Page images


[ocr errors]

vestigation to take place, and was of the province of Upper Canada. enabled to defeat the deep-laid The plaintiff was there during scheme. ""Who,” continued the some of the time that the witness Governor in his pamphlet, " after was in Canada ; he remembered such acts, could question the jus- the time of his suspension, but tice and propriety of dismissing did not remember any official insuch a person from his office ?" quiry taking place respecting the Now, not one word of the allega- location of lands at Niagara. The tion about the lands at Niagara Guardian newspaper was first pubwas known to General Gore at lished after Mr. Wyatt had left the time he suspended Mr. Wyatt. the province; there was no other There was, indeed, some inquiry press before that paper was set instituted afterwards, but that up, except the government press. was when Mr. Wyatt had been Mr. Sergeant Best was about suspended, had left the province, to call Colonel Norton, the Indian and was on his way to England. ehief, to prove that there existed As to the charge against Mr. Wy- no 'understanding between the att, that he was a seditious and Indian nations and the plaintiff ; disaffected person, and employed but Mr. Sergeant Lens objected in disturbing the public tranquil. to his evidence, in which objection lity, he would call persons of Sir V. Gibbs concurred. high rank, Mr. Thorpe, the judge Here the case closed for the of the province, and the attorney- prosecution. general of the province, to prove Mr. Sergeant Lens then, on that his conduct was most exem- behalf of the defendant, contendplary. It was insinuated, also, ed that no case had been made out that the plaintiff had been in- which proved the malicious or triguing with the Indians ; but he unjust motives of General Gore should be able to call before the in suspending the plaintiff from jury the chief of one of those his office ; that it did not appear tribes, a British subject, who the libel had ever been shown to would prove there was no good any human being except Mr. ground for that accusation. Frith; and he would put it there

Mr. William Frith was called. fore to the jury, whether that -He was attorney-general of the was a case which called upon province of Upper Canada from them to give exemplary damages. the year 1807 to 1811. The Sir V. Gibbs then charged the plaintiff had left the province be- jury. It did not appear to him fore he arrived there in 1907; that the first charge had been the office of surveyor-general was proved, as there were no stateone of great trust and confidence; ments in the pamphlet which its duties consisted in regulating showed that what was there urgthe location of lands, surveying ed constituted the grounds on them, and passing grants through which Mr. Wyatt had been susthe office; the fixed salary was pended. The pamphlet, in fact, 300l. a.year; the perquisites made appeared to be only an answer to it much more.

something which had been pubDr. Thorpe was next examined. lished by Judge Thorpe and He held the situation of judge others. as to the last charge,

that after

that of libel, it had unquestion- regain possession of the articles ably been proved. The publica- of jewellery, under the promise tion of the pamphlet was an of- of returning them the following fence against the laws which day, when he had given Mr. could not be defended; and so Carter reason to suppose he should far the plaintiff would be entitled bring with him the plate, which to a verdict. It would be for the he had ordered to a considerable jury to estimate what degree of amount. Mr. T. returned to damage the character of Mr. Wy- Gloucester with the intention of att was likely to sustain from the taking legal advice as to the most publication of that pamphlet, al- effectual manner of exposing the ways bearing in mind the manner character of the plaintiff, who, of its publication, and its very Mr. Thomas ascertained, had but limited circulation.

two months prior to his taking The jury then retired for a up his residence at Matson, in a short time, and gave a verdict of ready-furnished house belonging 300l. damages.

to Lord Sidney, been discharged

from the King's Bench prison, Gloucester Assizes, August. under the Insolvent Debtors' Act; Carter v. Thomas.—The plaintiff his debts, according to his schewas a Mr. Carter, who had been dule, amounting to 12,0001. and living in the neighbourhood of the assets to liquidate those debts Gloucester, about 15 months, in being only 191. 6s. 6d. Mr. a style calculated to convey an Thomas was passed by a gentleidea of his being a man of for- man in a tilbury, who the sheriff's tune and respectability.

officer who accompanied him inThe defendant was Mr. Thomas, formed him was Mr. Stephens, a jun. son of a silversmith in the magistrate and banker in Glou. Strand. The action was for a ma- cester, (a material sufferer by licious prosecution from a war- Carter,) and that most probably rant issued from Bow-street- he was going to dine with Mr. office, and for verbal defama- Carter : this inmediately detertion. The damages were laid at mined Mr. Thomas to return to 5000l.

the house and expose Mr. C's It appeared by the evidence true character before Mr. Steand cross examination of the wit- phens, as a magistrate and a pernesses produced for the plaintiff, son who had, together with many


, that Mr. Thomas, jun. in con- others of the greatest respectabisequence of Mr. Carter's having lity, become dupes to the specious obtained goods from his father's and plausible manners of the shop in October last, obtained a plaintiff: he accordingly did so, warrant from Bow-street for his and entered a drawing-room in apprehension, on a charge of ob- Mr. C's house, where the party taining goods under false pre- were assembled, and told them tences, followed the plaintiff to that Mr. Carter was a notorious Matson-house, his residence, in swindler. Much altercation then the vicinity of Gloucester, and by took place, during which Mr. means of stratagem, contrived to Carter struck the defendant, who,

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]


after having convinced Mr. Ste- the plaintiff's counsel failed; and phens and others of the accuracy those counts relative to the maliof his statements, left the house, cious prosecution were set aside, assuring them that he should go as no evidence was adduced to to every respectable shop in Glou- disprove the accuracy of the incester and make known Mr. formation which the warrant Carter's character; observing, was granted. that although he had outwitted Mr. Thomas had no occasion him in recovering his jewellery, to call any witnesses; and after yet he considered he had an im- Mr. Baron Richards had summed portant relative duty to perform up, the jury immediately returnto society at large. Mr. Thomas, ed a verdict for the defendant. as appeared by the evidence of many witnesses, did go round to the tradesmen of Gloucester, and in the most undisguised manner, Chelmsford, Friday, March 15. with honest indignation made -(Special Juries.) - Sutton known to them the real history of Barksworth and another. - This Mr. Carter, who, at that time, was an action of a novel sort. It was considered a man of immense was brought against the defendproperty, and had incurred debts ants, as owners of a vessel called with various tradespeople to a the Gunson, for salvage of the very considerable amount; in fact, lives of five seamen, and also a such was the high opinion enter- very small part of the vessel. The tained of him, that the freedom defendants had paid 501. into of the city of Gloucester had been court. The plaintiff, Sutton, is presented to him. Carter left resident at Colchester, in this the neighbourhood the following county, and is owner of a small morning, and had since been vessel called the Success. The living at 57, Nelson-square, master of the vessel gave the folBlackfriars-road; and, from the lowing account of the transaction cross-examination of his wit- -That on the 6th of December nesses, it appeared, that none of last it was blowing a very heavy his numerous creditors had been gale of wind, with a rolling sea, paid, except one person, who was and there were several ships in paid a small sum, in order, as the offing making signals of disMr. Dauncey, the counsel for tress. He went out with the inthe defendant, observed, that a tention of assisting a large Ruslarger might be contracted. Such sian vessel on the sands, when were the grounds on which the he perceived the Gunson lying action originated ; and although on her beam-ends, and some the declaration contained 13 men sticking to the wreck. He counts, only one could be proved, immediately turned his attention which charged Mr. Thomas with towards them, and with great having spoken the word “swind- danger and difficulty saved the ler," which was admitted not to mate and four men from inevitbe actionable, unless special dam- able death--they also picked up a age could be proved, in which yard, a boom, and some other

[ocr errors]

pieces of the vessel, of no great legally demanded on that ground, value, not in the whole amount- he was sure that the humanity of ing to 501.

British seamen would always be This case being proved, Mr. equally exerted on behalf of their Marryatt, for the defendants, fellow-creatures in distress. With said they were not at all liable in respect to the articles of the vessel this action; for with respect to which were saved, and for which those parts of the vessel for which a salvage would be due, the desalvage was due, the defendants fendant had disclaimed all title to had given notice to the plaintiffs them, and therefore they were not that they had abandoned them to chargeable on that head. The the underwriters, and therefore only way in which the defendants whatever was due on that head might be at all chargeable in this was due from the underwriters, action might be for work and and not from the defendants. labour, and saving the servants With respect to the other head of of the defendants for the plaintiff's claim, namely, salvage for the benefit. The measure of this sort lives of the men, no such claim of benefit saved to the defendants, existed in our law. It was a duty would be the value of the services of humanity which the plaintiff's so saved. The jury would on this were morally bound to perform; head consider whether the 501. at most it could only be consider- paid into court would satisfy this ed as work and labour done for part of the case.—Verdict for the the defendant's servants. And it defendants. had been ruled, that where a servant had broke his leg in his John Bennet, Esq. and others, v. master's employ, the master was The Rev. Thomas Prevost.-The not bound to pay the doctor. The plaintiffs in this cause are owners defendants, however, though they and occupiers of lands in the were not liable for any thing, had parish of Tisbury, in Wiltshire; nevertheless paid 501. into court, the defendant is vicar of the same which was abundant compensation parish. for the use of the plaintiff's vessel It appeared, that in the year for the day which it was occu- 1801, a bill was filed by the vicar pied.

in the Court of Exchequer, callMr. Justice Abbott said, that ing on the plaintiffs to account to this action was the first instance him for the tithes in kind of the he had ever recollected of a claim following articles :-cows, calves, being made for saving the life of heifers, eggs, poultry, and gara man. There could not be


dens. The plaintiffs in their salvage for the life of man, for answer insisted, that there were salvage was a reward proportion- in existence, in and throughout ed to the value of the thing saved ; the parish, the following moduses, but the law contemplated the life viz. :-three-pence for a cow, of man as above all measure of sixpence for a calf, three halfvalue. It was considered in law pence for a heifer, one penny for as inestimable, and although no eggs and poultry, and one penny recompence could' in this case be for gardens. On the hearing in


the Exchequer, the Barons direct were unvaried and invariable, the ed issues to ascertain the validity modus could not be established. of such moduses, and the same Mr. Prevost, he said, had cerwere now tried before a special tainly, on his first coming to the jury.

vicarage, acquiesced in receiving The evidence on the part of the the modus; but he was not on parish consisted of the testimony this account shut out from his of many old persons, with re- claim for vicarial tithes : no docuceipts given by different vicars, ments of a date antecedent to the all of which concurred in show- year 1781 had now been proing that the moduses had never duced, and an usage, like the varied, and had been in existence present, of 40 or 50 years, was from time immemorial, except not sufficient to set aside the that, during the incumbency of general rule and law of the land. the Rev. Mr. Nicholson, (who Mr. Sergeant Pell, for the preceded the present vicar, the plaintiff, contended, that the moRev. Mr. Prevost) there were a dus, in this state, was fully estafew instances of 3s. having been blished by the evidence of the vapaid for each cow, and this sum rious witnesses who had now had also been paid by two or proved its having been paid for a three small occupiers to Mr. Pre- great many years; and he insistvost. The vicar relied on these ed it was a circumstance which variations, coupled with the cir- greatly strengthened his case, cumstances of the augmentation that none of the books of antecemade to the vicarage, by the dent vicars, proving the vicarial Abbess and Convent of Shaftes- tithes to have been paid, had now bury, in the year 1360, and of been produced. The learned Sertwo terriers remaining in the geant then animadverted severely Bishop's registry. In the former on the two miserable witnesses is a grant to the vicar of “Lac. (as he called them) who had provtagium seu Lacticinium.” In the ed their having paid for the last latter is mentioned a “Cow few years, to the present vicar, White ;' and these words, it was the sum of 3s. per cow: one of contended meant the tithes of those witnesses, when repeatedly milk.

asked why he had paid 3s. knowMr. Sergeant Lens, on the part ing that the other parishioners of of the defendant, insisted, that Tisbury only had paid 3d. devicarial tithes were justified by clined giving an answer; and the common law of the land; and when asked by a gentleman of that, although moduses the jury if he would have paid taken by the late Rev. Mr. Ni- more than 3s. if demanded, said cholson, it formed no rule for the he begged to be excused answerpresent vicar, Mr. Prevost. It ing. The learned Sergeant conappeared that in the present case cluded with impressing on the various modes of payment had minds of the jury the great iinbeen made in the parish, both for portance of the decision which cows and for gardens; and he they were called upon to make in contended, that unless payments this case; and which decision



« PreviousContinue »