The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-03-27 00:00:00

•
• .
•
•
••.. •
• •
•

.

• 4‘3,
•M tiMAIDSTONIi. 25.
•
• • CROWN-SIMI.
DEPORR MR. NAND,, WOOD. •
Williams Holgossass was indicted for having fan-
'Mostly peresiested the name of Gee Hugh Campbell,
a potty ofietir on board the brig Maria, who was en-
titled to certain prise-money for Ids services oo board
that ship, end with having falsely forged and coin-
torfeited a certain certidatte- of service of the said
Thigh Campbell, and uttered the same as tree, with
aintesst to defraud the Costmissioners and Governors
a the Hospital for Scanlan at Greenwich.
It *as proved by Mr. Richard Smith, Clerk of the
Cheque-office at Greenwich Hospital, that on the
13th of AMgest last, the Primer came to thi office,
and statist his Ram* to be Bosh Campbell, born in
Vootteeed; demanded a sem for peisimuoney, bet did
• Iltet vi9Wtbn ainount. 'olPilm Prisoner had called on
'ffim 9th ol'Aegest, font days provisos I. chi present
' application, and bad on that occasion pretested a
certificate tea jointer clerk is the office. Witness
'field the Prisoner that be had new* be think that his
"Same wait not Hugh Campbell; the. Ptisweer stiff
-011ititeted thee it was, bet was Illtilltatlar token It
-IMelody 000 of the constables Woggle' to I
establishment. The Prisoner, .seeing that the deceit l
14as detected, confessed that hie name was not Hugh
• laambell, and that be was instigated to do the act by
man of the name of Shipley, who had stated him-
belf to he the brother of Hugh Campbell, and that he
- twee asthorieed to receive the money for bile. The
Prisoner also stated that Shipley had offered to give;
bitw2l. upon the receipt of the money. ,
It was subsequently proved, that the prise taken
• ),was the " El Dor do Mayo," by the Maria, on Ask
-.Bth of November, 1813; Mesh Campbell being at.
- that time on board the ship. The certificate was dee
k proved to be a forgery in every respect.
I The Prisoner being called upon for his defeat*, re.i.
• ..rated that he bad been instigated to do the act by
Shipley, who was now indicted at the Assizes fora
similar offence, under the name of William Shipley,
• Cressy:ell.
.74 The Jury found a verdict Guilly, bet the Prisonei;
• coires recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor be-
-1111Miag his defence to be tree.
CIVIL SIPE.
• NEVORE MR. aAaom GNAHAII.
- In consequence of the great number of carnivals
- for trial off the Crown side, all the Special Juries',
.0.-seven in number, have been postponed until the nest
„Assize. ; and after Thursday, Mr. .Baron GRAILAIS'
•
1• has eiven notice he should proceed to the tail of'
_ 'criminate in the Upper Court, it being reqeisite that
, the Assizes should terminate *9 a-specific day, tud
that it,. jail of the county should be delivered.
There was no trial of peculiar importance during
..:4be whole of the day. The following is the only
▪ trial of any consequence
HILTON AND OTHERS a. SALDOCIE.
• This was an action epon a hill of exchange, drawn
by Messrs. Burton and Mathews, and accepted by
• the Defendant, to the amount of 471. 13s. 6d. given
for flour delivered. The Plaintiffs are assignees on-
., ,der a commission of bankruptcy issued against Messrs.
Berton and Mathews, who warn formerly millers,
. 'residing at Faversham, and the Defendant was the
acceptor of the bill. •
The defence set up to the action was, that no deli-
very of the flour took place, and that the bill having
been given under that idea, the Defendant was not
answerable for the acceptance. It appeared that Mr.
Bakinck had been induced to accept the bill for a Mr.
Diprnse, a baker, residing at Faversham. whose
. credit was completely gone, and whom the Defend.
ant Ices snails's to set op in business. It also came
out in evidence, that Mr. Diprose was now confined
as a prisoner in Dover Castle, for a debt of 1001.,
owing to Messrs. Burton and Mathews, and that the
~ bill in guest i-m bad been drawn by these millers the
- ,i:sreey day previous to their Where, and had obtained
fie signature of the Defendant under the promise of
fending 10 sacks of flour to Diprose, which stipula-
tion was never performed.
A verdict was-found for the Defendant without be-
. eitation.
NECHINOTON V.RODLE AND OTHERS.
This was an action of assaolt,and false imprison-
. went against the Overeeer of the Parish of Plumsted,
the Constable of the same parish, and another person,
for taking a young woman before a Magistrate, and
compelling her to leave the parish.
The father and mother of the Plaintiff were use.
mined, who stated, that their daughter lived with
them, and gained her tieing by honest industry, and
that neither she nor any of.the family had been
chargeable to the parish: Notwithstanding this, one
morning in July last, as she was going out early to
▪ work, the Defendants lay in weft for her, and seis-
leg her, said she roust go with thim.. ;She said she
„bad done no wrong, stoat she .1114.110141111D-CObblnl nor
~ murdered any one. They. believer persisted in tak-,
ing her away, and carried her before a Magistrate,
who dismissed her upon her promise to leave the pg,
rish and go to West Hans, in laaez, where she was
, .. nettled.
; ,„ „kir. MAIRTAT, for MO UNNIRMIaatI, Stated, that
the parish officers were legally imelfifled in what they
,bad done sander the circumstances of the ease. The
Plaintiff had been pregnant of a bastard child, which
. was likely to become Chargeable to the perish, and
• ~.the officers of Plumsted had regularly removed her
ti her place of settigasent at West Ham, in Ewes,
. where she was brought to bed. By the Statute of 17
pe o commonlp Called the Vagrant Act, amongst
other kt;ings it was enacted, that when a person had
t„sbeen regularly removed, if they unlawfully came
back to the perish from which they had been remise-
: ed, they were thereby declared to hive committed an
-"act of vagrancy, end were liable to be punished as a
vagrant. The Plaintiff, after her removal, did' come
• •heck to Plumsted, and the parish officers, finding
' • that she 'bad renewed her old practices, land might
. again endanger the parish to the charge of a bastard,
' took her op wader this clause of the Act ; but being
unwilling 110 deal harshly with her, they lit hers%
upon her promise to depart the 'parish.
The former removal being proved,
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT, in his reply, mmelended
I. her return to her parents was not an uniawfolerietern,
and commented on the oppression of the parish oil-
ewe with considerable severity. •
The Jury Need for the Plaintiff—Damages 51.

•