Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

argued, that Howard being proved to be the agent for taking the conveyances, all his acts and declarations at the time were part of the ex-parte and admissible evidence; the learned Judge being of the same opinion. Two persons stated, that Mr. Howard said he had not the note with him, but it should be delivered up as soon as he could get it from Cambridge.

The extent executed was next proved, and that it was attended with the total ruin of the plaintiff's business.

Several respectable witnesses proved, that at the time the extent came in, he was considered as a man in good circumstances, and not in the least suspected of insolvency.

The Rev. Mr. Jees, Vicar of Hoxted, said, he had for many years appointed him churchwarden of the parish of Hoxted, which was a place of considerable trust, as in that character he received charity monies amounting to 700l. or 800l. per annum. So far from thinking the plaintiff an insolvent man, he would himself, at the time the banker's money became due, have lent the plaintiff the money to have paid them, if he himself could have spared it. But when the extent came in, and seized all his property, nobody would advance money to him.

The defendants grounded their defence, that the extent was not maliciously sued, but that they acted under an apprehension of the plaintiff's insolvency, and that the mortgage was not adequate security; and they attempted to prove this by witnesses, but the only fact they proved was, that he borrowed of a neighbour

60l., being, as he said, short of money, for which he gave up the key of his barn, containing more than the value in corn, and once the supervisor summoned him for neglecting to pay his malt duties, which were paid before the day of hearing came.

The learned Judge, in summing up, was clearly of opinion, that the writ was sued out without probable cause, and stated that, in point of law was, the note of hand merged in the higher securities for the same debt.

The Jury, after deliberating for some time, by Mr. Manby, their foreman, returned the verdict as follows-" My Lord, we have deliberated upon our verdict, and we find for the plaintiff damages 1,2007." The verdict was received with acclamations by the audience.

ADMIRALTY-COURT, MARCH 11.

Reward, Selkeig, Master, on appeal from the Vice-AdmiraltyCourt at Jamaica.-This vessel sailed from the port of Kingston, in Jamaica, with 12 tons of Jamaica and 10 tons of St. Domingo logwood, which were shipped for ballast to Annatto Bay, in the island of St. Domingo, where the master proceeded, agreeably to his instructions, to land the logwood; but the weather being bad, he was enabled to send only one large boat-load on shore, and the remainder was used for dunnage and stowage of a large quantity of sugar and rum, with which the vessel returned to Kingston. There the cargo was landed, but the market proving unfavourable, almost the whole was re-shipped for the pur

pose

pose of sending it to Norfolk, in Virginia. On leaving the harbour she was seized by his Majesty's ship Emulous, for a breach of the navigation laws, in exporting Jamaica logwood to America, and confiscated.

Sir Wm. Scott.-This is an appeal from a sentence of confiscation, which has been pronounced against this vessel, for exporting an article forming a very small part of the cargo, contrary to the provisions of the navigation laws, which prohibits the exportation of fustic and other dyeing woods, from the British West India Islands to America. Much has been said as to the policy of the prohibitions in this particular, but it is no part of my duty to controvert that policy; for, if by change of circumstances it has become inconvenient, an application to the Legislature is the only remedy for that inconvenience. My office is purely ministerial. It is argued, that the quantity is so small, that it would be a great hardship if the question was pressed to its greatest extent against the claimant. If the maxim, de minimis non curat lex, could be applied to the present question, the Court would, perhaps, be justified in mitigating the severity of the law; but the quantity of the prohibited article seems not to be exactly ascertained; and although it has been stated on the part of the owners to be only 3 tons, yet from the evidence it appears to have been much greater, and therefore cannot be considered to come under the beneficial scope of the maxim to which I have alluded. If a practice so abusive prevails as

that every ship is in the habit of carrying out several tons of this prohibited article, it is high time that this Court should lend its assistance to put a stop to such illegal proceedings. It has been said that owners are obliged to import wood for dunnage; if the fact be so, it may be a proper subject for the consideration of the Legislature; but when it becomes a practice to put a quantity of an article on board with no other authority than their own, and to baptize it dunnage, it is high time for this Court to interfere in conduct so contrary to the prohibitory laws of this country. Much has been said with respect to the absence of fraudulent intention, but it is sufficient if there exists a contravention of the law, from whatever cause it arises. There is sufficient to justify the seizure, if that has been exported which the law has prohibited. Something also arises from the evidence which has the appearance of intentional concealment, not very favourable to the case of the owners. It is not then protected by its own insignificance. Neither has it any analogy with the licence cases that have been cited. During the time of war, the prohibition to trade with the enemy is general. Licences were granted for the purposes of relaxing that, without any regard to the nature of the articles. They were specified in the licence according to the application which was made. A licence for the importation of one article would have been as readily granted as that for another; but, in this instance, the law says, you shall not carry such and such articles to Ame

rica.

rica. Here is a quantity of saleable goods, and you may call them dunnage if you please, but the presumption must be, that they were to be converted into profit on their arrival, which is a direct contravention of the navigation laws of Great Britain. On these considerations I shall affirm the sentence of the Court below.

BOARD OF EXCISE. JUDICIAL ROOM, MAY 28.

Rex v. Fox.-Mr. Edward Fox, grocer and dealer in tea and coffee, Gray's-inn-lane, was charged with having a large quantity of sham coffee in his possession, and with selling the same for genuine coffee.

Commissioner.-Do you plead guilty or not guilty?

Defendant. I plead guilty, my Lord.

Another Commissioner.-This is a case in which the defendant chooses to plead guilty, for the purpose of inducing us to miti gate the penalty; but I think proper to have the case heard, as it is one of the worst description that has come before us.

Henry Spencer, an officer of Excise, stated, that on the 21st of February, he and Lord, another officer, went to the defendant's shop, and purchased an ounce of coffee, for which he paid three half-pence. They examined it, and he was satisfied it was not genuine coffee; they purchased another ounce (which he produced to the Commissioners, who examined it), and were convinced it consisted part of coffee, and beans and peas. He (Spencer) asked the defendant if he had VOL. LX.

any vegetable powder in his possession, and he declared that he had not.

Defendant. I deny that I ever said so.

Witness.-He looked into a mill, and found it contained a small quantity of vegetable powder and coffee. The defendant came up to the mill and ground it all out upon the floor before he. could prevent him. The defendant asked his shopman if they had found any vegetable powder in the mill? The shopman replied in the negative, and defendant said, "Then I do not care for them." Upon searching the shop, he found 64 pounds of coffee mixed with vegetable powder, which he then produced.

The Commissioners and the examining officer viewed the sham coffee seized, and it was declared to be part genuine coffee, and part beans and peas burnt and ground.

The defendant in his defence said, that poor people wanted a low-priced article, and by mixing the vegetable powder and coffee together, he was able to sell it at three halfpence an ounce; he had sold it for years, but never had so large a quantity as 64 lb. in his premises before, at one time; he did not think he was committing a fraud; he did it as a matter of accommodation to the poor, who could not give a higher price; he did not sell it for genuine coffee.

[blocks in formation]

Commissioner. Then have been defrauding the public for many years, and injuring the revenue by your illicit practices: the poor have an equal right to be supplied with a genuine article

[blocks in formation]

as the rich. In my opinion it is a greater crime to serve the former than the latter with this infamous stuff.

The defendant was convicted in the penalty of 50l.

Rex v. Brady. The defendant, Mr. Alexander Brady, grocer and dealer in tea and coffee, Gray's-inn-lane, was charged with having, on the 28th of February last, in his possession 18 pounds of sham coffee, called vegetable powder, and with selling the same for genuine coffee.

Lord and Pearson, exciseofficers, stated, that they purchased an ounce of coffee of the defendant on the 28th of February, and, upon examining it, they dis. covered that it was made up of peas and beans, ground with a small quantity of coffee. Upon examining the mills in his shop, they found both coffee and vegetable powder in them. They also found 18 pounds of vegetable powder mixed with coffee, in a state prepared for sale, wrapped in papers.

you

One of the Commissioners tasted some of the 18 pounds produced by the officers, and declared that it was most infamous stuff, hot to the mouth, and unfit for human food. Defendant.-Why, I have sold it for twenty years. Commissioner. Then have been for twenty years acting most dishonestly, defrauding the revenue, and the health of the poor must have suffered very much by taking such an unwholesome article. Your having dealt in the article so long aggravates your case; you have been for twenty years selling burnt beans,

peas, and I know not what other articles, for genuine coffee. You are convicted in the penalty of 50%.

Charles Bowser, of Oxfordstreet, tea and coffee-dealer, was charged with a like offence, and upon the same evidence.

This defendant said he certainly kept the composition for sale, but he never disposed of it to respectable persons. He lived in the neighbourhood of St. Giles's, and he sold the sham coffee to the poor Irish people there at a very low price, as they could not afford to purchase the genuine.

One of the Commissioners ob. served, that he knew no reason why the poor should be poisoned any more than the richer part of the community. The defendant should find, at all events, that they were equally entitled to the protection of the proper authorities, when any attempt was made to impose upon them, and to injure their health.

The defendant was convicted in the same penalty as the last.

OLD BAILEY, Friday, May 8.

Insanity.-Mathias Maher was brought to the bar apparently in a state of furious derangement, for the purpose of being arraigned on a charge of forging a power of attorney, with intent to defraud Thomas Moore, under the prosecution of the Board of Admiralty. The prisoner was ducted to the bar by three men, one at each arm, and one behind, having a fast hold of him. He was secured by a strait waistcoat and by weighty chains at his feet.

con

When

the

When first brought into dock, he looked at the surrounding spectators with a hideous grin, and his eyes appeared as if they were starting out of their sockets. His beard appeared not to have been shorne for several weeks, and his countenance was pallid and emaciated.

The Clerk of the Arraigns put the usual question to him," Are you guilty, or not guilty?" but the only reply the maniac made, was, "Do you want to murder me? I have been starved here for upwards of a month without eating or drinking."

Mr. Justice Bayley repeated the question, and the prisoner still continued to rave and complain of being starved. He endeavoured to stoop down and eat the herbs placed on the board before the dock, but was prevented by the keepers.

Mr. Justice Bayley.-If you do not plead either guilty or not guilty, I must direct the jury to inquire whether you stand mute by the visitation of God, or whether you do it wilfully?

Prisoner. Are you going to give me any tobacco?

Mr. Justice Bayley repeated the observation.

Prisoner. I get up with swords and pistols upon me. You want me to eat nothing but poison.

The Jury was then sworn, and directed to judge whether the prisoner was or was not insane, and Mr. Alley, as counsel for the prisoner, called the following witnesses to prove his insanity:

Wm. Brown, keeper of Newgate, proved, that about four months ago the prisoner came to the gaol, and during the whole of

that time he had been insane. He had no doubt of the fact from his conduct and appearance. He considered him to be so dangerous, that it was thought proper to chain him hands and feet, and three persons constantly attended upon him; when he first entered the prison, he attempted to stab a man, and he was immediately put under restraint.

Mr. E. C. Bayle, the surgeon of Whitecross-street prison, proved that in April, 1817, the prisoner was imprisoned there for debt. There was always an incoherency in his manner, but had lucid intervals. The first act of insanity he evinced was that of eating an ounce and a half of ointment which he should have used. On another occasion, the prisoner threw a bottle at his head. The prisoner also pretended himself to be Colonel Berkeley, and wished witness to go down to his estate in Hampshire.

Mr. Brown, the keeper of Newgate, here added, that the prisoner, had, while in gaol, attempted to hang himself; when he first came to the gaol, the prisoner was very decently dressed.

William Hutchinson Box, a surgeon, had attended the prisoner since 28th January, and gave his decided opinion that the prisoner was not insane, and that it was nothing but pretence. He had much more latterly assumed the character of a madman. His bodily health had been good while in prison. Witness had often seen an extreme violence in the manner of the prisoner.

Mrs. Watts, an attendant at Whitecross-street-prison, proved

T 2

the

« ZurückWeiter »