The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-12-20 00:00:00

';gr

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—Dsc 19.

IKE KING 12. AIPPApi.
This was an indictment instituted by a person named
Lan, against the defendant, for perjury alleged to have
been rommitted by him on the 22d of Augus•, 1822, on
a criminal information filed by the AttorneyOeneral,
against the present prosecutor, Law, in the Court of Ex-
chequer. fur smuggling.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Jones and
Er. CHITTY; and the defence by the ATTORNST
I Au, the SOLICITOR OENICRAI, 31r. CLARK, Mr. GURNIY,
and Mr. WALTON.
It appeared, that on the 20th of August. 1820, the re.
. nue officers of Seerhorough, in Yorkshire, received
information that certain persons intended to land a
e.ago of smuggled spirits, and other commodities, on
that edast. In consequence, a number of officers repaired
to the spot about eleven o'clock at night. Shortly
afterwards they perceived three persons walking on the
• shore with tubs. As soon as these persons perceived
the officers they tied, and left the tubs upon the ground.
They were afterwards found to contain gin. A prose-
( ition was commenced against these and other persons
s ipposed to be connected with them, in the Court of
Exchequer, and several of them were convicted.—
Amongst other persons against whom proceedings were
instituted, was the present prosecutor, a wool-merchant,
lining et a littkavillago called Stanton Dale, near Scar-
bo►ough. The case proved against him, en We part of
the Crown, was. that on the night in question he was at
the landing place, where the gin was seised, and had as-
sisted in removing part of it on three horses, before the
Regime Officers could make the seizure. The present
defendant - ' • -
xful P

. aas the principal witness on that occasion,
and amongst ether circumstances sworn to by him, he
stated, that Law's son-in.law was with him during the'
whole transaction. It was now proved, that on the day
is question,whlch was a Sunday, the prosecutor had
gone to a chapel in the afternoon, and on hie return
went to the house of a neighbour, named Oibson, to
Jack tea. Thence he went to his own house between
ten and eleven o'clock, in comp.my with two of his la-
bourers, who had wet him by appointment. Having
settled some accounts in his office, he set out about one
seeleek, with a load of wool, to the house of a man
ranted Oregsen, residing about six or seven miles dis-
tance; there he arrived between two and three o'clock
~ on the Monday morning. The son-in-law of the pro-
secutor, also proved, that on the night of the 20th of
August, he was unwell, and remained in his bed from
six o'clock on that evening until the next morning, and
therefore could not have been in company with the pro-
secutor, fur the purpose of removing any smuggled
spirits. The two Revenue Officers who had seiseethe
spirits swore, that the prosecutor had never appeared at
the time of the transaction, nor was his son-ia-law pre-
sent when the seizure was wade.
On the part of the defendant several witnesses were
called, who stated that they were present on the 20th of
isugnst, at the time that a quantity of smuggled gin
was landed from a lugger that had come from Flushingi
The prosecutor, and lots son-in-lew, were there between
the boors of twelve and one o'clock. They loaded three
horses with gin and tobacco, and then went away. This
was the time that the witnesses for the prosecution stated
that Law was at his own house 'settling his accounts.
A ember of witnesses were called, in reply, to prove'
that the defendant and several of his witnesses could ass
be believed on their oaths.
His Lordship having summed up the evident*, tit-
:narked to the Jury, that wish mead to the poinini
Me, Ism being at Hilimm's InniniellMese half-past s
&cloth, and afterwards getting out for the house of Mr.
Orem,' with the load of wool, he had abundant time to
go to the sea shore and assist in the unloading of the
' Jogger, between these two periods. It was not however
'thence to he concluded that he hail been there. That
was entirely fur their consideration. As to the contra-
dictioo by the witoesses on the part of the defendant,
theJtsre were not to believe them, solely because they
axone last, nor the witnesses on the part of the prose-
cution because they swore first, but they were maturely
to weigh the evidence on both sides, and pronounce
their verdict after a careful consideration of all the cir-
cumstances of the case. The evidence of the witnesses
called lo reply, as to the degree of credit to be given to
she witnesses on the part of the defendant, must be re-
. reived with great caution. Their verdict must however
depend on the opinion they should form, from the
roaflicting testimony produced before them. If they
• had a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant,
• they would give him the benefit of it; but if they had,
not, they must convict him.
'flue Jury, after retiring about an hour and a half, rs.
turned a verdict, about half past eleven o'eloek,
guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dzc. 19.
TOM. V. nowisa.

Mr. Sergeant Vaughan (with whom were Sergeant i
Hulled; and Mr. Campbell,) stated this case to thejury.
It was an action to recover the value of the brig Findon,
which hid been run down at Sea, by the brig Blossom,
t 1n consequence (WS was alleged) of the negligence of the
, crew of the latter. The Defendant was the owner of
I.llte Blossom, and was answerable for the conduct of the
. clew, who were to he considered his servants. It would
• arppear that on the 20th of April, the Findon sailed from
• Sonderlend with a cargo of coals. At half past 2 the
nett morning, the Blossom bore down, and for want of
a careful look-out, on the part of the crew, stinek the
Findon, which almost immediately went down with the
sh,ck. The. Crew were saved by getting oh board the
'lndus. Witnesses would he celled *so *weld prove
that the accident was wholly owing to the negligence of
the Blossom's crew. If that were established to the sa•
&faction of the jury, they would find a verdict for the
Plaintiff, and he would slate that the amount would not
be dieputed.
The mate of the Findon was called, and his evidence
Went to chew that the accident occurred by the negli-
gence ef the Blossom's crew. Had they attended to the
call of this witness, the accident would have been avoid•
ed. Tite Blossom had a light on her bow. The Findon
had one on her binnacle. Several of the Findon's crew
were then called, who directly corroborated this testi
• loony. -^
Mr. Sergeant Lens (with whom was Sergeant Teddy)
renteotletl, for the defendant, that the circatnstance was
not ewing to the negligence of either, but was to be at-
tributed to one of those accidents which could not be

.. --..- „..
pres4leted:by human skill. He would call several wit-
n•lt.eAtn ho would prove that the night was exrremely
.. • tt3ck, aud that it ens impossible to discern a ship at
t ' ;Ore Iter length a-head. It would else be proved. that
it the Findon bad had a l•ght at her bow, she would
. love•bren sem by the Illusion), and thereby avoided her.
; I,i.illwie.faets were curtly proved, as he was instructed
. . "t!'.gple suottla he, he felt satisfied that the Jury would
• fitiftlet the Defendant.
.. • -
.. ..41. great waustier of tvitnessea. consisting of some of
i, ilasOilosamo's Crew, and 'renal Ceptaios in the Coal.
%,teotle, were islie4 to prove the{ is was a very dark
',-, 'piglet; that &Ship could not he seen eamusra than twice
3swejeortlf a heats; Matt it was the coetoopin fleets of
smeoloiere.feeell whips to cart light. we tinekaights; that'
-I:rEiiiiialt had Ile.wch.li esaftf.,ohajaad, the azti.frot
met
k htplaivitilifitgastsent 1. ;,': it' it, ..i.-.. ..,„ ~,,,, ,
•• t• liiiiiirdeliorViatlehiiri it.plia 1.. to., vi,,-1 „. „,,. ,
SitO k
Ift ' f Ift,f, . it' ~ ,e • -,,e
" tliis4l!!rnen tit ! p,, acid
.1115,YilitonihTer,
diet or titi• Mferolatir

-•-----