Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-05-18T00:00:00

.,/AaW REPORT. A Ills WaS a ruie obtained on a former day by Air. Erskine, to showv cause why Samuel Dummecll, comnmitted to Ilchester g-aol on the inquisition of the coroner of the county of Somerset, charging hira with the manslaughter of Williamn Ridler, should not be admit- ted to bail before a magistrate of that county. The depositionR being rnow returned, -were read. It appeared that the deceasetl and the prisouer were bothl working millers at the parish of XVivelis- combe, in Somersetshire, the former lodging in the cottage of the latter. Oni the 5th of April last, Ridler was seized with the small pox, and whilethe disea-e wai at its height, quitted his lodgings ; in consequence of wbich, and of drinking ardent spirits, he died on the 15th of'the same montb. It was alleged, on the autkoritv of somne declarationis of the deceased, that the prisoner thrust himf out, and thur. occasioned his death. Mr. ElLsyiNE nowproduced depositions on the part of the pri- soner, exculpating himself from the charge; and The COURT ordered that hie shouild be admiittedI to hail, on giving security.for hiR appearance at the assizes, himself in 1001., and four sureties in 101., or two Sureties in 201. each. THE KING V. JOHY HUIJT. Mr. ADOLPH V s moved for the judgn ent of the Court against Mlr.JohniHunt, who wasconvictedontheprosecutionof the Con. stitutional Asso'ciation," for publishing Lord Byron's Parody on Southey's Vis4ion of Judgmnt.n The Loupn CHIEF JUSTICE, as Mfr. Justice Bayley was then in the Bail Court requested the learnedl Counsel to wait till thie Court should be ful. At half-past eleven, Mlr. Justice Bayley having previously taken his seat Mkr ADOLPH tTS again mnentioned thais case. The LoRD CHIEF' JUSTICE expressed his fear that there was not time to rake the case, as there would be a sitting of Nisi Pr-itus Afr AsBOLPtS'j observed, that lie lhad been in attendance the whole of last term, and it would be mattter of convenience to all prisif a day coutld be fixedI for the hearing. "Mr. Justice BAY'LEY Said, there would be nodangerin promising that the caue sthould not be taken. any day this week, except Thurs. day, and whether it could be tak-en that day, might depend on the motions to be made by the Attomrny-General. After some furtlier conversation, it was agree that Mr. SCAR. LETT and Sir. ADOLPHsUS shOUldI akarngemient for a day when M11r. Scarlett should bring the case on athiso own turn to move, THE XING, ON THE PtIO5ECUTKOET OF WIT. CORIBETT, ESQ-. V. SAMUEL SKETCISLEY, ESQ, This was a rule obtained last term by Mr. BRourGHA&m, at the instance of Mr. Cobbett, calaing on AMr. Sketcliley, the chairman and treasurer of the Kensi-ngton turnpike trusts, to show cause why a criminal information should not be exhiaited against him. Thi! motion was made on three grounds...first, that Mlr. Sketchley, aftet the pasring of an act, which lowered the tolls on single horse caTm- from 4id. to 3d., continuied the oldI boardI at the gace, wit'hout notic of the iltemation, from July to November, 1 823, and thereby en. abled the gate-keepers to take the higlherEtolls; secondly, that Afr. Sketchley neglected to suibmit his accounts for 1823 to be audlited during thiat year, and till April, 1824; and thir-dly, thatAMr. Sketchi. Icy held the incoDmpatible offices of trustee and treasurer. At the tmime when the rule was moved for, it was suggested that it could nol be granted withieut an affidavit that the applicant believed Air. Sketchley, in delsying to alter the hosed, and to pass his accounts. to he actuated by corrupt motives. This allegation was suppldied. [and the rule was granted. Alr. SCARLETT and Mfr. E. L&wEs now showed cause againsi thle rule, on the affidavit of M1r. Sketchley, and of several of his co. trustees, Wlith respect to the hoard, Mr. Sketchley was not awan( of the alteration until it was brought forward by Mfr. Cobbett, it his Iproceedings against Levi, the toil-keener, at Bow-street; ane at the first mneeting of the trustees held afteiwards., a board, Suiting the exemnption, was ordered for the gate. Wlith respect to the ac- counts, the fact was, that Mlr. Sketchley's accounts were not passed ir 18-23, for that year,' because the act 3, (3eo. IV. directed an annuas meeting for passing; these accounts, to be held in April,September,oz October; and consequently, the trustees thouglht that in pursuanesIC of that act, they ought to postpone the audit till April, 1824. At a public m,eetin,ng of the trustees held in February, IV23, the trustee- resolve, tht the audit should be deferred till April ini the follow. iu er n theD 10th of which month it twok place in thti usua form. Mlr. Sketchleybhad been many years atrustee; hiehad sought the office of treasurer from no mercenary feeling, but because he regarded it as an honourable employmtent; andI he had never re- ceived fee or salary' for the discharge of its duties. Mr. BRO UGssA., i support o the rule, replied to the demand, '~why lhad MVr. bketchley been sielected from others ?" thathis name was Signed to the erroneous notice (which, however, did not ap- pear on tbe.face of the affidavits) ; that he held the incompatible offices of trustee and treasurer; and that he, as treasurer, .bad a direct irterest in the extent of the balance in his hands. 'l5e last general turnpike act expressly provided, that no person holding any office of profit under the act should become a trustee; and surely, thoughs no salary was attached to the office of treasurer, it was an office of profit ; for large securities were required from the party elected to fill it, anId large balances were perpetually left in his hands. Althoughi that office mighit not be originally sought from a desire of gain, still it might afterwards prove lucrative; for it ap. peared on the affidavits, that at one time 4,0001. was in the hands of the treasurer, and he himself alleged that it was necessary for him to retain a floating balance for the purposes of the trust. It was most uinfit thzat the same person should have the control over this fund as treasurer, aLnd the r-ight of checking its dispos ition as trustee; and vet the clause in the new, act was so worded, that Mir. SSketchley could not be made suibject to the penalty thereby given. The Judges consulted for aminute or two, after which The LoR D CHIEF JUSTICE pronounced their judgment to the following effict:-According en the uniform course b3y which justice is administered in this Court, a rule for a criminal information is not granted, especially against a persn holding an officeof trust, un- less some reasonable ground is shown from which we can infer that he Was actuated by a corrupt motive ; we have therefore now to consi- derwhether such reasonablpleground has been shown. The application has been rested principally on two charges: first, the omission to annountce, by a corr&cted board, an alteration reducing the tolls on certain carts from 4.3d. to 3dtL; second, a delay in subiting h defendant's accounts as treasurer to he audited by the trse. o, as to the first charge, it appears titat during the whole eidwe the board stpecifying imnproper tols' was exhibited, tetlswr let at fix.ed rents, and therefore -neitherAMr.Sketchlev, nor any other trustee, was dirccLlyorindirectlyinterested in them, andconsequently wecannot hereimumstecorruptmotivte. Forthe second charge, thereis perhaps even lass atppearance of reason ; for it new appears that, in consequence of the new act, the trustees had a public meeting, and determined on postpening the audit, whether rightly or not we need not now decide, but at all events exonerating the treasurer from all cha-rge of iniprdper design. It has been further suggest- ed that this gentleman has acte imnproperly in accepting the office of treasurer while he conitinued a trustee; but theei e nalt of100.gvenby the act as against any person wo od inganofic o poft,shalbecome a trustee; andL thouhima be hatth wodsdo otinclude the particular case, beasth gentleman was a trutee before he becamne treasurer still we should not grant a crimintal iformation unless fully WiSlIQe that thneu did not includle it, as otherwise we might expose him to double 'prose. cution on the same charge. W'hether the offie of treasurer is "can office of pirofit," though not paid by a salary, we need not now de- cide - perhaLps it may be, conaidersng the large balances left in the hands of the officer ; but this may depend on tue manner in which he disposes of the money, and the arrIatugementiwhich he makes with the bankers appointed to receive it. Itisuffici_ut at present to say, that no corrupt motive appears, and therefore we must this- charge the rule. But as this gentleman has held two offices which I think ought not to be united, for it is not fit that a trea- surer having control over large balances should also act as trns. tee, and as he appears to us not irreprehensible (I wish to use a mild term) on this grounid, wve think that though this rule must be dis- chaged, it sliould be dischargcsl without costs. Te ruile was; accordingly discharged witkiout cost: At one o'clock the Court rose, andFtr. Justice LXTTLzDALE sat ~ for the first time) at Nisi PA=ins instead Of the LoRD CHIrEF JUSTIE. Nothing occurredofputblic interest,except the case of M1AYOR V. HUMPHRET5. This watan action by asurveyor, residing nearthe Regent's-park-, against,the poreoofasge running from Kilbumrn-wells to the Bak, for injury received bythe negligentcdriving of the defenidant's coachman. The case was proved by Mfr. Barriett, a surgeon, residing in the city-road. On thel19th oSeptember last,he stw two stages riving cas usual, shamnefully fast," up the City-road. The defelidant's coaLch was foremost, the other was attempuing.te pass it; and in order to prevent this, the coachman cut across the road from the wrong side. At this moment the coach was upset, and Mr. May,or, an outside passenger, was thrown to the ground. His ancle w-as dial.. eated, he was confined for two moaths to his bed, anid ustained a permanent injury. Oni the cress-examnination of this witness, it appeatred that an in. dictment on tthe same charge was prosecuted atthe sessitoin, and drop. ped by recoDmmendlation of the chairmaan. Mr. Cope, another outside passenger, imputed the accidlnt either to careless driving or the bad state of the coach. Ai!r. SCARLETT, for the defendlant, said that his client, a poor man, had set up a coach from Rilbumn-weils to the Bank, wnich irritated other proprietors on the line of road; they entered into a conspiracy against him; and they rorameof them took ouitthelinch4 pin of oneof the wheels, and thus caused the coach to rest on th' axt-.tce.Infac, te cac neer idoversct; but Me.-Mgyo'r sel th msciiefofwhih h cmplina4d thus broughteonhini. To pove his ase Mr.Tryo, aother ,passenger, was called; who ttrbutd te acidst o te weelcoming ofF, ind not to neg. 'William Alley, a lad who went with the coach, proved tAac thie wheels and linchpins were all right in the morning; that the coach waited at tbe Bank near other coaches going the same road ; and that in the City-road. the ncar fore wheel came off, .and the coach went over. The witnessjumpedoffand Mlr.Mayorfollowedhim. The linchpin could not be found, and he believed could not have fallen out, but must have been removed. .Joseph Humphreys, the coachman, and son of the defendant, gave evidence tt the same effect with the preceding witness; and as- serted that he drove steadily a.d safely, and that the accident arose from the unexpected fal ot the wheel . He was aware of no coach near him. Mr. Gua2Exy, in reply, observed that the question was, wiether the accident arose from some negligence or other; for there was a count in thedeclaration applicable to any species of misconduct on the part ef the defendant and his servants. olr. Scarlett opened, that the coaeh was never overset. - How surprised,then,was he whea his first witness overset the coach, the second overset the eoach, the third overset the coach, and the whole overset the defencn. (A laugh.) But,after all, could the jury doubt that the wheel same off by the coach crossing at too sharp an angle to retain precedence of the coach which was attemptingto commit the unpardonable sin *f passung it ? Mr. Justice LITTLEIALE, adverting to the languaLge of the re- cord, expressed his opinion that the question upon it was, whether the injury arose from negligent driving, as the expressions " drove managed1 and tirected," must all be taken to refer to drving, and not to the general nanagement of ihe cnach. If the jury thought the accident was ocsioned by the insufficiency of the wheel or any other cause than improper driving, the defendant would be entitled to their verdict. He then read over the whole evidence, and left the case, on the question he had suggested as material, to the jury. The Jury found a verdict for the piaintiff-Damages 401. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEST3MTNSTER. MAV 17. THE KINO V. SAMTUEL nITAMMfTrT..