Huntingdon, Monday, Aug. ...
The Times, 1824-08-04T00:00:00

easte I clur rLe county commence inere tnts day. 'ITle calen- dar contained four prisoners, three of whom were charged with slight offences. Two causes only were entered at Nil jPris. In the Civil Court, before Mr. Justice GASELEE, the only case of interest was HoPrEINO r. ARCHDEACON-. This was an action to recover about 30]. in the way of darnages, for injury accruing to the plaintiff by the negligenice of the de- fendant. 1Mlr. STORRtS said, that the plaintiff was a brew-r -r--abrdUi`y at St. 1-lr -hn who em-a hi:r1f fe,,a,ro in being in a SitUation to make tbe present complaint to the jury. The defendant is a coachmaker, or a person pretending to be one, residing at the same place, and the action before the Court arose out of his having under. taken to build the p'laintiff a curricle. On the 8th of January in the present year, this curricle having come bome, Nr. Hopkins had proposed to make trial of it in a journev fromn St. Ives to Wls. beach. Thejury would find, that previous to going out, he had caused the horses to be ' put to" by a person who was a stage- coachman, and who had further driven theai round the town, to try their steadiness end competency. After this precaution,he had started, accompanied bv a friend, when, at the end of some 20 miles. lei. strely driving, a most serious accident had overtaken the utav6llers. The splinter-bar, which was always too slight, had suddenly given way; the gentleman had been thrown from the cuirricle, one of the horses, in running sway, had received a hutrt, which ended in his death a few days after; anct for the value of this horse. and the re- pair of the curricle. pi's a sn:. l amount of a farrier's bill, the present action was brought. Thomas Oliver (the stage-coachman referrecl to)e sid that he hril put Mr. Hopkins's lhorses to his curridle on the 8th of January. He had afterwards driven them roand the town; they went perfectly safe and well. Witness had not hiu2self put the poll isto the ear. riage; had found it already in when he canme to put the horses to. Alr. J. Coote had been AMr. Hopkins's comnanion from St. Ires toWisbeach on the day ofthe accident. Theroad al thewar wasgood, though not so good as some that witness had travelled. rhey went steadilv; from five to eight ttiles an hour. About seven miles short of Wisbeach witness was driving, when, suddenlv, he heard a crash, and the vehicle fell down to the horses' feet. Both himself and the plaintiff were thrown oat by the concussion. They tried to get outt behind, but were rather thrown out than succeeded. The horses ran off at once. About a quarter of a mile farther on the road the carriage was found afterwards in a ditch. The horseF were caught sonmething farther (in another ditch), by carriers coining in a con- trary direetion. Witness knew that one of the horses had died shortly after this accident.. Cross-examined by Mr. CooPElt.-The horse that was killed was " the chestnut horse." The other horse was not killed. Did net know whether the chestnut horse had ever been in a curricle be- fore. C(ould not be sure wvhether hehlsd ever seen a curride before. Was not in his confidence gencraUl. He (witness) did not know that the chesnut horse was broken knee'd. The dogs did not eye tlhem sus;iciously that he saw. 'as certain that they bad not car- ried pistols with them to keep off the crows. Mr. A. Ratton said, that it was he who had " chopped" away the "chestnut horse" to Mr. Hopkins. The horse had been useilto go in a gig, and went quietly. The horse wais not young. over seven years: could not well say how much over. He certainly had some rery long teeth, and one broken knee. W itness valued him at 201. Mr. Honibon, a coachmaker of Cambridge, taid, that he had re- paired the curriele in question. The cost of the repair was 61. ls. The splinter-bar, Nwhich hlad givem. way, (and which he now pro. duced) had certainly never been sufficient. It oaght to have been plated with iron all along. It was not so. The wood, too, w's no, a good stick for the purpose. It had broken very " saort " ishis was a proof it was bad wood. The curricle seemed buiLt ,or horms. about 14 hands. The splinter-bar was certainly quite unfit to sup- port its weight. Robert G+raves, a journevman coach-maker, 30 vears in the trade, thoaght the splinter-bar which was produced quite unfit to be trusted to. In all his life he had never seen such an one, no, :'lated with iron all the way along. It would not have been saft wi:N even one person in the carriage. Air. El. CooPE'R, for the defence, said that he sbouk .etore the curricle to have been made uinder the plaintiff's exprcs d(iretiont; and comepleined heavily that such an actioR as the pesent should have been brought against his client. His case went, Qlmost all Abe way along, with the case of his learned friend (Air. Steks), only the material point-the commrands of the plaintiff hiroeiif~ inth afiair-had so far been orsitted. oThe jury were, manf y U, - acquainted, probably, with the plantiff, agairst ,hom lie a*r. Cooper) had nothing in the world to say, hut tha t r : s to far to visit his own absurdity upon the head of Mr. . '-ndeaOL Hie was, In fact, an extremely respectable rnan-Hopki- name-b-t no relation to the celebrated Polly Hopkins. By > . Nor.fl?. kins was a brewer; his father had been a eook at -z-' t,r_dge Ue. versity, and had held the high and respostble offWerOt Ol aItter of the Brawn." But stiU, iff Ar. Hopkins chose to deive curricles, 'he ruight have done well not to have meddled with the build1 of them. For the damage claimred, it was ridiculors to talk Fot its amount, because the plaintiff could entertain no hope of having a verdict; but vet the claim, in its mere amount, was such as no reasonable mnan could ever think to establish. Them lees 201. charged for the "chestnut" horse; why, the plaintiff had sold the skin and the flesh-not to speilt of the shocs =ad what else haqd the beast of available value ? For it was charged that the animal had got his death by running away; why, it was notorioliS that he had not known what ranning was for at least thr last ten years. Again, the carriage was charged with hsving fle- dowu with tlbe horse; now, w:as it not ten tunes more reasonable to suPPOse that thehorsehad fallen down withthecarriage? Infeet,theplainti' whole case, as regarded probabilities, was the cart put before the horse altogether. But he would dismiss the questiOn Of damaged, for the jury would never come b that. and aply himself for a efna. ment to thc evidence in the cause. Was it likely that the defend. ant, whose chatacter and livclihood depended on the estimation he held in his trade, shouil hIve ME-de an (obviousl sune"e cariage for the plaintiff, when be had nothing in the worla tD gain by so slo. ing ? There was an insinuation abo,t gr. Archdaecon's t pre- tending" to be a coach-makter; did the jury ha pen to nfow that thif, "p pretended," incapable co4aal= Iad fomerly built a gig, for Mr. Hopkins against which there had been no cons. plaint, and which had bean trakea bac by him in part aYIment for the precious coricde in question,? He (Mkr. Cooper) believed that,afterall, the accident had resulted frone the unskilfalnessno [r. HXopkins s people, wph?o,bpeig unused to suob Offes. had Put he poleintohis urn impopery. Btiake thefact P be otherwise,_ iosd he ?eas prepared, over and over arain, to WtEet it. The iat complained that the defendant's coach was not etrotsg enough; and pxerhaps the defendant mriight complamn that the plainutiff beer evas .O'- trOl'g eIo9gh. But what would follow if it could be sheiwn agaitst such a complaint that he liad himself directed the Tnalt and bops to be omitte-d P Now this Vws exactly as thie case stood witl r *IAr deacos. The 5plititer bar, it was said, ought to have been iron ?lated ?W 1 ffii its'si y,' iio doubt it ought; and so it would, but for Altr. Dr. ni0 poSilive otders to the contrary. The fact was, that varte a pins wisbel to have more of a cat than her skin. le wa'ated ahcurricloe (fb' high days). and a gig (for ordinary days), ye3 t he would aff rd to have only one crtriage. And tnis ii wafs that lie led to all the mischief: the affiir must be liglht-ligtl as a feather--or wbat was built for two horses could not be dravm bY ore. to be seriora, he (I1r. Cooper) was prepared to prove that everyfault which the carriage might have had, arose from the abso. lute directons of the slaintiff'. Witnesses wrould be callcd vho hadI beard him aver and o7er again complain that the tlhing was not lighl enough; and one who absolutely heard him declare that thi lin -r (now comprLined of) shonld not be plated witl iron. orbt, .t of -hicli th at bar had been com iosed, he slould provc it to be of as go-od weod as ever was growtl, and by so doing, fully entitle hiimseli to the verdict of the jury. But the defendant would stil remain a cnost ill-used man on the score of the ground- less imPutations throrun out against his character; and farther, of hit 8aving, w'ith no sufficient cause, been put to the expeise of the pre- sent Proceedings. Jamdlest Macroorn,the defendant's apprentice. proved having re. p,rateady heard the plaintiff order that the curricle should be very ;John Stocker had heard the plaintiff (who looked at the woek aE went on,) order thatit: should bc as light as possible. hJameu tevenson said that he was the defendant's iourneyman,and ad bere0n his apprentice Ie believed that the defendant perfectly ihderod fhis trade. The plaintiff had frequently objected to the eifht of cumicle wh J.le the work was going on; and declared that ifi l a not made very light. he would not have it when it was fihitrised.cim had rrorked at the carriage in question; and if left te himself rtanly, wreald not have made the plilnter-bar as it had been me. Plaintif sat rie bar repeatedly before the carriage went onme; and he was a man familiar with such matters. Aften the curricle went home, plaintiff ran it as a gig several times, and pent it back to the defendant for altcration, befose the accident hap- Pe*ed. The altera,lons which he ordered, and which were matle, cere of a tature to increase the bearing on the part which had wn w,vay- Defendant had often comnplained heavily of Mr. Hop- tineis interference as the work went on; and declared that hc wo?td rauher be " transported" than deal with him. Witness had Lot put the pole into the carriage, he was positive on the morning whent Mir. Hopkins went to Wisbeach; and his belief was, that the pole bad been put in inmproperly, or the carriage might have gho to e Visbeach safely after all. The piece of wood 6f which the Splinter-bar was made had not broken short. It was as good apPece of stick as he (witness) had ever worked upon. John Mlason worked with the defendant as hiB smith; and had done the iron-work for the curricle in question. The iron plating ought to have one all round the frame of the carriage; but the fda f n woul not have it so. Witness had heard the plaintiff and endant speak about the carriage while it was building. Defen- dant wished the iron plate to eo all round the frame; plaintiff said 'he old have it as he liked." Defendant then tnld him that " he (defendant) would not bazard it." Thie iron certainlv would have been carried all round the frame but for Mf r. Hopkins's interference. Witn~p was so angry at its bcing forbidden, that he had nearly lost his p7aoe y quarrelling with tdi defendant on the account. Mr. JusticeGAssL Esaid, itappeared on al hands that thectir- ncle hadanot been proptrly made; the question for the jury was, bow far the defendant had acted under the orders of the plaintiff. He too thiscearly to be the lavr.that when a man ordered any work of a tradesman, that tradesman was bound not to exe- cute specific directions'(if they were unsafe ones) without giv- ng notice to his employer that they were unsafe. For the qaestion f the goodess of the piece of woo;d of which the splinter-bar haci been m.ade, there was a contradiction in the opinion of the witnesses; but theju hemselves sulfficient knowledge upon the hubect. If they thought that the wood was bad, or that the iron ab been omitted without notice, then they would fintl a verdict for the plaintiff; if they believed those facts to be otherwise, then tliev Would find for the defendant.Verdict for the defendant. CROW.9 SIDE.-AP.SON. (Before Dte LORD Cill EF BARON.) Tho?ns.r Savage, the younger, was indicted for setting fire to a barn wilfully, and afterwards to a house, on the morning of the 26th of AMay. Mr. STEE as, who appeared for the prisoner, took an objection before the jury were sworn. His objection was that the High She- riff, as an inhabitant of the hundred in which tAie fire had occurred, was liable (in common) to an action for the injury sustained, unless before a certain time the incendliary was convicted. The Sheriff, therefore, was asn interested party in the tri8l, and a jury returned by him could not be allowed to sit. Mr. DOVER replied, that to sustain such an objection, there must bea direct, and not a mere contingent interest proved. The LORD Cerarr BA.RON Said,*that (to sustain an action against e hundred) certain conditions must have been complied with pre. niously by the clainants. Could it be shown that those conditions had becencog'pslied with, and that the sufferers were in a state to try 5Mr. STEERS could not give evidence to that effect, and thie ob- jection was therefore overruled. Mr. DovER then stated (on the pa-t of the prosecution), pretty nearly in terms, the same case wbich was afterwards proved by the witnesses. The prisoner'a crime, lie said, had been attended with immense damage in a pecuiniary point of view (near 20 houses were burned down or materially injured), besides the dreadful danger to which the sufferers from it were personally exposed. Two persons eould be produced to give evidence, who had, to a certain point. been accomplices in the criminAl act; and the jury, in a case of such importance, could not watch their testimonv with too much jealousy. He (the learned counsel), however, believed it would be supported by the prisoner's own contcssion, in such a way as to leave no question of his guilt. IVitnesses were then called in support of the prosecution. James Tinkler said-I remember the fire at Somershain on the m6rning of the 26th of MUay. I rose at one o'clock that Morning, to begin brewing. *Vbhn I looked out, I saw that Mr. Wallman's barm was on fire. I went over directly, and was the first who called him up. Mr. Wallman said-I ami a farmer ; I was caUed up on the 26th of May by the last witness. iMy barn was on fire, when I got to it, the roof, l found, had fallen in. Air. Mast's house, and Alr. Asp- land's, afterwards caught the fire, and were burned. llir. J. MIast was a shopkeeper at Somersham. His house was burned on the morning in question. A smail part of his property, consitting of rnercer's goods, was saved. James Woods (the first approver said-I live at Somerslum, and kno so50mething of the prisoner. I' wo days previous to the fire, I was going down the fen to lilucklart, and he overtook me. We nad souse conv'ersation. He said that he had nothing to do; that there wanted a good fire in the town, and that there should goon be one-he hail turned the matter twice in his mind s he lay in bed, and, this time. he would dto it. We then went on talking, and Savage asked me if I would back him. I answered that I would have nothing to do with it. He said he thought that he should setthefiteto " Ohl Billy Mason's." After- wards, he said " If I set fire to lM.irs. lbbett's, that will take to the barn, and the barn to the other shops * and if you will stand at my back, and hand the old iron chests about, we shall never want any more as loag as we live." This was all that passed at our meeting then; but r saw him again about six o'clock on the morning of the fire. lie then said-" I tohl you how it would be, my old fellow ?" I answered " Yes." He said " Have you made your market ?" I said " No; I have got nothing." Then he said " Never mindl.my boy, I have got a pretty suit for you." Some days after this, I saw the prisoner again; and he told me that he had got 70 yards of breeches-pieces a roll of velveteen, somne silk for waistcoats, and some gown.picces; he also said that he had removed them from his own houe, and put them between twvo haystacks. I saw the pri- sonar again after tbis still; but I forgot on what day;* and he chiarged me with having said somnething about him. I denied it; and he said " Well ! I thought I could trust you, anti I think I can stilL" He told mc then, that he hadl been lying trembling in his lied all night, for fear the officers were coming to fetch him. His mnother wanted him to run away, but he would not. Cross-examined by .r. STEaRs.-I am a labourer: at the time I refer to, 1 was in iUr. Wsirner's service. I said nothing to the pri- soner but what I have repeated here I said that I wanted tohave no- thing to do with the affair. I did notinform immediately. At the jus- ticeroom, I tnld thesametalethat I havetoldhere.Ihadtoldit to my master on the Saturday night after the fire. r never agreed to share tbe plunder, or said I would take a part of it were it offered to me. I saw the prisoner at the fire, i'here he had been pumping, andi assist- ing to put it out. I know John Cooke but I never spoke to hin on this business. I never saw tte place 'isere the plunder was hidden. The fire awoke me on the morning of the 2fith. I had gone to bed at half-past nine on the preceding evening. John Cooke (the2d approver) said,I know the prisoner, and a man named John Darby. out seven or eight o'clock on the morning of the 25th of Mlay we were tagether, and talked about actting fire to Dir. WAllmamni' barn. At eight in the evening we met again near Mr. Wallman's gate. Darby gave the prisoner three bunches of common matches. We then parted, and met about ten o'clock at Sllr. Aspland's barn,where we laid down until near eleven. At eleven o'lock, wve went to Mr. Wallman's barn, and Savage put the matches under the eavesof it. He then said tome I "If you will net Mason's barn on fire, I will net Dir. Leeds's." I refused to do this, end went home to bed. Cross-examined by 5Mr. STEERS.-I caine here from the gaol. I wasA not there for this fire, but for a hat which I put on my head which did not belong to me. When I had been in gtiol a week, they asked ma about the fire; I never said any thing aboutt it until I was iisked. I sent a letter abont giving my eividence: a debtor in the a1 viuote it, and I remade my mnrik. I am positive that Savage fired tlsiii, and that I did not. Easton proved that she saw Cooke said Savage together at a public-house on the evening before the fire. John KimptoA svore, that he had alarmed Charles Woods (the witness) on the night of the fire. Woods had answered from his room. I., Siotkins proved the having found a variety of mercery goods in a stoek at R.edleigh fen; Mr. Maat identifiea them as property Which had been stolen from his house. John Cor was called to prove the prisoner's confes.sion; but it ap- pearing that advanitages had been held out, the evidetice was not admitted. Mr. Torklngtont a maglstrate for the county, proved a written confession, made alter the prisoner had been warned of what he was doing, This was he ease for the prosecution. Te prisoner merely said In hia defence, that he shouad never have thought of setting fire to the barn, if Charles Woods had not advised him to it. Witnesses were then called to show that, up to the time in ques- tion, the prisoner had borne a good character. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of &Giifp. The LoRD CIrIEF BAROV, in passing sentence of death upon the pri.onsr, said that his crime was of such a nature as to preclude all hope of' mercy. He would do well to make the best use of the short timc which remained tohfin in this world, in the only way In hIjch it could rerlly avail hi t-the preparing himself for thc next. filliam Crcsitwe was indicted for etealing a hiat out of the parsh church of Somersham, on the 2h of M ay. The hat was stolen during the fire, having been placed, With other property, in the chu.ch tor safety. It appear that the prisoner had taken the hat fl0sf the remonstrancess of several persons who were present, and would be likely toget into trouble by what lbe was dolng. He said that he was very wars with serk, and Wanted the hat lest ha should take cold. tPhe Jury found the prisonergsellty; and lie was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, and to be kept to hard labour. . HUNTINGDON, MO2. DAY, AUG. 2.