Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

gommission, the prisoner was in a state of mind to distinguish right from wrong, or under the influence of any illusion towards the partieular object which rendered him for the moment insensible to the nature of the act he was about to commit; for if he was so influenced, he could not be deemed responsible to the law; otherwise, it would be their duty to find him guilty.

The jury, after deliberating some time, returned a verdict of guilty.

The unhappy man was afterwards executed for his crime, having to the last buoyed bimself ap with the hope of a pardon.

Case of Assault. - Mr. John Maberly, and W. Dean, the former a respectable attorney, and the latter a constable, were indicted for assaulting Elizabeth Tadell, on the 16th of May last.-Mr. Alley, in opening the case, bore testimony to the general character of Mr. M. until the commission of the offence with which he now stood charged, which he could not help pronouncing to be of a most aggravated description. The counsel then pro. ceeded to state, that the prosecutrix (who was a young and interesting looking woman), was, on the day stated in the indictment, servant to Mrs. Conyer, who lived at No. 4, Park-lane. About four o'clock, during the absence of her mistress, who had just gone out to take an airing in her carriage, the two defendants, in company with four other men, came to the house, and Mr. M. demanded that certain pictures, which were in the room, should be delivered into his possession, for Mr. Conyer, the husband of the lady in whose house the

plaintiff lived. Mr. Alley here. stated, that a separation had taken place between Mr. and Mrs. Conyer, and that they kept separate establishments; but Mr. Conyer having some fancy for the pictures alluded to, had sent his attorney to demand them in the manner be had mentioned. The prosecutrix, having no knowledge of the defendants, or of Mr. Conyer, said she did not feel herself authorised to deliver any property under her care to any person, until the return of her mistress, whom she expected every moment; and to expedite whose arrival, she sent another servant girl, who was in the house. Mr. M. however, insisted upon taking the pictures, and was proceeding to enter the room in which they were, when the prosecutrix shut the door, locked it, and kept the key in her hand. Mr. M. then sent for a carpenter, to force the door; but his patience being exhausted before his arrival, he said it would be easier and better to take the key from the woman, and immediately, Dean seized her by the wrist, and Mr. M. wrenched the key from her and, in doing which he severely injured her fingers, which bled profusely; ber arm and side were also much bruised. The pictures were then carried off, and the prosecutrix was left to make the best of her tale to her mistress.

These facts were proved by the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, and of Eleanor Tunstan, who witnessed the transaction. Mr. Reynolds, for the defendant, contended, that no assault had been committed; that Mr.. M. was acting under the authority of Mr. Conyer, legally given; and that the prose

cutrix,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

cutrix, in refusing to give up the property, was acting in an unjustifiable manner, inasmuch as all the property in the house was, in fact, the property of Mr. Conyer. Mr. Alley argued the contrary; and the court holding a similar opinion, the defendants were found guilty. Mr. Justice Mainwaring sentenced them to pay the moderate fine of 3s. 4d. each. The court were not desirous of passing a very heavy judgment upon the defendants, but simply of marking their sense of the impro-priety of Mr. M.'s conduct, who seemed to have acted under a misstake of the law, rather than from any intention to act improperly.

Admiralty Court, July 30. Judgment in the case of the ship Snipe Sir William Scott began his speech by observing the great importance of a decision in this case, the principle of which involved *several other cases of capture under the orders in council before May +20th, 1812. He stated, that the captors contended that the ship was liable to condemnation under the orders in council, she having been taken on the 28th of March last, entering the river of Bordeaux; whilst, on the other hand, the claimants contended, that those orders had ceased to operate before the capture, on account of a French decree, bearing date April 28, 1811, having repealed the Berlin and Milan decrees, to which those orders had only been retalia'tory measures, which the British government was pledged to annul from the date of the repeal of the -French decrees.

After a short account of the origin and progress of the decrees and orders in question, Sir William

[ocr errors]

stated, that on the 21st of April in the present year, the British government published a declaration, offering to annul the orders in council from the day that the French government should by a subsequent decree repeal the Berlin and Milan decrees; and on the 20th of May a paper was received from the American minister, parporting to be a copy of a French decree of that import, bearing date April 28th, 1811. The British government, not recognizing the authenticity of this document, but wishing to conciliate America, issued on the 23d of June last, a declaration repealing the orders of council from the 20th of May. As to captures prior to that time, this declaration was silent, leaving them to the effect of the prior declaration of April, which rested on the principle of retaliation. It lay, therefore, with the claimants to prove that the Berlin and Milan decrees were actually repealed by the French decree of 1811, and also that they were so repealed as to oblige other nations to take notice of such repeal. The decrees in question had been promulgated in the most authentic and public manner, and their revocation ought to be made equally public, at least to all whom it might concern; for it was the rule, decretum non obligat, sed promulgatio. The Duke of Cadore, in his letter dated August 5, 1810, began by stating that " he was authorised to declare the Berlin and Milan decrees at an end," but afterwards came the condition, "it being understood that Great Britain will repeal her orders in council, and her new principles of blockade, or that neutral nations will cause their flag to be respected."

A let

A letter merely promising the repeal of those decrees under certain qualifications and conditions, could never be considered as an actual revocation. No evidence had been given of any practice which could induce a belief that the decrees, even with respect to America, had been revoked at the time mentioned in the Duke of Cadore's letter. On the contrary, Mr. Russel, the American minister at Paris, in a letter dated in May, 1811, stated, "that no ship brought into the ports of France since November 1st, 1810, had either been released, or brought to trial." If the Orleans packet had afterwards been released, still he would ask how it was possible that that vessel should have been seized at Bordeaux some months after the decrees were said to be revoked, and detained for such a considerable time, if the revocation had been made public? In March 1812, the Duke of Bassano, in a public paper, asserted that "the Berlin and Milan decrees were in - full force, and that they were fundamental laws of the empire." -The alleged decree of repeal was stamped with all the characters of fallacy and fraud. It bore date in April 1811, and had never been -produced till May 1812. No such document was known by the American ministers in the disputes with this country on the subject, nor to the tribunals or prize courts of France. It was hardly to be doubt ed that it owed its existence to the declaration of the 21st of April last; and to claim now under such a document, was to require that it should have operation long before it existed. The court would not now admit further proof of its

having been in existence, for it could only be sought in the officina fraudis whence the fabrication first issued.

The learned judge then proceeded to consider certain cases which were said to prove that those decrees were in fact repealed with respect to America; and he showed that not one of them had any authority; since acts merely of the grace and pleasure of the ruler of France could never be cited as the law of that country, or the rules which guided their tribunals. He would not allow that even the nonexecution of the decrees could be properly considered as a repeal of them. The cessation in the exercise might arise from some motive of temporary policy; but the cases which would be real authority in favour of the repeal must be the liberation of vessels by the judgment of the proper tribunals, and not by special favour. It might be said by some, that neutrals had no right to prescribe the mode of restitution, provided it was in fact made. He, on the contrary, asserted that they had a right to expect that in France, as in every civilized country, there should be regular tribunals where they might claim redress ex debito justicia, and not as matter of court favour, caprice, or state-policy. On the whole, it appeared to him, that there was no evidence that any legal revocation of these decrees had taken place; and that the instrument relied on by the claimants had no marks of authenticity, but was evidently fabricated for a particular purpose. He should therefore determine on the case before him, and on all those that depended upon the same principle, that

the

the instrument purporting to be a French decree, dated in April 4811, did not take those cases out of the general operation of the law as described in the orders of

council; and that, consequently, those vessels captured under them before the 20th of May last could not be discharged from their operation.

PATENTS IN 1812.

John Plasket and Samuel Brorun, for a method of making or manufacturing of casks and other vessels by improved machinery.

Mr. Edmund Griffith (Bristol) for an improvement in the manufacture of soap, for the purpose of washing with sea-water, hard. water, and other water.

Mr. James Cupurn (Leicester) for preventing chimneys from smoking. Mr. Thomas Willes Cooper (Oldstreet) for an apparatus to be fixed at the naves of wheels and beds of axletrees of carriages, so as to prevent accidents from the axletrees breaking, &c.

Mr. Peter Joseph Brown (Henrietta-street) for an improved construction of buoys for ships or vessels, and for mooring chains.

Mr. Joseph Bagnal (Walsal) for a method of making bridle-bits, snaffles, &c. of iron, steel, or other metal.

Sir Howard Douglas (High Wycomb) for an improved reflecting circle or semi-circle.

Mr. Joseph Bastone (Bridgewater) for improvements applicable to bedsteads and various other things.

Mr. Thomas William Sturgeon (Howland street) for improved

Castors.

Sir Saml. Bentham (Hampstead) for an invention for a secure and economical mode of laying foundations applicable to the projections of wharfs and piers into deep

water.

Mr. William Good (London) for an improvement in valves for various purposes.

Mr. Ralph Sutton (Birmingham) for an improved self-acting curtain or window-blind rack.

Mr. John Craigie (Craven-street) for improvements on carriages, by which friction may be saved, labour facilitated, and safety obtained.

Mr. Joseph Paker (Cuckfield, Sussex) for kneading dough by means of machinery.

Mr. Thomas Pearsall (Willsbridge, Gloucester) for a method of constructing iron-work for certain parts of buildings.

Mr. William Fothergill (Greenfield, Flintshire) for a method of making copper-rollers for printing.

Mr. John Miers (Strand, London) for a method of accelerating evaporation, of destroying the noxious effluvia from spent lees, and of generating an increased degree of heat, without additional fuel.

Mr. John Hudson (Cheapside,
London)

London) for a composition for printing or painting on paper, linen, stuccoed walls, boards, &c. Mr. Jacob Zink (Mile-end) for a method of manufacturing verdigris.

Mr. Richard Withy (Kingstonupon-Hull) for improvements in his invention for the construction of steam-engines,

Mr. George Dodd (Vauxhallplace) for machinery and the application of steam to communicate heat and motion to wines, porter, &c. in cellars, storehouses, and other places.

Mr. Henry James and John Jones (Birmingham) for an improvement in the manufacture of barrels of all descriptions of fire-arms.

Mrs. Sarah Guppy (Bristol) for tea and coffee urns, &c.

Mr. Thomas Marsh (King-street, Clerkenwell) for improvements in the construction of watches.

Mr. Robert Giles (London) for the invention of a cap or cowl to be placed on the top of chimneys.

Mr. Michael Logan (Paradisestreet, Rotherhithe) for an instrument for the generation of fire, and various purposes in chemical and experimental operations.

Mr. Andrew Patten (Manchester) for a discovery and improvements in the tanning of leather, by the use of pyroligneous or wood

acid.

Mr. William Strachan (Chester) for a method of preparing the ore of cobalt for trade, manufacture, and painting.

Mr. Jeremiah Steel (Liverpool) for a new apparatus, and for distilling and rectifying spirits.

William Everhard Baron Von

Doornik (Wells-street) for an improvement in the manufacture of soap to wash with sea-water, with hard-water, and with soft-water.

Mr. James Adams (Pitkellony, in the county of Perth) for a method of drying malt and all kinds of grains and seeds.

Mr. George Smart (Westminster) for an improved method of preparing timber so as to prevent its shrinking

Mr. Blenkensop (Middleton, Yorkshire) for mechanical means by which the conveyance of coals, minerals, and other articles is facilitated, and the expense attending the same is rendered less than heretofore.

Messrs. Peter Moore and Co. (London) for a vertical bond in buildings, &c.

Mr. Lawrence Drake (Cloaklane, London) for a method of preparing the various sorts of isinglass from river and marine fish.

Sir Saml. Bentham (Hampstead) for a new mode of excluding water of the sea, of rivers, or of lakes, during the execution of under water works of masonry, or for the security of foundations, appli cable to the construction of seawalls, wharfs, piers, &c.

Mr. William Hardcastle (Abingdon) for improved cranes, to prevent accidents from the goods attached to the pulley overpowering the person at the winch, or in the walking wheel.

Mr. George Dolland (London) for an improved method of lighting the binnacle compass, used for steering ships at sea.

Mr. Benjamin Milne (Bridlington) for an improved double bell and gun alarm.

Mr.

« ForrigeFortsett »