Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century: A Complete Digest of Facts Occuring in the County since the Commencement of the year 1800Turberville, T. C.
History
Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century: A Complete Digest of Facts Occuring in the County since the Commencement of the year 1800
Turberville, T. C.
Worcester (England) -- History
1830—OCTOBER 18—At the trial of one of the prisoners at the City
Michaelmas Sessions, Mr. Curwood, his barrister, handed in a protest
against the jurisdiction of the court, because it was not constituted
according to the charter of James I, which required that the
recorder—“one learned and discreet man, learned in the laws”—should
always preside at gaol deliveries. Earl Coventry and his ancestors had
long been recorders of Worcester, and seldom (or never) present at
Quarter Sessions. The magistrates refused to receive the protest.
1831—The cause list at the Midsummer Assizes this year contained
thirty-one cases for trial, and two of them excited much interest. The
first was an action brought by the Rev. Edward Herbert against a Mr.
Heath, for an assault, in which Mr. Campbell and Mr. Whateley were for
plaintiff, and Mr. Charles Phillips for defendant. For the prosecution
it was merely proved that Heath struck Herbert some dozen blows with a
horsewhip in Broad Street, Worcester, on the 23rd of the previous
February. One witness heard Heath say the words, “that — my father, and
you consider yourself well horsewhipped for it.” Mr. Charles Phillips
made a very long and powerful speech for the defence, stating to the jury
that if the prosecutor had dared himself to come into the box, he would
have forced him to confess that he had not only broken his pledge to Mr.
Heath’s sister, but had slandered his buried father in the most
outrageous and unbearable manner. Mr. Justice Patteson told the jury
that all they had to do was to say whether Heath had committed the
assault, and so they returned a verdict of “Guilty;” but no sentence was
passed, though the affidavits of defendant were ready, and Mr. Justice
Patteson himself pointed out to Mr. Phillips an error in the record, no
doubt with a view of getting rid of the case.
The other case was a charge against Mr. Francis Hill, of Stourbridge, of
having committed wilful perjury, by swearing that he had not adopted
certain royalty mines, while he had, in fact, signed a document to do so.
Mr. Campbell, for the defence, urged that many a man signed deeds which
he did not understand; and a host of witnesses appeared to give Mr. Hill
the best of characters. He was honourably acquitted.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account