin," 8
Ad. and Ellis, in which a servant, authorised to distrain
cattle, drove a horse from the highway into his master's
close, and distrained it, the Court held that the master was
not responsible for this wilful act of his servant. He (Dr.
Lushington) understood that a case bad since been decided
in the Court of Exchequer in which the same doctrine had
been held, but it is not reported. There had been many
other cases with very nice distinctions—as that a master is
responsible for the negligence of a servant going out of the
way on his master's business, not if solely on business of his
own. It seemed, therefore, impossible to doubt that, at
common law, an action in this case could not be maintained
against the company which own the steam-tug ; and on the
principle laid down in " Lyon v. Martin," that the act of
the master was a wilful aggression. If such an action could
not be supported at common law, it could not be maintained
here; he must, therefore, dismiss the owners. He could
not, however, leave this case without expressing his deep re-
gret, that in British waters, within British jurisdiction, the
foreign master and owner of this vessel should be subjected
to this outrage and loss, and perhaps total ruin, not only
without redress, but without any punishment being inflicted
on the delinquent, who had so causelessly and wantonly oc-
casioned the damage. If the captain went without punish-
ment, and the foreign master and owner without redress, the
example must be of evil effect, and a discouragement to the
trade of foreigners with this country, afford a mischievous
precedent for like ill-treatment to British ships in foreign
ports, and be a transaction discreditable to British hospita-
lity and justice.

MELANCHOLY CASE OF POISONING.—A most__ tragical
occurrence took place on the 16th instant, at a small hamlet
within a few miles of Loughrea. It appears that at the
house of a labouring man named Walsh two or three poor
families resided together, at a place called Kylebrack ; that
on the above day, while her husband had been absent, the
wife of Walsh complained of a slight indisposition ; and on
the suggestion of his sister (a widow named Haigny, who
resided with them), some gruel was prepared, of which all
the inmates, seven in numher, had partaken. Shortly after-
wards the parties became alarmingly ill, and ere five hours
had elapsed, Walsh's wife, his son Michael, about three
years old, and his sister Haigny, had expired. Intimation
of the occurrence having been conveyed to Mr. C. Farrell,
justice of the peace, Dalystown, that gentleman immediately
proceeded to the spot, and had restoratives promptly admi-
nistered to the survivors—one of whom, the son of widow
Haigny, a lad about 11 years old, has since died. In the
course of the day an inquest was held on the bodies of the
ovva Friday.lsh
a
three first-named persons. Drs. Lynch and M`Donnell, of
)
Loughrea, attended and made a post mortem examination;
and in order to afford these gentlemen sufficient time to ana-
lyset
was deemed the contents of the stomachs, the inquest was adjourned
mys-
tery. The adjourned inquest took place yesterday before
ndTahwe whole affair is involved in the greatest rays_
it3l • T. Walsh, and from the circumstances that transpired,
do:dvisable to have the owner of the house
examination, as the given their opinion
as to the moret medical men had not
()man named Manion, committed for further
melancholy occasion.—
Galway Vindicator.
P°isin used on this

TILE ROEIIAMPTON MURDER

BOW-STREET POLICE-COURT—MoNDAY

RE-EXAMINATION OF MOLLY GOOD AND RICHARD
GAMBLE, CHARGED AS BEING ACCESSORIES AFTER

THE FACT TO THE MURDER OF JANE JONES

Monday morning having been appointed for the re-
examination of Molly Good and Richard Gamble on the
above charge, the neighbourhood of Bow-street was much
crowded. When the prisoners were brought to the court.
the most discordant yells and execrations broke forth, and
did not subside until the prisoners had been placed in
their cells.

Mr. Maule said it was his duty shortly to state the case
against the prisoners at the bar. They wer.-, charged with
being connected (after the fact) with the circumstances at-
tending the charge of murder, on which Daniel Good bad
been committed to Newgate—that they were accessories after
the fact—that knowing the offence with which Good was
charged, they received and harboured the offender, and as-
sisted in his escape for a short time. Perhaps, however, if
the evidence only went so far as to prove that they received
the stolen goods of the murdered woman knowing them to
be stolen, that would be sufficient in law to constitute them
accessories after the fact. Mr. Maule then referred to
the opinions laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone, and
continued—it would be necessary here to show that Daniel
Good was the offender, and then to prove the connection of
that person with the prisoners. He should prove that he
fled from Roehampton on the 6th of April, after the muti-
lated body was found, that he proceeded to the lodgings of
the deceased, and took away property belonging to her, that
he then went to the house of the prisoner Mary Good; that
they were seen together there disposing of the property of
the deceased, and he finally left her on the 9th of April.
With respect to Gamble, he should prove that he was seen
at the house of the female prisoner under circumstances the
most suspicious ; that be went at late hours of the night
without a bundle, and returned afterwards with bundles,
At the house of both prisoners property belonging to the de-
ceased had been found. He should also produce evidence as
to conversations which had been heard between the prison-
ers, which he thought would clearly prove that they were
cognisant of the offence which Good was charged with having
committed, and they had secreted him, and assisted him in
effecting his temporary escape. At all events, of this he (Mr.
Maule) was confident, that he should be able to establish
such a strong case of suspicion, that it would be the magis-
trate's duty to commit them for trial before that tribunal
which could alone finally decide their guilt or innocence.
Evidence was then produced to establish the truth of these
statements.
Mr. Pelham said, he wished to know how the Court in-
tended to deal with this case. He underatood that this wo-
man was the real wife of Good, and if so, then she could not
be charged with harbouring him. Ile believed if he had time
he could show that they were married in Ireland, as abundant
witnesses, he understood, might be called to prove it. So if
Mary Good was Good's wife, she could not be committed as
a receiver of stolen property. in consequence of having re-
ceived it from her husband. These were the two difficulties
he felt press upon him in this case.
Mr. Hall asked the male prisoner if he had anything to
say, and cautioned him against saving anything, as it would
be taken down and used against him at his trial.

The prisoner Gamble then remarked—" I have nothing to
say."

Mfr. Hall asked Mr. Manic what course he wished him to
pursue ?
Mr. Maule pointed out the conversations that had been
spoken to as having taken place between Gamble and the
female prisoner at the George and Guy, and between Mary
Good and the female at her own house, and with the potboy
at the Spotted Dog, which, he contended, showed that the
prisoners were aware of the commission of this offence. He
might rest his case upon the prisoners' own declarations ; but
what was the fact? The prisoners were proved to have been
at hide and seek—they both had property that belonged to
the deceased, which they concealed, and denied they had
possession of when questioned by the police. Now if he was
right in the inferences he drew, he thought there was abun-
dant evidence to 'put them on their trial as accessories after
the fact. On the other hand, if the magistrate thought the
evidence was not sufficiently strong to convict them upon
that charge, then he begged to direct the attention of the
Court to the fact of Good having feloniously possessed him-
self of Jane Jones's property after the murder, and that pro-
perty having been found in the prisoners' possession, was
enough to establish a prima facie case to put them on their
trial as receivers of stolen goods ; and it would then be for
them to give a satisfactory account of how they became pos-
sessed of them.
Mr. Hall said he had not heard the smallest evidence that
either Jane Jones, the deceased, or the female prisoner,
Mary Good, was the wife of Daniel Good, and therefore he
was not bound to deal with the prisoner in that character.
Then, with respect to the man Gamble, there was this strong
fact, that some gowns belonging to the deceased were found
under his bed, and one of them was proved to have been in
her possession the day before she disappeared. There were
also two shirts, which it had been clearly proved had been
entrusted to the deceased to wash. It therefore appeared to
be much more clear to his mind that he should commit him
as a receiver of stolen goods, and the solicitor for the prose-
cution might prefer any other indictment he thought proper.
With respect to Mary Good, the evidence against her was
much stronger as an accessory after the fact, because con-
versations of an important character had been overheard to
have taken place between her and other parties. She had been
traced to various places sleeping with Good, and the workboxes
belonging to the deceased had been sworn to by the little
boy as having been in the possession of the deceased, even
so late as Monday, the 4th inst., the day after the woman
was missed. This, to his mind, clearly established a case of
receiving stolen property against her, and therefore he should
'rider committing her on that charge, although the evidence
was of a very strong character against her as an accessory
after the murder. However, Mr. Maule might prefer an
indictment against her for that offence as well as for the
one upon which she was committed, if he so pleased. They
are, concluded the worthy magistrate, therefore both com-
mitted for trial as receivers.Of stolen property.
The voluminous depositions having been read over, the
prisoners were removed in the van to Newgate, amidst the
loud execrations of a dense mob.
The examination did not conclude till half-past five
o'clock.