Court Of Common Pleas, We...
The Times, 1824-02-12T00:00:00

me Lo)rc utlief J ustic-e Ger'pF.n proceeded this mrornickg to ronounce the judgment of the Court inl this case..- It was an %ction tesaid,on apolicy oi' insurance effected on a quantity of .adk and other goods, in certain premises in WVatling-street. It Wtts tried by a special jury, whio found a verdict for the plaintiff; dwa'ages 1,9001. An apxlication had been made to the Court for a ne'o, trial, on two grounds--the first wss a misdirection on the ps%-ct of the learned Judge who tried the cause; and the second wa3.< that a grand jury had found true hills for a conspirac~y to defrp-ed the County Fire. Office, gaint the plaintiff' and three of th't witnessesi. The Couirt wa o oinio on the first of thes--e points, that there was no ground fraewtrial ; and on the second, they h.das euedtersl. cation upon the authoritv of cases cited at the time ; and,~ und6ubt.. edly, had they, decided otherwise, it wouald be establishing a mnost danigerous precedent. A much stronger case than this occurred in the Court of Chancery, in wrhich the defendant having beets convicted of perjuary, the plaintiff, ort that groud, eti. tioned for leave' to file a supplementary bill, and th~e Lord Chiancellor refused it. A similar case occurred in the Court of Exchequer. The defendant's counsel then moved on two ether grouds: ne ws, that certain facts were stated on the trial, whchwre a surprise upon the defendant who otherwisemih b~een hbl to have met theins; anta the other was, tha nev'fhcrs hiad be,n discovered by' him subsequently to the trial. These were grounds certainly, which, if sati%flactorily made out. entitled the party to have tlri case re-investigated. But a court oughit tobe most cautious in see~g that such grounds were clear!.y and Satisfactorily established, before they proceedted to disiturb the verdict of the juiry ; and he found it laid d&own inL a case 'decided int this Court, that thie greatest caution ought to be observed in grant- ing a new trial on a statement of facts, contradicting the evidence whicih had been adduced on the trial. Buit, undoubtedly, there were cases in whii.hnew trials had been grated on those grund& Look.. ing at the facts now before the Court, it waa. more necessary to he cautieus in the present case than in othiers, so consequenct of the prejudice likely to be excited by the names of the plaintifF, and of' one of the witnesses whio had suffered, end justly &suffered, for one of the mast at'rodoios murders ever perpetrated in this country. The Court had, therdfore, attended witih the greatest anxiety to the ar- guments which had been so ably urged at the bar on tbe~one side and the other. The grounds on which the rtide had been obtained were contained in Mr. Beaumnont's affidavit. His Lordship would take them in the order hi which they wvere sworn. The first was the al.. leztatiOn, that the fart of the negotiation of certain billsj fbr thze plaintiff was a surprise upon'the defendant, and that he might be able to show that these bilis had been negotiated for the PuxrpoLse of takinglup the plaintiff's.former acceptances. -But Mlr. l3eaemono had not furnishied the Court 'with one tittle of evidence to prove. "noa that was the fart; and they were Psked to grant a new trial bn the itoerespeculation of one of the parties. He ought to have-, satisfied the Court by the aflidav-its of the persons whom he wo,r,dd have call- ed, as to the truth of that allegation hobtt that notbhiVing been done, the Court,was of opinion that on this point there was no ground for dlisturbing the verdict. Then came the next point., which was cer- tainly the most important one. It wms said by .l1r. Beaumont, that suibsequently to the trial, new facts had comec to hsis knowledIge. Upon this Parrt of the case the Court ought to proceed with great caution. iaet them set: what were tilese fact: thiey related first to the manner in which the fire took- place, end that part of them rest.. cd entirelv on the aiffidavit of Robinson, if he excepted that.of Hitnt. The oLhei was, that the goods alleged to have been destroy'ed hard either not been sent to ithe house in WVatling-street at all, or else that they hiad been removedl before the fire took place. Now the first of these- was the very ground of defence at the trial in the Couxrt be.. low, and therefore on that pokint there could have' been no surprise on the part of the defendant. What *ws the statement in Robin.. son's affidavit ? Thlat he could see into the PlAintiff's premises when.k they were on fire, and that from their appq.~arance it was impossible thtgoods could hiave been in them in tile manner in which the-e were described to have been on the trial. Now the first observatiDts hie would miake upon that affidavittwas, that not one word had been sworln to show thiat AIr. Beatsimont did not know what that man's evidence was before he we-it to trial - and consequently he coufld nior be allowed to call hinti now, to give that evidence which he might have giveni upon that occasion. if suich a praclic were permiitted to prevail, there would benco endl to litigation. But even though tbat objection wvere done away withi, it must be remembered that that was the very- issue which) was tried below, and that conflict.. iog testimony badl been given uponi it on each side - and also that a witness named R~eves had p roved that a quantity of the remiains of silks atnd other goods had beeni discovered acnon~cst the ruins. But his lordship had intimnated in an early stage of' the arguent, that the Court would not go into the circumstanccs of the tire thie allegations in that aLffidavit, therefore, were iusuffi~l~let to induce the C5rt to grant a new triaL Withrespect tothe afihavit. of lunit, lie (Lord Oiffl,rd) was unwilling to say, any thsg-f ha person: it seenmed to be agreed oni both mides that his a6~.aayit didI not weigh much, Besides, he could not nzow be exa-sinedl on the trial: therefore there was nothing in it. Indeed, ivke~ all the cir. cunista-nces of his case were recollected, it was i.-possible to place any reEiance upon his statement, contradictedI as SZ1 wasp not only by the wretched mnan John Thurtell himuself, ht'. by his own sutbse- quent declarationi, as stated in the hffidavit of the plaintiff. They ttiten camne to the point respecting thle gva~s having Ueeis disposed. of before thie fire; and this ifested on th'e affidavit of Wriggleswortlh. It wras true that this evidence appliedl only to a smnall portion of the goods_-between 2001. and 3001. 'worth;- but his lord1ship agreed in the answer afforded by the defendats:' counn'e to this observation-.. namely, that iftie sucoceeded in proving a fraud to have beam com- mitted in a small portion, it nigeht be reasonable to suppose that fraud xervadedi the whcOle transaction. It had not been urged ax a wr,-un for this application, that the verdict was against evidence ; therefore they must start from that point, and not impugn it. The fuct of the puirchase of these goods, therefore, must be taken as proved, because the jury had been satisfied of it. Then what were the facts ilTow for the consideration of the Court ? First, it must be ?ecolleeted this Couirt couldl not proceed uponi suspicion. The L-eet&,hen,,-vestd mainaly on the affidsavit of Wriglesworth ; for Mr. Beaumont, being a party to thie cautse, his Lordhi apprehod- ed that the motion could not be entertained on hsafdvtloe, un%ustaincdlby other testimoany. Vrigglesworhadbea srat in the employinent of the Messrs Margraves ; i a itesnu that hesaldI nothing of all these circumostasce, ni erteato waus tried in Juine. it was not necessary to go through i affidavit, because it had been m-inuttely commented upon oni bothsdsyet- dav, with great ability. liow was thlat affidavit met? so n single fact in it, except that some purchases hiad bee nmade Qf Stnowden, that was not contradicted by Mlessrs. Mlargrave. Thfer could be no doubt that he meant to inipute to thoese gentlemerk the f.qct of lhaving knowingly purchiased thiese goods at a price W9 cent. belowrelr invoice price. Mr. Sergeant Cross felt this dlculty, and endeavoured to relieve him from it, by observng that W~rfg. glesworth had used the wyords " by order of Tbiornsgiaxl4ry'~ave " but it was clear that the effect of those woeds ran thrmtsg4.`1lew1hole sentence, and thev. both denied that the3' knew Of this - "supposed cognjery," andl swore that they, sold the goods purchwKed of Snow;deh at a profit tinder hialf the sui~n at which "Wrig9les,orth stated they- were bought undler invoice price. .He was;,I5~SO coritradicted b~ thiree other witnesses loesideq Snowden, to w'lose; affidavit his Lor - sbpnow came. Undoubitedly Snowdealita dtod sworn from whom he-pha g ot the goods which were sold to Nlessrs. largrafe ; but he denied 'the fact of selling themnlirk The mnanf~rdsettrilbed in WVrig-. gleswortli's affidavit.-1e traversed all the facts alleged in that affidivit,- preise, ecep one, henhe ameto speak to Snowese us. ness Thn terewas he ffiavi ofTaylor, Who taSoroh pl notb b -elieve rigglesworth uPon his oath ; anid of lkieeh, h SWor tO declaration of Ihis4 which im-pliedl an impreopratv n hlis par-c for making that statement. Hert~ bovvever, it wa% trja tire to 5Mr. Beaumont t say; in cordlerso, preyctucny a niu. tion fr'om going abroad, that ino -ground -existed for ful anc insinuation, because he hadl no opportuinicy, owing to te rules of' the Court, of putting upon thec file an ;rtswer to thnt affidavit, do.. nying that he haad ever heldI out asny hiduicement whiatsoever of thuc nature alluded to, even if the statementecalled for such a atnial. W-as there, then, a single fact int Wrigghesworth'saffidavit uneontradicted; and could the Coujrt exercise a sound discretion in ssndiagthi cs down to a new trial, uipon the ground of that affidavit, cut'down as it was in every way ? Now, as to the fact sworn to by INI. Beaumnont, that the ins'oices produced hr the plaintiff' on thec trial corresponded in cycry respect, 1xcept en t le date and in rega?d to a per centage, with copies ot' the invoices furnished . to buini by the..Messrs. M1argrave. He said that the goods describedI in both, consislitig Of bandanias, bonmbasins, &c., correspondled exactly. Whiy bad not Mir. Beaumont liro%ight those copies of invoices berore the C-ourt-, and let them judge of themi, instead of gfving them his ownt opiniion upon thenm. His.Lordship d,idinotmcan anvdisrepeattoMlr. eauinoar, but the Court must treat is a'.davitlhike'thatof any other persoe,aitdI tbei did hot think it aff'orded a sufficient ground to justitfy tbtus in granin6rgtritew trial. The Court, therefore, upoqn the 'wole, weitch-. ingall the circumstances boidthe cofiflitin tesion nboth sides, dtivesting their mninds of all pireudice, nhaigbswe the moat 31nxious considerationuo h ae eeo pno tleehaffida- rits did not afford uIiipgrn,fo ntcuaud?il. . One word as to the inditmn.fracisprc r euont wouild itodoubfedly -. have.be cigsoe ial oad b par'- ties, if, when statigta h rp uyhdfgi one bill aganst them, healoifrethCor htthyadpviuy thirowtn out another. eutert'eif theprishdbe cnite upon this -indrictmelnt ,i 4wtld not have cautivdli te- hteastaltera- tion in the judginaept ef the Ceurt; for bie had before shown thtat such a gi,nd le)ulshlbe jsrodluer'rve-of.-the greatest rniseiiad it bad been weh obseAdd, tha4t it' tI;tletaspw ere to gto dowpto' fo hi ,gaiu, the jury -VouIe1be prejudicad by.*hat-ad -take6'Ars ;ce ic fhe,m~er one; bO~eit;1 soet- set 0 ie*_UAt would be a ground wi" the Court se %vbul i - tuossi 1X on ctsc contrsrv, -it tittiht baaL.rouind'v.h li;the 4um-jtxita.( the ot'her haena. avi'sh it woulX he. htxd' thatbe ste I-. cause Tbad subsequ~Othy been convicted of a ete;t b e'( "n fherefoie send tha oi*:)~r lo trial pin. The g6iorsnd on whith fI motion was reffsi6d was tItig...that the r'ieuir to'dsbzn n rotkd.-ocel, be i~ngestsatrl e nteehe iawgn~u est.n~ thlourw obtaehtAsiels4ntb~ "eo elb COUURT OF COMMON PLEAS. IVEST'uI,jSTr. Pr R 11 THU}lTELL V. R.&tfn'.er