« ZurückWeiter »
and her husband’s name is Polydore; he came to her mistress’s while the blacks were there.Polydore confirmed this testiIn On W. C. M. Campbell, a lieutenant of the Bourbon regiment at the Mauritius, was aid-de-camp to general Hall the governor. On the 3rd of March last, by order of the governor, he went to Madame le Brun's plantation with a detachment from the 22d. Polydore was their guide. He pointed out to them a wooden building and two small huts. They got there near eleven at night. Polydore told him the huts contained new blacks, and whites that brought them were in the wooden building. Witness divided his detachment, and with one party surrounded the huts, and with another the wooden building. He found the huts filled with blacks, male and female, to the number of 92. Greatest part were naked. One was dead, another dying, and nine so weak they could not be moved. Almost all were covered with the itch, and appeared quite astonished when the soldiers surrounded the huts, and came u to them and examined their clothes and arms. They appeared quite uncivilized, were all Mozambique blacks, and he was positive they were newly imported negroes. He secured the huts for the night and went to the wooden building. He knocked and requested it to be opened, when a woman's voice said she was with her two daughters, and that she would not open the door at that time of night. He molested her no farther, but desired
the soldiers to let no one escape from the house. He then went about the plantation and found another hut, in which were eight or nine blacks, who told him in French that they belonged to Madame le Brun. He returned to his detachment and found them where he had left them, and remained with them till next morning. The commissary came next morning; and when the noise of his palanquin bearers was heard, the people in the house opened the door, and they went in and saw the prisoners Cuvillier, Quanto, Madame le Brun, her two daughters and Victorine. Witness took the prisoners, but at the desire of the commissary he allowed Cuvillier to remain with Madame le Brun. It is 20 or 22 miles from Souliac to Madame le Brun's. There are large forests between. Cross-examined. — The island has been governed by the French laws since the capitulation. The prisoners. Philibert and Tregrosse put in long written defences, in which they denied the charge and asserted that they had been to Madagascar for a cargo of bullocks, which they were obliged to throw overboard in a storm, and that accounted for there being no cargo found on board the schooner. They wandered about the island and met Cleransac accidentally, who took them to the house of Madame le Brun. The defence went on to state, that their treatment during their voyage to England had been bad. Cleransac's defence was, that he was not on board the schooner at all; that he had been in the French navy, and was of a rea respectable family in Bourbon, but was out of employment; he only acted as a guide to the other two to bring them through the woods.
Baron Graham summed up the evidence, and the jury, after a quarter of an hour's consultation, found all the prisoners Guilty.
The Common Serjeant (the judges having retired) sentenced them all to three years' imprisonment in the House of Correction, and during that time to be kept to hard labour.
court of KING’s-BENCH, FEB. 22.
Forged Bank Notes.
(Before Chief-Justice Abbot and a Special Jury.)
Ransom v. Fish.-This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff, an engraver, against the defendant, an inspector of the Bank, to recover damages for the injury sustained by the former under a false and malicious imprisonment, upon the charge of the latter. It appeared that Mr. Ransom had paid a ll. Bank of England note to Mr. Mitchener, who keeps the Hole-in-the-Wall in Fleet-street, which note was afterwards detained by the Bank on the ground of its being forged. Mitchener applied to Ransom to repay him the amount, but Ransom refused unless the note were returned to him. Mitchener then summoneu him to the Court of Conscience in Fulwood's-rents, where the defendant attended and produced the note. Ransom asked to look at it, and then put
it in his pocket. Fish appealed to the magistrate, who said he could not interfere. Ransom then walked off with the note, and went to Mitchener’s house and paid the 20s. A few days afterwards Ransom was summoned before Mr. Baker, one of the magistrates at Marlboroughstreet, when Fish made a charge in writing against him for having the note in his possession knowing it to be forged and counterfeited ; and Mr. Baker committed him to Cold-Bath-Fields there to remain till duly discharged by law. He remained in that prison from the 23rd to the 27th of January, 1818, when he was again brought up,and Fish and Mr.Westwood his solicitor offered to discharge him if he would give up the note. He said he wished the question to be tried whether it were a forged note or not; and he would give it up to Mr. Baker if the Bank would undertake to try the matter. The defendant said he would consult the Bank. On a following day Ransom was asked to give up the note, but he refused. He said he had thought better of it, and he would not return it. Mr. Baker was then a little shy of sending him a second time to prison; and it was settled that he should give bail, himself in 200l. and two sureties in 100l. each, to appear on a future day. Witnesses were called to prove ; case on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Baker deposed, that he had committed Ransom on the evidence of Mitchener, of Fish the defendant, of Samuel Alsop, the register of the Court of Requests, uests, and of John Holland, assistant officer in that court, and not on the statement of Fish alone. He (Mr. Baker), and his brother magistrates had delivered their opinion on the evidence before the charge of Fish was entered on the book. Mr. Gurney, for the defendant, submitted, that the case was by no means proved by the evidence. The declaration stated, that the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and accused the plaintiff with having in his possession a 1l. Bank of England note, knowing the same to be forged and counterfeited, and caused him to be committed, &c. The recital in the committal was no evidence against the defendant. The committal proceeded from the evidence, and the evidence by no means supported the allegations in this declaration. The charge of Fish was “upon suspicion,” which words had not found their way into the declaration. In support of this objection the learned counsel cited Tempest v. Chambers (1 Starkie); Lee v. Webb, 3 Esp. 165); and Bell v. Burne | 13 East. 554). On the other side Mr. Scarlett relied on Davis v. Noak, (1 Starkie, 377), in which lord Ellenborough said that the action did not depend on words only, but on acts done. The Chief Justice said, that upon the authority of the last quotation there was no variance in the present case; but as there was some nicety in the objection, he would give the defendant's counsel leave to move to enter a nonsuit if he should think proper. Witnesses were then called by
the plaintiff to prove that the note was genuine. Mr. Warren, who said he had been an engraver for 40 years, deposed, that he had paid particular attention to Bank-notes that he had engraved for local banks in different parts of the country, and that, with all the knowledge he had upon the subject, he believed this note to be a genuine note. Mr. Le Maitre, a watchmaker, said, that from general observations he considered it a good note, and he should not have felt the least hesitation in taking it. Mr. Haydon, an auctioneer, deposed, that he was in the habit of taking a great quantity of Bank-notes: he had paid particular attention to this subject for many years past, and was never deceived by a forged note except in one instance. He had no doubt, from the marks which he had been given to understand, in confidence, that the Bank relied upon, that this was a good note. Mr. Gurney said, that the defendant was taken by surprise with respect to this evidence, and therefore no person was present on the part .# the Bank to prove that the note was forged. He contended, that the defendant had not acted maliciously, but from the best and purest motives. The Chief Justice said, the only question was, what damages the plaintiff was entitled to if the defendant had aeted improperly. After the character that had been given of the plaintiff to the may gistrates, the learned Judge thought, that it would have been a more prudent course not to have committed him. It was also to to be observed, that there was an offer of letting him go, if he would give up the note. Now the act of committing a man under a capital charge for the purpose of getting the note, was very much to be reprobated. If the jury thought that the defendant had acted from a bad motive, then they would find a verdict for the plaintiff; but if they did that, he recommended them to estimate their damages with temper and judgment. The jury deliberated for a short time, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 100l.
TUESDAY, FEB. 23.
(Before Sir John Allan Park, Knight, and a Special Jury.)
Young v. Wright and another. This was an action of trespass against the defendants, as the messenger and his assistant under a commission of bankrupt against one John Crowley, for entering the Queen's Arms tavern, St. James's-street, kept by Crowley, and alleged by the plaintiff to belong to her, and seizing the stock, furniture and effects therein. The damages were laid at 5,000l.
The defendants put on the record a justification.
It was stated by Crowley, who was examined on the part of the plaintiff, that he took the Queen'sArms tavern in June, 1814, and that so shortly afterwards as in the following December, he transferred his interest in the premises and in the stock and furniture to his sister-in-law, the plain
tiff, in consideration of 2,000l., part of which was paid in Banknotes, and the rest by bills, and took a house at Paddington, to which he removed. He stated the stock of wines and spirits at that time to be 1,400l. and of ale and porter from 80 to 100l. On his cross-examination, which he underwent with singular effrontery, he stated that he came to St. James's-street from Prescott street, Goodman's fields, where his wife kept a circulating library; that at that time he was a general, merchant, buying any thing and all things. That his warehouses were in the same house with the circulating library, for which house he paid 60l. a year. That on leaving Prescottstreet he brought away with him from 1,500l. to 1,800l., having paid his creditors 5s. in the pound. That he did not pay any premium for the house in St. James's-street, and on entering into it contracted debts to the amount of 2,000l., for which he gave bills which became due in the beginning of the following year. That he left St. James'sstreet and took the small house at Paddington, to carry on the wine trade. He also acknowledged that he had formerly been a milliner and fancy dress-maker, at Leeds, where he became a bankrupt, and had afterwards been an auctioneer. The account he gave of the consideration money said to be paid him by the plaintiff, was most prevaricating and incredible. The learned Judge here said, that if the transfer were not bona jide the plaintiff's possession was a fallacy. t
It came out from the plaintiff's witnesses, in speaking of the former commission, that Crowley's brother was the petitioning creditor and sole assignee, he claiming a debt of 105l. That he had possessed himself of property belonging to the bankrupt Crowley to the amount of 400l., and that the creditors under that commission had never received one penny, nor even had the solicitor's bill been paid.
Mr. Serjeant Vaughan addressed the Jury on the part of the defendants, stating this to be one of the most fraudulent cases that ever came before any court: he commented with great force and severity upon the evidence produced on the part of the plaintiff, and partieularly on that of Crowley. He could not refrain from noticing, with some humour, that instead of a fancy dressmaker, Crowley should be called a fancy commission-maker, and said that he was a perfect Proteus, having been successively a milliner and fancy dress-maker, an auctioneer, a librarian, a merchant, dealing in every thing and any thing, a tavern-keeper and a wine-merchant. After showing the fraud of the pretended transfer from Crowley to the plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant Vaughan told the Jury, he would give them the best evidence, for he would lay before them the evidence of the plaintiff herself.
Upon this, the proceedings under the present commission were produced, and the examinations of the plaintiff, on oath, before the Commissioners, contained in them, were read. A short extract is given as a speci
men, where she was asked as to the 2,000l. Where did you obtain the money which you said you paid for the purchase?—I procured it from friends. From whom—name them 2–I did not prepare myself for that question. From whom did you receive it?--I must first obtain their permission before I mention their InameS. Didyou borrow it from anyperson?—Yes, Sir, I borrowed it. Of whom P-I am sure I do not know the gentleman's name. Where does he live?—That I do not know. On one of these examinations the plaintiff was committed to Newgate for prevarication. The plaintiff, in her examinations on her oath, states, that in 1814 she kept a school at New-castle, in which she failed, and her goods were sold off and her creditors were paid a small composition, after which she came up to town, in October, 1814, a mere beggar; and thus situated, took the pretended transfer of the Queen's Arms tavern from Crowley, at 2,000l. She stated, on her oath, on being brought up from Newgate, in answer to a further inquiry as to where she got the money to pay Crowley, that she was recommended by a Mr. Davis to a Mr. Baruh, who lent her the money. But Baruh was put into the witness's box, and said that he never lent the plaintiff any money, nor ever saw her or knew her until he saw her in Newgate, after her examinations. Davis was also produced, who denied that plaintiff had ever - applied