York, Monday, Aug 2.
Ivr. JustICe DIAYLIEY andi Ilr. Baron BULLOCK arrived in York on the evening of Saturdaylast, and immediately went to the County Courts, wherethey opened his Majesty's commission of Oyer and Terminer, They atterwards proceeded to the Guildhall of the city of York, where they performed the same ceremony. On Sun- day morning they attended divine, service in the Cathedral, and heard an excellent sermon preached 'y the Rev. S. Smith, on a text taken from Luke, chap. x., v. 2S-" And behold v. certain lawyer stood n,ea1nd tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to Inherit This morning, at nine o'cleck, Mr. Justice BAYLEY went to the Guildhall in the city of York, to try three criminals against whom true bills iad been lound by the Grand Jury. The trials, which contained no matter of any public interest, lasted till 12 o'clock, at which hour the learned Judge rose, and proceeded to the Castle where he took his seat in the civil court, and proceeded to try several caulses, CRIwA1.AL COURT. hlr. Baron HU LLOCX took his seat in this court at 12 o'clocl, and after the proclamation against vice and immorality had been read, the following gentlemen were sworn upon the Grand Jury Archibald Stuart-Wortlev. Rcn- fn6-m-n air. 15arorM tl JL O CK then proceeded to charge the (4tand Jury. He said, that it was undiecessary for him to trouble them with many observations, since he knew from his own personal experience in that place4 that they were fully qualified to perform the duties whiclh were now required at their handIs. One observation, however, he could not refrain from making-namn1y, that the calendar,w.hen com. sidered witl regard to the sizecand population of their tounty, was a subject of congratulation to every thinking and feeling mind , fos it afforded a most satisfactory proof of the soundness of the morals of the populatios, and aTso of the activity antl vigilanece of the po. lice. f-ie observed, that there were two charges for offences commit. ed against females. If thev shlould be of opinion that the charge could net be fally made oat'respecting the felony, they would throw out the bill, becaaae they would give the parties an opportunity ol presenting another indictment for the misdemeanour. There was also an offence of a rmuch more atrocious nature, but which depend. ed in pohit of law upon nearly similar circumstances. He -would advise them to pursue the same course with regard to this charge that he had just advised them to pursue regardinS to the other. It was necessaryforhim to calitheirattentionmrorepartseularly toonecist which related to stolen goods,aathatsubjecthaA recentlyunadergoneths consideration of the twelve Judges: An act of the3d and 4th of the present King, which rendered the receivers of stolen bonds and pro. missory notes liable to the same penalties as the receivers of othe- stolen property, had given rise to some difficalty, in consequence 01 the different practices which had besn pursued upon different eir. cuits and even at the Old Bailey. Under the common law tle re. ceiving of stolen goods was a misdemeandur; but then.until the prin. dipal had been convicted, nothing could be done aigainstthereceive. In the reign of William HIl. an PCt was passed by which the re. ceivers of stolen goods were made accessories after the fact; but even so, they were incapable of being convicted until the principal had been previously convlc!ed, and therefore when he wasnaot convicted they escaned with perfect impunity. To remedy this evil the act of the 23d of (Oeo. 111. was passed. which renaered tl*e receiver liable for the misdemeanour, even though the principal was not convicted. The next act passed upon tit subject was the 3d and 4th of the present King. Thiat a2c contained a clause which authorized the prosecution of the receiver of stolen goods for the felonv, when the princlpal was not convicted. In consequence of some difficulties which had arisen upon this act, it was referred te the consideration o1 the 12 Judges, aitl it was then held by a majority of them, that the act was so loosely and ambiguously warded, as not to justify them ir inflicting Dunishment under it as for s felosy. Therefore, thougI some indictments had been presentecl for this offence as for a felony upon the circuits, it was considered that this act had not altered tbt former law. It was hardly necessary for him to make these observa- tidns to them, in consequence of any thing that was likely to comt before them in their present service; but as the information mighi be uaseful to them at their different sessions, he had thought it fittinp to sav thus much upon the subject. With these observations ie should dismiss them to their labours, only adding, that if thev should meet with any difflculty in the discharge of them, he should be verb happy to give them every assistance in his povrer to obviate it. t he Grand Jury then retired to their room to decide upon the bill wfhich might be presented to them. Bcfore Mr. Jrticc BAYLEY, alnd a Common J.xry. A2NDERSON V. ltOPnLISOr. Mr. WNILtA7eS sald that this iras an action brought to recovet damages for a trespass committed by the defendant on the plaintiff- property. It appeared, that the plaintiff was a farmer residing on the estate of Sir Tatton Sykes, and that the defendant was a re. spectable farmerresiding in the same neighbourhood. Sir T. Svke, gave tue game of that part of his estate to two gentlemen of the names of Hall and Bawes, who preserved it. On the 26th of Fe. bruary, the plaintiff an-d a gamekeeper saw defendant ridintg after s hare: they immediately rode up to him, and warned him oef thi grounds; instead of paving any attention to them, he leaped in upot the plaintiff's farm, raised ahare,and killed it before his face. Thit was the cause of the present action, which would never have beet brought had the defendant satkmitsed to make an apology. The lernmed Counsel called witnesies who fully substantiated hiu statement. Mr.BiRountAAx, for the defendant, contended that this wasone o0 those actions arising out of ill-feeling and bad spirit, which the jur, ought by nll mreans to discountenance. He aialitained that a dhe plaintiff was only the nominal plaintiff, and was acting solely or behalf of Messrs. Hall and Bowes, a farthisig's damages would fully satisfy the justice of the case. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, one farthing. ItANSELL V. GOODGELL. Mr. D. F. JoNEsopened the pleadings. Mr. SCARTLETT stated the case to the jury. Tt appeared from the statement made by the learned coursel, that the platntiff in thie action had lived for some time with the defendant as his servant, but that he had left him ia consequence of aquarrel whicll had asiern about wages, and which was terminated by the defendant's being obliged to pay 31. to the plaintiff. Thie defendant being anxious tc regain this sum of moncy, thought that the most likely mode ol doing it would be by insinuating that the plaintiff, who was a very young man, had been guilty of an offence avainst nature ; and by threatening to prosecute hlim for such alt offeiice if lie did not pay down a round sumn of money to buy off his testimony. In conse. quence of this idea, he wrote a letter to the plaintiff's father, declar. ing the sorrow which he felt at having to informn him of his son'r misconduct, but informing him at the tame time, that if the mattez were not made up before the 26th of July, he should feel obliged to follow it un at law. The plaintiff's father, at the time of receiv. ing this letter, was il in bed; but being alarmed by its contents, senit his eldest son, a brother of the pilintiff's, to inquire of the de. fendant what lie meant by it. The young man nmade such inquiry - and in the course of it a conversation took place between bim anti the defenidant, which would explain to the jury the motives on which the defendant had subsequently acted. The defendant then affered to withdraw the charge of bestiality, If the plaintiff or his father would pay him 31. Both of them refused the propesitlonvith indignation,and the result was, that thedefendant,finding that he could not extort anymoney from them, rTocu-ed aboyto make oath that he ha(I seen the plainltif commit actions tending to establish the charge allutded to. The plaintiff was in consequence committed to Yiork Castle, anil was imprisosed there from thie 7tk of Aagast, 1823, to the l.;th of iMlarch in the present year. On the arrival of the assizeX, thte boy could not be prevailed upon to come to York, and repeat ni court the storyv wl,,.t hoh. 5dsh.,no a,. TbhnWsintiffhe enteavoured to discover the present residence of that boy, with the intention of serving him with a subpoena, but the defendant hail contrived to get him out f thc way, andi bad so deprived hls client of the benefit of his evidence. He (Mr. Scarlett) would, however, show that the defendant had endeavoured to suborn a young girl to depose to a fact, which if it had occmrred, would have been sna- terial, but that all his endeavours had been defeated by her lonesty and integrity. At the assizes the bill was thrown out by the Grand Jury; and the plaintiff now came before a jury of his countrymen to recover a compensation in damages for the injury whichi he had sustained owing to the wanton and malicioua conduct of the defendant. The learned counsel, after dilating on the enor. mity of the defendant's conduct, in tmmping hp a charge against the plaintiff which was calculated to ruin his character and endanger his life, called upon the jury to show their abhorrence of his conduct by visiting him with severe and exemplary damages. The learned counsel then called the following witnesses:. Thomas Young, examined by ir. D. F. Jones.-Iam servant to Robert Craven. I know John (3oodgell, the defendant. I recollect him coming to my master's about a year ago,to write a letter for him. Mly master wrote it, and then read it to the defendant. I heard it rcad. I believe this paper to be in the handwriting of mry master. The tdefendant farms ahout 70 or 80 acrcs ; he is In a middling way as to his circumstances. Cross-examined by AMr. WILLTAS.s.-I have seen my master In York this day. John Hanasell, examined by Mr. SCARLETT.-I aM the elder brotheroftheplaintiff. I livewith my father. I remember this letter, it was> acute tO me from mv father. My wife brought It me w ith a message from my father. * I wrent, in consequence, to the defendant. I asked him what he meant by that letter he had sent to my father. Ie said, " What, that letter about Jos ?" I replied i fl<to n.1 .t. L:___.u_t_.i..uu. 1. _ . d L- him pay for it." I said, "laybe there wonnot much truth in it." He said, "Oh eys, the lad catch'd him in the fact: and if he would not make it up with him, he would follow him up with law. I said if it was so, he must not be overhard with tile lad. He said that he should not make it up for a very little-not for under 5l. 5s. I said my brother had not so much mo. ney, and that I could not lay out the money for him. He replied, Oh! yes, he has; he has got 31. which I gave himn ; I will make it up fir that sum, and not for a farthing less. This oonversation took place near defendant's house; we were then by ourselves. He then asked me to go to his house. I did; whilst I was there with him, the lad ilesp came in. The defendant was present, so was his sister and a servant girl. Defendant said I Here's John Hansell come to see about his brother Joseph." Laid, VWhat, is that the lad ?" Defendant said it was. I tol the lad to repeat to me wnat lie had to say. I askedlhim whether he had steen my brother commnit the crimeimputedtohim. He saitl" No." (Decency prevents us en- tering farther into particulars.) The witness then continued.-fthen came away, telling the defendant that I would give him nothing. Mly brother lived as servant with defendant fromn Mlartinmas to July. At the time of this conversation, my brother was living with AI r. Aldis. I have not seen the lad Hesp since my brother was ex. mitted, though I have sought for him. Cross-examined by Alr. WrLLrAN1..-tlesp, the lad, was com- amined before the mnsgistrates. Mr. Wilkinson, the cotnstable of Whitby, took the lad before the gentlemen.- He was with the ma- gistrates about half an hour. My brother is. about 20 years of age. The lad appareptly did not like to talk tome aboat it. The magis- tratea were more than 3 or 4 hoars in examining tbe witnesses,before my brother wYas committed to prison. ^Re-examintd....y brother wSasS senlt to prison on the 6th or 7th of The letter of the defendant to the plaintiff s father was then putia andl read. AIr. New:tead produced the record in the case of the ZKing v. Hansell," from which it appeared, that the bill had been thrown out at the a sizes. There were on the back of it the names of three witnesses, of which one was the same with that of the defendant in the presrent action. Ar. Stephenson._I was attorney for the prosecution in the case of the " King v. HanscIl." Ay bill is paid in parL Croas-examined.-. was present at the examinations before the magistrates, which ended in the commitmentof the plaintiiTto prison. Those examinations were returned to the judge. They were fer two dayvs and lasted five hours each. Hesp was examined there; he, as well as the other witnesses, were examined separately. Resp stated the charge at that time as it has been mentioned to day. When the magistrates determined upoR a prosecution, the defendant expressed grest reluctance to be bound over to prosecute, on account of the great expense. He was, how- ever, bound over. He was bound In recognizances for the appear- ance of Heap. I could not fiad Hesp at the last assizes, though I was requested by the defendant to procure his attendance if I could. Tnhe defendant wvas dischrged from that recognlzance on an applie- tion being made to the judge upon affidavit, stating that etrery exer- tohnbenmade by the defendant to procure the attendantce of Hesp. I have no doubt that the boy has fled the eountry. Re-examined.._..The examinations took place about a maonth be- fore the assizet. Jane Pickering.-I was, last year, servant to the defendant, who brought me to York, but I do not know what for. Mly mistress wanted me to make some declarations regarding the younig man' linen. I refused because they were not true. I vwas not examinet before the Granai Jury. Hesp left the defendant's service at the same tme I did-that was last Alartinmas. He went to Pickering. I never saw him afterwards. Cress-examined._I was examined before the Justices. The con- stable took me in to them. bly master was not pmesent. Re-examined.. It was my master that brought me to Whitby. Samuel Wilson.-I am deputy keeper of the Castle of York. I received the body of the plaintiff on the 7th of August. He vas not discharged till the ensuing Ma;rch assizes. They commenced on the 12th of Malach. Alir. WILLiASts requeated to have Mr. Newstead-zedalled. He was recalled accordingly. He produced the copica of the depoitions which had been forwarded to the Judge, in tltecase of thie King v. HanselL." Mr. WILLIAMS asked AD. Scarlett if he wouid produce them, Mr. SCxAXtTT ieflxsed, -but told Mr. Williams that he might put them in himself, as evidence, if he thought proper. Mr. W1*TLIAXS submitted that the plainuifi ought to be nonsnit-I ed, as there was, on the showvingb of the ulaintiff, probable ground I for th? prosecuttion which the defendant iad caused to be instituted against him. fIe waited for his Lordship's decision upon that point. Mllr. Justice BAVa- wFeeld reserve the point for the learned counsel, but thought that the.casp ought uot to be permitted to halt at prresent Mr. W5LLIAmS then proceeded to address tke jury. contendilag, first of all, that there was nothing libeUous in the letter which the defendant had sent to the plaintiff's father; that it contained no- thing which could, be construed into an attempt to extort money; that it was a privileged communication, being sent by the defendant, who waa the boy's master, to another person, who stood to him in the relative situation of father; that, being a privileged cominunica- tios, malice was negatived; and that malice being negatived, this action could not be sustained. He likewise a.ainained,that if they should be of opinion that the defentant, in institutine the prosecu- tion against theplaintiff, had not been actuated by nalice, or that he had reasonable ground for instituting it, then he was entitled to their verdict. Now It appearedthat the plaintiffhad been committed toYork Castle after an examination of 10 houre' duration by fivermagistra4es. Could it be said that such a proceeding on tlte part of the ma- gistrates wvas a rash, heedless, and wanton proceeding ? If It were EO, why had not his learned friend produced the depositions taken before thenm to convince the jury of the fact ? They had heard a witness state that he had those depositions in Coutt, and he would leave thein to draw their own inference from their non-production. His learned friend had stated that the Iad Hesn had been kept out of the way by the defendant; what evidence fiad they before them upon thatpoint? Evidence tending decidedly another way, and al- most proving to demonstration that if the lad ftad been spirited away, he had been spirited away by the plaintiff, and not by the defendant. lie would likewise ask them what motive the defendant could have for Opressing the plaintiff in the manner which had been repre- sented. Was it to gain 31. ? It was absurd to suppose tO, after the evidence which had been given to them regarding his circum- stances. Upon all the grounds which he had stated, lie maintained tlat his client must have a verdict, if the jurr thought that he had either actedt withoutt malice, or lJed had sufcient cause for itasti. tuting the actios. The learned Judge summed up the evidence to the Jury. The Jury left the Court at a quarter before five o'clock ; but at six o'clock, the time that oar parcel lett York, had not returned any vedc._____________ YORK. ManT)AT. Ain 9.