Norwich (City), Saturday,...
The Times, 1824-08-16T00:00:00

B(yOTrC UICLORD UHiEr BARON and a S'peial JurY. Lnis was an action ot ejectinent, by which the plaintiff souight to prove his title, as heir-at-law of an intestate, to certain propertv in tbe parish of St. Edmond's, Norwich. The defendant and the platin- tiff'were first cousins; and the question was, whether a certain Mary Grieve, under whem the defendant cliimed, had or had not been {for she was now dead) the legitimate daughter of Sanmuel Grieve .and Malsrgaret Fiddy. Dir. .SToiixs, for the plaintiff; showed the property to kave been in the common ancestor of both the parties; and put in a copy of arn entry extracte(A from the church books of the parish of Burningham, showing that Samuel Grieve (this ancestor), and Margaret Fiiddy his wife, had beeui narriecl in the year 1743. The learned counsel then ,alled a witness, about 80 years of age, to prove thrat atary ,Grieve (he alleged illegitimate), by a computation of ages, must :have been born five or six years before that time. This being the plaintiff's whole case, Dir. Sergeant FRERE subnmitted that it required no answer. The 'evidtence was tco slight (as he eonten(led) to go to a jury. The LoC7D CuisEF B7AxtOX thought otherwise. rhe evidence was certainly very weak; but such as it was, he did not think it right ,to nonsuit the plaiNtiff. Mr. Sergeant FRERE tben, being compelled to go to the jury, opened a case of some curiosity. Tbe jury would observe, he-said, that only the copy of the marriage register, on which the plaintiff relied, had been put in; and the reason for using the copy, though it would appear a little startling, was, that the original paper was a forged one. Extr-aordinary as thisassertion might atpear, the jury should find it proved to the very letter; they should see the book -with their own eyes, and they coulil not have a doubt a's to the fact. ThelearaedSergeant then produced the church book of the parish of 8urningham. and pointed out the entry in question, under the fol. lowing peculiar circurmstances :-The accounts in the book began so 'far back jts the year 1709; andl this register of marriage profested to 'have been mnade in the year 1743. But the entry was written at the bottom ofonly a partlv filled page: it was written in ink (tor rather paint) w-ich one could scarcely doubt had been tinted to ansver the particula.r purposc; the hand was a bad imitation, but certainly an imitation;of a genuine hand-writing, which appeared in the book; asd, moreover, this Was the only rezister to be found in the book of ;marriage anterior to the year 1749,-the account, from its com- 'mencernent up to that 'date, being only of baptisms antl bxfials, 'The production of this piece of evidence excited a considerable sen- salion in coott; as the peculiarity of the entry in dispute was such, that it could be distinguished from otie end of a large table -to the other. Alr. Sergennt Frere then went on to state that, where the real register of the marriage In question was, could not be ,ente7tained. His belief (personally) was, that there never bail beeni any regifster of the fact: but he had one other piece of evidence-net a little cogent in the case-he had, an(i should produce, the tegister of baptisun of this very Alary Grieves,made in the year 1739, at a place -ealled 3inlham, in whiceh she was distinctly stated to be " the clhild Of Sartnuel Grieve and Margaret, his wife." It was an extraordinary cir-rnsrance (if the question need be foUowesI farther) thattbtis pre- t trd marriage register of 1743 had only just now been discovered sillbroughtto light, although five years since it had been advertised in all the county newspapers, and a reward offered for its prorluc- tion. The clergyman, however, of the parish of Burningham-not tbe present incumbent certainly, for he had only been appointed five years, iad did not happen to be conversant with the old parish books-but the former ininistes, would give one more piece of evi- ,Aence which would conclude the plaintiff's case; he should cal the Rev. Mr. Upjohn, who, in a rcsidence of near twenty years at Buti. aingharn, lhad been induced, firom sartteularcauses, to inspect the very book vhich was in she hands of thc jury: and thlisgentleosan would prove that, as far as his belief and recollection went, in hil~ tirne there hasd neer been any such entry in it as the marriage re- gi4ter In question. The parish book fromi Burninglism, containing the alleged mar. 7i,ge register of 1743, vwas then put In eA evidence, and the second soonk, from Binbam, containing the register of baptism of Iiaty 'Grieve. In this last beok, the illegitinmte births (of which there appeared a considerable number) were distinctly entered, verbatim, as' "iiegitimate," in opposition to the setting out of those which lhad reg!larllYocuTrred in wedlock. A newspaper was also put in (of a *date about 5 years old),contaiving an offer of 61. rewardfor the mar. riage register of Samsuel Grieves and Margaret Fiddy, both believed to be of Binham or its vicinity; from which the pansh of Burning. hatm being only four miles distant, the inquiry consequently must haye been notorious. As, in consequence ot that advertisement, the entry noa produced had not been brought forward, the reasonable inference (Mr. Sergeant Frere contended) mu1'st be, tl)at it had not then been ei existence. The LoIsL CHIEF BAROW here inquired whether the plaintiff Vas desirolls ofgoing on? Air. SToRES$ after a short consultation,said that he certainly was desirous to do so. The entrv of 1743 was certainly very irregular; but the whole contents of the book in which it appeared were pretly nearly in the sanme condition. The Bev. W. Jones, the present rninister of Uaurningbam, was then exarnined for the defiendant. The witness said, that he was minister of theparish of Buraingham, and had beert so for about fiveyears. He kniew the book before bim (the book containing the entry of 1743), it was one of the reCisteer books of Burningliam pa. rish. Since he had been ilNstei~ That. book baa.bden i-tt hit xSWod -otin'that of thi tthttshc dt in hIOhed rc ui.t bad,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dos band Ret4 copie othndt fro Iro hadibeen ett bthe khit3jY best,O the Pgiri sthirk and m a tiIg t be ke The oresent clerk tioaa bel it lo o ghu te yepars the man rriag Oficiatb before h oif 1a dad. an ia thought the lat clere c hld eot write, aneve' examin the book inlrestiOi (that which contaifned the entlty) talook it tyr e In h e.M.Up.Ohls Sah1l4 aLm minsater' at Bisla;b officiate fbomerl o at lringhtha h I came to Br in In and left it in e 18W.n te institse oft m;yduty i Unrhath f Occiort to took veer ife older r ngisaed. bo ths of tainh. The Archdeacon of thl diie thers, en onw e ohr hig visitiets fund %,orneof our booksin avery had states 'r'hadampof thehehhd mnildewed them,, 11o tbat the entrif in some pleces were beoint obliterated. tn consewqu ite roh dleaoe y the haont Oa usevidmenpto lookoedthc pat'he books, and get copies Isade frto wUchd parat as were dAhoged, having teem properly witndesed an atteated, I dene, these ther myself for the greater securityhe and lgt itlm3ctyettled by the curchwarden, and by some of the oldest Inhabitants. In the coure ofa this operation,ugI looked through the book now in question and certainly I never saw any such entry as thiBurninthnm te be the marriage r-gtster of Samuel and Margaret Gerieve 5s. I tink if there had been such an entry in the book, certai.nly mnust have observed It. Alr. STORKs, In reply, restedl upon the general careless style In which -9,aith books oldler than the last half century were alwav$ found to havie been kept; and insisted thato in both those before the Cauet, that cuntaining the renister of marnage, and thet containing the birth of lllary Grieves, there were other irregularitiest quite as et an thnt whicte plaintifFo was endeavouring to makte into a nor;Lostfl byancaso pARO basid that he should trouble the jury vry shorte : the 3cace, was quite too clear a one to talk about. On tht seiene tio et (theI.for the plaintifr, he had felt disinclined to Thd uraw thecau l dbaut he should have told the jury cecidedtl unthat evidence, adthat there was no proof for them to found the dfa l[Theriti ay o Mary s rorieves upon. AB the case stood, thet3 cottid he ngt o sbt he at all (as he thought) about the merits of it. No one could look at that entry in the hook from Buioant d , whic purported to be the moarriage-registry of theGrees in 17I without seeing that siomething very like foute rcic a ben h resorted to. Evezry circuimstance about the document.the coour the ink-the manner of the entry-the situation in whicht. was wo all concdurred to show that it cotld not by any reasonabepoaiiyh genuine. The jury had heard anti asfe trhe dece,ndath to decide upon the case. butj as it seemned i him the lord hief Baron), there could be little, if any, cause tor hesitation. The Jury, having looked at the documentary evidcnce, without hesitaoio tound a verdict for thne defendant. IThere was a case still more extraordinary than the above (taking the register to have been a fabrication) occurredi about h years sineat the Exeter assiut . A farmer defended ain action brought against him for rent due, upon a receipt which he had forgedr knoviny that the steward fron whomn he pretended to have received it would be called against him. The receipt was impountled, by order of the Judge, withini two minutes after it was produced ; and Air. Sergeant Pell, who was fot the defendant, gainei just timfe enoutoh, by an objec- tion, for the client to miake his way out of coutm The plaintift, in this case, was a rs. Calmady, a laldy of considerable fortune In Devonshire, and Mgr. Justice Holroyd trie the egausethe name of the defendant. we have forgoteen.] CROWX SIDE:.-Before Mr. JAittice GASEFis.. The Grand Jury for the couaty (city) of Norwich concluded their duties tiis day and made a presentment, throusgh their fbre. maun relatirbe tothe administration of justce within the city. The resentment statede, that there existet, in tke opinion of the jury, a heavy necessity for holding two assizts in each vear for the citY Of Norwich. ,They had been informed that the alcferren of the corpn. ratione acting in teir capacity of magistraten, had power to try per. sons charged with capital offences; but of ihe real existence of any such righi, thecy (the jury) begged respectfully to doubt ; and de. cared that, even did the right exist-with every esteem for tile law. offiers laf their cTpr0ation-theY should prefer seeing such persons tried by those regularly d ousotitute judges, wo, botht by their ranki and their high taient, istood roperly the first legal auechrltied of the ld . TeJr the eered to the calentlairof ptisoner.a for the city, at the present asiza; in which there aptes red one individual who had been confned for a npace of II months, without the possibility of being regularly brought to trial-a length of imtprisonment, under such circumstanceS, utterly at variance, ad it seeme( to them., with the sthcnecey of nlholaw. The namies of several other individuals atostoodin the same andcalendar, in the condition of having been con- lind forat loup periodn,and no true hills eventually found agaiost them. JusticerCAsoEis, too, nowv confinled, were impritoned on chargesenmn of ha stohenr bombasins froni a magistrate of the city; anti thepate Jury apcould not but observe, that for the unagiatrates of te city toe presie at the trial of such tersons would be a proceed- log by no t meapsdecorous or prnper. The magistrates, in fAcg t feeling thed fothe ofxth ciricumstunce, Thad constantly declined exery ciinv te poer bith which it was said thley were invested ae ndl tleand JuMllry had the highestt grtification in expressing their ap- p ation of such a line of contact. The presentment, whicch was si~e by allI the m-emlbers of the Grand Jury, concluded by reiter. sing the necessity of holding twvo assizes for the city of Norwich within the year; and recommended the subject to the serious consi- deration of his Lordship. Mtr. Ju%tice GiAsE.E-E said, that he shouldl be careful to lay the p resentment of the jury before the regular authority. F'or himself, he was deputed for a special putrpose, and had no power upon the subject. Perhaps he might without impdropriety just retmas,r, that an ct,th ?,thol helat Kng,ofentders in a city where ma- gisrats dd ot ossss henecssay urisdiction, mighL always be trie inthenex adjinig cunt. Te suggestions of the Jutry, howver shuldbe ali beorea cmptent authority ; antd he (the leaned Juge)hadno oub tht teywould rnect with the atten. NORWICB (CITY). SATUyinAv- Aim-. 11. (UltEVE V. J3NTT12(;.