« ZurückWeiter »
dence. I felt that I could not be happy in this world without her and determined to leave it. Thoughts of a dreadful description entered my mind, and must have proceeded from the Devil. I felt that I should leave the world in a state of happiness if I could murder her, and determined to perpetrate the deed. I had been from home two days, business not being very brisk, and on Friday evening I called to see Williams at Mrs. Albert's, and we both came out together and walked in company as far as the Surrey theatre...We did not go in ; I told Williams that I wanted to see a gentleman in the Borough and should go that way. We parted, and I returned to Mrs. Albert's. After talking in a very friendly manner with the family I asked for a knife, and they, supposing that I wanted to cut some bread, gave me a case-knife. I took an opportunity of concealing it unperceived in my pocket. ... I shortly after went out with the child to buy her some apples, which having done I returned to the court, A. sudden thought came over my mind, that if I murdered the child, who was innocent, I should not commit so great a crime as in murdering Sarah Longman, who was older, and as I imagined had sins to answer for. moment I. pulled the knife out
of my pocket, put the child.
down out of my arms, held her head back and cut her little
went or what I did; I wandered about in a state of distraction until I surrendered myself up at the watch-house.” The prisoner, who during the course of the evidence abovementioned appeared to be in a kind of idiotic stupor, being called upon to make his defence, merely said in a wild manner, that he was not guilty. A great many witnesses were then examined on his behalf to prove a case of insanity. Among others were, James Longman, the father of the young woman to whom the prisoner had been attached; George Cass, a watchmotion-maker; Ann Keys, Eliza Campbell and Maria Tyrrell, persons with whom the prisoner had lodged; and the tendency of their evidence was to show that the prisoner, a few weeks previously to the unfortunate transaction in question, had been flighty and low-spirited, in consequence of his want of employment and having been forbid the continuance of his addresses to the young woman, Miss Longman, The case went to the jury under the learned judge’s direction, and the prisoner was found
ARCHES-courT, MAY. 20.
Hayes, Falsely called Watts, against Watts-This was a case of nullity of marriage, instituted by the wife against the husband, under circumstances of rather an unusual description. The parties were married, by license at the church of St. Marylebone, so long ago as the 29th May, 1800; Mary Mary Hayes being then a spinster and about twenty years of age. The warrant for that license described the intended marriage as being about to take place with the consent of Sarah Church, widow, the mother of the said Mary Hayes; and it was accordingly solemnized, Mrs. Church assisting at the ceremony. The ground of the present suit, however, was, that in point of fact, no legal consent was ever given: the father of Mary Watts, long supposed to be dead, being at that time living, and Mrs. Church, ci-devant Hayes, being consequently not a widow as she had described herself. . The learned counsel for the husband, Mr. Watts, conceived that the most proper course for them to pursue, was, to submit the facts as proved, without any other comment; then the evidence would show that Mr. Watts was not a party to procuring the license, and was not aware until the citation in this case was served, that there existed any informality in the marriage. Sir John Nicholl remarked, that the circumstances connected with this suit had something peculiar in them: for it was, contrary to the usual custom, one brought by the wife against the husband, and on account of her own minority; the marriage not clandestinely nor secretly had, but with the consent of the minor's mother, who supposed herself at the time to be a widow. It turned out, however, that the father, for some i. reported to be dead, was then living, and had since indeed been examined as a witness. He was the only person,
according to the act of parliament, who could legally consent to the match; and if the terms of that act were not complied with, notwithstanding that the parties had lived together for 18 years, it was in point of fact a mere nullity. Now, the minority of the lady, by the depositions of several witnesses connected with the family, was put beyond all doubt. The father left England in 1780 for America. He resided for some time at Halifax, in Nova Scotia, which place he quitted and returned to England in 1794. In the interim his wife and children, who lived in the house of his uncle, heard nothing of him, , and concluded that he was no more. A person named Church, arrived from Halifax, confirmed the intelligence of Hayes' death and married Mrs. Hayes, who did notherself communicate to Hayes on his arrival what had taken place. The affair was, however, made known to him previously to some negociations entered into with him to execute a bond to his wife, then Mrs. Church, enabling her to receive some funded property under the will of the uncle, a Mr. Adams, who had left her one or two legacies of that nature. Hayes, after a stay of a few months, returned once more to America, and was never heard of again until April, 1814, when understanding that a nephew of his, John Hayes, esq. commanded his majesty's ship Majestic on the Halifax station, he addresssed a letter to him informing him of his being in good health, &c., and dated from the town of Norton, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia. Of course the marriage of his
daughter had been celebrated without even his knowledge, and in the absolute belief that he was not living ; his wife, who had contracted a second marriage, and lost her second husband, concluding herself a widow, had given that consent which was, in fact, illegal; and although the parties appeared to have acted only in error and under misinformation, the prayer of the daughter must be granted; and the Court accordingly pronounced the marriage null and void.
court of cHANCERY, WEDNESDAY, JULY 21.
Gordon v. Gordon.
This was a case which had been long pending in this court, and it was a litigation between two brothers, as to an agreement entered into so long agoas 1790. The facts of the case were shortly these:— The plaintiff, Harry Gordon, is an elder brother, as compared with the defendant James Gordon, and had a brother yet older than himself, named Peter. The father died, and Peter also soon after died intestate. A doubt now arose as to the legitimacy of Harry ; and it being generally understood that he was actually illegitimate, his younger brother James, who is a barrister, entered into an agreement with him to allow him an annuity out of the estate, which of course would fall to the defendant who was legitimate, a public marriage havin taken place before his birth. This agreement was dated 1790, but
it subsequently came out, that in fact, a private marriage had been celebrated by the parents of Harry previous to his birth, and previous to the public ceremony; the consequence of this was, that if no agreement had been entered into the whole property would have fallen to Harry, who was now the legitimate heir at law. The legitimacy of the plaintiff had been established by the verdict of a jury; and now an application was made to set aside this agreement, under the peculiar circumstances of the case. Counsel having been heard at length on both sides, Mr. Heald was this day further heard in reply, and read many letters which had passed between the parties previous to the agreement of 1790, as evidence to show that the plaintiff knew nothing of the private marriage by his parents, and that the defendant was well acquainted with the fact, previous to making the agreement. He also endeavoured to prove from the same documents, the strong desire of the plaintiff not to stir matters so delicate to his mother, who was still living, and to prevent the publication of her disgrace to the world. There were then two questions most material for the consideration of the court:—1st, Whether there was any suppression of any fact wilfully or intentionally by the defendant, in making this agreement? And, 2dly, Whether there was such a mistake, either on one side or on the other, as would induce the court to set the instrument aside? He contended, that all the evidence tended to prove the fact of the ignorance of the plaintiff of any private marriage having taken place. The Lord Chancellor considered this as one of the most important, and at the same time one of the most distressing cases which had ever come under his notice, sitting in a judicial capacity. The questions here to be decided were twofold. If both the brothers were ignorant of the private ceremony, that was one question; but if one of them was acquainted with the fact, and either from design or inadvertency did not communicate it to the other, then there would be no difficulty in deciding the point. He wished, however, before he gave his judgment, to call for the inspection of those letters and papers which had for the first time been now produced in evidence. With regard to the evidence already introduced in the case, he had read it with much attention, and he had come to the opinion that Dr. Hogg, General Adam Gordon, the mother of the parties and the sister, had all perjured themselves if the fact were untrue that the defendant knew of the private ceremony of marriage previous to the agreement being entered into. Hi lordship at considerable lengt entered into a minute detail of the principal facts of the case, commenting as he proceeded on each feature, and finally postponed his decision until he should have carefully read the additional evidence produced. Ultimately, his lordship decided that the agreement must be set aside.
wed NESDAY, JULY 28.
The King v. John Hudson and John Jones.
The court having been opened, the names of the parties bound to appear called over, and the grand jury sworn, his honour the [..."; judge delivered the folowing charge :—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,+We are assembled by virtue of his Majesty's letters patent for the purpose trying offences committed on the high seas. It appears by the calendar that your attention will be principally called to the investigation of a charge preferred against two persons for a violation of the acts of parliament passed in the 47th and 51st years of his present majesty, for the abolition of the slave-trade. By the first of those acts this species of traffic was declared to be illegal, was abolished, and for ever prohibited among British subjects under the pain of pecuniary penalties. By the second, this crime was declared to be a felony, not, however, of a capital nature, but subjecting the offender to transportation or confinement. [His excellency here recited the words of the act, which declared the punishment for the offences under consideration to be transportation beyond seas for a term not exceeding 14 years; or imprisonment and hard labour for a term not exceeding five, nor less than three years.]—Gentlemen, many years have elapsed since the wisdom of the imperial legislature, after a long and assiduous deliberation, deliberation, declared itself upon this interesting and important subject. Whatever might have been the doubts and difficulties incidental to the measure in its progress (from the real or supposed interest of these colonies), all speculation on the question has long ago been at rest. The law has passed and been obeyed... I say, gentlemen, that the law has been obeyed, because I conceive it not to be inconsistent with the duties of the present occasion and of this place, to call to your recollection, that our island legislature has gone hand in hand with that of the mother country in passing local regulations in aid of the abolition laws. This very proceeding is itself in some degree a manifestation, that a desire to violate or evade them forms no part of the character of the inhabitants of this colony. This is the first time that there has been occasion to institute a legal prosecution similar to that in which we are now engaged. Indeed, I cannot disregard so suitable an occasion as the present for declaring my implicit conviction, that in Jamaica those laws have been strictly and scrupulously fulfilled. The length of time during which I have here held a public station, must have allowed me the means and opportunities for observation; and it is from the experience and information thus obtained, that I feel myself bound to make this declaration. Your experience and general knowledge of the laws render it unnecessary to expatiate on the nature of the duties attached to you as the grand inquest of the country. You are
well aware, that in the investigation of offences, it is your province to hear evidence on the part of the prosecution, and to inquire whether there be sufficient cause to call upon the part accused to answer it. You .# have the goodness for the present to withdraw, and the indictment will be laid before you with as little delay as possible by the of ficers of o CrOWn.
Friday, July 30.
The court being formed as before, with the exception of sir H. Popham, and the prisoners being put to the bar, his honour the judge of the Vice-Admiralty court delivered the following ad
dress and sentence:— “John Hudson and John Jones, —You have been indicted and found guilty of carrying away and removing, and also of detaining and confining, 44 persons, for the purpose of their being sold, transferred, used and dealt with as slaves by importation, into this island or elsewhere. And you, John Hudson, have been separately indicted and found guilty of having taken the charge and command of, and embarking on board of a schooner called; the St. Antonio, as master, you well knowing that such schooner was to be employed in an illicit traffic in slaves. You have had the advantage of every assistance in your defence, and of a trial before a most respectable and intelligent jury. The evidence produced against you was unimpeachable in regard to the character and demeanour of the witnesses, and irresistible as to the clearness