« ZurückWeiter »
clearness and concurrence of their statements. The court were happy to find, that although the conclusions against you, to be drawn from the evidence, were undeniable, you stand alone in the transaction. Not the slightest suspicion arises that you had in this island any confederate to draw you to our shores, but you appear to have rashly come hither unseduced and uninvited. Far from meeting with encouragement when you first landed on the north-side of the island, you, John Hudson, were repelled by the person to whom you clandestinely applied for the disposal of your cargo, and admonished of the peril in which you stood. An excuse has been alleged for your intrusion into this colony, that you were diverted from another destination by necessity and famine. Were this allegation true, it would not have been a legal exculpation; for it was a felonious act in you both, as British subjects, to have engaged in a traffic in slaves of whatever national character. It appears in evidence against you, John Hudson, that you disregarded the warning which you had received at Annatto-bay and approached Oracalessa, there again offering the Africans on board vour schooner for sale, and avowing your resolution to continue along the coast for the purpose of disposing of them : ignorance of the law cannot be urged in behalf of either of you. The crime of which you have been found guilty was, it is true, once introduced and sanc
tioned by the British legislature;
but the change in the complexion and consequences of such a trans
action was not made on a sudden. Time was given for the sentiments and commercial habits of men to assume a new direction, before the act of trafficking in slaves was denounced as a felony.
“John Jones,—The court, in admeasuring the sentence to which you are subjected by the law, have paid attention to the humane recommendation by the jury of your case to their consideration. The sentence of the law is, and which I pronounce in the name of the court, that you, John Hudson and John Jones, be severally transported to such place beyond the seas as his royal highness the Prince. Regent, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, shall order and direct;—you, John Hudson, for the space of seven years, and you, John Jones, for the space of three years; and that you be now severally remanded to the custody of the provost marshal-general of this island, to be by him kept in safe custody, in execution of this judgment, until you shall be so transported as aforesaid.” "
, VIOLENT ASSAULT.
Vale v. O’Brien and Simpson. —Mr. Sergeant Pell stated, that this was an action brought against the defendant, captain O'Brien, an officer in the navy, for a most outrageous assault. The plaintiff was his servant. In March last, a quarrel took place in the kitchen. Mr. Simpson, the other defendant, was at this time residing in Mr. O’Brien's house. The latter thinking that Vale had conducted
conducted himself ill, ordered him out of the house. This was about 11 or 12 o'clock at night. Vale insisted on his clothes and his wages: Mr. O'Brien, in order to remove Vale from before his house, where he persisted to continue demanding his wages, sent for a peace-officer. Brooks and Filer, two peaceofficers, attended at the request of Mr. O'Brien. The prosecutor continued too obstinately, most assuredly, to keep his situation and refused to retire. At a moment when Vale stood altogether unprepared for any such violence, the defendant struck him a blow so violent, so dreadful, that he sunk to the ground in a state of insensibility. Horrible, indeed, have been the consequences of it ! A fractured jaw, a concussion of the brain, leave this young man a dreadful object, a decrepit burden on society, a creature maimed in body and intellect. The first witness examined was Thomas Brooks—In March last I was sent for to Mr. O’Brien's. It was about half-past one in the morning. Vale was then standing before captain O’Brien's house in the road. I went into the house. He asked me if I was the constable, and insisted on my taking up Vale. I said, can you take him up, Sir, without paying him his wages He said, Mr. Simpson and I intend to swear the peace of him. Brown, Filer and I then went to take him, as I thought, but Mr. O'Brien said, “You three won’t be able to take him, so you had better take us with you.” When we got into the road, I said to Vale, “ Mr. O'Brien sent for me to take you Vol. LXI.
up.” He said he had done nothing to be taken up for; but if Mr. O'Brien would pay him his wages he would go. He was still very civil and quiet; he said he had more clothes in the house. Mr. Simpson asked what things; and Mr. O'Brien sent in for them and put them into Vale's box and locked it. He then said he would
o peaceably and quietly if the É. give #. o, T. the plaintiff gave up the key to his master and said, “You have been a very good master, Sir;” and Mr. O'Brien said, “You have been a very good servant.” He, however, still said he would not go without his wages. Mr. O'Brien insisted that we should take him up and have him before a *:::::: We then proceeded to take him up and drew up towards him. Plaintiff drew back a few yards and said, “You five shall not take me, for I have done nothing to be taken up for:” he then made a step or two forward. At this moment Mr. O'Brien struck him ; it was with a stick nearly as large as the small of my arm, about two feet long. He struck him on the head. Wale fell. O'Brien was -down on his body instantly. Simpson held his head whilst O'Brien tied his hands. Vale said, “Tor God's sake do let me get up, or pull
our fingers out of my eyes.” #. hands were tied over his chest. O'Brien said, “Fetch the cords.” They put the end of the cord between his legs. James Brown took one arm, O'Brien took the other. When he got up he was able to walk, but he said his head was very bad. We led
him nearly a quarter of a mile. As
As we went along he complained of his head. We went afterwards to Wells; we took him to the Globe; we had him into the kitchen and then let him loose. It was about 4 miles he walked. Cross-examined. – Captain O'Brien did not say any thing to me of Vale's conduct being violent before I came. Vale is not more powerful than any other man. Vale made use of no such expressions as—that he would cut his way through a dozen of us. When Vale advanced, although it was in a direction towards us, it was not at all in a menacing posture to captain O'Brien; indeed, he rather drew near us than him, as captain O’Brien was on one side. William Yorke keeps the Globe at Wells. Vale was very ill indeed. I got him a cup of tea; but he could not eat any thing; he continued with me #. the 17th of March till the 26th of May, or rather to the middle of June. . He was attended night and day for three weeks by nurses and constant attendants. Mr. O'Brien would not pay the bill. Vale gave me what money he could for my attention. Mr. Sweeting, surgeon, called in to see Vale. Found him seated in a settle, his eye black, a wound on his neck and blood on his clothes. He complained of dreadful pain in his head. The jaw was fractured. There was likewise another injury which I feel justified in considering a concussion of the brain. Such was his appearance when I first saw him that I thought him mad. I saw him surrounded with persons whom I thought to be his keepers,
and I took his incoherent account of what had happened as a proof of his insanity. He complained of great pain in his head and of a sickness on the stomach, the usual consequence of a concussion of the brain; violent startings, delirium, dreadful symptoms, in short, appeared, and he continued extremely ill whilst I attended him, which was for six weeks. I consider him still (and I saw him this morning), as in a very deplorable state of health. The wild look which I mistook for insanity, is often a symptom attendant on the concussion of the brain. Had his jaw been broken before Mr. O'Brien gave the blow, it would have been impossible for him to have had the conversation he is reported to have had with the constables. Mr. Moore for the defence, stated, that Vale had behaved with such violence on the day of this accident, that captain O'Brien was fully justified in insisting on his going away. Captain O'Brien told him, that on his accounting for the plate and such things as were intrusted to him, he would pay him his wages. The plaintiff, however, refused to go without them, or to retire to bed; for the alternative was proposed to him. After some hours-altercation the plaintiff was induced to leave the house, but immediately returned and attempted to force the door, which, as it had no bolt, the defendant was obliged to hold against him with mainforce. Finding he could not induce Vale to leave his premises, the defendant sent for the peace-officers. Mr. Moore insisted on capt. O’Brien’s right to prevent Vale's return after after he had once been turned away, as it was admitted that he was ; and urged that the sending for the peace-officers was a proof of the propriety of the defendant's intention. Mr. Moore then called
Anne Heele, who was proceeding to depose to what had passed before the violence in question, when such evidence of what had preceded the constable’s arrival was objected to. The assault could not be considered as a continuation of any former violence after the evidence which the constable had given, that on his coming up he found the plaintiff most gentle and peaceable.
It was held that the evidence was not admissible, except in mitigation of damages.
Mr. Justice Best, understanding at this period of the cause that an agreement had been come to between the parties that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff for 200l. declared that he agreed in thinking nothing could justify this violent assault. Verdict (by consent) for plaintiffDamages 200l.
ExETER, TUESDAY, AUG. 3.
Stak v. Scammel.—Mr. Sergeant Pell stated this to be an action brought to recover damages for a most base and ... libel. The plaintiff, Sophia. Stak, was a young woman only 22 or 23 years of age, of the most irreproachable character; and though reduced by necessity to the situation of a domestic in the family of the defendant, she was descended from a most respectable family, and
“Whereas Sophia Stak, my servant, absconded from my house yesterday evening, and is supposed to have stolen some of my plate; whoever shall ap rehend the said Sophia Stak shall, upon her conviction, receive the above sum of 5l. She is about 25 years of age, stout and fresh coloured; whoever harbours her shall be prosecuted according to law.”
The first witness was an officer in the mayor's court, Plymouth; He remembered the plaintiff and defendant being both present before the mayor on the 29th May last. The former had been charged by the latter with stealing his spoons. The hand-bill in §." was shown to the deendant on that occasion, by his attorney : defendant said it was printed at his request. It had been stuck about the town of Plymouth. Plaintiff gave herself up : she was not in the custody of a constable. Scammel said he had lost 2 spoons, Plaintiff denied having taken them. Witness searched her lodgings, but could not find them. He accused her of absconding from his service: she replied, that he had had intercourse with another wor
Q 2 - man.
man in the absence of his wife, and that she left his service solely on that account. On his cross-examination witness said, that he must have known if any one had taken her in custody; that he did not recollect the plaintiff's charging her with taking away her trunk through a window, or of his reminding her that he had forbidden her to go that evening. A young lady, of a very respectable appearance, remembered plaintiff's applying to be taken into her service on the 22nd May last. She had declined her offer on account of her being accused of theft. Another witness, Southerlands, said that the plaintiff slept at his house when she quitted Scammel’s service, but that he had ordered her to leave it for several reasons. One was, that he was liable to a prosecution for keeping her; another was, that he did not choose to harbour a thief, and that he had reason to fear he should offend Scammel. Caroline Fryer resided in the defendant's house at the time laintiff was there. In point of act, knew the cause of her going, but does not think that her intention was known to the defendant. The latter ordered her not to go; he told her that as she had endeavoured to ruin him and Mrs. Wright, he would give her a character. The witness said, she went away at the same time and did not return. The plaintiff often complained to her of the defendant’s cruelty in attempting to take away her character by saying she had stolen plate. Witness left her place on account of
a circumstance which had happened on the Sunday, the same which was the cause of the plain
tiff's going away. The apprentice girl was called, who proved that the plaintiff's box was given her out of a window; that her master told witness he missed two small spoons and some salt-spoons immediately afterwards. She said, she had not seen them for a long time before ; that he was not in the habit of using them; that she told her master 3 out of the 5 spoons in use were in the cupboard, and that she had washed the other two in the morning for the use of the family. She was present when plaintiff packed up her box: there was then no shadow of suspicion that she had
stolen any thing. Mr. Baron Graham ably summed up the evidence to the jury. He observed, that absconding seemed to insinuate a flying from justice—an attempt to escape from its reach. Was this the case here, where the plaintiff was seen to have voluntarily surrendered herself? The learned judge very strongly alluded to the presence of the defendant when the plaintiff was present before the mayor, and his suffering her to be discharged without following up his accusation with a prosecution. There was not a tittle of evidence to prove any thing lost even. The whole appeared to him an inexcusable attempt to ruin a young person's character, and thereby to cover the infamy of one crime by the commission of another. e jury returned their verdict