The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-11 00:00:00

THE ETAT]

t

+ .. ..

..,

COURT OF CHANCERY, N0v..10.
BOSSY C. SID •. WOOD.
In this came, after a long hearing, it was agreed between
the parties tbat the 36,0001. should be paid into Court,
and upon its payment that the writ ne (seat regno, should
be discharged. The Plaintiff and the Sheriff were to b
allowed their costs.

00URLAI o. THE Ht7El OE SOMERB27.
Mr. HART now produced the papers required by his Lord-
ship, and stated that all observations bad been extracted
from them.
Mr. (bulgy then rose up, and began reading a written
speech.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said he would not bear him.
—He would have the papers produced which he bad re•
quired.
Mr. Gonda), then read a List of Papers be had to pro-
duce, and handed them into Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Firnerimerrsa, Nov.lo.
Mr. James Stamp Sutton Cooke, whose proceedings in
Staffordshire and elsewhere have obtained for him so much
notoriety, appeared in Court, and pleaded to the indict-
ment for conspiracy, preferred spina him and others,
by Sir G. Jerninghsm. The indictment will be tried at
the next Stafford Assizes.

CLARK V. Tat aIiNDRED Oa aLTTIRING.
This was an action on the Riot 'Act, 9 Geo. 1. e. 22.
against the inhabitants of the Hundred of Blything, to re.
cover a loss occasioned by the felonious &log of a quan-
tity of cont. The action was brought by the Directors of
s Fire Office, in the name of the party injured, to whom the
Office had paid the amount of the loss. At the trial, before
Mr. Sergeant Doiiaoquet, on the last Norfolk Circuit, the
plaintiffs recovered a verdict'.
Mr. STORKS now moved for a rule Nisi,to enter a nonseit,
and contended that the action was not maintainable by the
Office, in the name of the assured against the Hundred,
inumisch as there was no continuing damage at the time
of action brought. He referred to the !saguaro of the
Riot Act, and cited several cases in support of his argn-
went.
The COURT, referring to a ease 'of Mason v. Sainsbury,
decided many years ago, held that the action was maintaio-
able in the name only of the party who sustained the proxi-
mate injury, and could not have been supported by the Fire
Office itself. Looking to the policy of the Riot Act, there
was on ground for supporting the present motion.—Rule
refused.

FREEMAN •. •RILLL.
This was an action on the case for a maiiciotts prosecu-
tion for an assault and battery. At the last Assizes for the
county of Gloucester, before Mr. Justice Park, the plaintiff
was nonsnited.
Mr. PEARSON now moved to set aside the nonsuit, and
for a now trial, on the grand, that the Learned Judge
had improperly rejected evidence necessary to the support
of the plaintiff's action. There had been a dispute between
the parties as to the assumption of a right of way through
a field of the plaintiff. The defendant had made a path
through a close of the plaintiff, after the latter had
retailed permission so to do; in consequence of which the
plaintiff ploughed it up. For this the defendant summoned
the plaintiff before Dr. Timbrel, a Justice of the Peace,
who convicted him in a penalty under the late malicious
Trespass Act. The plaintiff refused to pay the penalty,
and app►aled to the Sessions. The plaintiff beioi after-
wards pressed by the defendant to pay the penalty, the
former demanded a copy of the conviction, w hies was
given him, but was afterwards claimed again by the
defendant, which, after some struggle, was refused. It
was alleged that the defendant then indicted the plaintiff
for an assault, in forcibly taking away the copy of the
conviction. A complaint had been made to Dr. Timbrel
and the Rev. Mr. Eason of the assault, who committed
the plaintiff to the County Gaol for want of bail, where
be was confined for five days, and then gave bail until
the neat Sessions. At the following Sessions the defend-
ant indicted the plaintiff for a common assault, when the
bill was thrown out. At the trial it became necessary to
prove the proceeding preliminary to the indictment, and
evidence was offered to *hew that the defendant's inform-
ation before the Justices could not be found after &diligent
search. Secondary evidence of the contents of the in.
formation was then offered, but this the Learned Judge
rejected, holding it inadmissible. He also rejected evi-
dence of the warrant of commitment,and in these particulars
it was alleged that the Learned Judge had acted erro•
neously.—The Court, under the circuoutances stated.
granted a rule to show cause.

IRE KINO V. RYAN L.VD OMR*.
This was an indictment against the defendants for a conspi-
racy to defeat a judgment obtained by a Mr. Gaythorne, in
the Court of Common Picas; slalom a Mr. Bryant, for an as-
sault, by conspiring to execute a fictitious mortgage of certain
leasehold property belonging to the latter. At the trial before
Mr. Justice BURROW:in, at the last Assizes for the County and
City of Bristol, the defendants were found guilty.
Mr. Sergeant PELL now moved fora rale to shew cause why
there should lot be ► new trial granted, on the ground that the
verdict was against evidence. or at least that it was founded
upon evidence unworthy of belief.
The COURT, after hearing a statement of the circumstances
of the case, said they would consult the Learned Judge who
presided at the trial. wh,ther he was satisfied with the ver-
dict. The matter was therefore ordered to stand over for that

purpose.
About three o'clock the new Lord Mayor, Waithnsan, at-
tended by the Ex-Lord Mayor, Heygate, Mr. Alderman
Wood, the Sheriffs, &c. and the Reeorder,canse into this Court
in the usual state, to deliver in his Warrant of Attorney, which
was ordered to be enrolled. The Recorder then said, he was
commanded by the Right lion. toe Lord Mayor to request the
honour of the Judges company to dinner at thelluildhall, at
Ate o'clock.--Bows were interchanged, and the procession
withdrew.
COURT OF COSIMuN PLEAS, Nov. 10.
LATE FIRE IN WATLING STREET.
THEETILL e. BEAUSI INT‘ ESQ.

. .
Mr. Sergeant TAROT said, he rose to 1110113 that the ver•
diet which bad been given in this case should be set
aside. It was an action on a policy of insuraoco brought
by a person named Thomas *lhurtell, agaiest Mi. Barber
Beaumont, the Managing Director of the County Fire
Office, to recover the sum of 2,0001. the value of property
insured at that Office, and alleged to have been destroyed
by fire. It appeared that in the month of December,
1822, the plaintiff had effected an insurance for the above
sum on property deposited in a house Nn. 19, in Watling
Street, and very shortly after, io the month of January.
the premises were destroyed by fire. The part of the
house occupied by the plaintiff, was the lost floor, in
which the goods were said to be deposited, and which
communicated by a staircase with another floor belong-
ing
to a wine merchant. When the money for which the
goods bad been insured was demanded, the defeadaet I
resisted payment on the ground that the house had
been siren redly set on foe. An action was then brought,
which was tried last stormier hrfore Mr. Justice Park, and
the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages
to the amount of Milt. l'he liist witness on the trial
was Jcilin Thur ell, brother to the plaintiff. This i arson
said he hail carried on business at Norwich, that he
had failed, was made a bir:l-no. and bad not got a certi6.l
rate. lie said his tiro:her Thomas had taken a public
house in the Haymarket, where be failed; and that he
afterwards employed the witness, John Thurtell, to buy
job goods for him: which were sent to and depo-
sited in the warehouse lie hail taken in ll'atling• Street.
—The account which John Thurtell gave of the i
tire was this: That on the Saturday evening 1
before the tire broke out he was the last person in the
warehouse; .that there was a tire in the grate, Okla be
nearly put out before he went away ; that lie extinguished'
the candle by turning it down in the socket ; that the

AN

•-• •

warehooseman went away from the premises before bins ;
wad that be left them himself &little after five o'clock in
the evening I that he afterwards went to the opera, where
he stayed until the performance was over ; that from the
opera, he went to a place, called the Saloon, Piccadilly ;
that he remained there a considerable time with' a Mr.
llosor; that when they left that house they walked to the
Horse Guards—it was then five in the morning—they heard
tbe Horse Guards' clock strike that hour. J. Tburtell
theu went along tbe Strand and Fleet Street; when he got
to the end of Fleet Street be did not go to the w4rehoo• e.
but went along Thames Street to Garlick Hill, to sleep
with a woman who lived there, and with whom he cohabited.
He bad been in the habit of sleeping there fbr a month be-
fore. The woman swore that be arrived about a quarter
before five on the Sunday morning. He swore that the
value of the goods brought into the warehouse, just before
the tire took place, amounted to 20001. The warehouse-
man valued the goods at 25001. A man named Snowden
was another witness in support of the action. Thii man
swore to the delivery of various parcels of goods at the
warehouse, which bad been sent from Leeds and other
places. A similar testimony was given by other witnesses.
The only person who slept on the premises that night was
a man named Wilkinson, tbe servant of Mr, Penny, who
occupied the lower floor of the house. lie said he had
been called up at five o'clock by the watchman, whose box
was directly opposite, and who first saw the fire break out.
On the alarm belag given, Wilkinson ran out and said there
I was no fire, as he could not see any in the warehouse on
the ground floor. The fire, however, was burning ots thr
the first floor, and several casks of liqpor, and other pro-
perty, belonging to Mr. Penny, were got out. Wilkinson
trial to get into the first fluor, but could not ; he then
broke a panne!, and saw a staircase on fire. This staircase
was lighted by a side window, which at that time was shut
up, so that a person in the yard, next the window, could
not see the fire. If it had not been shut up. Wilkinson
must have seen the fire through this window. On the cross
examination of John 'Martell, be was asked whether he
ever had talked with any body abo4t setting a house on
tire, and he swore he had not. Hut on behalf of the de-
fendant, a waiter was called, who said that some time
before this Thurtell had asked him if he would take a
house, insure it, take in goads, then remove them away.
and set the house on fire ; hat
_this parson refused to be
concerned in such a business. It also appeared on the
trial, that about this time Thom,* Thurtell, who repre-
sented himself as having property in the warehouse to the
amount of 20001. was trying to take the benefit of the In-
solvent Act ; that be had been in custody at the suit of
his brother John, for the sum of 171.; that he was coin-
witted to prison in February, 1823, and was in the rules ;
that in March, he sent in s petition to the Insolvent Deb-
tors' Court, in which he stat-11 his debts at4oool. ; and that
he had no more property then 101. worth. 'lbis petition
he afterwards withdrew, and declined takinethe benefit of
tbe Act. A man, named Joy, had said that there were
persons at Norwich who were ready to aceemmoda'e
Thomas Thurtell null) suon(,•, and had advanced Winfield'.
Probably it was with this run that be paid for the public
house in the Haymarket. When the learned Judge gave
his charge to the Jury, after the evidence was gone
through, he told them they must be as well satisfied that
the plaintiff had done the act imputed to laim by the de-
fendant as if they were trying him for his life, before they
rejected his demand, and that they must he warranted in
saying, that John Thurtell was gnilty of setting the house
en fire, so that if they gave a verdict for defendAtt, the
latter should feel it his ditty to prosecute him. In this
I direction he (Sergeant Teddy) begged leave to differ from
the Learned Judge, whose duty it was not to consider whe-
ther the evidence was so cogent as to subject the party to a
prosecution. There was no issue whether the plaintiff had
or had not been guilty of arson ; for the house might have
been set OD fire through gross negligence; and that would
defeat the claim of the plaintiff, though it could not sub-
ject him to a prosecution.
Mr. Justice PARS observed that the defence iu this ease
was, that the house bad been purposely set on fire; he
therefore told the Jury that if such defence was made, a
felony toilet have been committed, and that it was their
duty to ascertain that fact. The watchman said be bad
been up all night, that he never fell asleep, sod that if any
person had gone out or come in be must have seen him.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY proceeded. A Judge ought not to
have charged a Jury is if be was trying an indictment.
The next morning when Thurtell heard of the fire, he ex-
pressed no surprise at it. Having already stated the
grounds on which he moved for a new trial, the Learned
Sergeant said that some other facts of a very extraordinary
nature bad came to light since the trial. which he should
now disclose. He had the affidavit of a man named
111ddlesworth, clerk to Messrs. Hargrave and Co., who
swore that in the month of December 182?., just after the
Insurance was effected, a man noosed Snowden had been
selling goods belonging to Thurtell 20 per cent. below
their value, and that be was informed the two brothers
were playing • deep game. The same deponent did not
suspect what the object of the parties was in selling . their
goods in that way until he read the report of, the trial in
the newspapers. Deponent, whose afh.lavit is dated Oct.
10, said the goods brought by Snowden to the warehouse
of Messrs. Hargrave and Co. corresponded with those set
forth in the invoices that accompanied the goods sent to
Thurteil's warehouse. The next affidavit was that of a
person named Joseph Hunt., and was made in consequence
of transactions which bad recently occurred. Hoot, who
is now a prisoner in Hertford gaol, swore that,in a con-
versation he had with John Thurtell about the fire, the
latter told Lira (Hunt) tbat he knew the exact time when
the fire would break out, because be had placed a certain
light in such a situation, that at the end of a given period
it would set the place OD fire: These facts were stated by
Hunt after his examination before the Coroner. It ap-
peared by Mr. lleaumont's affidavit that the Grand Jury
bad lately found a bill against Snowden, the Thnrtell's,
and another, for a conspiracy to defraud the insurance
office.
Mr. Justice Pane said the finding of a bill of that kind
would not be a sufficient ground for granting a new trial. An
application had once been made to the Court of King's Bench
for a new trial, on the ground that an indictment for perjury
had been found against a witness, but was rejected by Lord
Mansfield, who said that to grant anew trial on such ground,
would be the most mischievous thing in the world ; for then
there would be no end to indictments for perjury. There was
a similar instance in which Lord Ellenhorough rejected an
application to stay execution. He said it was a most danger-
ous experiment, and ordered the rule to be discharged with
costs.
The Lord Chief Justice DALLAS—There was a recent case,
where it was held that even a conviction would not be a suffi-
cient ground for a new trial.
Mr. Sergeant Tannv said be would not have pressed his ap-
plication on that ground alone.—But has the fact had
been stated in an affidavit, be thought it right to mention it.
The CRIMP Jusvice.—The question was very properly put
to the Jury on the trial, and 1 would myself have given the
same direction as my Brother Park did.
The COURT then. told SergentitTeddy he might take a rule to
show cause, on the usual coniltion of payment of costs; be-
cause the direction of the Judge and the findinig by the Jury
•
was right according to the evidence.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY said he had the affidavit of a man who
lived opposite the house, No. 19, in Watling-street. who swore,
that helore the fire, he had frequently looked into the room oc-
cupied by Thurtell, and that it appeared entirely einpty.

On Thursday last a young man, a tailor in Metliven,
who had been drinking rather freely in the forenoon, de-
clared the bletkvin whisky ts as by far too dear, and that
he would go to Perth, where be would get it, under the
operation of the new Act, at one half the price. He ac-
cordingly set out but better for Lim the Act
.nad: nerer
been passed, for he drank to arm, and died in great spry
next morning.

• '.•

HIGH COURT OF JUNTICIARY, EDINBUROH,
4711 NOVIIIIMI. .

•
John Reid and Ilsomas Black; two boys, the one 17,
and the other 15 years of age. were convicted of breaking
into the house at Sansmerfield, in the pariah of South
Leith. occupied by Alex. White. merchant is Leith, upon
the night of the 2:lth, or the owning of the 25th of lolly
last, and stealing therefrom a great quantity of silver plate.
'weatine apparel. and other articles, the crime being aggra.
vated by their being habit and repute thieves. The pan. '
nrls were found guilty, but the Jury strongly recommended
them to mercy on account of their youth. The prisoners
were then most impressively addressed by the Lord Justice
Clerk; after which they were sentenced to be executed here
on Wednesday the 10th December next, between the hours
of eight and ten o'clock morning. Reid cannot read.

V