Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-07-02T00:00:00

Ainis was an actionrtorlitneiagainst aliroprietorof The Tierv, in re- =pcol'areportor a trial inwhicli the plaintiff'was concerned, copied frmaprnvincialjnurnal. rn the declarattoloit wa-salleged thiatthie libel was"1 of and concerning the plaintiff antd of and concerning him as an attorney ;" hie failed in proving that lie was an. atuoTnev; and was accordingly nonisuited by the L,ord Chief Justice, on the 'ground that the statement was matter of description and could not be di- vidled. A rule was obtained for setting aside the nonsuit and grant- iug a new trial, wvhIch has been a long time before the Judges for decision. The LoatD CTieEw JUSTICE now referred to the case, and said the same point had been decided a few days ago (~we presume in " lay v. Brown"), and that therefore it was unnecessary to Say more than that the rule for a new trial must be absolute. THE XXNG V. BIG.-TOLD. This was an indictxient against the defendiant for perijury, in an aniswer in Chancer to a bill filetd for an accouint by the Directors of the society establisKed on the model of the Norwich Union. The assignment was framedl on ani allegation, that by a deed lbe did floe agree to advance 10,0001. 3 per cent. for the use of the association, but only to guarantee them to the extenit of that sum. After a ver- dict of guilty, a rule was9 obtained in the alternative for a new trial, or for arresting the judgmrient, which was argued oni a former (lay. The LoanD CIerIs' JUSTir. now deliveredl the judgment of the Court. It was unnecessary to give any opinion on the application for a new trial, as thiey were of opinion thrat the judgmnent should be arrested. There was no allegation in the indictiment that the part of the ansiwer on whichi perjury was assigned was miaterial to the object of the bill,, nor slid it appear on the record to be so miaterial. The rule for arestitig thec judgment mnust, therefore, be made abso- lute, and the defendant miust be discharged. IV THZE MATTER OF FrELDESS. The ATT'RoaEY-GscNiRnAL moved for a rule, calling on an attorney of the Court to show cause whjy he should not repay to Air. Johin Fielder the sum of 4401. and be struck off' the roll. A prosecution had been instituted against Mlr. Fielder for keepinig a gam-ing-house; and this surm had been advanced to the attorney to prevent htim from being brouglht up' for ~iudgment. Mr. Fielder had reason to believe that great part of this nioney icemained with the attorney ; and he had afteri;adRe been called up for judtgmnent, on the moation of the officers ot' the Crown. The COUImT said they- could not assist Alr. Fielder, who was pan'- ticeps criminis, to recover the n;oney ; but they would grant a rule calling on the attoruney to show cause why he should not be struck off the rollst. The ATToxREY-GEwF.RAL therefore took the rule in this form. THE KIMG V. THOMAS TIsUStLTELL AND ANOTHER.- MVr. SCARTLETT mentioned this (case as likrly, to occupy a consi- derable time, and asked if the Court would take it to-day. The LoRD CHtIEs' JUSTICE said, that his notes Were in Court, and that the case might be taken now. Mlr. SCARLETT suggested that Mlr. Sergeant Vaughan was con- cerned for the defendants, and that it would be proper to wait uintil he should come into Court. it accordingly stood over. Durirng the argumenit of a rule for a quio wreraunto, Mlr. Sergeant Vaughan entered the Court, and at its close, the case of " the King V. Thurtell" was9 called on. The defendants Thiurtell and Snowdon took their place on the floor of the Court. M1r. Sergeant VAUGHAN intimated an intention to move for anew trial. The Lo-aD CHIEP JUSTICE sta tedde subszance of the indict- ment, which charged the present defendants, John Thurtell, now deceased, and a po~rter in the employ of the Thiurtells, named Enni- son, with 6onspiring to defraud the Directors of the County Fire- office, by setting up a fase claim on a policy of insurance effected on goods in a house in Watling.street, the upper part of which had keen taken by Thomas ThutrteU for a warehouse, and which was destroy. ed byfire HisLordhip hen ead is notes of thc trial , of which we avea fll epot o th folowngday. It may be recollected, tha onth pat o te poseuton,itwa proved that before the fir alertios wremad inth prmies% whch would prevent the speey dscoer o fie wthin tht aconversation was overheard betwen ohn 'hutel anda wmanwith whomn he cohabited, in whc she spoke ot'burning thepremises,andhe checked her for talk- igin that manner; that the fire must have originated in the portion of th o occupied by ThomasThurtell; thata little before the fire J. Turelremovedthis woiisan, with whom helad been accustomied tosleep at the wrarehouse, to a lodging ina neighbouring lane ; thataio considerable relics of bombasin. goods were found amiong the ruins ; and that John Thurtlell bought several parcels of goods for Thiomas Thurtell of Todd and Mtorrison, whiich he p aid for withi ready mo- ney, of which he obtained invoices, and whichi he sold afterwards, through the agency of Sniowdon, to a Der%on named MaTgtave, at a considerable loss; which it was argued could only be done for the purpose cf obtaining invoices, in order to give a colour to a fraudu- lent claim. Some of the Bank notes paid by Ma1rgrave for thegoods so sold, were traced as the very notes paid by Johfi Thurtell to Todd and Mlorrison, for Parcels of goods subsequently bought: and Wrig- glesworth, wholhad beeniin the employ ot'Margrave,swore that when he expressed his suspicions to nowrdoni,on the extraordinary offer ot goods bought for ready money for sale at a lo-ts that defendant re- plied, "1It was nothing to him, but he would bear of a grand ex- plosion some day." Mlr. Beaumnont proved that Thomas Thurtell made the claim for the goods, and swore to ita truxth. Against the porter Ennison, bin evidence 'in the Commnon Pleas was read, in which he swore that the goods were in the warehouse at the time of the fire. Other proof was given to show that the statement medeby John Thurtell as to the receipt of goods from Norwich was false, and that Snowdon had falsely dleclared that he liad soldl goods for Thomas Thuirtell on one oc'aasion only. For the defendants, Dlr. Etnsfar,a clerk in the Bank, was called who sworetehaton the niglitof te fie, he was in co)mpany with John WPurtell, and parted with hiim a little before five in the morning at Charing-cross, before which time the fire broke out. A fireman present at the fire swo.-ethatbhe afterwards picked up a quantity of bombasin, velvet, and silk, par. tialy brnt butit ppered hathe ad offered to assist Mlr. Beau- mon inresstig Turthl' clim.Tocontradict Wrigglesworth, Mr. argrve as clled wh swoe tat this wvitness never gave him easn t beiev tht ay sspiionwas attachied to the goods whic wer bouht f Snwdon and~Vrggleaworthi having on cros.exmintin deied hathe orrwedmoney in Mlr. Mlar- grave's name, Air. LernvSnyioth wascle to contradict himn on this point ; but the.eviden'ce was re'ected, on the groundt that the proposed contradiction did not re ate to any point material to the pending inquiry, or whiich the witness could comie prepared to ex- plan. The jury found Thomas Thurtell and Snowdon guilty, and acquitted Ennis'on. Mlr. Sergeaint VAtsGOAN, on the,Tart of Thomas Thurtell, expWress. ed his hope that the Court would think hi:. client entitledI to a new trial. It was true that the counsel for the prosecuition entreated the jury to divest themsgelves of all the prejudices whichi his name was calculated to awaken, andI no doubt they had done so as far as could be expected from human natuire ; but still it was scarcely possible that they should altogether cast away the asisociationst which had taken so deep a hold on the public miind. The trial lasted for fourteen hours; and during that time there was hardly five mninutes occupied by evidence tending personally to implicate Thomas Thurteli. The greet mass of proof was directed against.John Thurtell, wvhOm the jury mnight well suppose capa- ble of committing one geat crime, when they knew he had been guilty, of another of still deeper dye. He resided on the premises; he conducted the busineRs of which his brother was, whiolly i no- rant; lire bought andI sold the goods; and why might niot he have planned this scheme of frauid for his own benefit ? Was it not con- sistent with all, or nearly all, the evidence in the cauise, that John Thurtell substracted the goods, aiid applied their proceeds to his own use ? Mir.Justice BAYLEY reminded the learned sergeant that Thomas Thurtell had made oath that the goods were upon the premiises, and delivered a list of invoices, whbereas the very goods whtich he swore to had been previously sold to AMargrave. Mlr. Sergeant VAUGHAN contended, that his client imight, in taking the oath, have relied on the representations of his brother, who was obviously capable of deceiving hiim. A.r. Justice JBAYLEY observed, that the 8hort case againstThoma, Thurtell was this--a fire happened on the 26th of January, and hie swore that goods were then burnt whi'ch had been carried away a month be fore, and that other goods had been received from Dawson, of Leds, which, according to the evidence, were never received at all. Dilr. Sergeant VAUIGHAN proceeded to argue that thie evidence negativing the supply of goods from Leeds wae' not decisive, butt was interrupted by The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE, wvho asked whethier all this was not matter for the considleration of the jury, and whether the Court could say that there was not evidence to sustain their decision P Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN then said, that he wouild addre-ss a few words in mitigation of punisihment. At the trial a suggestion was made that the statement of Thomas Thurtell to Mr. Beaumont. of the dangerous ilness of his wife, was false; he woteld put in an afi-. davit to show that it wvas wehllfoundetd and if his fears had height. ened the danger, the Court would niot impute to him this apprehen- .mon as a crime. He had derived no benefit from the verdict in the CommHon Pleas; hle was a bankrupt, ruiined in fortune, broken in health, and injured in character ; and surely the! Couirt would not think it necessary to press hardly on a man so afflicted. On the part of Thomas Thuirtell, an affidavit of a nugpon was read, stating that his wife was seriously ill at the lime of hnis inter- view with Air. Beaumont. His ownt atfdavits, corroborated by the depositions of others, eid',,d that he was in ill health, and had rup- tiered a bloiod vessel, wit.. ,e'requited care, and was the father of two children. Several affidaVits of gentlemneni of Norfolk, among whomi was the rector ofthe parish where'he lived, represented him as hapv- ing borne a respectable character. A numnber of affidavits were read to the chiaracter of Snewdon, who denied any guilty knowledge of the conspiracy, and pleaded that he had a wife and two children. Dlir. CICITTY shortly addressed the Court for Thurtell, urging that hie had already suffered much ; that he had sunk from a re. pectable condition of life into the most abject misery; and that all te proceedings ado pted to recover the money from the Fire-office were instituted not for his owni benefit, but for the benefit of his cre- (liter, to wvhom ho had assigned the policy. AIr. GUaxtEy, for tire defendant Snowdon, said he was well as. seted that all the topics which he could urge would be suggested by their Lordships' f'eelings, and that he left him safel in their hiands. Dir. SCARIL,TT, for the prosecution, asked whetber the Court wished him to advert to any of the arguments applied by Mr. Ser- geant Vaughan insupport of his motion for auew trial 7 The COURT intimated that this was wholly unnecessary, as they were of opinion there was no ground for the motion. MIr. SCAItLETT then said, his duty would be confined to a verv few words. He would not urge any thing for the purpose of slbow. ing that the detlendants participate in a design to burn down the house, but he felt bound to reinind the Court how Tho- mas Thurtell was connected with the whole fraud. He took the warehouse; he effected the policy before any of the goods were bought he madetihe claim; he sapported that claim by oath; &nd It was at least probable, that the mvoices, which formed one of the most remarkable features in the cause, were preserved at his house. The defendant Sniowdon was not a mere agent; he assist- ed in disposing of the goods; and he afterwards endeavoured to su port the claim which he must know was founded on fraud. TMe whole case was before the Court- to them he left it, confidlent they would think tkat Mr. Rea4urontied discharged an ioperlous duty in rezisthig the atiempts to inttnsiiate himn, and -in pefievdridg till the detection of the fraud w as complete. Mr. AboLirusi-on thte %rde side, dleclined saying any thing. The Judyges consulted for a few miniutes, after which Dlr. Justce lMAYVEY pyoceeAeld to pass the senteace of the Court. If he could eiitcrt:in tle least doubt of tlle guilt of eithler of the de- fentdants, he should have listened with the greatest satisfaction to the argutnents b,' which it mnight be enforced; but he thought the verdict sustained by evilence nost clear, satisfactory, and conclu- sive. in that general conviction they woald do well to acquiesce; they knew in their owvn consciences that they were'gui1ty ; and ought to recoillect there was on-* from wlhomn no secrets could be hid, befre whom an account must be givent at another day. The Court did not now enter on the question wlhether the fire arose f;om acci- deIIt or from design they trusted that it was accidental, for then the defendantts would stand before God free from the atrocious guilt of having participated in a scheme to produce it but supposing them innocent of this, still they were unquestion- ably gailty of a most fbul and aggravated fraud. Shortly after the fire, a claim was made on the office by Tl1omasThurtell, on account of the goods alleged to be destroyed; he supported that claim by oath; when invoices were asked for, they were supplied; and on the inspection of these papeis, discoveries were matle which led to the detection of the fraud. Could any one doubt of the guilt of Thomas Thurtell, wvhen they found that from these premises, on which he was the very day before the fire, goods to the value of ncar 4001. had been substracted, and sold to a person named tarcgraves, for less than the cost which had just been paid for them? Could any orle doubt of the guilt of Snowdon, when he was found selling the goods bouzht of Todd and iMlorrnson to Mlargraves, with 20 per cent. marked offthe invoice pice in his own hand, and declaring that a grand explosion would soon took place 7 What was his conduct before IMt. Beatumont? Conscious as he was of the substraction of these goods, why did he not, as be. came an honest man, disclose what he knew ? Laying out of the case the fire itself, which formed no part of the charge-hoping that the defendants did not participate in any plan to produce it-thec Court still saw a case of dark and profligate conspiracy before them. They regretted that innocent wives and children should share in the consequences of crime, but it was inevitable ; and they should themselves be chargeable with the evils of future conspiracies, if here they did not do what was required for public protection and public example. Asdverting to all the circumstances of the case, they adjudged that each of the defendants should be im. prisoned in Isis MaJesty's gaol of Newgate for two yeasm The defendants bowed and left th c ourt in custody. THE RING V. CAiLTON AXD OT1HEYS. In this ease of" Sir George Chetwyndeagainst the British Press," ALr. RUSSELL on Wednesday asked the Court to fix a day for a further hearing, as Sir George was extremely anxious to proceed. The COUsit said they could not fix a day at present. illr; RUSSELL said the prosecutor was anxious that it should be understood he had not abandoned the charge. ! COURTOF KING'S BENCH, WESTrIINSTER. JULY 1. LEWVIS V. WALTER.