« PreviousContinue »
before the magistrates of the bo- ther, supposing it had the power, rough of Liverpool, at the quarter it could commit for any term less sessions, and who was sentenced than six month, and exceeding to an imprisonment of three two years. These questions both months. A verdict was taken for originated in the terms of the act the prosecution at the assizes, 6 Anne c. 6., which referred only subject to the opinion of the court, to clergiable larcenies, and pointupon a special case. This spe- ed out a limited period of confinecial case set out various facts ment. It was followed by 6 that the magistrates for the bo- Geo. 1. c. 19., which authorised rough of Liverpool had from commitment to a place of confinetime immemorial holden quarter ment in the county for vagrancy sessions of the peace, that until and “ other small offences, 1309 they had been in the prace among which, he argued, petty tice of granting warrants for the larceny ought to be included. commitment of offenders to the The 15 Geo II. was the next mahouse of correction of the county terial statute : it gave power to at Preston, and that this power justices of liberties, and
corporawas first disputed in the year tions contributing to the county '1809; that the borough of Liver- rates, to commit to country gaols pool had immediately contributed generally; and the 52 Geo. III. to the county rate for the main C. 44. enabled them to commit oftenance and repair of the house of fenders, if they thought fit, to some correction ; and that its propor place of confinement where the tion, which in 1809 was only 801.
prisoners were kept to hard had since been augmented to 3001. labour.
He relied, however, annually. The question was,
upon the 53 Geo. III. c. 162, whether the justices of the quar which gave any judge or juster sesions of Liverpool had au tices authority, for grand' or thority to coinmit persons found petty larceny, to çominit prisoners guilty of petty larceny to the to any lawful or convenient place; f10nse of correction of the county, which words were to be restrainor whether they ought to be im ed to the county in which the prisoned in the gaol of the bo- crime was perpetrated. rough.
Mr. Williams, on the other Mr. Richardson, who was in side, went through the various support of the verdict, contend acts of parliament, contending ed, that if any difficulty upon the that none of them gave the power subject previously existed, it had here claimed, which could not exbeen removed by the stat. 53d ist without some positive enactGéo. III. c. 162. The question ment. The only act which gave had been argued in 1811, but the authority to commit to the house court had not come to any deci of correction, eo nomine, was the sion, though two doubts were 6 Anne c. 6, which, it was admentioned by their Lordships; mitted, did not apply to the ofFirst, Whether a court of session fence of petty larceny: the 6 could commit to a county house Geo. I. c. 19, was equally out of of correction for the specific crimne the question, because it related of petty larceny ? Second, Whe
merely to offences of vagrancy, Basden, a gardener, at Sandwich, bastardy, and offences of that and he stated that he was not a kind, not meaning by the words parishioner of St. Mary, but had “ other small offences' to include been so formerly, but that for larceny The 15 Geo. II. only many years he had used a partirespected imprisonments previous cular pew in the church of St. to trial; and the 52 Geo. III.
that Fowle, one of the spoke of commitments to hard la defendants, was churchwarden of bour, but did not, as would have St. Mary; that on Sunday the 4th been natural had it so intended, of June last, he was at church, notice houses of correction. As when the defendant Fowle came to the 53 Geo. III. c. 162, on to him, and said that he must not which so much stress was laid on sit in that pew, for that it was the other side, he submitted that wanted for another family; he it gave no authority to justices to refused to go out unless he was imprison in gaols not before re- compelled; upon which the decognized, and a house of correc fendant went away, and brought tion had not before been men with him two of his workmen, he tioned.
being a brewer at Sandwich, who The Court was of opinion that cane in their working dresses, the terms of the last named act and seizing him by the collar, decidedly gave a power to the dragged him out of the pew, ard magistrates of the borough of along the aile until they got him Liverpool to commit to the county to the church door, and then they house of correction ; for it gave thrust him cut. On cross-exauthority to imprison, in any place amination he admitted that the the judge or justices should think defendant had been with him befit to appoint, for such time as fore, and told him that the pew in they should direct, for the crimes question was wanted for a Capexpressly named, of grand and tain Warner, who had taken a petty larceny. In this case the house in the town, which had borough of Liverpool paid a part long been untenanted; that the of the expense of maintaining defendant had also offered him a the house of correction, and it seat in his own pew, which was was reasonable it should derive
opposite, but that he preferred from it a part of the benefit. sitting in his old pew. He had
not been an inhabitant of the The King v. Fowle and Another. parish for many years, and he • March 19.–This was an indict also admitted that he had gone to ment for an assault against the church early that morning bedefendant Fowle, and one of his cause he knew that Captain Warmen, he being churchwarden of
ner had used that pew the Sunthe parish of St. Mary the Virgin, day before. The defendant first at Sandwich, for turning the pro asked him if he would go out? secutor out of a pew at church on He said, no, unless he was comthe 4th of June last.
pelled to go by force. That the The
prosecutor of the indict defendant came with his two men ment was a man of the name of
in their worķing dresses, one of
them with a constable's staff, and Mr. Serjeant Onslow stated the forced him out. In doing this particulars of the case. He said the congregation was much dis
that he was glad to see that the turbed, and several persons cried defendant had made this cause a out “Shame.''
special jury, because they would The statement of his being thus judge temperately of the amount forced out was confirmed by al of damages to be awarıle:l against Mr. Stuart, a magistrate of the a brother magistrate for an act of place.
tyrannical oppression. The quesMr. Marryat, for the defen- tion of damages would be the dant, contended, that the prose- only one they had to consider, for cutor, not being an inhabitant, his conduct was clearly indefenhad no right to the pew in ques- sible at law. The plaintiff was tion; that the rector and church- tithing man of Chart, in this wardens had a right to regulate county, and on the 22d of Septhe seats in church, and because tember last he executed a warrant the seat in question was wanted of the defendant's, by taking a for Captain Warner's family who person in custody for some ashad come to reside in the parish. sault, or other trivial offence. He The prosecutor was told he could had to carry him to Farnham, not have the pew, but that he had which was near nine miles from told the prosecutor he should be his own home; and when before accommodated in his own pew; the defendant, he asked to be albut the old man obstinately per- lowed something for his trouble. sisted in going to the disputed This the defendant refused to alplace, and therefore the defendant low him, upon which the plaintiff Fowle, as churchwarden, removed said he would not execute any him from the place.
more of his warrants. For this Mr. Justice Bailey said, the offence alone-for this affront to prosecutor had clearly no right to the dignity of the defendant, he intrude into that pew, but they immediately ordered him to be did wrong in removing him in committed to the cage, where he the indecent manner they did. was imprisoned the whole of the They should have locked the pew; night, and not released until the and besides, if they had a right next morning. This, the Serjeant to remove him from the pew, they said, was clearly an illegal act, had no right to turn him out of and beyond the magistrate's the church, which they had also power. Admitting what the pridone. In this they had clearly soner had said was a contempt of exceeded their authority, and the justice, yet nonc but a court upon this ground alone there of record could commit for a conmust be a ver, lict against them.- tempt, which a single justice Verdict-Guilty:
clearly was not. The question,
therefore, which the jury would Kingston, Wednesday, April 3.- alone have to consider was, what Mayhew v, the Rer: J. Lock. -- damages they should give. This was an action for assault and Mr. Shuter, the attorney, proved false imprisonment agaitist a ma serving the notice of action on the gistrate of this county,
defendant, which was indorsed christian nanie, and that Lord D. Shuter.
Ellenborough had so ruled in T. Stucey, the constable at Kent last summer ; second, that Farnham, stated, that he recol- the conduct of the plaintiff was a lected the plaintiff bringing a man contempt, and that the magisin custody on the 22d of Septem: trate had a right to commit for a ber last. It was late in the even. contenipt in the execution of his ing, and the witness was called duty. up to take him into custody, as The learned judge saved both the plaintiff wanted to return to these points of law; and the jury Chart. The parties in custody found a verdict for the plaintiffmade up their quarrel, and they Damages 51, went before the magistrate, Dr. Lock, to discharge the warrant. Middleser Sessions.-On SaturThe witness then applied to Dr. day, Sept. 21, George l'aughan, Lock to allow him some reward Robert Mackay, and Geo. Brown, for being called out of his bed. were put to the bar, charged with The doctor thought this reason a conspiracy to induce William able, and directed the parties to Hurley, Michael Hurley, William give him two shillings. The plain- Sanderson, William Wood, and tiff then said, he thought that he Dennis Hurley, to commit a bur ought to be allowed something glary in the house of Mrs. M.Dofor bringing them six miles. The nald, at Hoxton. There was also magistrate said, no; it was his à count in the indictment, ehargduty; he took the office to save ing the defendants generally with himself from the militia, and he conspiring to induce certain permust take the disadvantages. sons to commit burglaries, that Upon this the plaintiff replied, theỹ might afterwards obtain the “ Then I will serve no more of reward for their apprehension. your warrants." The magistrate Mr. Gurney addressed the jury asked, 56 What is that you say,
on the part of the prosecution, Mayhew ?" To which Mayhew and observed, that had the openreplied, “ Send no more of your ing of his learned friend been the warrants to me, for I will not first information which they had serve them ;” and added, in an heard of the case they had now to under tone, what the witness try, it would still have been a thought was, serve them your most important one: but in a self.” Upon this Dr. Lock or country like this, where it was dered him to the cage inme- impossible that popular discussion diately. The witness told the and popular feeling should not plaintiff he had never seen a ma exist, it berame doubly imporgistrate so treated before.
tant; and he had now 'to call on Mr. Marryat, for the defendant, the jury to divest their minds of took two objections; first, that every impression which they the act of parliament directed might previously have received, the notice of action to be indorsed and to enter into the present inwith the attorney's nanie, and ob- vestigation coolly and dispassiojected that the letter D. was no nately, and to decide on the guilt
or innocence of the prisoners on brought to light in consequence the evidence which should be laid of five persons, named Wm. Sanbefore them Having said thus derson, Wm. Ward, Wm. Hurley, much, he should proceed to state Jas. Hurley, and Dennis Hurley, the case.
It was necessary for being charged with a burglary in the peace and well-being of so the house of Mrs. M‘Donald, at ciety, that crime should be re Hoxton; and on that occasion presseil, and offenders apprehend- Vaughan, who was a patrole, ed; and to accomplish this ob- Mackay, who had been in the ject, it was necessary that reward employ of the City Police, and and encouragement should be Brown, the other "lefendant (what given to those persons who risked he had been, he, Mr. G., could not their personal safety, and fre- state), brought the prisoners up, quently even their lives, in the and Vaughan deposed as to the discovery and apprehension of of facts of the burglary in question. fenders. The law had given re [Here Mr. Gurney read the dewards to such persons, and still positions of Vaughan and the the country owed much to indi other defendants, and continued.] viduals who meritoriously per Had these depositions been all formed such services ; but as that passed, the magistrate would much merit attached to those who have completed his duty by comwell di-charged this duty towards mitting the prisoners for trial; the public, great in proportion but the prisoners, on being queswas the built of those, who, for tioned, said they were taken to the sike of obtaining these re the house of Mrs. M'Donald by a wards, shoull lay traps and throw man they met at a public-house, temptations in the way of vthers, and went in with him, but took to induce them to commit crimes. no hing: Something here oc. Such was the offence with which curred, either a look or a word, he hail to charge the prisoners at he (Mr. G.) c vuld not say what it the bar ind in proving his case was, which exited suspicion in he sh ull be obliged to have re the mind of Mr. Nares, the course to evidence, 'which it would magistrare, who turned to Vaug. be the duty of the jury to look to han, and observed, “ Vaughan, with suspicion, and receive with you went to the spot at the time ciution. The witne-ses might, the prisoners were committing perhaps, differ in some immate the burglary in consequence of rial facts; but if they should agree information you received; who in the min points, and after be- gave you that information ?" ing sifted and cross-examined it Vanghan declined to say who shoul lippear that there wils no gave him the information, obreison to doubt the iruth of their serving, that mentioning nanies testimony, he shoulil submit that might be attended with danger to whitever might have been their individuals, and would operate to formmer ilssociations or modes of prevent their receiving informaliving, thei" evidence was nottion in future. This, and some therefore to be rejected on this other circumstances, induced Mr. Decalon This transiction was Nares to commit the prisoner: for