Court Of Common Pleas, We...
The Times, 1824-02-11T00:00:00

,,ir. oer`eant VA!G,RAN showed cause against the rule for a new triaL The numerous affidavits on both sides having been read, it ttow berame his duty to oppose the rule. This iwas a case connected Wlth rparties and circumstances which had excited a degree of inter- est that bad seldom been surpassed. If it were to turn on the credit which was to be given to the assertions of John Thurtell on the one ba or of Joseph Hunt on the other. the Court would certainly he Placed in a situation of very considerable difficulty. Balancing the tredit of one against that of the other, would be onlv balancing be- tween two bad men; and therefore the better way vwould he to ask their lordships to dismissthemnaltogether from theirmi nsis,and to con- sider the case upon different grounds. Ile would therefore procecd at once to the single point on which this rule had been granted, con- tenti..g himself vith barely mentioning the other points urged and over-rtled when the mnotion was made. Ile should only recal to the attention of the Court the statement then made, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence ; for their LoIrdsh ps had *lisposed of that; of the alleged misdirection by the learned Judge, on whicis also the Court hadgiven their judgment; and the supposed perjury of the witnesses, for the authorities cited bv the Court had aiso de- termined that question, those authorities liolding that perjury dis. covered after the trial was no ground to set aside a verdict, for other. wise courts of justice would become fields of perjury, in which he who swore loudest and last would be certain of obtainiing the verdict. Hle would now come to the case itself, and throw ott of it every tit- tle of evidence given by John Thustell: he would consider it as though that unfortunate man had never existed. He wanted not his aid or his testimony ; and if ultimately the Court should be induced to send this qitestion down to trial again he believed he should be able to Maintain the plaintiffs case with. out the testimony of that individual. At the same time he was bound to observe, that the slaintiff could never go to trial again in the same condition as hefore; foe no man coulti live in the world and be ignorant of tte prejudice which those persons must feel who would be called n to decide a cause so intimately connected with the name of a, man who had been the subject of such general dis- cuss"Jn, and who had finally paid the forteit of liis life to the of. fer tted laws of his country. He well knew that feeling wotild not iriflueice the minds of any of their lordships: nor ought it to influence the mind of any other person ; because, although Un individual might conunit one crime, yet that was by no means conclusive proof that he had committed another, undter di?. ferent circumstances. Tl.-e world in general, however, was not guided by such reasoning ; and therefore their Iordships wrotild not send this case down for a new trial, unless they had a full conviction that perfect justice had not been measured otit to the tlefendant upon the former trial. The learned sergeant then proceeded to observe upon the various circumstances of the case. It had been proved on the trial, that goods to the amnount of 1,90101. antl upwards had been purchased by Thomas Thurtell, besidtes furniture, with the view of is entering into business as soon as lie could get released from his enragement at the Cock tavern. This had been proved by unitnpeuch- ab e witnesses; and it was svorn that they were there at half-past four o'clock on the evening of the fire, not a piece having been removed from the time they hnd been taken in. This didl n t depend upon tile testiniony of John Thirtell; it was sworn to by Anderson and it was even proved, that goods were brought in on the very aftetnoon, which was not very likely to have been the c;se, if all this had been engendeiced in fraunf. It might le said, if yoti shut out Thurtell's testimony, what proof have vou that he was not on the premises between the hours when Andermon let) it, and when the fire took place ? That was clearly proved by the evidence of Ensor, and that of the watchman opposite, who, in consequence of its being a snow)y night, never left his box all the time, and there- fore must have seen if anY person went in or out. Then as to the manner in which the fire began- Lord Chief-Justice GEFFORD.-VYOu have a right to as. sume from the verdict that the fire was accidental and the goods ,were on the premises at the time ; for, as I understand it, the rule was granted only on the ground that additional evidence hadi been procured after the trial, of some of thle goods having been sold by Thttrtell. Mr. Sergeant VAI'HGAN.-Onliy for the tri;d which took place at I ertford, not the slightest stispicioi would have attached to this case , ut because a man liad committerA a worse crime, it was therefore to be taken for granreti that lie had comrnmitted this. That indeed would be a most datigerous doctrine. Assutning now that the verdict was right, he woldl proceed to the affidavits; and first, that of Mlr. Barber Beaumont. Ile tlr. IBeaurmont) would forgive him (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan) if lie threw that affidavit overboard, as having little or nothing to do with the case. That gentleman being dissatisficd with the verdict, proceeded to look for turther informatdon; and whether it was owing to those ad- vertisements for infoatnation, or to the other inducements for infor. ination-~ MIr. Sergeart ITADDY obiected to this line of argumient; his brother Vauichasl had no right to assunme as facts what did not ap- pear in tha2 affidavits Mlr. Sergeant VAUGoeAav was speaking from the affidavit of Alr. Bealu.inont. Zefr. Justice PAtRX.-There is notlhing about advertisements in it. tLr. Sergeant VAUGHAN proceeded.-MIr. B. Beaumont had told their Lordahips that a bill of indictment had been found sgainst somne of the witnesses for a conspiracy- but he had not told them that a previous bill presented by hbim had been thrown out. He admitted, that if the affidavit of Wrigglesworth were to be believed implicitly, then, indeed, a strong case of suspicion had been made out; but it was impossible to be. lieve a single word of it, contradicted as it was by four persons, some of themn individuals of as high chsracter as any in London. Who was this Wrigglesworth ? A discarded servant of the Messrs. Mar. Lraves. These latter gentlemen were certainly not itly tireated by ilr. Barber Beaumont; for after they had afforded him every in- formiation in their povwer, giving him copies of the invoices they had received from Snowden, and a list of the persons to whom the goods purcbased of him had been sold, he chose to insinuate in his aHdavit that they liad displayed a seluctance to afrord him any information on the subject The chbracter of these gentlemen had never before bcen impugned until thie present imputation was cast upon them, of purchasing goods ait 25 per cent. below the invoice price, although it appeared *.hat they bad sold them at a profit varying fronm 9 to 12per cent. ; and this irnputation proceeding from a person, woo tipotn being presi.a for a debt of 11., replied that he would be in funds It' ths c;se terminated in favour of the office. He did not know whe- tlier , sis man meant to insinuate that Mr. Barber Beaumnont had a atp9Cet fed up in hiX ofiice for the witnelises to come and dip their hands into, in promotion of the liberal dispensation of justice. Wrigglesvwortb's affdavit was contradicted in every particular by Lord Chief Justice GIFsoFR.. .nowdefl 8ays he purchased the goods as agent; buit he does not say as agent for whomn, or from whom he so purchased thern. They say that he acted as agent for ThuirteL * Mr. Sergeant VAUCO1AW-He states that he purchased them at the Poulteres' Armis; which is a place where jobbing goods are sold for nemons in distressed cixcumstanMcs, Who do not wish their aiTairs to be known. Lord Chief Justice Gis'ORno..That is no answer. Ee does 'not SiafOr whora be acted as agent on that occasion. He does not deny tlu t it was for Thurtell. Mr. Sergeint VAu43HAN.-.2.e states that he never madeany purchase of Joihb ThurtelD. Lord Chief Justice GIFt*oRD-That is not the allegatiorn ; it is not said he purchmed thein of Tiurtell. Mtr. Sergearnt VAmua$-t.It was at ali events most positively denied that Snowvden liadAToduced the Invoices of Todd and Mor- rien to the Megsrs. MaArave; therefore that allegation fell to the ground. The learned tergeant next contended, that Robinson's af. ftdavIt tught t jt to be1 rcedced, because he (Robinsohi) had notbeen cosled onii te trial. Ldwd ChieJfJitktIe 0 frOPR9.-Therein no'aflidavit that his tes- tirottiy was not known to thisn before the triaL MiTdt. Elfiec.nf ]VAdICJAI 8tld tilere atssnot and proeeded to UV6 the IfJii1io5hllW 6f1 strading dovi ii te cimt for 'i new tViat,' asndt b?t~le thfl p1eietlflt In the nitme m ituation as he had liSen X btfovE~ ifrc nennF Of th~ crime of John Thurtell, he sr.X dbtl?idedf histroedllltnbny. HoUr. serreant Vaughlan) had r* t 6pn t to e~rnsl ugp1n the sffldavits of John Thur. el us eh'idgh the ethet side hhad considered it decent to g.? i& We~ gai Oetttoid, 0 drag 1 a4temern flora this n4Wsrable tPepttllte pot tlle pAtlrObt orf fbittl&'g lit .agdlicht'6o dt ilim trial ulpon it. fiunt having stated that John Thurtcll told bitn he had done it, they (Mr. Sergeant Vautghans elietits) vvw -nt to Joh*u hurtell, and he, at a timne when he was not liicely to say what was false, contradicrea the whole statement. But he would now try Hunt, by Hunt himself. Tf ever there was a time when he was likely to tell truth, it was at that moment wvhen his heart was softened, soon after the sentencehad been pronounced. MXlr. Justice PAaic.4t moust have been within an hour after sentence was pronsunced; for I remnember giving permission that Thomas Titurtell should see his brother to take leave of him. ilr. Sergeant tAUGUnAN would sooner, were he ALr. B. Beau- mont, have let the tlbinF take its course, than resort to such a pol- luted source of informauon; but if there were any shade of difflr- ence between the degrees of credit to be given to Hunt's assertions at one time and another, he would sooner be believed at the mo- ment when he was making the only atonement he could to a man on the point of quitting the world, v-ith whom he had been on teriss of the closest intimacy. He (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan) *ould now take leave of the case, satisfied that if their L.ordshi'ps saw that by grant- ing a new trial even-bhanded justice roald not be done, and that the preponderance of afflidavits was in favour of the plaintiff, the ('ourt, under all the ciretimistances, wouldl refuse the motion. Mir. Sergeant PELt. followed on the sameside. and contended, that If judgment were pronounced against his client, it would have the esfect of saying, not that there shoultd be a new trial, but that there should be no trial at all f br it was not alone that the most impor- tant witness was now no more, but he had left behind him a cha- racter so marked by crime, that those men by whom if another trial could take place, it would be tried, must be more than men, if they retained their minds unprejudicedI against the plaintiff's-case. Nor was that all; for this defendant had thought proper, acting, no doutbt, from the best motives, to prefer a bill against Thos. Thurtell, John Thurtell (whlo was now beyond the reach of crimiinal jurtice, at least in this world) Snow'den, and Anderson, for a conspiracv. He lamented that this step had been taken pending the present inquirv, and lie was certain that the defendant himself was now sorry for it also. His learned brother havilig sifted these affida- vits to the bran, lie would not go into them at any length. It was a little extraordinay, after all that had been pub'lished in every necs- paper it. the kingdom, by which there was not a human bein- In the cingdom,high or low, who had not had his attention drawn to tie coni- duct of the Thurtells, and who was not therefore mest anxious to stamp his sigret upon such conduct, that nevertheless not one indivi- dual had come forward to state that a single rag of these goods bad been sold to them. It was impossible to make this rule absolute without convicting the Messrs. ar raves of periury. It wbad been proved on the trial,that not a single inlividual could pass into or out of the premises on that night; if therefiore, the defendant succeeded in this motion, it must be on the affidavit of that miscreant Hunt, who had afterwards recanted his statement, when in the agony of the moment, he wished to make atonement to his fellow in crime when he considered he was just about to leave the world. If he deceived him then, at the momnent he was ascending the scaffold, bad as John Thurtell was, Hunt was still worse, and was a man pressed down by more crime than ever man was before. One word as to W'rig- gleaworth's affidavit. Snowden had certainly omitted to state where the goods came from; if he had, then there would not have been a word in this case to hinge a doubt upon. But it was sworn that the ;llessrs. Margraves furnished Mlr. Beaumont with the names of the parties to whom he sold the goods, and which goods had their marks upon them. WVhy did he not produce the affidavits ofthese persons, or produce the goods, and then it would appear whether or not they were the same that had been purchased of Todd and Morrison. Mr. Justice PARX.-Does it appear that Wrigglesworth, when he heard of the fire, went to the office and acquainted them with what had taken place upon the occtsion of his predicting an explosion ? Mr. Sergeant PELT. replied, that no such thing appeared ; and after some further argunients, lhe concluded by saying that there was not enough in thecease to call upon the Court to send it back for a new trial. Mr. Barber Beaumont, who was sitting in front of his counsel, rose and said, he was infonned bv the learned counsel behind him, that he would be heard personally wvhen aspersions were cast upon his character. The Lord ChiefJustice GtFFoRD informed him, that unless he meatit to plead his own cause, it would be contrary to rule in the Coutrt to hear hinm. 1ilr.SergeantIVAuGTA,r and Mr. Sergeant PELI. disclaimed having cast any aspersions upon the defendant. Lord Chief Justice GIFFORD said, that no aspersions bad been cast upon him: counsel hiad not exceeded the bounds of their duty in commenting upon the affidavits. Mr. Beaumont said that Mr. Sergeant Pell had not, but MIr. SergenVtVaughan had, wlhen he made the observations respecting the advertisensents, &c. Lord Chief Justice GIFFORD reminded hiin, that the- learned Sergeant had been eorrected by trie C'ourt immediatelv at the time. Mr. Sergeant T'ADDY tlien proceeded to address the Court on the other side. After excusing the anxiety of the defendant to repei what he corceived to be an aspersion, altlhough he (M1r. Ser- geant Taddy) hlad told him that no aspersions had been thrown upon hm, he proceeded to impugn the conclusion drawn by the other side -that a party was in a worse situation than 'before, because an aban- dor,cd witness had suffcred the highest penaltv of the law; for then those vwould be in a better situationi who called abandoned, perjured witmesses, than thev who called pure and upright witneses. He then took a review of what had passed otn the trial, to show that the defendant had then no means of knowing the facts which afterwards came to hiskriowledlge, and upon which the rule had been obtained. The principal ground upon wvhich he relied was this.-the copies of the invoices furnished b-v Messrs. Margrave to Mr. Beaunont tal- lied in nearly every -,iiuthi with those ,f Todd andl Morrison pro- duced bythe plaintiff ott the trial. In the wltoleof theeighttrans- actions admitted between Snowden and the M:argraves, the details (thie invoicesl of the qualities of the goods, the various quantities even to the quarters of a yard, the prices even to the odd six- pences, tallied exactly with those of Todd and Morrison * and it was a inoral impossitbility that any others could have so tallied in all their numerous details : it was consequently many millions to one that they were the same goods. Could the Court doubt for a moment that thev were the same, wheti they were found, consist- lmg as they did of all sort-s and varieties, of all quantities and quali. ties, antd prices, to ogree in every respect on both sides ? tie did not impute to the Miessrs. ilargrave any knowledge of Thurtell, btt t wasqunite clear that these were the same goods purchasedl by him from MesNesrs. Todd and Co. Snowden not only did not state where he prcutred those goods, but he did not deny that he sold themn for Thurtell. He only said that he did not purchase them from Thurtell; but that was not charged. Mr. Justice PARR.-He denies that he ever paid any thing to Jolbti Thburtell. Mlr. Sergeant TADDY.-But lie did not deny that he did not pay the proceeds to Thomas, to whom, of course, he was bound to have paid them: hut wlhether he paid them or not to either John or Thomas was not a leading point; if Ie rlistrihntpd tiem in any other way for them, c-r retained the money to a future day, it mattered noto; so that the Court were convinced that the coodIs solil by him were part of the same statee to have been destroyed by the fire. W'ith respect to the iropriet of the detendant preferring an in(lictment against some of the wvity nesses, which had been quiestioned by the other side on the groun - that it would prevent them from being believed, he contended thad if they were ac4uitted, their character would stand higher tha I before; andI if they were convicted, ther ought not to be believed n tihere was therefore no injustice in that prosecution. Theii see how; tite facts which appeared on the trial stood. Lor.d Chief Justice GIFyFORD reminded the learned sergeant that he had stopped lir. Sergeanit Vaughan from impugning the trial. i(r. Sergeant TADDY observed. tihat his brother Pell had cons- iseittedi upon the tacts of the trial with effect. Lord ChiefJustice GtFsORaD left it to the learned sergeant's dis- cretion. Mr. Sergeattt TADDY said, lie would oatlv observe utpon such of them as went to illustrate the affi(lt,vits. The learned sergeant pro. ceeded tm (ho so accordingly, and concluded by sayitig he would give up the case, if the concurrence in details between the copies of the two sets of invoices did not prova to demonstra- tiotn, that some of the goods alleged to have been destroyed were disposed of before the fire; and it was enough for the defendant to show that the plaintiff's case was contaminated with fraud, without proving a full case of arson, to entitle him to a verdict. aMr. Sergeanit CRoss followed on the same side, and continued to address the Court until it rose. Lord Chief .Justice' GIFFO' D said, the Court would give judg. ment in the morning. COURT OF C .J10N, PLEAS. NE.TNMINSTFl. FEW. 10. T}IURTELL V. BEATUMONT.