THE following are brief notes of some of the more interesting trials, as
well civil as criminal, which have occupied the attention of the Courts
of Assize, or Quarter Sessions, in this county, during the present
century.
The KING _v._ WADDINGTON—In the summer of 1800 a criminal information was
filed against S. F. Waddington, Esq., an eminent hop merchant residing in
London, “for monopolising practices in the purchase of hops” in this
county. The rule having been made absolute, the case came on for trial
at the Worcestershire Summer Assizes, in that year, before Sir Simon Le
Blanc and a special jury, at Nisi Prius. Mr. Plumer, principal counsel
for prosecution, stated the offence to be—enhancing the price of hops by
spreading rumours of scarcity among the planters, advising them not to
sell, and by engrossing a large quantity of that commodity. Mr.
Waddington was described as having invited the planters to a dinner, and
given them as a toast, “Hops, £20 a cwt;” telling them that they had
never had a large enough price, begging them to hold back, and promising
to buy himself at an increased rate, rather than they should be
distressed for money. Such was the enthusiasm created by his speech,
that one gentleman got up afterwards and proposed, “Mr. Waddington, the
saviour of the country.” He afterwards did buy great quantities of hops
in Worcester market, at prices varying from 10s. to 40s. above those
current prior to his appearance. The counsel characterised this
forestalling as a “crime of deepest dye;” and “long, very long, had the
people of this country borne with the most exemplary fortitude this
greatest of all public evils.” Mr. Dauncey, Mr. Waddington’s counsel,
insisted that his client had only acted as other factors were in the
habit of doing, and if he were punished, the private enterprise of the
country would receive a most grievous check and injury. He said the
offence of “engrossing” was a most undefinable one, and not cognizable by
the common law. The learned judge admitted this was a moot point, but
remarked on the enormity of the offence, and told the jury they had only
to say whether or no the evidence made out to them the fact of Mr.
Waddington’s having done that which the indictment set forth. The jury,
after this charge, immediately returned a verdict of “guilty.” On the
24th of November, Mr. Waddington was brought up for judgment in King’s
Bench. Mr. Law moved in arrest of judgment, arguing that engrossing was
no longer an offence at common law. Hops, too, were not “victuals.” Mr.
Waddington, speaking in his own defence, arraigned the whole proceedings
as altogether incompatible with the right of the individual to use his
capital in trade as he pleased. Mr. Erskine, in support of judgment,
said that hops being a commodity so easily engrossed, required to be
strictly regulated: the practice of engrossing was innocent neither in
the eyes of man nor God. Lord Kenyon, though not giving judgment, spoke
at length on the matter. Hops were as much a “victual” as salt, both
being used for the preservation of victuals; and he was old enough to
recollect an application being made to that court for an information for
a conspiracy to raise the price of salt at Droitwich. Mr. Waddington was
remanded to prison till the last day of term. The judges then declared
themselves of opinion that there ought to be no new trial, and that there
was no defence. He was again remanded to prison till the ensuing term,
in spite of a spirited remonstrance, and a reference to the case of Horne
Tooke, whom Lord Kenyon characterised as a “bankrupt in character and
fortune, and destitute of every virtue and quality which could command
respect.” On the 8th of December, Mr. Waddington was found guilty, by a
London jury, of “engrossing” hops in the county of Kent. While in prison
he sold a ton of potatoes daily for ½d. per lb., and appropriated the
proceeds to the benefit of his poorer fellow prisoners. On the 25th of
January, 1801, Mr. Waddington was finally brought up for judgment, and
Mr. Justice Grose declared that the court being unanimously of opinion
that the information on which Mr. Waddington had been convicted was well
supported at common law, he was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, and to
be imprisoned one month. On the 4th of June, Mr. Waddington having been
confined in King’s Bench prison upwards of twenty-seven weeks, at last
purged his crime, and went down to Maidstone. At Tunbridge he was
feasted at a superb dinner, and about two miles thence was met by a
number of hop planters, who took the horses from his carriage, covered it
with wreaths of hop bine, and had it drawn by relays of men (twelve
miles) to Maidstone. There he rode in triumph through the streets; made
a speech which was received with immense acclamation; “Waddington and the
freedom of commerce” resounded through the streets; and a subscription on
his behalf was entered into.
1802—At the Summer Assizes, held before Mr. Justice Lawrence and Mr.
Justice Le Blanc, three men and one woman (for privately stealing) were
sentenced to death, but all respited. Three privates in the 5th Dragoons
were tried for the murder of Samuel Porter, ostler at the New Inn,
Pershore, and one named Rankins was found guilty; but as the fatal blow
was struck in what might be considered an affray, some points were
reserved for the twelve judges, and his sentence was ultimately commuted
to transportation.
1803—At the Summer Assizes this year there were only seven prisoners in
both county and city for trial, and, of these, three were acquitted. Of
the remaining four, Thomas Beach for uttering a forged £5 note, and
Elizabeth Guise for robbing her master, Mr. Blizard of Stoulton, were
sentenced to death. Beach was executed; the woman reprieved. At the
same Assizes the Rev. J. F. Tonyn, rector of Alvechurch, recovered £300
damages from the Rev. Henry Lynam, his curate, for criminal conversation
with his wife.
1805—FEBRUARY 21—In the Court of King’s Bench an indictment was preferred
by Mr. Forrester, of Elmley, in this county, against Colonel Passingham
and a Mr. Edwards. Colonel Passingham had once been an intimate friend
of Mr. Forrester, had debauched his wife, and carried her off, in
January, 1803. Edwards was, also, once Forrester’s friend, but becoming
a bankrupt, and prosecutor being his opposing creditor, he became his
implacable enemy. Both then conspired to oblige the prosecutor to make a
very large settlement upon his wife, and he was actually terrified into
doing so by charges of horrible crimes. These facts being proved on the
part of the prosecution, the defendants brought forward eleven witnesses
to swear that Mr. Forrester had actually been guilty of the offences
alleged—but they utterly broke down. The jury found both prisoners
guilty of the conspiracy. Being brought up for judgment in the ensuing
term, they were both sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in Newgate;
the additional punishment of the pillory being specially remitted, lest
their lives should be forfeited by any indignant violence on the part of
the populace. Mr. Forrester afterwards obtained a divorce from his wife,
she having contrived to visit Passingham in prison, and assumed his name.
1807—At the Summer Assizes a special jury cause at Nisi Prius, in which
Sir John Geers Cottrell, Bart., as heir at law of Mrs. Freeman of Henley
Park, brought an action of ejectment against Joseph Harris, Esq., of
Stanford, the sole executor and residuary legatee of that lady, appears
to have excited much interest. The jury returned a verdict for
defendant, establishing Mr. Harris’s right to a considerable estate in
the parish of Rock, and other property. Attorney for defendant—Mr. Hyde,
Worcester. At the Summer Assizes the cause again came on, the plaintiff
having obtained a new trial. Some of the most celebrated counsel of the
day were engaged—Mr. Garrow being retained by the plaintiff, and Sir
Thomas Plumer for defendant. After a twenty-four hours’ battle, the jury
confirmed the verdict of the former jury by a verdict for defendant. The
finding gave general satisfaction.
1808—AUGUST—At the Worcester Summer Assizes this year was tried the cause
of HILL _v._ SMITH, an action brought to try the right of the Corporation
of Worcester to toll on wheat sold by sample, and of course a matter of
great interest to the agriculturists of the county generally. The
Corporation pleaded—“1st, that from time immemorial they had taken a pint
of wheat out of each bag, as a toll on wheat sold by sample in the
market, and afterwards brought into the city: 2nd, the same
justification, except that the taking was in the name of toll, and not as
a distress: 3rd, that the Corporation were seized in fee of the Manor of
Worcester, and that the toll was taken in respect of such manor: 4th,
that the Corporation had immemorially repaired the horse and carriage
road in the Corn Market, amongst others, and by reason thereof had
immemorially taken the toll on all grain brought over the Corn Market to
be delivered to a buyer.” The evidence fixed the custom of sale by
sample to have commenced in the year 1760. The learned judge directed
the jury to withdraw from their consideration the question of toll
traverse in respect of the manor, and toll thorough (the last issue), the
Corporation being unable to support these issues, and desired them to
consider whether the grant (by charter, enabling them to toll wheat) was
not originally for all corn sold, both where the bulk or only a part was
brought into the market. The jury, after an hour and a half’s
consideration, returned a verdict for the Corporation on the second and
third issues, and for the agriculturists on the others. Counsel for the
agriculturists—Mr. Sergeant Williams, Messrs. Jervis, Abbott, and Lord;
attorney, Mr. Hill: for the Corporation, Messrs. Dauncey, Wigley, Puller,
and Mence; attorney, Mr. Weller.
1808—At the Summer Assizes, William Reynolds, convicted of an assault
upon a female, was sentenced to be imprisoned fourteen days, and to stand
in the pillory at Tenbury. Ann Green, for stealing brushes, was ordered
to be privately whipped; and four men, for divers crimes, were sentenced
to fourteen days’ imprisonment and a public whipping.
1809—JULY 14—Worcester Summer Assizes. R. Baylis, churchwarden of Elmley
Lovett, was tried for painting up libels against the rector, the Rev. G.
Waldron, upon the walls of the parish church. They were principally
texts of scripture, the intended application of which, however, could not
be doubted. He was sentenced to pay a fine, and to twelve months’
imprisonment.
1810—Lent Assizes—A. LECHMERE, ESQ., _v._ DISSON, was a trial to recover
compensation for negligence in the defendant in the manufacture of
oil-cake. Mr. Lechmere had paid great attention to the feeding of
cattle, and had brought oil-cake into much greater notice than it had
been before. He purchased a quantity from defendant, but finding his
cattle did not thrive upon it as he expected, he had it analysed; and
several witnesses declared, that due attention had not been paid to the
clearing of the seed by skreening and sifting it; so that a great deal of
extraneous matter was left in the cake.—Verdict for the plaintiff:
damages, £50.
1812—APRIL 20—A case of assault and battery, OVERBURY _v._ MOSELEY, tried
in the Worcester City Court. It arose out of a street row, which
occurred in the previous November. Overbury and another insulted some
lady in the Foregate Street, and Moseley came up to her help, and gave
Overbury a thorough thrashing, for which he brought this plaint. The
mayor having impartially summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the
defendant. Defendant conducted his own cause. Complainant was
represented by Mr. Sockett, an attorney of Worcester, who exerted himself
for his client beyond his strength, became ill, and soon afterwards died.
1812—JUNE—HILL _v._ SMITH in error, having been argued before the Court
of Exchequer. Sir J. Mansfield, after many delays, now gave judgment.
The court held that a sale by sample was not a legal contract for the
sale of anything whatever, and that the lord or superior of an open
market was not entitled to any toll on commodities not brought in bulk.
A sale by sample had been held by Lord Coke, and other great law
authorities, to be illegal, as contrary to the principle and object for
which a market was established. The verdict for the Corporation
(obtained at Worcester Summer Assizes, 1808) was therefore reversed, and
the cause remitted to the court below to ascertain the amount of damages
the plaintiff was entitled to for the trespass committed in taking his
corn; which were, of course, merely nominal.
1814—AUGUST—At the Hereford Summer Assizes was tried FORD _v._ RACSTER,
being an action brought by the executors of Dr. Ford, as Rector of
Cradley, Herefordshire, against Miss Racster, of Worcester, to try the
question of the liability of blackpoles to tithe. It was argued for
defendant, that these blackpoles, being more than twenty years’ growth,
were timber trees; but the jury decided that they were not, according to
the custom of the country, and thereupon verdict was entered for
plaintiff, and damages assessed at £100, being for eleven years’ fallage.
1816—At the Lent Assizes was tried an action for libel, brought by the
Rev. Joseph Shapland against Richard Mug Mence, Esq. Verdict for
plaintiff. The Rev. Mr. Shapland pleaded guilty to an indictment for an
assault. At the ensuing assizes he was sentenced to six months’
imprisonment, and to enter into recognizances to keep the peace for seven
years, himself in £500, and two sureties in £250 each. Mr. Shapland was
Vicar of St. Peter’s, and had some unhappy disputes with his wife, to
settle which Mr. Mence had been called in as a mutual friend. After a
while, conceiving Mrs. Shapland to have been ill-treated, Mr. Mence took
her part very decidedly, and refused to sit in company with Mr. Shapland.
Mr. S. at this was greatly exasperated; and meeting Mr. Mence one day
walking near the Guildhall, he struck him several times with a heavy
walking stick. Mr. Mence received the blows on his arm, which was
severely injured. Mr. M. afterwards published a pamphlet, containing a
long detail of Mr. Shapland’s family jars, and the part he had himself
taken therein; and this was the libel complained of. In November, 1812,
Mr. Mence was called up for judgment in the King’s Bench, and sentenced
by Lord Ellenborough to six months’ imprisonment, and afterwards to find
sureties to keep the peace, himself in £1,000, and two sureties of £500
each. The two gentlemen were thus both imprisoned at the same time—the
one in the city, and the other in the county gaol.
1817—At the Lent Assizes, held before Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice
Burrough, no less than twenty prisoners were sentenced to death, most of
them for sheep stealing; but they were all afterwards reprieved.
1818—At the Lent Assizes this year, the trial of Joseph Steers, a
respectable tradesman of Worcester, and six others, charged with being
concerned in the “freemen’s riots,” and the demolition of the buildings
upon Pitchcroft, created the most intense interest, and at one part of
the proceedings there was an absolute tumult in court, so great was the
crush of people. The history of these riots is as follows: In 1817 the
“popular mind” of Worcester was much agitated and incensed by buildings
being erected on the corner of Pitchcroft Ham, nearest to the city, and
known as Little Pitchcroft. The citizens viewed any encroachment on this
lung of the city with commendable jealousy, as it was their principal
resort for amusement and promenade; besides which, each freeman had some
property in the Ham, having a right of pasturage thereon. A meeting was
accordingly called in August, at the Hoppole Inn, to protect the rights
of the freemen in this matter. Richard Spooner, Esq., then exceedingly
active in all popular movements in Worcester, was called to the chair,
and a committee was appointed, who issued notices to the parties who had
built upon the Ham to remove their erections before the 29th of
September. On the 15th of September, however, the committee met, and
agreed that as the removal of the whole buildings would be attended with
great loss to a charity which derived considerable revenue from the
wharfs, &c., it would be more desirable only to remove those buildings
and fences which were most obnoxious. On this decision being made known,
the populace determined to take the matter into their own hands; and on
the morning of the 29th assembled in large numbers, and commenced the
demolition of such of the fences and buildings as were not strong enough
to resist their efforts. The mayor came down to the spot and read the
Riot Act, but nobody took any heed of his worship, who, with the
magistrates, then began to swear in everybody as special constables—the
said “specials” standing by and looking on at the demolition, very
anxious to keep the peace, but not venturing to interrupt the mob. At
last some of the yeomanry assembled, but being pelted with stones, they
retreated to the Star and Garter yard, and made no further appearance.
The demolition was concluded next morning; everybody saying that it was
most disgraceful, but nevertheless glad that it was done. Steers and
other persons, who had taken part in the work of destruction, were
indicted (under statutes which had recently been passed) for a capital
offence; but Mr. Jervis, counsel for the prosecutor, Mr. John Edmunds,
declared that that was only done in order to have a foundation to recover
the damages he had sustained during the riot. After two witnesses had
been examined, Mr. Justice Burrough, who presided, said there was enough
evidence to convict the whole prisoners of a capital offence, and advised
them to throw themselves on the mercy of the court. This course they
adopted; and his lordship then discharged them, on entering into
recognizances of £100 each, to keep the peace for twelve months. The
greatest possible interest had been made on behalf of these parties; and
Lord Deerhurst, whose efforts were supposed to have contributed greatly
to the lenity with which they were treated, was almost overwhelmed, on
leaving the court, by the tumultuous approbation of the populace. The
mob endeavoured to drag Mr. Justice Burrough in triumph through the city,
on leaving for Stafford; but his lordship instantly called in the aid of
the javelin men, and threatened to commit the foremost of the crowd. To
finish the story here; immediately after these assizes, the agitation
about the encroachments was recommenced, and Mr. Thomas Carden, one of
the six masters, put forth a statement that the four acres in dispute
were the gift of Thomas Wylde, Esq., formerly of the Commandry in the
city of Worcester, to the Corporation; and the rents and profits of this
land had been uniformly applied to the benefit of the Free School, and
Trinity Alms Houses. Having in 1796 let out this land in lots, the six
masters had been enabled to increase the pay, to twenty-nine old women,
from 3s. to 6s. per month, which was a thing much more worth doing than
to allow one thousand freemen the pasturage thereon, from Old Midsummer
Day to Old Candlemas Day. A common hall was shortly afterwards held, at
which the committee appointed for protecting the freemen’s rights made
their report. It was read by R. Spooner, Esq., and stated that they had
ordered entries to be made on two of the plots in Little Pitchcroft; the
result of which had been, that actions had been brought against the
enterers, and the _venue_ changed by the plaintiffs to Gloucester. The
committee now wanted to know whether the claims of the freemen were to be
contested or abandoned, as in the former case it would be necessary that
the city generally should enter into a subscription to provide the sinews
of war. The report was adopted, and a subscription forthwith commenced.
A motion to make terms with the six masters was rejected. Just before
the trial came on, however, the matter was settled by arrangement,
concessions being made on either side; and buildings cover the greater
part of “Little Pitchcroft” to this day.
1819—At the Summer Assizes, John Grindley, of Bromsgrove, was tried on a
charge of wilfully murdering Thomas Mannering. They had quarrelled in a
public house, gone out into the street to fight, but there made up their
differences, and sat upon the public stocks, drinking some beer. While
thus occupied, Grindley stabbed Mannering twice so severely that he died
next day. He was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to six
months’ imprisonment.
1820—At the Lent Assizes, John Burton was convicted of the murder of one
Jaunty, in Worcester, on the 30th of July, 1819. Parties who had been
employed by the Excise to seize some malt, were met at the back of the
Hoppole Inn by a number of persons from the neighbouring public houses,
and a general battle commenced; the interest of which at length
concentrated itself in a fight between Burton and Jaunty. They had
several rounds, and Jaunty at last getting the better of his antagonist,
Burton ran off to his house, but presently returned with a pike, and
stabbed Jaunty right through the heart and lungs. Burton was, however,
reprieved on a point of law. At these assizes, twenty-seven persons were
sentenced to death (one a woman, for stealing thirty-nine yards of
bombazine from a shop at Stourbridge), but all were reprieved, except one
for highway robbery.
1820—MARCH 24—A curious application was made to the Lord Chancellor by
the guardians of Sir Roger Gresley, a young man of twenty, and a ward of
Chancery, to restrain the Earl and Countess of Coventry, and the Hon.
John Coventry, from encouraging a marriage between Sir Roger and Lady
Sophia Coventry, daughter of the earl, aged seventeen. There had been
negociations for a marriage, rent rolls having been handed to the
guardians, &c.; but as no settlement could be made on the bride till Sir
Roger was of age, the matter was postponed. The court took it in dudgeon
that anything should have been done towards disposing of its ward in
matrimony without its license, &c.
1821—FEBRUARY 13—A rule moved for in the Court of King’s Bench on behalf
of the magistrates of Worcestershire, to compel the inhabitants of
Ombersley to pay £150 into the hands of the clerk of the peace for the
repairs of Hawford Bridge. The Ombersley people replied that they were
going to repair, and that £50 would be quite sufficient to do all that
was needed. The rule was granted, but enlarged to the next term to admit
of time for the repairs being effectively carried out by the inhabitants
of Ombersley themselves, if they so pleased.
1821—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Baron Jarrow, an action was brought
by a schoolmaster at Dudley, a little deformed man, named Hilliard, to
recover damages from Mr. Badger for knocking his hat off at the theatre,
because he would not take it off when the national anthem was being
played. Mr. Badger, in the zeal of his loyalty, not only knocked the
unfortunate pedagogue’s hat off, but the pedagogue himself off the bench;
and Mr. Baron Jarrow, in summing up, intimated that he thought he was
rather to be commended than otherwise, and pictured to the jury “the
glorious sight of a whole audience in a theatre paying a just tribute of
veneration to their sovereign.” The jury returned a verdict for
plaintiff: damages, one farthing.
1821—AUGUST—At the Midsummer Assizes was tried, JARRATT _v._ THE MAYOR
AND CORPORATION OF EVESHAM, being an attempt to establish the right of
any person who had served a freeman of that borough for an apprenticeship
of seven years to be himself admitted a freeman. The Corporation
admitted that if the whole service had been within the borough the custom
was to admit; but if the master and apprentice had lived elsewhere any
period of the time then the right of admission failed. A verdict was
entered for the Corporation.
1823—Two men, named Oliver and Skinner, convicted at the Easter City
Sessions of a most unprovoked assault on three journeymen carpenters
going home one dark night in January, and sentenced—Oliver to six months,
and Skinner to nine months’ imprisonment. These two fellows were part of
a fraternity calling themselves “lambs,” who used to infest the streets
of Worcester at night for the sole purpose of annoying more peaceably
disposed persons. At the trial they brought a number of witnesses to
prove an _alibi_, but utterly failed, and disclosed the most unblushing
perjury in lieu thereof.
1823—William Taylor, a working stone mason, recovered £120 damages in the
Sheriff’s Court, for a fright into which he had been put by Henry Geast
Dugdale, Esq., a magistrate of Worcestershire, living at Bordesley Park.
He was one of some workmen who were erecting a stone lodge for defendant,
who one day, when they had nearly finished, came up and peremptorily
ordered them off his premises. He said he had been told by his master
not to leave till he had finished the job; but Mr. Dugdale, foaming with
rage, presented his gun at him, cocked it, and declared he would shoot
Taylor presently, if he were not gone; whereupon he dropped his chisel
and mallet in a terror, took to his heels, and had been declining in
health ever since—such had been the effect of the alarm upon his nervous
system. Mr. Dugdale, in addressing the jury, said “he once took a noble
earl by the collar, and forced him off his lands;” and hereupon Lord
Plymouth, writing to the Worcester papers, said Mr. Dugdale no doubt
meant himself, but that the whole statement was entirely untrue.
1824—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Littledale, was tried
the cause of PIERPOINT _v._ SHAPLAND, in which Matthew Pierpoint, Esq.,
of Worcester, surgeon (and as it proved upon the trial, physician also),
brought an action for slander against Miss Susanna Shapland, a lady then
residing in College Green. The damages were laid at £5,000. Mr.
Pierpoint had been called in to attend Mrs. Isaacs, Miss Shapland’s
sister, shortly before her death, and administered an emetic: after that
he ceased to attend her, and Miss Shapland afterwards told Mrs. Henry
Clifton that Mr. P. had treated her sister improperly. Mr. Jervis was
counsel for plaintiff, and Mr. Russell for defendant. A verdict was
returned for plaintiff, with 39s. damages. This trial excited
extraordinary interest—ladies, to make sure of places, going to the
courts at five o’clock in the morning.
1825—At the Lent Assizes an action for libel, against CHALK AND HOLL, was
tried before Mr. Justice Littledale. It was brought by a painter named
Davis, who had, by mistake, been described in a paragraph in the
_Worcester Herald_ as concerned in a street row and an assault upon a
watchman. The party’s name _was_ Davis, but not the one pointed at in
the paragraph, and defendants, finding their error, corrected it in the
next paper and apologised; nevertheless Davis persisted in the action,
urged thereto, as it came out in the trial, by his attorney, who had
undertaken that it should cost him nothing. The counsel engaged were—for
the plaintiff, Mr. Campbell (now Lord Chief Justice Campbell); and for
defendant, Mr. Russell. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, as
the judge told them they must to do so, with damages one farthing.
1827—Summer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Littledale. THE KING _v._ COOKE
was an action against a draper, at Dudley, of the most Radical cast, for
publishing libels on His Majesty’s Government. The libels were placards
exhibited in the defendant’s window during a time of great disturbance
amongst the colliers, in May, 1826. The case had been entered for trial
at previous assizes, but put off from time to time. The alleged libel in
the placards was the assertion that ministers were bringing starvation
upon the people by their measures. Mr. Whateley was for the prosecution,
and Mr. Campbell for the defence. The appearance of the placards in the
defendant’s window having been proved, Mr. Andrew Gracewood, doorkeeper
at the Foreign Office, was put in the box to prove that Earl Liverpool
and others mentioned in the handbills were at the time of their
publication ministers of state. Mr. Campbell, of course, ridiculed the
whole prosecution, and said Cooke was being made the victim of private
malice. The judge told the jury the handbills were libellous, so they
returned a verdict of guilty. Cooke was only required to enter into
sureties to appear when called up.
1827—At the Lent Assizes this year there were nearly a hundred prisoners
for trial, and against twenty-four of them sentence of death was
recorded.
At these assizes was tried AGG _v._ TIMBRELL, in which the plaintiff
recovered £7 damages for the injury done to his gig by the negligent
driving of the defendant’s coachman. Mr. Charles Phillips was counsel
for plaintiff, and Mr. Taunton for defendant. The affair was chiefly
curious from the remark of defendant, who, when the accident happened and
Agg complained, said, “Do you know who I am? I’m Doctor Timbrell, Doctor
of Divinity, Archdeacon, and magistrate in two counties. Don’t talk to
me, or I’ll commit you!”
1828—In November, this year, in the King’s Bench, a rule for a criminal
information against the Rev. Humphry Price, for issuing inflammatory
handbills at the time of the late strike between the Kidderminster
weavers and their masters, was made absolute. The Rev. gentleman
appeared in court himself, and avowed himself to be the author of the
placards charged against him. The cause against him was tried at the
next Hereford Lent Assizes. A number of verses, entitled “_The Complaint
of a Kidderminster Weaver’s Wife to her Infant_,” appeared to be most
complained of; they ended thus:
“O cruel, cruel, cruel masters,
Dare ye thus mock at our disasters?
See parent, child, to phrenzy given,
And dream yourselves of reaching heaven?
Rouse from your slumbers! count the price
Of your own cursed avarice;
And count it well, ere taught too late
To dread than ours a far worse fate.”
Mr. Campbell defended the Rev. gentleman, but he was found guilty, and
being brought up for judgment next term, was sentenced to twelve months’
imprisonment, and adjudged to pay the costs.
1829—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Baron Vaughan, John Hunter,
Esq., of Pershore, was tried for feloniously altering a deed. A true
bill had been returned against Mr. Hunter at the Lent Assizes, but he was
enlarged till the Midsummer Assizes on very heavy bail. The
respectability of Mr. Hunter, who but for this charge would this very
year have been High Sheriff of the County, caused the intensest interest
to be felt in the trial, and the courts were thronged to suffocation.
Mr. Campbell, K.C., Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Carwood, and Mr. Godson,
were the counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Taunton, Mr. Sergeant
Russell, and Mr. C. Phillips, assisted the defendant, who, as the law
then stood, was obliged to address the jury himself, and could only avail
himself of counsel in cross-examination, this being a misdemeanour. The
charge against Mr. Hunter was that he had erased the words “part of” from
a deed which he held, and the effect of the erasure would be to put him
in possession of the _whole_ of the premises to which it referred. In
fact, in 1825 he brought an action on the strength of this deed to
recover the whole of the premises, but permitted himself to be
non-suited. Mr. Hunter, in the written defence he handed in to be read
to the jury, contented himself with denying any knowledge of how the
erasure came about, and that it existed in the deed when it first came
into his possession, he having bought the property as an entire property.
The evidence given, and some of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution,
were of a very doubtful character; and after the long array of witnesses
which Mr. Hunter called to speak to a long life of unblemished
uprightness, the jury said they would not trouble his lordship to sum up,
and Mr. Hunter must be _honourably acquitted_.
1830—At the Summer Assizes, before Mr. Sergeant Bosanquet, came on the
case of CHALK AND HOLL _v._ ROBINSON, M.P., being an action to recover
£13. 8s. 6d. for printing electioneering squibs on Mr. Robinson’s behalf,
at the election of 1826. They were written and ordered by some of Mr.
Robinson’s agents and solicitors, and his object in resisting the claim
was to disown any personal connection with them. The matter was
referred, at the judge’s request, to Mr. Holroyd; and he awarded the sum
claimed to the plaintiffs, holding Mr. Robinson liable; Mr. Brampton
proving that the orders came from his committee room.