Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

not disputed, and possession by Richard Vince, servant to Mr. every unqualified person without Peyton, proved that he heard Mr. lawful excuse was réckoned in Newstead preach in a field at the eye of the law equivalent to Doddington, on Sunday, the 7th an exposure for sale. There was of April last ; that he preached no difference allowed by the sta- contrary to the liturgy of the tute. It was incumbent on the church of En ind; and that person to show he came by game there were more than 20 persons innocently, otherwise he was lia- present. On his cross-examinable to the penalty by the mere tion, he admitted that he did not circumstance of possessing it know what it was he preached, without being duly qualified. The whether it were a prayer or a serpenalty was 5l. for every hare, mon; it was something, but he partridge, &c. Here there were knew not what; and that he four birds. Verdict, 201. penalty, knew he preached contrary to the with costs.

liturgy of the church of England,

because he had not the Prayer Field Preaching. --At the gene- Buok in his hand. ral Quarter Sessions, holden at John Lane, another of Mr. Wisbech, on the 17th of July Peyton's servants, corroborated ult. a singular and novel ap- the testiniony of the last witness, peal came before the magis- but he would not swear that there trates for their determination : in were twenty persons present. which Robert Newstead, a preach- The Magistrates coniirmed the er in the Methodist connexion, conviction, and hence Mr. Newwas appellant, and the Rev. Al- stead became liable to the penalty gernon Peyton, rector of Dod- of 301. or to three months impridington, and Thomas Orton, Esq. sonment. A case was demanded, two of his Majesty's Justices for on the part of Mr. Newstead, for the Isle of Ely, were respondents. the opinion ofthe Court of King's It appeared from the conviction, Bench; but the prosecutors har. and the evidence adduced in sup- ing proposed to abandon the proport of it, that the offence with secution, and engaged not to enwhich Mr. Newstead stood charg- force the penalties, the friends of ed was, the collecting together a Mr. Newstead withdrew their apcongregation for assembly of per- plication, having obtain:d all tl.ey sons, and preaching to thein, could desire. The question of otherwise than according to the right, however, between the recliturgy and practice of the Church tor and the preacher, remains unof England, in a field which had decided. not been licensed. This was Mr. Newstead's crime : it was for this The King v. Thomas Thoughton. that the Rev. Rector of Dodding- --The defendant, the governor of ton caused him to be apprehend- the house of correction for the ed; and t'hat he and his brother couniy of Lancaster, at Preston, magi-trate convicted him in the was indicted for a misdemeanour ntmost penalty which the Tolera. in refusing to receive into his tion Act impose's ! Against the custody Richard Bruton, who had legality of this conviction Mr. heen convicted of a petty larordy Newstead appealed.

before

before the magistrates of the bo- ther, suppos'ng 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. d 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 continecial case set out various facts— ment. It was followed by 6 that the magistrates for the bo- Geo. I. c. 19., which authorised rough of Liverpool hail from commitment to a place of confinetime immemoriil holden quarter ment in the county for vagrancy sessions of the peace, that until and “ other small offences," 1309 they had been in the prac- among which, he argued, petty tice of granting warrants for the larceny ought to be included. comruitment 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 prol had immediately contributed generally; and the 52 Geo. III, to the county rate for the main- c. 44. enabled them to coniniit of. tenance and rep:eir 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 hal-ince been augmented to 300l. labour. He relied, however, annually. The que-tion was, upon the 53 Geo. III. c. 162, whether the justices of the quar- which gave any judge or juster sesions of Liverpuol had an- tices authority, for grand or thority to coinmit persons found petty larceny, to cominit prisoners guilty of petty lirceny to the to any lawful or convenient place; house of correction of the county, which words were to be restrain. or whether they ought to be im- ed to the county in which the prisoneil in the ga:l of the bo- crime was perpetrated. rough.

Mr. Williams, on the other Mr. Richarılson, who was in side, went through the various support of the verdict, contend- acts of parliament, contending el. that if any difficulty upon the that none of them gave the power subject previously existed, it had here claimed, which could not exbuen removed by the stat. 53d ist without some positive enacte Geo. 111. c. 162. The question ment. The only act which gave hu 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 houşe Geo. I. c. 19, was equally out of of correction for the specific crime the question, because it related of petty larceny? Second, Wbe.

merely

on

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 "s other small offences” to include been so formerly, but that for larceny The 15 Geo. ll. only many years he had used a partirespected imprisonments previous cular pew in the church of St. to trial; and the 52 Geo. III. Mary ; that Fowle, one of the spoke of commitments to hard la- defendants, was church warden 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, 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 subunitted that wanted for another family; he it give 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 came in their working dresses, the terms of the last nained act and seizing him by the collar, decidedly gave a power to the dragged bim out of the pew, and magistrates of the borough of along the aile until they got him Liverpool to comınit to the county to the church door, and then they house of correction; for it gave

thrust him out. 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 mert 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 working dresses, one of

them 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 juge temperately of the amount forced out was confirmed by a of damages to be awarded 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 rew, 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 al. but 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 none but a court upon this ground alone there of record could commit for a conmust be a verdict 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 Rev. J. Lock damages they should give. This was an action for assault and Mr. Shuter, the attorney, proved false imprisonment against a ma- serving the notice of action on the gistrate of this county.

defendant,

defendant, which was indorsed christian name, and that Lord D. Shuter.

Ellenborovgh 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 plaintiff made up their quarrel, and they Daunges 51. went before the wagistrate, Dr. Loch, 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, Willi:01 give him two shillings. The plain- Sanderson, William Wuod, 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 thein six miles. The nald, at Hoxton. There was also magistrate said, no; it was his a count in the indictment, chargduty; he took the office to save ing the defendants generally with himself from the militia, and he conspiring to induce cei tain permust take the disadvantage3. sons to commit burglaries, that Upon this the plaintiff replied, they might afterwards obtain the “ Then I will serve no more of reward for their apprehension. your warrants."

The inagistrate Mr. Gurney addressed the jury asked, “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 imme- impossible that popular di-cussion diately. The witness told the and popular feeling should not plaintiff he had never seen a ina- 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 name, and ob- vestigation coolly and dispassiojected that the letter D. was no nately, and to decide on the guilt

or

« НазадПродовжити »