Part 15

1835—At Warwick Lent Assizes was tried DAVIES _v._ BADGER, an action brought by a journeyman whitesmith of Dudley, against Mr. Badger a magistrate of Dudley, for striking him with a stick at the Dudley booth, at the previous East Worcester election. Mr. Balguy, K.C., was for plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Goulburn for defendant. It was of course made a political affair, and excited great interest. Mr. Badger, through his counsel and his witnesses, denied ever striking the man at all. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff: damages £30, costs 40s.

1835—At the Midsummer Assizes was tried PARKER AND SON _v._ ROBINSON, M.P., a case which excited much attention at the time, and was particularly interesting to those of the legal profession who looked to reap rich harvests at elections. The plaintiffs sued Mr. Robinson for assistance said to have been given him in the way of canvass, &c., at the election of 1832, when the sitting members were threatened with an opposition by the Hon. Mr. Dundas. Mr. Robinson had paid £75, and paid £13 into court, but the amount of the bill was £186. Mr. Robinson pleaded that he had not given authority for such expenses to be incurred by plaintiffs, who, at this election, were only subsidiary agents, Mr. Cameron being his chief attorney. Various solicitors were examined pro and con to show that the charges were reasonable or otherwise; and the Jury, eventually, returned a verdict for plaintiffs, damages £38; thus Mr. Robinson paid £126 instead of £186. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow was for plaintiffs, and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, M.P., for defendant; and both made amusing speeches about the affair.

1836—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Justice Williams, was tried BADGER _v._ COOKE, an action brought by Mr. Badger, the Dudley magistrate, against Mr. Samuel Cooke, the celebrated Radical mercer, for a libel. After Mr. Badger had been found guilty of the assault on Davis at the Stourbridge election, Cooke issued a placard triumphing in the result of that trial, and saying that “every honest man must ever afterwards look with most indignant contempt on his (Mr. Badger’s) actions, since he had already disgraced the dignified functions of his station,” &c. &c. The defendant addressed the jury in his own defence, quoting papers to show that Mr. Badger often made use of as strong expressions towards his political opponents, and declaring that it was nothing more than a question of Tory and Radical. He was found guilty, Mr. Justice Williams declaring that the paper had a palpable tendency to defame and degrade Mr. Badger in his character as a magistrate. He was only required to enter into a recognizance of £50 to appear when called upon.

1838—At the Summer Assizes this year a very painful and remarkable case of circumstantial evidence took place, being no other than the trial of a wife and daughter for the murder of one who had stood to them in the relation of husband and father. On the evening of the 3rd of August, 1837, Mr. John Orchard, the landlord of the Woolstaplers’ Arms Inn, in Stourbridge, a man in the prime of life and in good health, was seen to go up the yard attached to his house, and his wife and eldest daughter, with a man named Smith, were seen to follow him. He never returned alive. Smith came down the yard again shortly, but the wife and daughter remained there some time. Two or three hours afterwards the daughter told some of the people in the house that her father was very ill, and she was afraid he would die; but no one saw him until he was actually dead. When a surgeon arrived the body was on a chair in the kitchen, and Mrs. Orchard was supporting the head in her hands. She pointed the surgeon’s attention to a small hole between the third and fourth ribs, immediately over the heart, and said she supposed it was done by a nail in tumbling over some tubs in the yard. He had a shirt on, but there was no hole in that. The brewhouse, tubs, and yard appeared to have been just washed, and the opinion of the medical man was, that Orchard must have been dead an hour at least when he saw him. On a post mortem examination, the wound in question was found to be four inches and a half deep, and went right through the pericardium and right ventricle, so that it must have caused almost instant death. Of course grave suspicion under these circumstances could not but attach to the mother and daughter, especially as there had been repeated quarrels between them and the deceased, and the wife was also suspected to have been improperly familiar with the man Smith. The coroner’s jury, however, returned a verdict of “wilful murder against some parties unknown,” and months passed without any further discovery. At last a woman, who had assisted in laying out the corpse, told some party that the man was murdered with a skewer, which was afterwards thrown into the Stour. The woman, when interrogated by the police, denied having said anything of the sort; but a skewer—just such an instrument as would have produced the wound—was found in the Stour, nevertheless. The wife and daughter were then apprehended and put on their trial. Mr. Whateley conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Godson the defence. The judge, Lord Abinger, told the jury that they must not convict the prisoners on suspicion, and they were both acquitted.

1838—At the County Epiphany Sessions, William Baylis, the crier of Evesham, appealed against the commitment of three justices, who had ordered him to be sent to prison, under the 60th and 65th sections of the Municipal Act, for refusing to deliver up the bell. It was denied that the court had a right to entertain the appeal, but the court chose to do so, and quashed the conviction, subject to a case to the Queen’s Bench on the points argued. A similar appeal was heard from Robert Knight, one of the sergeants-at-mace under the old corporation, who refused to deliver up his mantle. The magistrates were—Mr. Strickland, Mr. Cheek, and Mr. Ashwin.

1839—At the Midsummer Assizes the Rev. T. B. G. Moore, curate of Bromsgrove, prosecuted Mr. J. B. Crane, carrier, Mr. Nicholas Hill, publican, Mr. W. Whitehouse, farmer, Samuel Taylor, John Pinfield, jun., William Sansome, George Wakeman, labourers, and Henry Hill, baker, for a riot alleged to have taken place at a church rate meeting at Bromsgrove; and Nicholas Hill and Taylor were also charged with an assault on the Rev. prosecutor. The meeting in question was held on the 14th of the previous February, and the parties who had got first to the vestry had voted Mr. Greening to the chair and then declared the meeting adjourned to the Town Hall; Mr. Moore, the curate, however, declared that he was the only lawful chairman and adjourned the meeting to the school-room. Here there was a scene of great excitement, and after the meeting had decided by a very large majority that there should be no rate, a poll was demanded by the pro-rate party. Immediately upon this there was a general rush to the platform—a violent struggle for the vestry book—and all sorts of people—Mr. Moore amongst the number—were tumbled about, struck, and ill-treated. It was said that the riot had been instigated by Mr. Nicholas Hill and Mr. Crane, and that Mr. Hill, in getting the book out of the curate’s possession, had forced his head against the desk so as to cause great pain. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, in his speech for the defence, made much of this being a case got up by subscription—to crush the Bromsgrove opponents of church rates, and to put money into the purse of Mr. Annesley, an attorney, living twenty-five miles away from Bromsgrove. Whitehouse and Sansome were acquitted; Mr. Nicholas Hill found guilty of assault and riot, and the rest of the defendants of a riot only. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Lea; attorney, Mr. Annesley of Pershore; for defendants, Mr. Sergeant Ludlow and Mr. Godson; attorney, Mr. F. T. Elgie, Worcester. In the following November defendants were called up for judgment (after an unsuccessful effort to get a new trial), when Nicholas Hill was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, and the other three to four weeks’ imprisonment each.

At the same Assizes, Mr. Meredith, woolstapler, of Pershore, was convicted of striking Lieutenant Amherst three times, one day in the open street. There had been considerable excitement in the town about the election of Guardians of the Poor for the parish of St. Andrew, in the preceding March, and the plaintiff and defendant were active men on opposite sides. The first time they met in the street, Meredith put a paper into plaintiff’s face, saying, “Look at that;” and when he put up his clenched fist to defend himself, Meredith knocked his hat on one side. The second time Lieutenant Amherst admitted that he had called Meredith a d— blackguard, before any blow was struck, but Meredith afterwards hit him several times. Meredith, having been found guilty, was fined £20, and bound over himself in £300, and two sureties of £100 each, to keep the peace for three years.

1839—At the Michaelmas Sessions Samuel Cooke, the celebrated Chartist draper at Dudley, was prosecuted for attending and assisting at a riotous and illegal meeting at Dudley, on the 16th of July. It was proved that a placard, calling the meeting, had been seen in Cooke’s window, and that he himself addressed the assembly; but it did not appear that he had said anything very outrageous. The meeting was tumultuous, but no actual mischief had been done. Cooke defended himself with a good deal of shrewdness, and complained that he was a persecuted man. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, which was generally considered to be a very sharp political visitation of his offence. William Smith Lindon and James Hollis, for using seditious language at the same meeting, were sentenced, the first to three months’, and the second to six weeks’ imprisonment.

1841—In November this year, in the Queen’s Bench, a rule _nisi_ for a criminal information, was granted against the _Worcestershire Chronicle_, on the application of W. H. Ricketts, Esq., for a libel in that paper imputing to him jobbing and interested motives in disposing of the public money to be laid out in building the Droitwich Police Station. Upon the proprietors of the _Chronicle_ admitting that they had been misled and offering an apology, Mr. Ricketts consented to the discharge of the rule. The information on which the article complained of by Mr. Ricketts was written, was supplied by Mr. George Ellins, a brother magistrate; and as he refused to pay any of the costs which the proprietors of the _Chronicle_ had incurred, they inserted another article, charging Mr. Ellins with having misled them in the matter. This brought another rule _nisi_ upon them from Mr. Ellins, who affirmed that he did not volunteer the statement to Mr. Arrowsmith, and had especially told him that what he did say was not for publication. The argument against the rule did not come on till November, when Mr. Sergeant Talfourd showed cause for the _Chronicle_, and the Solicitor General supported the rule on behalf of Mr. Ellins. Lord Denman said it was absurd to suppose that Mr. Ellins gave the information to Mr. Arrowsmith for any other purpose than that of publication; and the rule was discharged with costs.

1842—At the Lent Assizes was tried THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA _v._ LORD HATHERTON, a cause more interesting from the rank of the parties interested, and the right at stake, than from any attractiveness in the subject or the evidence. It was an action to stop the noble defendant from working coal mines on certain copyhold property belonging to the latter at Cannock, in Staffordshire; and turned upon the question whether Lord Anglesea, as lord of the manor of Cannock, had right to the minerals. Sir Thomas Wilde, Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Alexander, and the Honourable Mr. Talbot, were retained for the defendant; and the Solicitor-General (Sir William Follett), Mr. Richards, Q.C., Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore, for the plaintiff. A great number of witnesses were called on either side, to prove rights and customs, and to perplex the jury; and ultimately, after a trial of two days, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with nominal damages. The verdict created much surprise.

1842—JULY 20—A Court of Inquiry holden by Mr. Under Sheriff Gillam and a special jury, to assess damages in the case POWELL _v._ PERRINS. This was an action to recover damages for the seduction of plaintiff’s daughter, plaintiff being a land surveyor at Hagley, and defendant a chain maker, living near Stourbridge. £500 damages given for the plaintiff.

1842—At the Midsummer Assizes a horrible case of depravity was disclosed in the trial of Richard Taylor, a blacksmith of Stourbridge, charged with shooting at his wife, Hannah Taylor, with intent to murder her. Though she had been the subject of a course of the most sickening brutality, she refused to give evidence against him, and the witnesses, therefore, were the neighbours and the prisoner’s own grown-up daughter, who stood in the witness box with a child in her arms, which was the offspring of an incestuous intercourse with her own father! The prisoner, on the particular occasion for which he was tried, had shot at his wife, and beaten her till she was well nigh killed. He then turned all his children out of doors stark naked. He was only found guilty of an assault, because nothing more could be proved without the wife’s evidence, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment only.

1843—At the Lent Assizes, Edwin Archer, a young labourer from Rouse Lench, was tried for the wilful murder of George Green, in the previous December. He pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter, and was sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation. The prisoner and deceased had been quarrelling, and set about to wrestle; in the course of the struggle, Archer drew a knife and stabbed Green in four distinct places—one of the wounds penetrating the heart—and death immediately ensued. As soon as the fatal deed was done, Archer was aghast with horror, and wept like a child over the body of his passion’s victim.

Samuel Bridgwater was tried at these Assizes, at the instance of some very indefatigable Radicals, for bribery at the election of 1841. The bill had repeatedly been thrown out by the grand juries, as was supposed, on political grounds, until at last a sufficient number of the right party were found to return it as “a true bill.” The case, however, now broke down at its very commencement, because a tailor had been sent to the Crown Office for copies of the return to the writ for the Worcester election, and he had not had them compared with the originals.

1843—JUNE 1—The Rev. William Smith, vicar of Overbury, obtained a rule _nisi_ for a criminal information against the _Worcestershire Chronicle_. The parish had long been in a state of most unseemly dissension, and the _Chronicle_, in giving a long and very detailed statement of meetings and matters there, was said to have libelled Mr. Smith in attributing conduct to him which he disclaimed, and generally in reflecting on his character and conduct. The rule was, however, afterwards discharged by arrangement, and no further proceedings were taken.

1843—At the Midsummer Sessions, Sir Thomas Phillips, Bart., and two of his labourers, were tried at these Sessions, for assaulting George Cooper, a shoemaker of Broadway. Cooper was collector of taxes, and went to Middle Hill to get a balance of taxes from the honourable baronet. He had had repeated disputes with Sir Thomas Phillips, and this was also a disputed affair, so Sir Thomas ordered him off the premises; and when he talked of levying a distress, Sir Thomas pushed him out of the hall, and struck him with a garden paddle once or twice. The two labourers were discharged, and Sir Thomas Phillips fined £10.

1843—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Maule, was tried LAVENDER AND ANOTHER _v._ BUCKLEE, being an action to recover £3,500, which had been secured on a bond given by Messrs. Thomas and William Bucklee to William Shaw, Esq., of Britannia House, Worcester. It was said that Mr. Shaw, shortly before his death, had cancelled the bond by cutting it off. It was said by the executors that Mr. Shaw was not in a state of mind to cancel the bond; and that his housekeeper, who was a relation of the Bucklees, appeared to have great influence with Mr. Shaw. A great deal of evidence was given as to the transaction itself, at which interested parties were present and took much part, and as to Mr. Shaw’s state of health at the time. The jury, after an hour’s deliberation, found a verdict for the defendant.

A case which excited great interest in the city of Worcester, was the trial of Charles Samuel Atkins, a young man respectably connected, who was in the employ of Messrs. Griffiths and Clarke, linen drapers, as a shopman. He was charged with embezzling £4, the property of his employers, on the 27th of September, 1842. Atkins had been sent to Mrs. Jeremy with a shawl and some satinette, and on his return said Mrs. Jeremy had kept the shawl and not paid for it, and had retained the satinette for approval. Mrs. Jeremy declared that she paid the person who brought the shawl four sovereigns on the spot. It was shown that in the very next week Mrs. Jeremy had had some satinette sent her from Hill and Turley’s, by a young man remarkably like the prisoner, and that came to very nearly the same sum as the shawl; and it was suggested that Mrs. Jeremy might have confounded the two transactions. The jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” and the court immediately echoed with deafening cheers, while Atkins fainted away. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd conducted the prosecution, while Mr. Bodkin, of the Old Bailey, was specially retained for the defence. The linen drapers’ assistants of the city afterwards presented Mr. Atkins with a silver snuff box.

Mary Francis, 24, single woman, was charged with attempting to poison Mary Jeffs, an elderly woman, living at Alderminster. The prisoner brought the old woman a cake, pretending that some one had given it her to make a present of it to the prosecutrix, but the strangeness of her manner in delivering it, and her continually saying that she was only to eat of it herself, excited the old woman’s suspicions. The cake was analysed, and was found to contain a large quantity of arsenic. The prisoner was courted by the old woman’s son; but not the slightest motive could be assigned for her wish to deprive the mother of life. She was found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation.

1844—At the Lent Assizes was tried the QUEEN _v._ SMITH, being an action brought by William Harris, the parish clerk of Overbury, against the Rev. William Smith, the vicar, for dismissing him from his situation. Mr. Smith alleged that the clerk had been guilty of drunkenness, had read the responses irreverently, and had interrupted the celebration of the sacrament on a particular occasion. Harris denied the whole of these charges, and the present trial was on a return to a mandamus in the Court of Queen’s Bench to ascertain their truth. Various witnesses were examined on both sides: those for Harris asserting that it was Mr. Smith’s eccentricities that alone caused the clerk to err. The jury found that the charges of drunkenness were proved, and that Harris had spoken the responses loudly to annoy Mr. Smith, but that the charge of interrupting the sacrament was not true. The court, thereupon, ordered the verdict to be entered for defendant.

1844—MARCH 23—At Hereford Assizes was tried BELLERS _v._ CHALK AND HOLL, being an action for libel, said to be contained in a paragraph in the _Worcester Herald_ of the 2nd of December, 1843. Colonel Bund, of Malvern, gave some information to the proprietors of the _Herald_, on the strength of which they inserted a paragraph charging Mr. Bellers, of Barnard’s Green, with cruelty to his mare, by shutting her up for years in solitary confinement in such a position that she could not lie down. Several statements afterwards appeared in the _Herald_ to the effect that the cruelty to the mare had been abated after the publication of the paragraph, and reporting the proceedings of a meeting, held at Gloucester, for establishing a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Lord Bishop of the Diocese presided at that meeting; and Mr. Thomas, the secretary of the Society in London for Preventing Cruelty to Animals, attended, and stated that he had personally inquired into the alleged case of cruelty, and had found the statement in the _Herald_ to be correct. On the trial, Mr. Whateley, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Godson were counsel for plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Valentine Lee for the defendants. Acting on the advice of counsel, defendants had not pleaded a justification. The publication of the libel was admitted; of course, no evidence could be offered in justification, and the jury found a verdict for plaintiff, as they were bound to do under the circumstances: damages, £150.

1844—At the Midsummer Assizes, John Bowen, a man of about fifty years, formerly an officer in the navy, was tried on the charge of defacing the parish registers of Croome D’Abitot, and sentenced to seven years’ transportation. It was shown that Bowen was engaged in making out a pedigree for a John Wood, who wanted to establish himself as a relation to the celebrated James Wood, of Gloucester, and had visited the Croome D’Abitot rectory several times for that purpose. While the curate was looking in another direction he tore a leaf out of the register. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd was for the prosecution, and Mr. F. V. Lee for the defence.

THE QUEEN _v._ NEWTON, also tried at the Assizes, was a charge against the eccentric barrister of that name, who used to come the Oxford circuit, of having committed perjury, said to have been committed in some affidavits. The presiding judge, Mr. Sergeant Atcherley, stopped the case, as insufficiently supported in the evidence.

1844—At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions a singular trial took place of two farmers, named Swan and Patrick, who were charged with killing deer belonging to W. L. Childe, Esq., in Kyre Parva park. The witness against them was a boy named Passey, who said he saw the parties accused chase a fine buck into one corner of the inclosure and then shoot it; but there were some discrepancies in his testimony. Both these farmers lived close to Mr. Child, and as the fences were not in the best possible condition, the deer used frequently to get on their land and eat their corn. Mr. Lee made an ingenious speech for the defence, and called many witnesses to character; after which the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, amid the applause of the court.