« ZurückWeiter »
tempting to make his escape from the factory yard ; the prisoner had a stick with which he aimed a blow at the head of witness, and was immediately after taken into custody by Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson confirmed the testimony of the previous witness. Thomas Cain saw Richard Entwistle striking at the power looms with a piece of iron taken from a loom. Entwistle came up to the witness and said, this was "queer work."
JohnMorton, assistant to Kay, the constable, apprehended Entwistle, who said, it was unfair to take him without the other two men whom he named.
James Chambers said, that he went to see what was doing, and called as a witness HenryHarewood, a cotton weaver, who had known the prisoner from a child, and always thought him an honest man. Simeon Wright said, that he was amongst the mob without any evil intention, and that as soon as he saw danger, he ran away, and in his fright committed the assault. Richard Entwistle said, that he was at his own work until after the looms were destroyed.
The judge having summed up the evidence, the jury could not agree in their verdict, and retired. After a long absence they returned into court, and gave a verdict of Guilty against all the prisoners but Dickinson, whom they found Not Guilty.
All the prisoners, except Chamley and Elizabeth Howard, were found Guilty.
William Winder, John Howard, William Charnley, and Elizabeth Howard, otherwise Betty Howard, stood indicted for offences similar to those of the last prisoners.
The general evidence of the riot was of the same nature as in the other case.
James Riding, William SutclifFe, Richard Kay, James Latham, James Ormond, James Howard and Thomas Bolton, were indicted for having, on the 24th of April, 1826, at Blackburn, with force and arms, feloniously broken open a cotton mill belonging to Bannister Eccles, and Co., and destroyed the machinery in the said mill.
John Kay.—I am a constable of Blackburn; on Monday 24th of April last, about three in the afternoon, I was in Darwin-street, Blackburn, where I saw several hundred persons, who were coming through the Market-place, towards Mr. Eccles's factory; some of them were armed with pikes, and others with guns, axes, hammers, clubs, and sticks. They were walking together as a mob generally goes; 1 followed them to Mr. Eccles's factory, which they reached before me. When I got to the factory yard, there were many hundred persons in it; those who carried the pikes and guns, stood at the doors and windows; some of them had their pikes standing, and others had them shouldered. The mill was nearly full of persons; I went into the mill, and at the door I met some men coming out; I stopped the first man, but, as soon as he saw me, he got back again to the crowd; I took the pikes, hatchets, and hammers now produced, from the persons in the factory yard. Whilst I was there, about sixteen of the 1st dragoon guards arrived, and they assisted me in disarming the mob; several men escaped out of the yard, because they were, so numerous that we
could not keep them. Whilst I was in the yard, I heard the breaking of windows at the back part of the mill, and the people, who were watching in the yard, said, that their companions were breaking through the windows at the rear. I went into the lower room of the factory, and I there saw all the machinery broken and destroyed. I know the prisoner, Sutcliffe. I met him at the door of the mill, and asked him what he was doing there. He made no answer, but got back as quickly as he could. I don't know any thing about the other prisoners.
Mr. Eccles Shorrock.—I had a cotton-mill in Blackburn, in April last, for spinning and weaving by power-looms. My partners were, Bannister Eccles, Joseph Eccles, and John Eccles. On the 24th of April last, about three o'clock in the afternoon, I saw a mob of persons coming towards my mill. The outer gates, and the doors of the lower rooms, containing two hundred and twelve powerlooms, a lathe and other machinery, were locked. In the upper rooms there were dressing machines. The looms in the lower rooms were fastened down to the stone floor by a hole drilled into the stone, and a wooden plug driven into it. The power of motion is communicated to those looms by a steam-engine, which is on the premises. The mob consisted of several hundred persons. After they broke open the gates, one party formed to the side of the mil]. That party, consisting of about thirty persons, were armed with pikes. There was an equal number similarly armed on theother side of the mill. Others of the party broke in the doors of the mill, which I entered in about thirty-five
minutes afterwards. I was in the warehouse, which overlooks the yard, and I saw the people break into the mill, and shortly afterward they brought out the twist beams (part of the power looms), and. several pieces of cloth which had been in the looms. Before the mob broke into the mill, there were about two hundred pieces of cloth in the looms. The cloth was torn in the yard in the presence of the mob. The doors appeared as if they had been broken by large hammers. The looms in the lower rooms were all broken. The cast-iron wheels and the drums of the engine were broken. It would require considerable force to break them. The shafts were thrown down, but they being made of wrought iron, about an inch and a quarter in diameter, could not be broken. The shafts were in caps or gallowses, which must either have been broken or forced before the shafts could be thrown down.
Rev. Richard Noble.—I am a clergyman and a magistrate for this county. On the day of the riot I was in Darwin-street, Blackburn, which, together with the fields adjoining, was filled with people. I had sixteen dragoons and a small party of infantry with me. We went the nearest way to Mr. Eccles's factory, but the crowd was so great outside the yard, that I could not get in until the military made way. Numbers of persons, who were making their escape from the factory yard, passed close by where I stood and some ran against me.
Evidence was also adduced to show that the prisoners took an active part in the riot.
The jury having retired for a few minutes, found all the prisoners, with the exception of Bolton, Guilty, but recommended them to mercy.
King's Bench, October 17
Marsden v. Robert Waithman, Esq. M. P. and another.
This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff, who is an inhabitant of Thavie's Inn, Holborn, against the defendants alderman Waithman and Ansley, who are magistrates of the city. The declaration stated, that, on the 31st. of Jan. 1825, the defendants illegally signed a warrant of distress against the plaintiff's goods for poor-rates, alleged to be due to the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, and that, by virtue of the said warrant, certain persons entered the plaintiff's house, and seized his furniture, which they retained possession of until he had paid them the sum of il. 7s. 6d.— The defendantspleadcd Not Guilty. Mr. Gurney stated the case for the plaintiff. The object of this action was to try the validity of a poor-rate made by the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, upon the inhabitants of Thavie's Inn. Formerly Thavie's Inn was inhabited by students at law, and, although locally situated within the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, it had been always considered as extra-parochial, until within a few years, when the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, assessed the inhabitants for the poor-rates. That assessment was resisted, and a verdict passed against the parish; but, notwithstanding this, the defendants had signed a warrant for a similar rate levied by the same parish. Mr. Scarlett having admitted
the levying of the distress upon the plaintiff's goods, by the authority of a warrant signed by the defendants, addressed the jury for the defence—The only question in this case was—Was Thavie's Inn extra-parochial, or not? An extra-parochial place paid tithes to the king, and, by the 30th section of an act of parliament passed in the reign of king William, for levying a land-tax, it was provided, that two separate assessors should be appointed for each extra-parochial place. If there were any evidence that Thavie's Inn had either paid tithes to the king, or had assessors appointed under the Act of William, it would be proof, that, at remote times, the commissioners considered this Inn to be extra-parochial, but no such evidence bad been or could be offered. Thavie's Inn was originally the property of a citizen of London, named Thavie, who, in his will, made so far back as the reign of king Edward III., described it as being in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, on the south side. In a subsequent conveyance of this property from R. Etchman to G. Nicholls, the place was described in a similar manner; and, in a conveyance of the same property, in the year 1551, from G. Nicholls to W. Roper and others, the benchers and treasurer of Lincoln's Inn, it wa.. described "situate, lying, ana being, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in the Ward of Farringdon Without." Now, could it be contended, that lawyers would have suffered a property which they had purchased to be improperly described? No such thing. But, taking for granted, that it had been then improperly described, was it not improbable that some centuries afterwards, in the year 1771 j when the benchers of Lincoln's Inn (one of whom was lord Mansfield) disposed of the property, they would have continued in their deed of conveyance an improper description? In that deed, the place was described, as being in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn; and, in a deed of 1774, upon the repurchase of the place, by the benchers of Lincoln's Inn, it was similarly described. In an act of parliament passed in the 14th Geo. II., for enlarging the burying-ground of that parish, Thavie's Inn was stated, as being part of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. He should produce assessments of the parish, from the year 1728 to 1774, when it was regularly assessed for poor, church, and watch-rates, and six out of eight persons paid.
The will, deeds, and act of parliament alluded to by Mr. Scarlett, in the course of his speech, (were produced by clerks, from different public offices,andextracts from them were read. There were several witnesses called, but they could not swear that they had ever known the inhabitants of Thavie's Inn to pay parish rates; assessment books from the year 1728 to 1766 were also produced, and in those under the head, "Thavie's Inn," there were names of persons assessed for 6s. 6d. and 2*. 6d., &c, with crosses opposite some of their names, signifying that those sums had been paid; but in those books there did not appear that any assessment had been made upon the houses on Holborn-hill. It was also proved that the land-tax and the church-rate had, in some instances, been paid by the inhabitants of Thavie's Inn; that the place had been frequently assessed
to all parish rates, but that the inhabitants had generally refused to pay; that the searcher of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, searched the bodies of the persons who died in Thavie's Inn; and the general understanding in the parish for many years was, that the Inn was extra-parochial.
Mr. Gurney, in his reply, contended that his learned friend (Mr. Scarlett) had not made out his case. With respect to the nonpayment of tithes to the king, he would merely observe, that neither of the Societies of the Temple paid tithes to the king; yet they were beyond doubt extra-parochial. The description of the Inn, in the wills and deeds, was perfectly correct, because it was, beyond doubt, locally situated within the parish, but that circumstance did not necessarily make it part and parcel of the parish. There were different extra-parochial places in England, situated in the midst of parishes. The learned counsel concluded, by arguing, that however the heading "Thavie's Inn," got into the assessment-books produced in evidence, it was quite evident the entries under that head, were entries of the assessments upon Holborn-hill.
His lordship having summed up, the jury instantly found a Verdict for the plaintiff— Damages 4/. 7*. 6d. Thereby deciding that the Inn is extra-parochial.
Admiralty Sessions, Oct. 24. Slave- Trading. The grand jury presented a true bill against Thomas Young, Master of the brig Malta, of Liverpool, for having feloniously and piratically taken and carried.
away four females, within two miles of the main land of Africa, and sold them as slaves.
The Attorney and Solicitorgeneral, sir C. Robinson (the king's Advocate), and Mr. Barnett, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Curwood appeared as counsel for the defence.
Sir Christopher Robinson stated the case for the Crown. The prisoner, who was master of the Malta, belonging to the port of Liverpool, left England in the Spring of 1825, on a trading voyage to the African coast, taking out with him a cargo of British manufactured goods, chiefly cutlery, which he was to barter or exchange with the natives, for gum, ivory and other commodities. In November following, he arrived off the coast near the island of St. Thomas, in company with a Spanish and a French slave-ship; went up the country, and entered into contracts with the natives for supplies of gum and ivory. The practice of the trade is, to take hostages for the performance of these contracts on the part of the Africans, and accordingly several of the natives were brought on board the Malta, all of whom were subsequently released, with the exception of the four women referred to in the indictment, said to be the wives or sisters of some of the petty princes, whose friends having failed to make good the contract, he determined to sell them as slaves. The natives did, however, eventually make good their engagements with him, and claimed the release of the women; but the prisoner, instead of complying with that demand, replied, that he would not let the women go, unless some other of the natives, with whom they had
no connexion immediately came forward and fulfilled their engagements. The relatives of these unfortunate women remonstrated against this determination, but were compelled to leave the ship without them. Whilst these things were going forward, the prisoner had contracted an acquaintance with the captain of the Spanish slave-ship, and eventually the four African women were offered for sale to the mate of that vessel, who, it seems, was very ready to purchase them. The mate of the slaver was brought on board the Malta, and the women were exhibited one by one—at length the seller and the purchaser came to an understanding—the unhappy Africans were put into the boat that lay alongside, and taken on board the Spanish vessel, which was fitted up as a regular slave-ship, without the prospect of ever again being restored to their country or their friends.
Daniel Clifford, the steward of the Malta, was examined by the Attorney-general. — After stating the several particulars in regard to the voyage detailed by counsel, he proceeded to say, that the names of the four women were Nourah, Pikinini, Jumbo Jack, and Quarbel. The latter was called princess Quarbel, as a mark of distinction, because her husband was one of the native princes. Prisoner told the husbands of these women in witness's hearing, that unless king Quarbel would make good his contract, he should sell every one of them as slaves. He also said, that there was a Spanish vessel lying off St. John's, which dealt in slaves, and that he would sell them to the captain of that ship. The