« ZurückWeiter »
case) be was bound, both as a liveryman and a freeman, to pay a submission; that the defendant acknowledged the charge, but pleaded in his justification, that the company of Goldsmiths were possessed, of a prerogative, which in some instances (particularly the present) exempted them from submiffion to the mandates of the Lord-Mayor; that he defendant also attempted to justify himself on
minal, and flatly contradictory to the oath he mull have taken when, admitted to the freedom of the city, the form of which oath runs thus, 'obedient and obeifant ye shall be to the Mayor;' was flying in the face of legal authority, by disobeying the precept of the Mayor. Was this a way of conforming to the purport of the oath? Was this to be ' obedient' and * obeifant' to the chief magistrate? But even
the plea, that the Lord-May.>r had 'disobedience to the commands of
no authority tocall a common-hall, five for the purpose of elections of members of parliament, LordMayor, Sheriffs, Sec. that, in order to invalidate this defence, extracts from the city records should be read to them, from whence it would clearly appear, that the Lord-Mayors of London had, from the earliest periods, been invested with that power which the defendant pretended, on the present occasion, to deny the existence of.
The city records were then produced, and many extracts from them were read, tending to prove the authority of the Lord-Mayor to convene a common-hall for other purposes than simply those of elections. These extracts being gone through, Mr. Serjeant Burland rose, and in a very' masterly speech (which lasted for above an hour) in answer to Mr. Dunning, entered upon his client's defence. The defendant's counsel having finished their pleadings, Mr. Dunning next rose, and made a final reply to their arguments.
« Either, said Mr. Dunning, the precept was a lawful one, or it was not. If it was a lawful one, disobedience on the part of the defendant was to the last degree cri
a superior might in some cases be excused, such as where the disobedience happened by accident, was an oversight, and not in any degree the effect of predilection j yet Mr. Plumbe's disobedience was wilful, it was contumacious, and such as, if permitted to pass with ■ impunity> would overturn all order, and deliroy that subordination, essential to the existence of every corporate body. Thus the matter stood as if the precept was a lawful one, and Mr. Plumbe's disobedience wilful; is, on the contrary, the defendant, by his counsel, stiould (hew either that the precept was not a lawful one, or that Mr. Plumbe's disobedience was not wilful, then the prosecution must necessarily fall to the ground.'
Mr. Dunning, however, observed, that he would five his learned brethren on the opposite side the trouble of attempting to prove a negative, by himself proving, as the proof lay upon him, the affirmative, viz. ' That the precept was a lawful one.'
This task Mr. Dunning executed by quoting a multiplicity of cafes from the Refertory book, all demonstratively shewing that similar precepts had, in former times, been. issj-d . jus Mayor, for conven
ing 'I- ,'ivery on other purposes tha', hat of flections; thatimplicit obedience had always been paid to such precepts, consequently their validity was established by prescription, their legi'.t. acknowledged by the subjection so readily yielded to them.
Mr, Dunning next recognized the other matters alledged in the defendant's plea, relative to the * antiquity of the Goldsmiths company, and their power to make bye Jaws for the government of their own members.'
This proposition Mr. Dunning thus combated:
'As to bye laws, undoubtedly every company has a right to frame such as (hall more immediately conduce to the good government of the company; amongst every society of men bye law» are framed, are admitted; but then, the bye laws must be such as do not clash with that relation in which a single company stand to the city at large; a relation which is as a part to tlie whole: the bye laws therefore of every company are framed for internal government; but will any man pretend to fay that exigencies may not arise wherein it would be highly proper to take the sense, not of this or that company, but of the city bodies at large? And hnw shall this sense be taken, unless a power of convening is supposed to preside somewhere? But if the necessity of the existence of such a power be admitted, where ought it to reside, in whose hands ought it to bs entrusted? From every consideration of policy and of wisdom, the power of convening should reside in the chief magistrate, who should be allowed to judge when,
and how far the exercise of such power may conduce to the welfare of the whole.
'To suppose the Goldsmiths or any other company to be self-existent, independent, subject to no laws but those of its own will, to allow this is to suppose a part to bear no relation to, but -to be altogether independent of, the whole; a proposition which carries absurdity upon the very face of it! A proposition, which, is admitted, would strike at the very existence of the city as a corporation! For the different companies, like Ib many component parts, make but one whole ; they form, in an aggregate fense, the corporation. It is not when apart that the corporation is discernible, but when the members are assembled in convention: So that a power of convening is not only essential to the existence, but is also involved in the very idea of a corporation.'
Mr. Serjeant Burland, in the course of his pleadings, having remarked, that the instances produced by Mr. Dunning from the city records were but few in number, Mr. Dunning replied, « That as to the paucity of instances, the gentleman had no right to complain; Quevedo (fays he) when, in the romance, he is made to visit hell, he saw several Kings there, and expressing his surprise that he saw no more, his guide told him/ there were all that had ever reigned; and I have brought all the instances which are to be produced.'
The whole was then recommended to the most serious attention of the jury by the Recorder; who summed up the evidence; and the jury, after a deliberation of
about about three quarters of an hour, brought in a verdict for the plaintiff.
Seme Account os the remarkablt Trial of Major-General Gansel, on Tuesday, September 14th, on theBlack Ail, for firing a. Case of Pistolt at three Bailiff's.
AT half past eight in the morning, Judge Nares, the LordMayor, Alderman Stephenson, the town serjeant, and other city officers, being upon the bench, MajorGeneral Gansel was arraigned at the bar of the Old-Bailey sessionshouse, for wilfully and maliciously shooting off a pistol at James Hyde, with an intention to kill or maim the said Hyde. On his pleading »tt guiltj to the indictment, the evidence for the prosecution were sworn; the first of them was James Hyde, who deposed, that having a warrant against the prisoner, at the suit of Mr. Lee, surgeon, for 140I. he went, in company with the plaintiff and several other sheriff's officers, to Mrs. Ma;o's, in Craven-street, in the Strand, the 26th of August last, between two and three in the afternoon, and enquired of Mrs. Mayo if General G inlel was at home; upon hearing that he was, he went up stairs, 2;i4 on the stairs he met two boys, Henry and James A'hficld, the General's servants, one of whom held a knitc in his hand, and swore that if he or any [.irfon offeied to come up, he would rip their belly open: that they knocked the knife out of the boy's hand, and pushed him and his companion down stairs: that they went up higher, and saw the General on one of the landing
places; that as soon as they came within three feet of him, the deponent directly pulled out i is writ and read it to him; the Geneal weuc immediately into his room and tried to shut the door, but that he, the deponent, got his knee between the door and the door-post, and touched the General on his right stioulder; that the General took s pistol (he suppoled out of a chair in his room) and fired it at him; that he struggled jiard to get in; that the General declared he would not be taken; that he had five or fix more pistole, and standing with his back to the door, railed his left hand over his right shoulder, and fired through the door at his head, but that the ball misled him, and took off p3rt of the hat of Thomas Felthoule, who stood behind him; that after a farther struggle the General fell down, and he and his companions dragged him to the stair-cafe, where he held by the bannisters, which breaking with his weight, he tumbled down the stairs, and was got into the coach, which conveyed him to the lock-up-house of James Armstrong, a sheriff's officer, in Carey-street.
Thomas Felthouse, and Thomas Hyde (brother of James Hyde) were next sworn, each of whom differed very essentially in their evidence, but bo.h declared that they never saw the General till they saw him in his room; one swore that the door was quite open, and the other, that it was so much open that James Hyde was in the General's room, and he, the witness, was following him in when the General fired. Felthouse said, the General's face *u:as turned to•wards the dour. They all three declared that they were unarms; • that that.though they were/o many of them it was merely accidental, but that nevertheless they were aware General Gansel was a man not easily to be taken. This was the subfiance of the evidence brought in support of the indictment.
After it was gone through, and the necessary cross examinations made by the counsel for the defendant, the General was called upon from the bench for his defence, when he pulled out a paper, and read it to the court; the Contents of it were exceedingly probable, very judiciously arranged, and delivered with a decent and manly tone of voice. ,
The General totally denied his being out of his room when the bailiffs came, or that his door ever was open after they came up, till they forced the lock, and by violence obtained admission into his apartment. He lamented that his circumstances had of late been so embarrassed, and his situation so disagreeable, that he always kept his door locked, and used the utmost caution about going out or in; that he had for a number of years had apartments at Mrs. Mayo's; that he paid for them by the year, and he conceived he was legally warranted to suppose an apartment yearly paid for, to be in every respect like a house; that by law every man's house was his castle, and he had kept his door locked, conceiving it a legal security against every attack; that the bailiffs knocked at his door, and asked if Mr. Mayo was there, whea he answered them he was below Hairs, and that was not Mr. Mayo's apartment; that they went down stairs, and returned again after he had learnt from his servant who the persons were who had put the said
question to him; that as soon a] they returned, they threatened to blow his brains out if he did not open the door; that therefore hi* first pistol was fired through the door with a hope to terrify the bailiff* from their attempt to take him, a.id the second went off in his fall, having his back against the door, when they forced it open. He concluded by observing, that the law* of his country had secured several privileges to the subject; that he thought his privileges violently infringed by the officers, and he had acted merely in his own defence, without any design to commit murder, or maim a fellow subject. la corroboration of this defence, several witnesses were sworn.
Henry Ashfield, the lad who met the prosecutors on the stairs, deposed, that he was servant to the General; that his master had beea out in the forenoon as far as Kensington-gardens; that he came home much fatigued with his walk; that he immediately put on hit night-gown, and laid him down on the bed: that he (Henry Ashfield) was employed in cutting bread and butter, and preparing a saliad, (the only food his master took when he thought himself ill) at the time the bailiffs entered the bouse; that his master sent him down to know who it was that had enquired at the door of his apartment* for Mr. Mayo; that on his return he found the door of his master'* room locked; that he told him Mr. Lee and some ruffians were there; that he was met as he went down the staircase by James Hyde, who presented a pistol to him and hi* brother, knocked him down, and swore he would blow their brain* out if they did not let him and hit companions pass.
James Ashfield's testimony agreed a general officer, nor was his situaprincipally with his brother's, and tion in life to influence their verhe declared, that when he went dict; the poorest individual sound down stairs, the General bid him the laws provided to remedy his take notice he locked the door, which grievances, as readily as those of he heard his master do. his superiors; a prisoner, therefore,
Mrs. Mayo deposed that when was no farther guilty, than the pe
Hyde, and those who were with nal guilt the law had clothed the
him, came into her parlour to ask crime with, the commission of which
for the General, a double-barrelled was brought in charge against him,
pistol lay on a dumb waiter, which and he was clear from that guilt,
Hyde, contrary to her earnest en- till full legal proof was adduced to
treaty, took, and did not return till fix the actual commission of the
the next day. crime on his person; that the Ge
Mr. Vickars gave a very good neral's pica respecting the security,
reason to the court for believing the of hi. own house, was indisputably
door was (hut when the first pistol sound doctrine; the fact alledged
was fired, as the mark on the wall, against him was nevertheless of a
made by the ball, w. s in a strait (or horizontal) line with the orifice in the pannel.
Mrs. Sanders saw the hole in the door-post made by the second ball, and conjectured the door must be fiu! at that time, as the edge of it
very enormous nature—a resistance with a deadly weapon, to those employed in the execution of a civil process :—but, in his apprehension, the extent, aggravating circumstances, and enormity of any offence, ought ever to influence a
was burnt by the powder, and jury to be exceedingly captious ia
when (hut, formed a fort of circle.
Mrs. Mayo corroborated the evidence of the lock being broke; and some other witnesses strengthened the credibility of Vick.irs and Banders's depositions, that the hole in the door was not oblique, but horizontal ;.and mentioned several other circumstances, tending to evince that the door was fastened.
The examination of witnesses being gone through, and the ar guments of the counsel finished
their credit of the iort of evidence brought in support of the prosecution, and increase the probability oi the matters urged on the side of the defence; that therefore he thought it his duty to observe to them, that considering the evidence ot the two Kydes and Felthouse by itself, without once looking to what the witnesses for the prisoner had sworn, it was altogether so improbable and contradictory, that it deserved but little ere
Mr. Justice Nares summed up the dit, when the life of a man dependevidence en both sides, with a very ed on the degree of belief given to great number of judicious and per- it. They had all sworn they had
no arms, and James Hyde had sworn, that he saw the General on the st.iirs, and deliberately re;:d his writ to him, and yet that he could get no farther into the room, than his knee between the door and the  door
t'ment remarks, some of -which were in substance as follows:
He observed, that no subject was above the laws; that in their eye all men are equal; that the piiibner was not to be looked on as