Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Francis Creswell, first mate of the Thames East Indiaman, for being concerned in the unshipment of a considerable quantity of China silks from on board the said ship into boats belonging to smugglers off the coast of this country, contrary to the revenue laws: and the penalties sought to be recovered amounted to three times the value of the said goods.

Edward Roche deposed, that in April, 1814, he was quarter-master on board the Thames East Indiaman. She had sailed for China, but he could not tell when she arrived there. The defendant was the chief mate, and Mr. Henry Ladd was third mate. When at China, several small boxes were taken on board by the direction of Mr. Ladd. There were from 17 to 20, weighing about 50 pounds each: they looked like sea boxes, Witness was called out of his hammock by Mr. Ladd to take them out of the Chinese boat. This was between two and three in the morning. One half was carried into Mr. Creswell's cabin, and the other half into the gun room. There was a bit of tin on each corner of the boxes put into the gun room. There was an iron mark on the others. Mr. Creswell was on board at this time, but he did not appear during the transaction. The ship arrived in England in August last; when off Scilly, a pilot boat came towards the ship, a small boat was launched from her, which came alongside the Thames, and some men came on board from it. Witness, by the desire of the boatswain, went to call the gunner; he passed Mr. Creswell's cabin, and saw some silks lying on his table, which were taken

from a box standing on the floor. The box looked like one of those which witness took in at China. The silks consisted of shawls and handkerchiefs. Mr. Creswell, Mr. Daniel, one of the mates, and Mr. Ladd, were in the cabin, as were the men who had come on board, smugglers he believed them to be; he saw these men in conversation with Mr. Creswell, and pay some bank notes, which they laid on the table. After this the men, six or seven in number, took the silks and wrapped them round their bodies and legs, under their clothes, and went off. There were still more silks remaining, and one of the men said these were to be left till they came back again for them. The box from which the silks had been taken, was sent to the cook to burn. Before the men went off in the boat, four boxes were brought upon deck, which were the same witness took in at China. The lid of one of the boxes was loosed, and witness saw it contain silks and shawls: he believed witness was ordered to put them into the boat alongside. The boat was then rowed off. The boat came alongside in the morning, and went away between two and three in the afternoon.

George Lancaster, a seaman on board the Thames, corroborated the testimony of the last witness, as to the smugglers coming on board off Scilly, going down into the cabin, and going away again with the silk. The boxes put into the boat might contain about sixty pieces each. The boat came alongside at four in the after

noon.

William Eckloffstein was also a seaman on board the Thames:

was

was with her at China; remembered a Chinese boat coming alongside with some boxes; they were taken on board by order of Mr. Creswell; came to England in the ship; when she arrived off the Land's-end, a boat came alongside, and some men came on board, and went into Mr. Creswell's cabin; he saw them there, and saw some boxes of silk broke open. Mr. Creswell was present. Some silk shawls lay on the table; there were about 30 crape shawls, 20 silk shawls, and 12 pieces of silk; saw another box broke open, containing nankeen. The silk articles were sold to the men who came on board, and were taken away round their bodies; the men also took four boxes in the boat, one of which he saw contained silk. This was at halfpast four o'clock in the evening. About two hours afterwards another boat came alongside, containing six persons. Three of them came on board, and also went into Mr. Creswell's cabin. They inquired whether there were any silks or nankeens to sell. Mr. Creswell answered in the affirmative, and said they were very good, but very dear. Witness was called a little while after to fetch a rope's end, to hand seven boxes, which were in Mr. Creswell's cabin, out of the port. Three of these contained silk, two nankeen, and two tea.

Mr. Lock, surveyor of the Custom House, proved that silk India shawls were worth about 30s. each, a crape shawl 20s. China silk 3s. a yard. The value of a box containing such things as had been described might be 401.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant called

Captain Richie, the commander of the Thames. He recollected the ship being off Scilly in August; did not see any boat come alongside; had such an event taken place, he must have seen the boats. Mr. Creswell's cabin was near his in the ship; he did not often go into it, but, when he happened to go in, he saw no particular articles which excited his attention. The cabin was of such a size as to put boxes in it, but he thought they could not be concealed from view. Knew the first witness, Roche, and recollected his being punished three times, and once for insolence to Mr. Creswell. Did not hear the insolence; it was reported to him.

Charles Paris was servant to Mr. Creswell during the voyage in question, and had constant access to his cabin. Nothing could have been concealed in Mr. Creswell's cabin without his knowledge. Saw some boxes in the cabin, containing silks he believ ed. This was after they left China. These boxes continued on board till the ship got to St. Helena, when witness took them on shore, where they were left. Believed these were all the boxes of silk in the cabin. He had no boxes when the ship arrived off the Land's End; nor did witness see any silks in his cabin at that time, or any boats come alongside.

On his cross-examination he said, Mr. Creswell might have smuggled without his knowledge.

Mr. John Drake, second mate of the Thames, said, his cabin was opposite Mr. Creswell's. He was in the habit of going into Mr. X 2 Creswell's

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Goode was appointed and acted as assessor and collector of the assessed taxes for Coventry, for years prior and down to the year 1806. Mr. Goode having become an alderman and magistrate, and afterwards mayor of Coventry, he from that time took the oaths of qualification, and continued to act as a commissioner of the assessed taxes; and he procured his father and a Mr. Thomas Price to be appointed assessors and collectors in his stead. Mr. Basil Goode continued, how ever, in effect to execute the office of assessor and collector for 1807 and subsequent years, under the appointment made to his father, who did not interfere, and he acted with Mr. Price to the death of the latter, in 1912.

Mr. Basil Goode, during all this time, made out and signed the assessments in the name of his father, as assessor. He afterwards signed and sealed their authenticity in the character of commissioner, and, as had been his practice for former years, fill

ed up the printed tickets or receipts, which Price delivered to persons in exchange for their taxes, Price paying over the money weekly to the defendant, and the defendant in general making all payments, and settling the collector's accounts, with the receiver general.

Price having died deficient in the collection, an extent was issued against his estate in aid of the inhabitants of Coventry; and in the investigation of his accounts, and examination of the printed tickets of receipts in the hands of individuals who had paid Price their taxes for the year 1809, several instances were discovered by the Crown agents in which more money had been collected by Mr. Price, on the authority of Mr. Goode's tickets, than was charged by the assessments of that year, or was included in the parchment duplicates under the seals of the commissioners, by which the receiver-general collected and accounted at the exchequer.

The Attorney-General accordingly filed an information against the defendant for fraudulently filling up the tickets, and causing the inoney to be illegally collected by Price, and converted to the use of the defendant and Price, or one of them. The trial took place at the Lent Assizes of 1815, and the defendant was convicted.

The defendant afterwards applied to the Court of King's Bench, and obtained an order for a new trial, principally under doubts whether a memorandum book kept between the defendant and Price, which was referred to ou the former trial on the part of

the

the crown, but which did not appear to have been relied on as evidence, did or did not influence the jury in their verdict.

On the motion for the new trial, considerable stress was laid for the defendant, on the circumstance that the instances of the alledged false tickets, which were confined to the assessment of 1809, were only five, and that the sums alleged to have been fraudulently charged were inconsiderable.

This latter occurrence led to a further examination of the assessments and accounts between the defendant and Price, and it resulted in the discovery of several further and like instances of fraud, under similar tickets for taxes, not only in the year 1809, but also in the years 1806, 1807, and 1808, and the greater part of these sums was traced into the defendant's hand. A second information was accordingly filed by the Attorney General, founded on these new charges of long practice, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty, and both informations stood for trial at these assizes. On the trial of the new information, on the 4th instant, which stood first on the paper, and occupied nine hours, the charges were fully established, and the defendant was found guilty.

The learned Judge (Mr. Baron Richards) animadverted, in strong terms, on the improper conduct of the defendant, in having united the character of commissioner with that of assessor and collector, which his Lordship considered to be not only illegal but criminal; and his Lordship observed, that the evidence in support of the defendant's good

character could not weigh against facts.

After the circumstances of the case in the new trial of the first inforination had been stated to the jury on the following morning by the counsel for the crown, the defendant pleaded guilty.

These prosecutions excited very considerable interest throughout the county, and the court was crowded to excess.

out

Marginson v. Howard. This was a qui tam action for a breach of the game laws. The defendant was a carrier between Ormskirk and Liverpool. The chief witness against him was William Wyberley, a surgeon at Ormskirk. On the 25th of August, the defendant entered his house at 8 o'clock in the evening. He had game in his pocket. Witness, with a little opposition from Howard, took out a partridge, and gave it to his father. Howard then goodnaturedly drew another, and gave it to witness, saying "that will make you a brace." Another person of the name of Nixon, who was present, after a little struggle, took two more from him. Howard said the birds were given him, and that he did not kill them himself. Being cross-examined, the witness allowed that Howard did not offer them for sale-that the struggle in which they were taken from him was rather jocular than serious-and that he never demanded payment for his game, and never received any, though the witness allowed that it was delicious.

On this evidence the learned Judge directed to find for the plaintiff. Possession here was not

not disputed, and possession by every unqualified person without lawful excuse was reckoned in the eye of the law equivalent to an exposure for sale. There was no difference allowed by the statute. It was incumbent on the person to show he came by game innocently, otherwise he was liable to the penalty by the mere circumstance of possessing it without being duly qualified. The penalty was 51. for every hare, partridge, &c. Here there were four birds. Verdict, 201. penalty, with costs.

Richard Vince, servant to Mr. Peyton, proved that he heard Mr. Newstead preach in a field at Doddington, on Sunday, the 7th of April last; that he preached contrary to the liturgy of the church of England; and that there were more than 20 persons present. On his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know what it was he preached, whether it were a prayer or a sermon; it was something, but he knew not what; and that he knew he preached contrary to the liturgy of the church of England, because he had not the Prayer Book in his hand.

John Lane, another of Mr. Peyton's servants, corroborated the testimony of the last witness, but he would not swear that there were twenty persons present.

The Magistrates confirmed the conviction, and hence Mr. Newstead became liable to the penalty of 301. or to three months imprisonment. A case was demanded, on the part of Mr. Newstead, for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench; but the prosecutors having proposed to abandon the prosecution, and engaged not to enforce the penalties, the friends of Mr. Newstead withdrew their application, having obtained all they could desire. The question of right, however, between the rector and the preacher, remains undecided.

Field Preaching.-At the general Quarter Sessions, holden at Wisbech, on the 17th of July ult. a singular and novel appeal came before the magistrates for their determination: in which Robert Newstead, a preacher in the Methodist connexion, was appellant, and the Rev. Algernon Peyton, rector of Doddington, and Thomas Orton, Esq. two of his Majesty's Justices for the Isle of Ely, were respondents. It appeared from the conviction, and the evidence adduced in support of it, that the offence with which Mr. Newstead stood charged was, the collecting together a congregation or assembly of persons, and preaching to them, otherwise than according to the liturgy and practice of the Church of England, in a field which had not been licensed. This was Mr. Newstead's crime: it was for this The King v. Thomas Houghton. that the Rev. Rector of Dodding--The defendant, the governor ton caused him to be apprehended; and that he and his brother magistrate convicted him in the utmost penalty which the Toleration Act imposes! Against the legality of this conviction Mr. Newstead appealed.

of

the house of correction for the county of Lancaster, at Preston, was indicted for a misdemeanour in refusing to receive into his custody Richard Bruton, who had been convicted of a petty larceny

before

« PreviousContinue »