The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1825-09-07
gg orrester
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER Z, 1926
CouRr OF COMMON PLEAS.

CoURT OF COMMON Pleas.
The August term Of this Court, for Worces-
ter County, closed lis Session in this town, on
the 81 instant. The number of new entries,
was the smallest which has been known for
many years, being only about one hundred and
eighty. But one verdict was rendered by
jury on a civil action, though considerable
number of cases were carried up to the Su-
preme Court by demurrer, or otherwise dispo-
sed Of. The following is a list Of the convic-
tons on criminal prosecutions:
Commonwealth VS.. CaldceH. was an
indictment for enabracery, and was a case of
some interest, inasmuch as the offence is Of a
high nature in contemplation Of law, and may
often be committed by individuals without
much reflection, and without knowledge of
the legal consequences. The Indictment al
legged that the defendant, knowing that the
grand jury were impanneed for the purpose
of acting upon " the matters and .hingsn that
should come before them, and knowing that q
complaint against him, the said Caldwell, had
been preferred to the grand jury, did unlaw-
fully attempt to persuade two of the grand ju-
rors not to find bill against him, upon said
complaint for that purpose using and utter
ing to them g divers words and discourses by
way of commentator of himself" 1t was
proved by the government that Caldwell adj
dressed two ofthe grand jurors, who lodged at
the house with him, 20 this effect" You will
have complaint against an essence pedlar,
before you to-day, and hope youwon't find a
bill against him, forhe is very clever fellow (;
however, you may do as you please" The
court charged the jury, that, if they believed
the prisoner made use Of these words, with an
intention to influence the jury, and that they
were such words as were likely to influence a
jury, without regarding the question whether
they did, or did not, i'll the present case in1u-
snce them, they must return verdict of gud.
ty. After retiring for few moments. the jury
returned a verdict Of guilty, and the prisoner
was fined SIS.
This offence in the present instance, under
the circumstances of the case, may be thought
TO be a slight one; but Jurors ought to be most
strictly guarded against all bias or corruption
and, therefore, embracery is described IS being
"dny attempt, tOtaisOsoer, to corrupt, or inHu-
ence, or instruct jury, or any way 10 incline
them, TO be more favorable to one side than
the other, by money, promises, letters, threats,
or persuasions, except only by the strength Of
the evidence, and the arguments of counsel in
open court, at the trial of the cause, whether
the jurors, on whom such an attempt is made.
give any verdict or not, or whether the verdict
be true or false" 1t being common law Of
fence, the amount of the fine is at the discre-
ton of the court. The crime is also punisha-
bic hy imprisonment.
Samuel Smith, for larceny in Oxford, sen.
fenced TO the House of Correction for three
months,
isaac Sio,c, for larceny in .4shburahdm--jou,
mOnths to the House of Correction.
George Blake, of Rutland, one indictment
for assault and battery on his wife, and one
forassault and battery on his wile's daughter
TO the House of Correction t,0o months on each,
and to pay costs.
Samuel CLARK Cd, of Hubbardston, for break.
ing windows in the dwelling house of William
Bartlett, in the Dight time, fined ten dollars and
costs.
John T. Thompson, for peddlng dry goods
fined ten dollars.
Josiah Cald,ceH, (the person convicted O.
embrdcery as above,) for peddling essences
fined len dollars.