Part 12

1849—At the Michaelmas Sessions the committee of visitors appointed to superintend the erection of the Lunatic Asylum reported that they had not been able to obtain any tenders for executing the works required at the sum estimated by the architect, chiefly because the lunacy commissioners insisted on the whole building being made fireproof. The total cost of land and buildings would be about £32,000, other extras £3,044; and fittings were not included even in this sum. They had agreed with the London Life Insurance Society for a loan of the money at four per cent. The report was unanimously received.

1850—At the Michaelmas Sessions a report was read from a committee which had been appointed to inquire into the county expenditure, and to ascertain the feasibility of reduction. The cost of prosecutions and gaol expenses for the year 1849 was £8,993. 18s. 3d.; salaries, £2,661. 5s. 2d.; high constable’s cravings, £240; coroner’s cravings, £1,527. 0s. 10d.; clerk of the peace’s cravings, £745. 18s. 2d.; registration of voters, £342. 11s. 8d.; bridges, £580. 14s. 5d.; lunatics, £193. 4s. 2d.; new weights and measures, £858. 3s. 10d.; sundries, £1,099; total, £17,240. 13s. 2d.; police, £7,836. 6s. 9d.; Shire Hall, £1,696. 12s. 9d. The committee reported that the only way in which a reduction could possibly be effected was a reduction in the salaries of the general officers and of the police, which they did not deem advisable, and would rather recommend that Government should be memorialised to defray the cost of the county police, gaol, &c., out of the consolidated fund. The report was adopted without any division.

At the dinner of the magistrates, at the Shire Hall, after the transaction of the county business, the Rev. Thomas Pearson being in the chair, a portrait of Sir John Pakington, Bart., the result of a subscription amongst the magistrates, and which now hangs in the drawing room at the County Courts, was inaugurated.

* * * * *

UPTON BRIDGE has been the _bête noir_ of the county magistrates all through the half century. Since 1810 scarcely a sessions has passed at which it has not been mentioned, and it has given rise to lawsuits, disputes, and embroilments without number. In 1814–16, in 1829, and again in 1847, the magistrates took proceedings against the feoffees of Hall’s Charity—some lands left in 1570 for the repairs of Upton Church and Bridge—to compel them to account or to contribute towards the repairs of this bridge. In 1817 the bridge was reported to be in very doubtful plight, and the advice of Mr. Smirke, the eminent architect, was taken as to the repairs which ought to be done; a considerable sum of money was then laid out upon it. At the Michaelmas Sessions, 1822, a bridge warden was appointed, because much injury had been done to it by mooring vessels to the parapets, and by taking away sand from the foundations. In 1832–34 another considerable sum was spent in repairs; this time the feoffees of Hall’s Charity being concurring parties. In 1837 the parties promoting the Severn Navigation Improvement offered the magistrates £5,000 towards the expense of building a new bridge, but this was not acceeded to; and in 1838 the bench resolved to procure the insertion of a clause in the Severn Navigation Bill then before Parliament, to bear the county harmless from any loss or damage which might arise to Upton bridge from the improvements in the river; but no proceedings were necessary to be taken under that resolution, because the bill was thrown out. In 1842, £121 were expended in repairs, to keep the bridge from falling. The magistrates would not do more than was absolutely necessary, because they did not know how the operations of the Severn Commissioners might affect it. At the Midsummer Sessions, 1845, a committee was appointed to confer with the commissioners about the state of the bridge. At the Epiphany Sessions, 1846, the county surveyors recommended that £1,260 should be immediately spent on the bridge; and the magistrates at the same Sessions declared themselves “neutral” as to the bill then introduced by the Severn Commissioners. This bill took power to alter the bridge by the introduction of a swivel. At the Epiphany Sessions, 1847, Mr. Curtler read an elaborate report, in explanation of the liability of the feoffees of Hall’s Charity to aid in the repairs of the bridge; in consequence of which proceedings were taken, and in 1849 the matter was referred to a Master in Chancery. It was not finally settled till 1851, when Lord Langdale, Master of the Rolls, ordered the feoffees thenceforth to divide the receipts into three parts—the first for the church, the second for the repairs of the bridge, and the third for the general good of the town. At the Michaelmas Sessions, 1847, another committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the bridge, and to confer with the Severn Navigation Commissioners; but at the next Epiphany Sessions, Mr. Curtler, by a majority of 19 to 8, carried a proposition to seek to obtain a clause in the Commissioners’ Bill then before Parliament, to limit their power over the bridge to three years: the bill, however, was thrown out on second reading. The rest of the year was consumed in an attempt to get from Mr. Walker, C.E., a report on the state of the bridge, and in conferences with the Commissioners. At the Easter Sessions, 1849, Mr. Walker’s report was read, which recommended that the bridge should entirely be rebuilt; and a motion to that effect, made by the chairman, was carried almost unanimously. It is needless now to say, that nothing further was done in the matter but to talk about it at each succeeding Sessions, till the bridge concluded its own history by falling down during a high flood which occurred in February, 1851. It was built in 1605; and there can be no doubt that four of the original arches remained just as they had been first erected, until the day when they tumbled down of sheer old age.

REMARKABLE TRIALS.

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.