Lent Assizes.
The Times, 1824-03-29T00:00:00

This was an action on the Black Act. 9 Geo. 1. c. -22., to recover a compensation in damages against the hundred for the felonious de- struction, by fire, of 160,000 fir trees, of more than the value of 201L., by some person or persons unknown. Mr. ilMARRYATT (with whiom was Mr. CncrTTY) stated the case. The plaintiffs were trustees of the late Mir. Timnothy Curtis, who had purchased a quantity of waste land on Frinnley Common, which he had planted with fir trees 'or piofit, about20 yearssince. By his will, the plaintiffs were made his trustees and executors. By thze will, he eisgedhis hFrimley estate, and the trees in question, to his grand-children. The woods had been placed under the care of tan authorized agent, who resided at Frimley. On the 6th of May last, a great destruction of the wood had taken place by fire, which was wilfully kindlcd by somne person or persona unknown. It was concluded to be intentional, inasmuch as two unsuccessful attempts had been made to destroy the wood in like manner, within the pre- ceding fortnight. The damage sustained amnnounted to about1,Q001., butt e plaintiff could only recover 2001. under the statute. The1 usual notices were given to the inhabitants of the hundred, and de.] positions made before a justice of the peace, respecting the mts- chief which had been done. Pains werc taken, by offering a re- ward, to apprehend the offln:iers. but without success. Under thcse circumstances the present action was brought. Mr. Timothy Curtis's will was put in, to prove the plaintiff ' title to sue. Other evidence was then given to prove the formal rarts of the case.'1 John Tucker, gamekeeper to the Duke of Glocester, proved that on the 6th of MJay last he observed a lice in the woods in question, between 12 and one o'clock. He mnade to the fire as soon as os-ible. He first saw the smoke ata distance of a mile and a half. There was no lightning or tempest at that time. Before he got to the spot he saw a man lotoking at the fire. It appeared that the fire had broken out at the edge of tie wood. Pains were taken by himself and other persons to put out the flames. Witness could not say in wbat manner the lire broke out. Cross-examined by Mr. BOLLAND.-Could not say precisely where the fire began. Next day he saw the s-pot where he suspected it commenced. That spot was near a frequented path, near Air. Laurell's land. The heath was very dry. The fire had been bum- ing to the distance of a mile before it had got to Mr. Curtis's plan. ttatiun. Between 31r. Laurell's and (tirtis's plantation there was a high road. The fire was strong enough to get beyond the road. Robert Gale, gamekeeper to illr. Laurell, proved that about ene o clock on the day in question, he went to assist iR extinguishiug the fire ;,before he got therc, about 300 acres of his master's woods were burnt; about 100 acres of Sir Wm. Curtis's wools were destroyed. Next day he saw some small remains of furse where the fire had been kindled on the heath in the plantation._The furze appeared to him to have been brought there for the purpose of making a fire.- The nearest house to the spot was about half a mile off, in which a workmoan of Mr. Laurell lived. Where the fire broke out was balf I a mile from any regular road. On two occasions, shortly before the 5th of Ml!av, there were alarms of fire. This was about a fortnight before, in the might-time, The fire on these occasions was put out. Another fire had broken ouL in the nmiddle of the day, in the park, on the Tuesday preceding the 6th of May. On that occasion, he sawv a small firebrand close to the place where the fire began. He saw some Ary rush grass collected there. Witness had been ia the plantation on the morning of' 6th Alay, when every thingappeared safe. Crss.-examined.-AlT these fires had broken out first on ;Mir. lAurel's land. The country was wild and open. He never knew of any trainpers or Giusies naving neen in the plantations since he had been there- lie had lived with Mr. Laurell for 16 months. Gipsies and other persons of that description never frequented that part of the country. John Taylor, son of a farmer residing near the plantations, gave evidence to the same effect. The fire was extinguished by bcating it out. Some of the trees were about eight or ten years' growth. Sir W-. Curtis's trees had been planted longer than i5I r. Laurell's. Nearly the wbole of Sir WV. Curtis's plantation was destroyed. In his opinion there was no doubt of the flre having been kindled on purpese. He vwas of this opinion, from other attempts mnade before to re the woods. He had lived in the neighbourhood 23 years, andhenever sawany Gipxiesthere. Alr. Curry deposed that he hud the charge of the wood in ques- tion. He resided near the spot. He had given notice of the fire to three of the inhabitants of the bundred. in his judgment the wood had been fired designedly. He did not see the mischief done until the following day. The deposition, taken before two neighbouring t justiceas respeerting the fire were put in and proved. The tefendants were also proved to be inhabitants of the hundred of Godley, in1 wbiGh the hamret of Frimley is situated. Ailr, Luff, a nurserymnan proved, that from 150,000 to 160.000 trees were destro7eed. The damage exceeded 1,0001. The trees -were of ]7 years growth. The case for the plaintiffs bein closed, "dr BoL LAND, tor the defendants, submitted that the plainstffs' F.er,ey, if any, should have been fbunded, not on the 9th Geo. I., ca.ldli tho 1lack Act, but on the Ist and Fth Geo. I., which make tbe sqhabitants of the next contiguous parish, and not the hundred, liable for damage of this descri pnon. Nr. IMAURITT ao;l Mr. CasrrTY were heard contra, contend- 3ng thatdamage by fre was a damage within the meaning of the laIck Act. for which the hundred was liable. The LORD CseIaF BAFO n said he would reserve the point for the Co'jt above. MLr. OLLAND thcn went to the Jury, .snd contended that the evidence for the plaintiffs was insufficient to justiry them in coming to the conclusion that the fire complained of was occasioned unler such circumstances as would bring tite case witbin the Black Act, so as to make the hundred liable. 'There was no evidence, he sub- mlstted, to show that thie woods in question were wilfully, rnalici- ously, and feloniously set on fire. The cause of the fire was mere matter of cohtcture. It miglht have been occasioned by somie mischievous boy-some tramper or (Jipsy lighting his fire, and accidentally igniting the neighbouring plantation. But supposing the veods to have been fired maliciously, still it was proved that the fire commenced, not in Sir W. Curtis's, but in J lr. Laurell's woods; and tbe object bein to injure the latter person. the defend- ants could not be liah l tor an injury not intended against the plUantiffs Th- LORD CHIEF BARO2N summed up the evidence for the jury, and left them- to consider whether the injury' complainied of was oc- casionedby thte wilfil and malicious act of some unknown incen- diary. toe evidence upon this point was certainly loose and vague, but it vv2s for the jury to decide that questio in the plaintifts' fa- vour before they soisld'be justified . itt iding a verdict against the defendant's Thejuary fou3d a; verdict for the defedants. * PLVtALTY OF SILLS o-0 INDICtItMT. The Gratid 3ury hling gone ehroi h all tbeir buiinoss, eitetd the court, and mado several presentmentslconnected with c0uatv bu. siness Sir Thomas 'rirton, the Ioren3r, then addressec the learnea Judge, and stated that he was instructed by his brother gra-d jurymen, to ask bis i.ordship a question -with a rlew to their futttreguidance. Ten-billsofindictmenthad been laid beforethem against a mars of the namne 6f Mason, for embezzlemcnt, and the [sums charged to have been taken were all from the same person. The time of the grand jury was a matter of litt#l consequence, but the expense to which the counxv was put by such a ploceeding was by no means incensidermble. The question which he had to put was, whetber those ofences might not have been included in one indict- ment? MIr. Justice REsT.-It is impossible to include offences committed on diffierent days in one indictment. LE.T ASSIZES. KINGSTON, SURREY. SATURDAY. MARrcm 27. CIlVJJ, SIDE. SIR WILLIAM1 CUtRTIS, BART., AND ANOTHER. V. TllE IN- HAIITANTS OF THE IrUNDRED OF GODLEY-HURST.