Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

in making advances of love to a married woman, he was liberated, on his promising not to be troublesome any more to Mrs. Siddons. He proves to be a native of Ireland, and is a student of Lincoln's inn, about 23 years of age.

Admiralty-office, June 26, 1801. Extract of a letter from vice-admiral Rainier, commander in chief of his majesty's ships and vessels in the East Indies, to the secretary of the admiralty, dated on board the Trident, in Bombay harbour, 24th January, 1804. The Albion and Sceptre captured the Clarisse French privateer, of twelve guns and 157 men, on the 21st of December, in latitude 1 deg. 18 min. south, and longitude 95 deg. 20 min. east. The Clarisse sailed from the Isle of France the 24th November, victualled for six months, to cruize in the bay of Bengal ; she had not made capture.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, June 28.

any

lowed by an execution, which was sent to his lordship's magnificent seat at Wardour Castle, in Wiltshire; but instead of the sheriff levying the goods, he had returned that his lordship had no goods there which could be taken in execution. In short, it appeared that all the furniture from the state bed to the frying-pan were vested in trustees; and that his lordship had only the company of them and not the property in them. All this was done by order, bearing the date of 1800, which recited that lady Arundel, whose estates were settled upon herself, had agreed that 12,000l.; should be raised upon her estates in Shropshire, to pay such of his lordship's creditors as he should appoint; the goods and furniture of Wardour Castle to be vested in trustees, as a security for the 12,0001. and in default of such appointment, the money was to vest in her ladyship, or in her representatives, who were the trustees themselves, viz. Mr. E. Arundel and lord Clifford, who had married the two daughters of lord Arundel.

Mr. Garrow commented at con

Donay executor of Donay v. Sir E. siderable length on this deed, which Baynton, sheriff of Wiltshire.

Mr. Garrow stated, that this was an action for a false return against the sheriff of Wiltshire; who had returned that there were no goods at Wardour castle belonging to lord Arundel, by which he could levy the debt of the plaintiff. Mrs. Donay, the plaintiff, he said, conceiving that lord Arundel was better security than the bank of England, had lent to his lordship almost all the money she had in the world; but finding that she could not get repaid, nor the interest, she had brought her action, and recovered judgment. This was fol

he insisted was a mere fraudulent conveyance, intended to cheat the claims of legal creditors.

The original judgment in Donay and lord Arundel was put in, by which it appeared that the plaintiff moved 2,4007. and 421. costs. The sheriff's return to the fieri facias was next read, which returned that the defendant had only 2401. which could be levied.

The defence to this case was, that the whole furniture of Wardour Castle was vested in lord Clifford and Mr. Everett Arundel, by deed, as trustees for lady Arundel, in consequence of 12,000%.

being raised on her estates to pay his lordship's debts. It also appeared, on cross examination of the steward and attorney of his lordship, that these deeds were kept secret, and never executed until his lordship came to be pressed by his creditors; nor did it appear that the 12,0001. had ever been raised or paid to creditors. A great variety of voluminous conveyances were read, to support the defend

ant's case.

Mr. Garrow, in reply, comment. ed with great asperity on the whole of the defendant's case, and characterised it as a most foul, corrupt, and stinking fraud, to defeat creditors of their just demands.

Lord Ellenborough, in his summing up to the jury, left the question to them on this short ground, whether the conveyance to the trustees was bona fide, or meant in fraud of creditors.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, thereby affirming the deed of trust was fraudulent.

JUNE 29.

S. Parke v. T. Newby. This cause was under very sin gular circumstances. Both the plaintiff and defendant are hucksters in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, and the material facts in evidence were these: The plaintiff was walking in a lane in his own neighbourhood, when he heard two men rushing up to him. Having been lately robbed, he was fearful, and passed over a gate to avoid them. He presently overheard his pursuers say, "D-n him, there he is!" They instantly leaped over the hedge, seized him by the arm, and dragged him to Mrs. Rock's public-house, at the sign of the Crown, in Great Charlesstreet, Birmingham; there they

charged the plaintiff with an attempt to rob them, and insisted upon his being stripped naked, that they might draw forth the property he had concealed. Mrs. Whitaker, a friend of the plaintiff, happened to be present. It was in vain that these men desired her to retire, while they exposed their captive to this critical examination." The woman said he was a friend of hers, and a very honest man, and she would see justice done him. They found nothing upon him which could excite suspicion, and he was in the sequel set at liberty. The plaintiff so maltreated was of the age of 72. He felt it necessary, in order to redeem his character, to bring an action for false imprisonment against each of these persons in the hundred court. One of the men was the nephew of the present defendant. In order to rescue his relation from this embarrassment, the defendant at first entreated the plaintiff to make up the affair; but finding the latter was determined, he threatened that the two men, who had before charged him with the robbery, should next swear to his having been guilty of an unnatural crime. This was sufficient to intimidate a much younger and more courageous man than the plaintiff. His resolution, however, rose with the difficulty and danger of his si tuation; and although a man had been tried, convicted, and executed at the preceding assizes on the same charge, he took th daring resolution to resist this nefarious at tempt on his character and life. On the 29th of July last the defendant again endeavoured to persuade the plaintiff to suspend the actions and on finding him unmoved, either by solicitation or menace, the plain. tiff was taken up on the foul charge,

and

and on the 1st of August last he was conducted from his dungeon before Mr. Rix, one of the magistrates for the county of Warwick. When he arrived, he met one of the men by whom he was before molested, and against whom he had commenced an action. The name of this man was Sadler, and it was contrived that he and his wife should make this horrid accusation. The man had given his evidence, and the matter was to be confirmed by the wife, when it occurred to Mr. Paris, a reverend gentleman present, that the whole was an atrocious conspiracy. He therefore humanely interposed, and entreated that the accuser might be detained until his accomplice should be produced. The magistrate complied; the woman was sent for, and contradicted the testimony of her husband in every particular, although he had deposed that she was in company with him, and was witness to the whole transaction. It is needless to say, the plaintiff was discharged. The defendant had sustained so principal a part in this last scene, that he was under the most serious apprehensions for his own safety, and he had already become acquainted with the firm character of the plaintiff. If he were brought before a jury, and his flagitious conduct were exposed in its true colours, not only the honest indignation, but the dispassionate judgment of twelve unbiassed men, in an action for damages, would sweep away the whole of his property, and consign him for life to a gaol. In this situation he signed a bond to the plaintiff for 5000. payable in six months; to obtain payment of which this action was brought.

Mr. Erskine stated the particulars to the court and jury.

He

said, the charge for which this bond was intended as a remuneration was such as would leave his client's name "to stink for ever in the nostrils of mankind;" and he added, so great was the affliction of Sadler, that the pangs of conscience had occasioned insanity. He then called Mr. Fallows and his sister, who deposed to the signature to the bond to which they were witnesses. They also detailed the conversa-. tion which passed at the time, indicating that the defendant was perfectly compos mentis, and acquainted with the contents of the instrument.

Messrs. Gibbs and Parke, for the defendant, contended, that the testimony of Fallows was untrue, from its inconsistency; and they brought forward many witnesses to destroy the credibility of the evidence for the plaintiff, from the character of the deponent.

Lord Ellenborough drew the attention of the jury to all the material points of the cause; dilated on the credence to which Fallows was entitled; and concluded with saying that the determination of the jury would be wholly governed by their opinion, if the bond was or was not fraudulently obtained.— Verdict for the defendant.

[blocks in formation]

and preservation of it. Those who disregard it are generally negligent of the means of acquiring it. Tacitus, one of the most enlightened judges of human nature that ever wrote, observes, that they who despise fame despise the virtues which bestow it." Contemptores fama contemnunt virtutes." The libel in question was gross and malignant, written with a view to divest this gallant officer of those qualities which are most essential to a naval or military character. It was signed an "Old Sailor," and described admiral Berkeley as a shy cock-as a follower of the dastardly maxim so pointedly set forth in Butler's humourous poem of Hudibras

"He who fights and runs away May live to fight another day;

[ocr errors]

"But he that is in battle slain
"Can never live to fight again."

And the infamous publication charged him with a particular act of cowardice on the glorious Ist of June; when, as it stated, he went below, merely because he got a bloody nose by one block (his head) happening to knock against another.

The libel having been ascertain ed to have been published by the defendants,

Captain John Monkton, of the royal navy, was examined for the plaintiff, and stated, that he was first lieutenant on board the Marlborough, when she was under the command of captain Berkeley, in the engagement of the 1st of June 1794: he in his situation as first officer on the quarter-deck, had an opportunity of observing the behaviour of the plaintiff, who on no occasion during the action appeared to be deficient in courage, coolness, or ability, but conducted himself like a British officer. The

witness produced minutes made during the proceedings of the ship and fleet in the engagement, and read part of them to the court; by which it appeared, that on the 1st of June the signal was made by lord Howe, on board the Queen Char lotte, for the Marlborough and Defence to bear down on the enemy's line; in compliance with which, the plaintiff conducted his ship towards the enemy, and with great precaution ordered the crew not to fire until close to the ships which they had to engage: his orders being obeyed, they did not engage till between the stern of one Frenchman and the head of another, when the Marlborough raked both, and est confusion; she then dropped to threw the French line into the greatleeward of the enemy, and was enBoard bow, and a large ship on the gaged by an 84 gun ship on the larstarboard quarter, after having forced two ships to strike to her. By this unequal contest, and being separated from the British fleet, which was then to windward, she was totally dismasted, had upwards of thirty men killed, and a hundred wounded. The plaintiff fought on the quarter-deck the greater part of the engagement, and received a violent contusion on his forehead by a splinter shot; in consequence of which, by the advice of his officers, he went down in the cockpit to have his wound dressed, after giving his sword and the command of the ship to the witness, his first lieutenant, during the plaintiff's absence, who remained with the surgeon. The ship was reduced to the most shattered condition; her stern was shot away; her bowsprit, masts, and the last of her colours. At the same time, Le Montagne, a French ship mounting one hundred and thirty guns on four decks, was

bearing

bearing down to sink the Marlborough, but was cut off by the Royal George. Under such circumstances, the witness kept the command during the plaintiff's illness, who appeared to have been dangerously wounded. There was not the smallest want of courage to be imputed to the plaintiff, and the witness saw that he behaved like a brave British officer.

Mr. Romney, the surgeon of the Marlborough on the 1st of June 1794, proved that he dressed the wound which admiral Berkeley had received in that action; that as soon as it was dressed the admiral (then captain Berkeley) attempted to go upon deck, but fainted on the cockpit stairs, and continued for a long time in a state of insensibility. From the wound itself, and all the symptoms attending it, he was convinced that there was a serious concussion of the brain, which made it absolutely impossible for captain Berkeley to have remained upon the quarter-deck.

Mr. Forbes was a surgeon resident in London, and visited the plaintiff about the latter end of July; he had seen the wound in his forehead, which had partly exfoliated the skull; he was convinced that such a wound must have been attended with such a concussion of the brain as would render it impossible for him to remain on the quarter-deck as commander of the ship. He should have judged, from the appearance of the wound, that it must have produced insensibility and stupor almost immediately.

Admiral Duncan gave the plaintiff a most excellent character for officer-like conduct.

Lord Hood and earl St. Vincent attended for the same purpose. The chief baron and the jury,

1804.

however, expressed their entire satisfaction with the testimony of the. gallant admiral, and dispensed with examining more evidence.

Mr. Dallas, for the defendants, made a very long and able address to the jury in mitigation of damages; he described the libel to have been sent to the defendants in an anonymous letter, and from want of caution, and without any design to injure the reputation and honour of the gallant admiral, it had been published. The unfortunate men, he observed, who had been employed merely as mechanics, namely, the printer and publisher, ought, in justice, to be excluded from the quantum of damages, as they had acted under the orders of Congreve, the editor.

Mr. Dauncy followed on the defence, with arguments extenuating the defendant's conduct.

1

The lord chief baron observed, no defence had been made; and, having censured the publication of. the libel, from its evil tendency, directed the jury to give such damages as they adjudged commensurate to the injury it produced.

Verdict for the plaintiff, One thousand pounds damages.

[blocks in formation]
« PredošláPokračovať »