« ZurückWeiter »
applied to him to borrow money, nor did he borrow money for her, and particularly that he never applied to Baruh. Or the part of the defendants, evidence was also produced to support the present commission, which was established to the satisfaction of the Court. The learned judge summed up the evidence in an able manner, stating that the case was pregnant with fraud, and that the examinations of the plaintiff were quite fearful. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
CourtT of KING’s-BENCH. MARCH 4.
Rennie v. Cropper.—This was an action to recover the sum of 2,000l. as compensation for expenses incurred by quarantine, demurrage, loss of time, and unloading and re-shipping the cargo of a vessel. It appeared, that the ship was chartered from Liverpool to New York and back, with liberty for the consignees to ship a cargo in return. The Captain was not bound to seek a cargo, but he was bound to carry one, if the consignees shipped it. They accordingly did .. a quantity of wool, which the Captain was told was American produce. He proceeded on the homeward voyage; but, on his arrival, it was found that the wool was Smyrna wool, and all ships from that place, at that time, were bound to perform quarantine. He then proceeded to Milford-haven, where he was detained 104 days in performing
quarantine, during which time he was obliged to unload the cargo, and expose it to the air. He was also subject to a demurrage of 15s. a-day, with other expenses consequent upon these proceedings. When he arrived at Liverpool, he demanded payment of his expenses, and of the money incurred by the delay. The charterers refused to pay more than the contract for the voyage, and therefore he brought the present action. The question turned on this point—whether the Captain knew, or was informed, at the time of shipping the wool, that it was not American produce, but that of Smyrna, , or any other foreign country, inasmuch as by the Navigation Acts of the Protectorate and of Charles II., called the Navigation Laws, no British ship, going to a foreign port, is warranted to bring back a cargo of any other country than that from which it is shipped. The Chief Justice summed up the case and the evidence, to the jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 2,000l.; costs 40s. French v. Giles.—This was an action on the case to recover damages for a severe personal injury sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the neglect of the defendant, under the following circumstances:– The plaintiff was a respectable anchor-smith and ship-chandler, resident at Wapping, and on the 2d of August last he hired of the defendant, who was a coachmaster, a landau for the day, in which he proceeded, with his wife and children and a servant, to Chislehurst,
Chislehurst, in Kent, to leave one of the children at school. On his return towards town, he took his seat on the box with the coachman, and at a short distance, a leather strap, which suported the box, suddenly broke in the loop, whereby they were violently thrown upon the road, and the plaintiff had two of his ribs broken, his arm fractured, and otherwise sustained great injury, which obliged him to be taken back to Chislehurst, where he remained five days under the care of a surgeon, whence he was conveyed to his house in town, where he was confined for two months before he could come downstairs. Hethereforebrought this action to recover compensation in damages. It appeared in evidence, that the jo, as soon as he heard of the accident, wrote a letter to the plaintiff, expressing concern for the injury he had sustained, and offering any reasonable compensation in his ower, but the plaintiff preferred is action on the case. The Chief Justice in summing up the evidence to the Jury, said that no person in the situation of the defendant, who let out carriages by the day, was bound to give a new coach; but he was bound to keep his carriages in good order, for the safety and accommodation of the persons hiring them. But it must be remembered, that although he might have exerted a reasonable vigilance, with a view to such safety, yet, sometimes, there were invisible flaws which escaped notice, and from which accidents might arise. If the jury were of opinion that the defendant had
not been guilty of any wilful negligence, but had used due caution, and had no knowledge of the defect, then they would find for the defendant; but if they entertained a contrary opinion, then they would find }. the plaintiff. The Jury retired for two hours, and, at six o'clock, when the chief-Justice had left the Court, they returned with a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 50l.
HERTFORD Assizes, FRIDAY, MARCH 5.
James Head, aged 40, and Martha his wife, were indicted for having set fire to a barn in the occupation of John Overell, of Wakely, and burning thereby an immense quantity of corn, his roperty, on the 27th of August ast. Mr. Walford opened the case for the prosecution; but in the course of his statement it appeared that the male prisoner and his wife had alternately made declarations upon the subject of setting fire to the barn, and that the woman particularly , had avowed that she was the hand who did it, but that her husband was present when the act was committed. Upon this a long discussion took place, whether the woman, acting a guilty part in the presence of her husband, was not excused on the ground of coercion; the counsel for the prosecution arguing that the principle did not extend to the crime of arson, and the advocates on the other side contending that it did. The Judge (Park, who also § obtained obtained the advice of Mr. Justice Bayley) coincided in opinion with the prisoner’s counsel; but desired the case to proceed as against both prisoners, upon the ground that the woman might turn out to be the guilty person, and not the man. Mr. Walford having stated the case, proceeded to call evidence. John Overell said, he kept an extensive farm, and resided in the hamlet of Wakely. The prisoner had been in his employment, and he discharged him on the 18th of May last. His barn was set on fire the 27th of August following, and completely burnt down. His large stable adjoining, and a shed, were also burnt down. The barn was separate some distance from his dwelling-house. In the year 1817 his premises were set fire to in a similar way. J. Turtle said, he resided at Buntingford. On the night of the 27th of August he was alarmed by information of a fire at the premises of Mr. Overell. He rose from bed, and rode to the spot. The fire, which was blazing, appeared to have commenced at one corner. In about two hours after he had been there, James Head appeared upon the premises, and kept walking about and talking very much of the former fire at his master's in 1817. He talked also much of the then fire, and witness was induced to observe him closely. The prisoner caught his eye, appeared embarrassed, and shuffled away to break off the conversation. George Mickley said, he also went to the premises of Mr. Overell the night of the fire. He saw the prisoner there, who spoke
to him, and said it was a sad job that a fire should thus happen again on his master's premises. His wife, he added, was unwell, and had got out of bed in the night, when he (the prisoner) said he thought there was a fire. His wife replied it was nothing but moonshine, but he thought it was a contiguous farm which was on fire. The prisoner appeared to the witness to be confused and agitated. He lived about a mile from the place where the fire took place. Witness did not think it possible, from the situation of Head's dwelling, that he could see a fire while he lay on his bed; but admitted that the atmosphere might be illuminated by a blaze where the fire was not directly opposite to the view. Thomas Britton resided at Munden, close to the prisoner's house. The latter called him up on the night of the 27th of August from bed, by an alarm of fire. Witness arose, and accomanied him to the premises of K. Overell. The prisoner told him on the way, that when he first called him up he was naked, and that his wife threw his clothes to him out of the window, when he put them on by the time, he (the jo had got dressed. Richard Tew (an interesting boy) said he was the son-in-law of James Head. Martha Head was his own mother, and he lived in the house with them. He slept up stairs in a room outside his father's, and through which the latter must have come to go down stairs. On the night of the 27th of August he was awoke by a person, whom he knew to be his father, and who went down *::: an
and out of the house. He returned in about a quarter or half an hour. He knew his voice well, and heard him distinctly say, “I have left a brave light behind me.” Witness soon after this went to sleep, but was again, in a short time, aroused by his mother, who called out, “Dick, §. up; your master's (Mr. verell's) farm is on fire.” Witness threw his father's smockfrock out of the window to him. Ann Bowyer said, that her husband was in the employment of Mr. Overell in August last. Her husband had money to pay the prisoner after his discharge from the prosecutor in May last. He accordingly came to their house, but her husband was not at home. Witness asked him if he came for his money; he said, yes; but it would not be much when he had it. Witness said it would be some for him, as it was for them; when he immediately replied, “D—n his old blood (meaning Overell), he wants my knife in his throat, and another or two want a knife as well as he.” He also added, “I’ll be d–d to hell if they don’t have it, and he (Overell) must not live. He wants another light overhishead,andhemustlook d——d sharp if he does not have it.” Witness asked him if her husband ever heard him use such expressions, when the prisoner replied, “No ; hell a bit; the less your husband knows, the better it will be for him.” Witness had known Head and his wife for eight or nine years, but had no immediate intercourse or acquaintance with them. She never had angry words or quarrelled with either in her life.
Under the direction of the learned judge, the prosecution as against the woman was here totally abandoned. Stephen Lavender, the Bowstreet officer, said he was employed in the investigation of the affair in question, and went to the house of the prisoner James Head, which he carefully examined in his presence. He lay down on the bed from whence the prisoner said he had seen the light of the fire, and thought it utterly imp. he could have seen it rom thence. The prisoner, in the most solemn manner, protested his innocence. Mr. Justice Park addressed the jury; who, after a consultation of about ten minutes, pronounced an acquittal as to Martha Head, but found the prisoner James Head—Guilty. Chelmsford, March 10–Wm. Bush, James Westwood, George Westwood, Joseph Chessum, Robert Wolfe, James Jeffery and Robert Litchfield, were indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Chapman, at Waltham Holy Cross, in this county, and plundering the house of a variety of articles set out in the indictment. Mr. Jessop stated the case, which was proved by an accomplice of the name of Duvall, who gave the following account of the transaction: That Wolfe, who was the captain of the gang, on the 25th of October met him in London, and told him that if he and Litchfield would come to his house they would meet with some others, who were to proceed to a house a house where they could get a good booty, as they knew an old man who had a good hoard. He accordingly met Litchfield the next day at Hertford, and they went together to Hoddesdon, where they slept at the Red Lion; they staid there until 4 o'clock; they went on to Bromley, where they crossed the fields to Mr. Chapman's house, which was a lone farm-house in the parish of Waltham. They listened in a lane until it was quite dark, and then they went to an outhouse near the house, where, by apW.". they were to meet
olfe and the others. Soon afterwards Wolfe and the four others joined them, and they all continued in the outhouse until about eleven o'clock at night: they then went to the house, and just then they saw the carter returning with his waggon, who had been to London; he went into the house and got a light, and went with another lad into the stables. Some of them immediately bound the two men together, back to back, and fastened them to the manger, where Wolfe stood guard over them. The others then went into the house and went up stairs, when they got into a room where they found two men-servants sleeping; they asked them where was their master's bed-room, and where he kept his money. The men were very much frightened, and replied, their master slept at the other part of the house, and that they did not know where he kept his money. A guard was left upon them, and they proceeded to the other stair-case; but here they found a strong
door, which was fastened; they went out and got two ploughcutters, with which they immediately shivered the door and burst into Mr. Chapman's bedroom; he and Mrs. Chapman were in bed; they demanded his money and his keys, which he gave them, and told them his money was in a bureau below; they went down stairs and broke open the bureau; they also broke open an iron chest, forced all the closets and completely ransacked the house, taking away considerably above 100l. in money, plate, and three watches; and they regaled themselves with wine and spirits, and took away the best part of a ham. The manner and circumstances of the robbery were also confirmed by the ser– vants and Mr. and Mrs. ChapIslan. In confirmation of the testimony of the accomplice, it was proved by the landlord at Hoddesdon, that he and Litchfield had slept at his house the night before the robbery, and one watch was found in the possession of Jeffery and another in the thatch of Wolfe's house. * Mr. Curwood cross-examined the accomplice, but did not discredit his testimony.—The Jury found them all guilty. Litchfield was also convicted of another burglary in the house of Nash Kemp, at Christall, a little shopkeeper. He was found the next day with all the goods, having stripped the shop. Chessum, Wolfe, and Jeffery, were convicted of a third burlarv. The learned Judge immediately passed sentence of death, and told Wolfe,