ページの画像
PDF
ePub

have frequently seen such states before, from which his majesty has recovered.

OLD BAILEY.

16. Thomas Dixon was indicted under lord Ellenborough's act for maliciously shooting at Anne Earl, on the 10th of December last, with an intent to murder her, or do her some grievous bodily harm. The prosecutrix stated that the prisoner and herself both lived in Spa Fields, and on the evening of the day stated in the indictment, about half past nine, she was washing at her window, with a candle before her, when she heard the report of a pistol or gun; the ball whizzed close to her head, having passed through the pane of glass near her. Upon looking out, it was discover ed that the shot come from the prisoner's apartments. He was immediately taken into custody, by an officer breaking open the door, who found him undressing, and going to bed. There existed no quarrel between them, and the prisoner expressed his happiness that no mischief had happened, as, if it had, he said his life must have paid for it. The defence was, that the prisoner shot at some cats on the tiles, which used to annoy him by scratching up his little garden, and that the window which the shot entered was just below the tiles. The jury found him Not guilty.

John Clayton and William Jenkins were indicted for breaking into the house of Jane Fearn, No. 11, Bury-street, St. James's, with intent to steal therein.

Mrs. Fearn, the prosecutrix, lived in Bury-street, St. James's, and kept only one servant. The prisoner Clayton, one day in December, rapped at the door, and

inquired if her mistress was at home? and finding she was out, pretended he had a letter for her. He afterwards commenced an acquaintance with her, and would treat her to drink.-On the 1st of January, when Mrs. Fearn was gone to the play, he came to the house, and said he saw the mistress was gone out, and he was come to keep her company. He accordingly went down into the kitchen, but shortly afterwards went out, under pretence of getting something to drink; when he returned, accompanied by the other prisoner, who having rushed into the house, they proceeded to drag the girl up stairs, to seek for some hidden gold which they said they knew her mistress had. It also appeared that this report of some gold possessed by the prosecutrix was the cause of this attempt; for private information had been communicated to the office at Bow-street, that the robbery would be attempted, and the officers had been upon the watch for several days previous, and were actually on the look-out when the two prisoners entered the house. They followed, and looking through the key-hole, saw one of the prisoners attempting to drag the servant up stairs, who was crying out for assistance. They broke the door open, and both prisoners were immediately apprehended. - The jury found them both Guilty.

On Thursday evening about half-past seven o'clock, a stout man knocked at the door of Mr. Sydney's house, in Percy-street, Tottenham-court-road. The servant and Mr. Sydney being from home, the door was opened by a lady who resided there, and who was alone in the house; when a ruffian rushed in, and instantly shutting the door,

dragged

[ocr errors]

dragged the lady into the back parlour, and presented a pistol or large knife to her head; but her terror was so great she could not tell which, and he, with the most horrid imprecations and threats, demanded to know where the money or valuable articles were in the house. The lady, in great agitation, entreated him to spare her life, and take what property he chose, On the assurance that he was not to be interrupted in his carrying off the property, he proceeded to pack up what he thought was the most valuable. On his going to the other side of the room to where the lady was, and stooping down to get at a trunk which was under a table, the lady took advantage of his position, ran to the street door, threw it open, screamed, and gave an alarm of thieves; which brought several persons to her. The robber of course knowing there was no chance of his escaping by the street, ran up stairs to the front garret, and, forcing down an iron bar from the window, got on the roof of the house. A person was sent to Marlborough-street office, and Cragg and Marsden, two of the officers, immediately came to the spot, and, with lighted flambeaux, searched the roofs of several houses from the top to the bottom of the street, but were not able to find the robber.

OLD BAILEY.

Fraud upon sir Thomas Plomer, knt.

18. Benjamin Walsh, esq. M. P. was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 5th of December 1811, in the parish of St. Dunstan's in the West, twenty-two bank of England notes, for the payment of 10007. each, and another note of the same bank for the payment of 2007. the property of sir Thomas Plomer, 1812.

knt. There were six counts in the indictment, alleging the offence in different ways, but without any ma terial alteration; in some places calling the bank notes, warrants, and bills of exchange.

Few trials have excited so much public interest as the one which is the subject of the subsequent detail. So early as eight o'clock the ave nues, and vicinity of the sessions house, were thronged with people of the most respectable appearance, eager to gain admission to the court. The judicious arrangements, however, of the sheriff tended very much to remedy the inconvenience which an indiscriminate admission of every one who claimed that right to an open court would produce, and materially to preserve the good order and decorum of the trial. At a little after ten o'clock the judges, lord chief baron Macdonald, sir Simon Le Blanc, and sir Alan Chambre, took their seats on the bench, and immediately after the prisoner was called to the bar; and the indictment being read to him by Mr. Sheldon, he joined issue by pleading Not guilty, and putting himself upon the country.

The prisoner walked into the dock with a steady pace, arm in arm with a friend, apparently, however, considerably dejected, and labouring under the painful impression of his unfortunate situation.

He

was dressed in deep mourning, his hair dishevelled and unpowdered, and his appearance altogether betraying a carelessness and negli gence of every thing but the unhappy circumstances under which his conduct became the subject of so grave an investigation As soon as the jury were charged, the pri soner requested the indulgence of a chair, with which the court inmediately complied, and of this con(B) venience

venience he availed himself during the whole trial.

Mr. Gurney opened the plead ings, and

Mr. Garrow stated the case to the jury, and began by observing, that if, upon a subject like this, it could have been possible for feelings of a private nature-of commiseration for the situation of persons who, though perfectly in nocent, must be involved in the same ruin with the prisoner if he should be found guilty there was no one with whom such considerations could operate so powerfully as with the very honourable person whose painful duty it was to be this day the prosecutor. But he could not have given way to such motives without a very culpable neglect of his public duty. He (Mr. Garrow) would not be discharging the duty cast upon him, with satisfaction to himself, if he were to enter into a statement of any thing that was not indispensably necessary to the eluci. dation of the case he was quite sure, however, that if the jury had read any thing upon this subject, in the variety of articles with which the public papers had been filled, they would dismiss from their minds every thing of such a nature, and attend coolly and dispassionately to such evidence only as should be now laid before them on the subject of the prisoner's guilt or innocence. The learned gentleman then entered into a detail of the case; but as the evidence given by the witnesses may be deemed of more importance, we shall abstain from following him in this detail. Upon the law of the case he begged to state his opinion to the jury, subject, however, to the better opinion of the learned judges. He took it from the oldest authorities in the law, that the crime of larceny, as it

was imputed to the prisoner, (with out any of the considerations, of whether it was larceny in stealing privately from the person, or stealing in the dwelling-house, or larceny on the highway, but simply larceny as it was defined in the oldest law books,) was the feloniously taking of the personal chattel of another man, against the will and without the consent of the proprietor. Had he in this case a chattel of which the owner could be robbed, in the legal acceptation of the word? No one could doubt the fact. He should, however, cite one case, which was one of the first precisely like the present; and indeed if there was any thing of dif ference between them, it was what pressed harder on the prisoner. He meant the case of the king v. Hervey Eccles, a money-lender, who proposed to raise money for a person named Edwards, who applied to him to discount a bill. He took Mr. Edwards's bill from him, stating that he was going into the next street, and would immediately bring him back either the bill or the money; but neither of these engagements did he comply with. On that occasion the present recorder and Mr. Fielding were counsel for the prisoner; and they contended that the offence imputed to him was no felony, but merely a breach of trust. The real question, however, to be taken into consideration was, with what intention did the prisoner receive the bill into his possession? It was manifest that he had at the time, in his own mind, the felonious purpose of converting it to his own use that the law held to be felony. In that case, as in the present, there were no previous preparations-no settled plan of operations by which the prisoner hoped to escape with impunity-there was no purchasing

of

of American stock-there was no procuration of doubloons to fly with to a foreign country and there were none of those other strong circumstances which characterized the case of Mr. Walsh. Eccles simply possessed himself of the bill, and converted it to his own use. There was some difference of opinion as to the law of the case; but it was after. wards solemnly argued before the twelve judges, who pronounced Mr. Eccles's offence to be felony, and he was accordingly banished the country. The crime, however, now under consideration did not involve the life of the prisoner, it was but a transportable offence. The question in this case, if it was a question at all, was, whether, at the time Mr. Walsh received the prosecutor's bank notes, he intended, in the language of the law, feloniously to take them against the will and without, the consent of the proprietor, and convert them to his own use? Had the jury any doubt that he so intended? Had they any doubt, when he purchased the doubloons and American stock, when he prepared his linen for travelling from London, when he was overtaken at Falmouth, and confessed that he intended to go to Portugal, and actually delivered to the prosecutor's attorney the American debentures and the doubloons which he had purchased; and still less could they have any doubt when he candidly, in his letters to his brother, (which would be produced in evidence,) developed the whole of his plan, and confessed that he designed to run away with the prosecutor's property, that his intention was felonious? It would be said, that his intention was not felonious, because he did not onvert the whole of the prosecutor's money to his own use; that he honestly accounted to him

for the 60001. That very circumstance in his Mr. Garrow's) mind, only showed that his plan was more cunning and subtle. The accounting honestly for the 60007, to the solicitor-general was only intended to lull all suspicions of the intended robbery; and so high an idea had the prosecutor of the prisoner's honour, that the detection of the offender was to be attributed to the merest accident. The simple addition of one or two words to the answer of the banker's clerk, when the prosecutor had asked whether Mr. Walsh had left any money along with the bills of exchequer, caused the detection of the offender, and prevented the successful completion of his intended robbery. The learned gentleman concluded by anticipating such a verdict from the jury, as would completely answer the object of this prosecution.

SirT. Plomer was then examined. He stated, that for many years past he had employed the prisoner as his stock-broker. In the course of last summer he made a contract for the purchase of a considerable estate, and informed Mr. Walsh of the cir cumstance, and that he should be obliged to complete the purchase by Michaelmas. In consequence of this he consulted with Mr. Walsh upon the propriety of selling a large quantity of stock in the funds, for the purpose of meeting the occa sion. Mr. Walsh, however, advised him not to sell soon, as there was a prospect of a considerable rise in the funds, and the later the sale was postponed the better. As the title to the estate which he intended to purchase was not made out, he was not in such a hurry, and therefore waited until Mr. Walsh himself, about the middle of November, urged him strongly to sell out his stock, giving him as a reason, that (B 2)

the

the funds would fall. He complied with his suggestions; but as the contract for the estate was not sufficiently forward for completion, he suggested the idea of laying out the money, which would otherwise lie idle, in the purchase of exchequer bills. He had given a written permission to the prisoner on the 28th of Nov. to sell out his stock, and a subsequent day was fixed by Mr. Walsh for him to attend at his of fice, for the purpose of transferring the stock. He should not have sold out so soon, but for the repeated solicitations of Mr. Walsh. When the stock was sold out, he received an account of the produce from the prisoner, which he left him to pay into Messrs. Gosling and Co.'s (the witness's bankers), and which he said he would do. It was on the 4th of December that he went into the city to transfer the stock. The prisoner said he would call next morning at his chambers in Lincoln's Inn-square, to receive a check for the money; which he did, and witness gave him a check on Messrs. Gosling for 22,2007. It was given for no other purpose than to purchase exchequer bills, which the prisoner promised to bring him at four o'clock on the 5th of December. The prisoner accordingly called next day, about half-past four, and produced Messrs. Goslings' receipt for 60001. worth of exchequer bills, stating that he had contracted for the rest, but that they could not be got that day, as they were locked up by the teller, Mr. Trotter, in a drawer at Messrs. Coutts's, the bankers, to which house he was agent; but adding, that he had paid the remainder of the money back to Messrs. Gosling, for sir Thomas's account. Sir T. on his way home, called at Messrs. Goslings', and, on inquiry, found the

exchequer bills had been there deposited, but no money. This excited his surprise, and induced some inquiry; but he saw Mr. Walsh no more until he was in custody at Bow-street. There were now several letters from the prisoner produced, in which he acknowledges the whole transaction. These letters were proved by George Thomas to be in the prisoner's handwriting. During the reading of them by the clerk of the court, particularly where they mentioned the distresses of his wife and children, and the manner in which he was forced to abandon them and a country where he could no longer bear to live in disgrace, the prisoner appeared to be convulsed with the deepest anguish, and frequently burst into tears.

[ocr errors]

The next part of the evidence went to prove the payment of the check at Messrs. Goslings' to Mr. Walsh himself, with the numbers of the bank notes. It was next proved by Mr. W. Hannan, that he sold the 60001. exchequer bills on the morning of the 5th of Decem-ber to Mr. Walsh, and 15001, India bonds, which were paid for in ten bank notes of 10007. tallying with those paid by Messrs. Gosling.

Mr. Dennis de Berdt, partner in the house of Desman and Co. proved that the prisoner applied to him on the 19th of November respecting the purchase of American stock, to the amount of 11,000%. and of course completed the bargain on the 5th of December, paying him in bank notes, the numbers of which corresponded with those paid at Messrs. Goslings'.

Mr. Joseph Walsh, the prisoner's brother, proved that after his repeated application he had paid him a debt of 11991. on the 5th De cember, and a 10004 note of the

sum

« 前へ次へ »