Puslapio vaizdai

Angel Inn, St Clement's. I purchased the mare in question, at Dixon's, for 20 guineas. I saw the same mare at Bow-street.

Mr William Cousins.-I am a linen-draper at Kensington. I have known the prisoner some years. The witness Fruin brought me a note, signed Edward Thompson; I destroyed it before his face, and said I knew no such person. The note was in the prisoner's hand-writing. The notes to the ostler and to Dixon were here handed to the witness, who swore them to be in Probert's hand-writing. -Cross-examined.-I destroyed the note immediately. It merely said, Mr Thompson requests Mr Cousins will call on him to-morrow. I cannot now swear that the note was in his, the prisoner's hand-writing.

David Ellis, one of the officers at Bow Street. I apprehended the prisoner on Friday, the 18th February, in Great Windmill Street, Haymarket. I searched him, and found a parcel of papers about him, and some small bills for refreshments, and keep of the horse, at different inns on thé road between Gloucester and London, and a pair of scissors. I received a black mare from the witness Eames, which has since been seen by the several witnesses, and sworn to by Meredith. The mare has been in my possession ever since.

Mr Barry requested the Court to permit him to ask Mrs Meredith if she never lent the mare to the prisoner? It was granted, and Mrs Meredith was called again and examined.

Mr Barry. Now, Mrs Meredith, the prisoner, I believe, is a distant relation of yours, and the question I am going to ask you, I must request you will answer me truly-remember you are on your solemn oath. Did you ever lend the prisoner the mare he is now charged with stealing?

Mrs Meredith.-Never.

Mr Barry.-Nor did your husband or son?-Never, never.

By the Judge. I never saw the prisoner after I saw him at his mother's house on the Thursday before the mare was stolen.

Meredith again called and examined by the Judge.-Never saw the prisoner in the neighbourhood after the mare had been stolen. This closed the prosecution.

Lord Chief Justice.-William Probert, the case for the prosecution is now closed, and it is now for you to offer anything you have to say in your defence.

Probert.-My Lord, may I be permitted to read the few remarks I have to offer?

Judge. Certainly.

Probert then bowed respectfully, and commenced reading in a faltering voice the following defence:

66 My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury-I have pleaded not guilty to the crime I have been accused of, not with a view of escaping the sentence the Court may put upon me, should I be found guilty; but with a view that I might have an opportunity of saying a few words in this court. I have, since my discharge from Hertford, been the victim of public censure, through the medium of the public press, and, wherever I went, even in the smallest village, I was shunned in society, and I could never move but my route was announced in the papers. Every door was shut against me, and every hope was blasted. I was hunted down like a wild beast in the forest. Heaven and myself know only what I have suffered since my discharge from Hertford. I will only ask, whether my situation was not most deplorable, and I will put it to the Gentlemen of the Jury, what they would have done if they had been similarly situated? and,

was also very much affected. The prisoner's mother, his wife, and brother-in-law, remained, by the mission of the Sheriffs, some time longer than usual with the prisoner. He is perfectly composed, and converses with those about him very cheerfully. He, from his observations, anticipates a mitigation of the punishment his crime has subjected him to, and frequently says, he shall be heartily thankful to leave the country for ever; it would be the happiest moment, should it arrive, he had seen for many years.

therefore, Gentlemen, I trust, that
should you find me guilty, you will
accompany your verdict with a re-
commendation to the Court to mer-
cy. And you, my Lord, I hope will,
in that case, forward such recom-
mendation to the proper quarter.
One word more, my Lord and Gen-
tlemen, and I have done. My wife
and children have been for some time
in a state of starvation, and my poor
wife has just been put to bed, without
a friend or any human being to assist
her. Such, Gentlemen, has been,
and is still, the wretched situation I
am labouring under. I hope, my
Lord, you will consider me an object
of commiseration, through the cen-
sure I have received through the
public newspapers, and I trust, should
there be any points in the case fa-
vourable to me, that you will give me
the benefit of them." Probert then John
bowed and resumed his seat.

Judge. Have you any witnesses to call to your character.

Probert shook his head.

The Judge then recapitulated the evidence, and the Jury, after consulting for about five minutes, found the prisoner Guilty, without a recommendation to mercy.

The prisoner heard the verdict without any emotion, and on Mr Wontner, the governor, asking him his age, he replied loudly 36. He then walked firmly from the dock.

On Friday morning, Probert was visited by his wife, Mr Noyes, her brother, and the prisoner's mother. This was the first interview Mrs Probert has had with her unhappy husband, and the meeting between them was truly affecting. On entering his apartment, she approached him in a flood of tears to embrace him. Probert coolly desired her not to feel, and to bear herself up under her afflictions with fortitude. Mr Noyes




Graham, Esq. W. S. v. the Writers to the Signet.

Mr Graham being accused of subscribing signet letters not written by his own clerk, and of charging less than the established fees, he was cited before the Society; but having declined appearing, was held confessed, fined, and threatened with suspension and deprivation, if he persevered in breaking the regulations. Mr Graham having refused submission, an action of declarator was entered in the Court of Session. The Court found Mr Graham bound to yield obedience to the rules, and liable to the penalties imposed and threatened. The case having come by appeal before Lord Gifford, his Lordship reversed the judgement of the Court in toto, from which it results that the rules of the Society cannot be enforced in a court of law, that it cannot fix a minimum rate of fees, or insist that signet letters be written by the writer's own clerk or apprentices.


The court then pronounced this

COURT OF SESSION-FIRST DIVI- interlocutor:-" The Lords having

SION. June 29.

considered this petition, with the judgement of the House of Lords

The above case of Graham v. Writers therein referred to and produced, in

to the Signet.

[merged small][ocr errors]

"I may take this opportunity of mentioning, that I wish the writers to the signet would look back into their records; I have no doubt they are a corporation-nobody can doubt that; but to what extent are they a corporation? I recollect, when I came to the bar, the whole internal regulations of the body were executed by the keeper and the commissioners; they form the corporation, and, I think, if they were to look back into their records, they would find that everything was done by the keeper and commissioners, and that the body of the writers to the signet have no other power than the management and administration of their own funds -they have no powers otherwise. For example, I see a very respectable gentleman appointed their procurator-fiscal; but who authorized them to elect a procurator-fiscal? What corporation elects a procurator-fiscal? In short, if I am not mistaken, it will be found that the whole powers lie in the keeper and commissioners; the others are merely the clerks to the signet. It is just like the clerks of a bank making laws and regulations for the directors."

Mr Forsyth.-Your Lordship, I am afraid, is promulgating very unpalatable truths.

Lord President.-Not at all, Mr Forsyth; for the keeper and commissioners would have the same powers as the body now claims.

pursuance of the said judgement, they alter the interlocutors complained of in the petitioner's appeal, assoilzie him from the conclusions of the action, and decern; and farther, recall the interlocutor pronounced by the Court on the 9th March, 1824, in the application to regulate the interim possession in the cause pending the appeal. Find the respondents (W. S.) liable in the expense of this application; appoint an account to be given in, and remit it, when lodged, to the auditor to tax and report."


ROYAL BURGH CESS.-In a case before Lord Cringletie this week, relative to the exaction of cess by the bailies of a petty burgh, Mr Cockburn, having mentioned that these bailies had levied more than they had any right to do, said that this practice was not confined to the municipality in question. Edinburgh was a notable instance of it. The amount of cess affecting the burghs was settled at the Union, and remained the same to this day. L.6000 were allocated in Edinburgh, and it was clear, that the proportion exigible from each householder should diminish with the increasing size of the town-with every house that is built, the assessment being spread over a greater surface. But the proportion was never varied; it continued the same now that the town was enlarged, as when it was more limited. How this is managed, and what is done with the surplus, for the Crown gets no more than its L.6000, our civic rulers and their

[blocks in formation]

6.-LIBEL IN THE QUARTERLY REVIEW. In the Court of King's Bench, at Guildhall, the important cause came on of Buckingham against Murray, the eminent bookseller in Albemarle Street, for a series of libels published against the plaintiff, a gentleman of literary talents, in the Quarterly Review, No. 52, in the month of March, 1822. The case excited considerable interest. After Mr Scarlett had addressed the Jury at a very considerable length, a witness was called, who proved purchasing the work at the shop of Mr Murray, in Albemarle Street, containing the alleged libels.-After several of the passages had been read, the Attorney-General stated, he was instructed to express the regret his client felt at what had occurred, and would submit to a verdict being returned against him. The Jury instantly found for the plaintiff. mages L.50.



4. OXFORD CIRCUIT-HEREFORD.-Judge v. Berkely and Others.In this case, which attracted a crowded audience, Jasper Tomsett Judge,

editor of the Cheltenham Journal, was plaintiff; aud Colonel William Fitzhardinge Berkely, Lord Sussex Lennox, and Robert Carr Hammond, Esq., were defendants. The declaration alleged a violent assault to have been committed by the defendants on the plaintiff, on the 14th of March, to which they pleaded, "Not guilty." This prosecution originated in Colonel Berkely and others having assaulted Mr Judge, in consequence of certain offensive articles regarding the Colonel's intimacy with Miss Foote having appeared in the Cheltenham Journal. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.-Damages L.500.


Edinburgh, Dec. 21.


The trial took place before the High Court of Admiralty, Sir John Connel, Knt., Judge, assisted by William Boswell, Esq., advocate, Sheriff of Berwickshire.

M'Innes and M'Bride, who had been liberated on bail, appeared at the bar, at ten o'clock, and soon after that hour the Judge took his seat.

The criminal letters were read over, and the charges they contained were as follow:-"That albeit by the laws of this and of every other well governed realm, culpable homicide, as also the culpable, negligent, and reckless command, charge, and steering of a steam-boat, by the master or pilot thereof, whereby the lives of any of the lieges are lost, are crimes of an

heinous nature, and severely punishable. Yet true it is and of verity, that the said Duncan M'Innes and Peter M'Bride are both and each, or one or other of them, guilty of the said crime, actors or actor, or art and part: In so far as the said Duncan M'Innes and Peter M'Bride, having proceeded from Inverness in the said steam-boat called the Comet, with the intention of proceeding to Glasgow, and they having the direction, guidance, and command of the said steamboat, the said Duncan M'Innes being master thereof, and the said Peter M'Bride being pilot of the same; and having, late on the night of Thursday the 20th, or early on the morning of Friday the 21st days of October, 1825, or one or other of the days of that month, or of September immediately preceding, or of November immediately following, arrived in the said steam-boat in the river or frith of Clyde, and at a part thereof nearly opposite to Kempoch Point, in the shire of Renfrew, and it being their particular duty to take care that the said steam-boat should not come in collision with any other boat or vessel, they, the said Duncan M'Innes and Peter M'Bride, did nevertheless, both and each, or one or other of them, culpably, and reckless of the consequences, and by their extreme and culpable carelessness and inattention, and misconduct in managing and directing the course of the said Comet steam-boat, bring the said steam-boat in collision with the steam-boat called the Ayr, whereby the said Comet steam-boat was immediately sunk, and whereby Hugh James Rollo, writer to the signet in Edinburgh; Charles M'Allister, writer to the signet in Edinburgh; John M'Alister, nephew of the said Charles M'Alister; Captain Wemyss Erskine Sutherland of the 33d regiment of foot; Sarah Georgina Duff or Su

therland, his wife; Archibald Graham, coal-agent at Corpach, near Fort-William; Alexander Gray, piper at Fort-William; Ann M'Brayne or Wright, widow of Archibald Wright druggist in Glasgow; Euphemia Niven, servant to the said Ann M'Brayne; Ranald M'Kenzie, piper to Sir Joseph Radcliffe, Baronet, lately residing at Ercles Castle, in the county of Inverness; and a great many other per sons, men, women, and children, to the number of sixty-two or thereby, whose particular names and designations are to the prosecutor unknown, were drowned and bereaved of life, and were thus culpably killed by the said Duncan M'Innes and Peter M'Bride, or by one or other of them: As also, the said Duncan M'Innes and Peter M'Bride having proceeded from Inverness in the said Comet steam-boat, with the intention of proceeding to Glasgow, and they having the direction, guidance, and command of the said steam-boat, the said Duncan M'Innes being master thereof, and the said Peter M'Bride being pilot of the same; and it being the particular duty of the said Dun can M'Innes and Peter M'Bride to take care that the said Comet steamboat should have a light affixed in some conspicuous part thereof, while navigating the said river or frith of Clyde during the dark, in order that such steam-boat might be more easily observed and kept clear of by other vessels approaching it; yet, nevertheless, on the night of Thursday the 20th October, 1825, after it had become dark, and on the morning of Friday the 21st day of October, 1825, while it was yet dark, and when proceeding up the said river or frith of Clyde, opposite or near to Kempoch Point, situated in the county of Renfrew, they, the said Duncan M⚫Innes and Peter M'Bride, did, both and each, or one or other of them, culpa

« AnkstesnisTęsti »