Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

as such alone the only verdict that the Jury could regularly give, or that the Court could receive, was, simply, one of Guilty or of Not Guilty. The Chief-Justice said, that although he conceived he had already marked, as distinctly as he could, without appearing to dictate to the Jury, his sense of the insufficiency of the evidence to convict the prisoner, he thought it right now, lest there should be any misconception, to say so expressly. It was not sufficient. The Jury retired again, and returned in less than half an hour, with a verdict-Guilty.

The Chief-Justice observed, on receiving this verdict, that it would be incumbent on him, in the ordinary course of his duty, forthwith to pass sentence of death upon the prisoner, in one of the most awful forms prescribed by law; but the same statute which enjoined that course of proceeding, gave a power to the Judge to postpone the judgment if he should see sufficient cause. After the opinion which he (the ChiefJustice) had expressed of the insufficiency of the evidence, he would act very inconsistently with himself if he did not avail himself of this power: he therefore postponed the judg

ment.

Thomas Cole, the foreman of the Jury, was a white man, the other jurors were coloured men of the settlement.

On the last day of the Session, previous to the passing of the sen tences on the other convicts, the Chief-Justice intimated, that it was thought proper to refer the case of Pei, with his (the Chief-Justice's) exception to the verdict of the Jury, and the grounds thereof, to superior authority in England. A statement of the case, with the evidence and a copy of the indictment duly authen. ticated, having been soon after placed in the hands of the Governor for that purpose, the same was transmitted by his Excellency to Earl Bathurst, his Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. Earl Bathurst, in consideration of the circumstances, thought it incumbent on him to recommend Peito his Royal Highness the Prince Regent for his Majesty's most gracious pardon. The pardon was duly received, accompanied by an official letter to his Excellency, and the prisoner was, in consequence, liberated without delay.

PROSECUTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS CASES.

MALICIOUS ARREST.

Court of King's Bench, Guildhall, Tuesday, January 19. (Before Lord Chief-Justice Abbot and a Special Jury.)

MARQUIS D'AOUST, V. ELmore.

This was an action brought to recover damages for a malicious arrest, without any reasonable cause.

Mr Gurney stated, that the plaintiff in this cause was a nobleman of distinction in France, and the defendant a horse-dealer of some celebrity in London. The insult and injury which his client had sustained, from the improper conduct of the defendant, were such as most imperiously called for redress. The Marquis d'Aoust had come to England in Sep. tember 1817, partly with a view of visiting the country, but chiefly to purchase some English hunters, which of late years have become of high repute upon the Continent. In furtherance of this object, he was recommended by one of his friends, a Mr Bradley by name, to visit the stables of Mr Elmore, the defendant in this cause; and he did so visit them, accompanied by Mr Bradley, who, as the Marquis could not speak much English, served as interpreter between the two parties. Two horses, one a brown, the other a bay, which were at that time in Mr Elmore's stables, particularly attracted the notice of the Marquis, who said, that if he liked their action in the field, he would give two hundred and twenty guineas for them. In order to afford the Marquis an opportunity of jud.

ging of their merits, the defendant's brother mounted one of them, set his groom-boy on the other, rode them into some fields at no great distance from his stables, in Dukestreet, Manchester-square, and there galloped them for some time. This was not, however, sufficient to satisfy the French nobleman, who, as he was purchasing hunters, wished to see how they would leap as well as how they would gallop. He therefore desired Mr John Elmore to leap one of the hedges in the field, which that gentleman promised to do, but forgot to perform; he made, however, several abortive attempts to clear it, but succeeded in none, owing, as Mr Elmore himself confessed, to the weak state of his nerves. The Marquis was much displeased at this trifling, and asked him, through Mr Bradley, if he did not intend to let the horses leap, why he had given them the trouble of going into the country. To this Mr Elmore made no other answer than this, that they might leap the horses themselves if they choosed, but for himself he must decline, as his nerves were not too strong. The Marquis and Mr Bradley did not however follow Mr Elmore's advice; they did not leap the horses, though they did mount them to try their paces: and the result was, that the Marquis determined not to buy the brown horse, though he thought of making an offer for the bay. This was afterwards on the same day communicated to Mr John Elmore, but no bargain was then entered into. The Marquis was, therefore, not a little

surprised at being arrested, within two or three days of this circumstance, at the suit of Mr George Elmore, for the cost of two horses affirmed to have been delivered to him by the defendant in the present action. He was in custody for some hours on this process, and was not released till he had deposited the money for which he was arrested, in the hands of the sheriff. So shocked was he at the treatment which he had received, that he left England in the course of a few days, under the impression that it was one of the most inhospitable countries in the globe. Before he left it, however, he left orders with a most respectable solicitor to defend the action which had been brought against him, as he was determined that Mr Elmore's scheme of bullying him into buying the horses should not be attended with the slightest success. When Mr Elmore found this to be the case, he never dared to proceed in the action, though the money remained deposited, and would have been immediately paid over to him had he proved successful. He had since discontinued the action, and paid his (Mr Gurney's) client for that discontinuance. If he had actually sold him the horses, was it probable that he would have acted in such a manner? and if he had not sold him them, was it to be tolerated that such an outrage as this should be committed in a country like England with impunity? He (Mr Gurney) trusted that the jury would, if he made out by evidence what he had asserted in his speech, show by their verdict of that day the decided abhorrence in which they held the brutal conduct of the defendant El

more.

Mr Gurney then called his witnesses; on which Mr Thomas produced an office copy of the writ, ex

amined with the original; Mr Wilson, a sheriff's officer, the warrant ; Mr Duke, the bailbond; and Mr William Romley, the copy of judg ment of non-pros., which had been sued out in the different periods of the cause of " Elmore v. D'Aoust."

Mr Spurr, of the firm of Kearsey and Spurr, then deposed, that in consequence of his signing judgment of non-pros., the defendant's attorney had paid him nine pounds for taxed costs; the Marquis was, however, still fifteen pounds out of pocket, in consequence of that arrest, not to say any thing of the fee which had been paid on the bailbond.

On Mr Scarlett making an observation in this stage of the business, that no proof had been exhibited of the affidavit to hold the Marquis to bail, Mr Gurney declared his intention to call Mr Bartlett, defendant's attorney, to prove it.

Mr Bartlett then deposed, that Mr John Elmore, defendant's assistant, gave him instructions to arrest the Marquis; he had no authority from Mr George Elmore, the defendant, personally.

Joseph Bradley, Esq. had known the plaintiff for several years, who is of great distinction in France. He accompanied him on the 24th of September 1817, to defendant's stables, where he (witness) acted as interpreter. A brown horse first attracted their notice, and afterwards a bay one: for the brown one hundred and fifty guineas were asked, for the bay one hundred and eighty. The Marquis said that he would give two hundred and twenty guineas for the two, if he liked their action. Mr Elmore would not at first accede to this proposal, but showed them to two other gentlemen then in the yard, one of whom he understood to be a Mr Lee, of Bexley, in Kent. After this he took witness into a

stable, and endeavoured to make him offer a large price, by saying that Mr Lee would give one hundred and fifty guineas for the brown, if the Marquis did not purchase it. The Marquis, however, told him, (witness,) not to make any advance in his offer; and when Mr Elmore found that the Marquis was resolute, he said that he would take the two hundred and twenty guineas. This was communicated by witness to the Marquis, who said, that before he closed the bargain he must see the horses leap, as they were wanted for hunting. It was therefore agreed that the horses should be saddled and taken into the fields. While this was doing, witness and the Marquis stood in the gateway. John Elmore came up to them while there, and said, that if the Marquis would give him ten pounds more when he returned to England, if he liked the horses, he might take them on trial for two hundred and twenty guineas; if he did not like them, be (Elmore) would then take them back, and return the Marquis his money. The Marquis not liking this proposition rejected it, and the horses were in consequence taken into a field, called Harper's field, about three quarters of a mile from Elmore's stables. When they arrived there, Elmore galloped the horse round it, said that he could find no hedge at which to leap, and proposed going into the Grand Junction ground. Witness then desired him to leap the gate or ditch leading to it; he said that he would leap it from the other side. There was a hedge in that field, to which Mr Elmore rode, as witness supposed, with intention of leaping it, but instead of doing so, he galloped through a gap. Witness said to him, "Will you leap, if you please?" "No," said he, " my nerves are not strong enough." It was a low hedge,

and need not have frightened him. Witness then said, "Why did you come here if you did not intend to leap the horses? It was the wish of the Marquis to see the horses leap, and you won't let them." He then said, that the Marquis and witness might leap them: but for himself, he generally leaped his horses in the riding-school, and not in the fields. The Marquis, was much displeased. The Marquis and witness mounted the brown horse, but neither of them liked it much. Mr Elmore then led the Marquis out of the field, and at the same time rode offat a very quick pace on the bay. The Marquis then dismounted, gave his horse to the boy, and also his card; and added, that he would give one hundred guineas for the brown, if he might be allowed to make trial of it. This was on the 24th September; on the 27th the Marquis was arrested at defendant's suit, at dinner, at Morison's hotel, in the presence of wit

ness.

Cross-examined by Mr Scarlett.He was not bail for the Marquis. The Marquis was so much alarmed at the insult offered to his person, that he left England immediately, though not before he had put two hundred and fifty guineas into Mr Spurr's hands. He never left the gateway at all, during this transaction, nor had he ever any conversation with Mr Elmore about keeping these horses at livery in his stables, in case the Marquis should buy them. Mr Gurney here declared his case to be closed.

Mr Scarlett then rose on behalf of defendant, and rested his defence on these points: first, that Elmore had either actually sold them, or firmly believed that he had; secondly, that as Elmore could have sold them to another gentleman for the same price, he had no occasion to

have commenced proceedings against the Marquis, if his wish had been merely to extort money; thirdly, that no prejudice ought to be excited against his client from his discontinuing the action, as it had been done by the advice of his attorney, who told him that he had better drop the action, as he had an opportunity of selling the horses to advantage. He stated, that under these circumstances he did not expect they would be of opinion, that the arrest in question was either malicious or without any reasonable or probable cause; or that it was in any respect a trick to extort money. The remainder of his defence will be best understood by the following abstract of the evi dence which he called :

Mr John Elmore, brother of the defendant, said that he recollected the Marquis d'Aoust and Mr Bradley coming to his stables in September 1818, and looking at his horses. Mr Savigniac, a Mr Lee, and a Mr Gibson, were then present. Witness asked two hundred and forty guineas for the two horses, and never demanded one hundred and fifty for one, and one hundred and eighty for the other of them. The Marquis offered two hundred guineas for them. Witness advised them to make up their minds quickly, as another gentleman was inquiring anxiously about the horses. He did not himself understand French, and so conversed with Mr Bradley only. Mr Bradley said that the Marquis would take the horses for two hundred and twenty guineas without a trial, if they were warranted sound. After agreeing on the price, Bradley said the Marquis was not leaving town immediately, and wished to know what he would charge for each horse at livery. Witness replied, " guinea per week." The two gentlemen then went away for half an hour,

one

and he considered the horses to be then standing at the expense of the Marquis, and not of his brother. In consequence of this idea, he refused to treat with any gentleman on the subject. Shortly afterwards they came back, and desired two of defendant's men to lead them over the stones. Witness replied, that he would set his boy on one of them, and to oblige them would ride the other himself. Nothing was then said about any leaping, nor is it customary to allow a gentleman to leap a horse which he has not purchased, over a hedge. When they got to the field, they asked witness to leap a small ditch, which he did; they then wished him to leap a bank with a ditch on both sides, which he refused to do, deeming it unsafe; and as he persisted in refusing, the proposition was at last dropped. After they had mounted the horses, and rode once or twice round the field, witness asked leave to return home to attend to his business. They granted it, and dismounted, on which he got on the bay horse and trotted quietly home, leaving the brown horse and his boy with them. In about twenty minutes afterwards, the brown horse was returned with a message, that the gentleman would not have either of the horses. Witness wrote on the subject that afternoon to the Marquis, but never received any answer; he also went to his hotel, but had not the pleasure of finding him at home. The next day, the interpreter, Mr Bradley, and another gentleman, came to his stables, but he did not see them. Witness made affidavit to hold the Marquis to bail, conceiving the Marquis to have made a formal contract for the horses; if he had not, he would have treated with Mr Savigniac for the sale of them. After the Marquis had gone abroad, he

« ПредишнаНапред »