« ForrigeFortsæt »
plaintiff in the most conclusive his religious duties, the action manner: for, in the first instance, should be quashed. On this head he should be enabled to prove, of defence he should be cnabled to that for several months of that prove that Sir Montague Burperiod during which the servant goyne, whu was a general in the of the reverend plaintiff had so British service, had returned from positively sworn that she had re Gibraltar in 1814, in a most pregularly attended Sutton church, carious state of health, and had no divine service had been percontinued thus afflicted down to formed in the church at all : he the present day, a circumstance meant the months of June, July, which hç.hoped, in addition to the August, and part of September; uncertainty of the performance of during which months the plaintiff church service at Sutton, would had so shamefully neglected his be considered a sufficientexcuse for duties, that he had received a his non-attendance. With regard monition from the bishop of the his sentiments on the subject diocese. He should also prove, of religion, those would be best that at other periods, the reve- proved by the evidence he would rend plaintiff was so inattentive adduce of its being his invariable to the performance of the religi- practice to read the church prayers ous service of his church, that his to his family every Sunday, when parishioners were constantly in a capable from the state of his health state of uncertainty as to the hour so to do; and if unable himself to at which service was to commence, perform that duty, to call upon or whether it would be performed Lady Burgoyne to read for him. at all. Independent of this, it was
He should also prove, that prayers no very pleasant thing for the de were frequently read in his house fendant, when he did go to church, by the Rev. Dr. Hughes, in his octo hear a sermon delivered, which, casional visits to his family. There instead of inculcating divine truths, was another ground on which he
inade the vehicle of per was still more decidedly entitled sonal abuse to hiniself. With to a verdict. This was to be found these facts before them, the jury in the statute of the 1st James II. would be able to form a pretty cor C. 4, whereby it was enacted, that rect judgment of the motives of any person offending against the this action. The next ground on statute of Elizabeth, by a non-atwhich he rested with confidence, tendance of divine worship, beon the goodness of his own cause, came exonerated from all consehe derived from the statute of Eli- quences, by conforming to the zabeth itself; for by the statute of rules of his church before judgthe 1st of Elizabeth, which was ment was obtained, and declaring embraced by the 23d, it was himself publicly to be a faithful enacted, that where the defendant son of the Church of England. in a qui tam action, such as that This Sir M. Burgoyne had done in now before the Court, could as the presence of the bishop of the sign a reasonable excuse for absent diocese himself, and was there ing himself from public worship, ready again to declare openly in and should afterwards conform to court his high veneration for, and
accordance in, all the principles of zabeth in the manner in which it the Christian religion.
had been construed by him. He Evidence was then called to sup- left it for the Jury to say, whether port the defendant's case.
a reasonable excuse had not been Lawrence Coxall,churchwarden proved for the non-attendance of of the parish of Sutton, proved, the defendant at church, and whethat Sutton church had been shut ther, in other respects, the case of up from the 25th of June to the the plaintiff had not received a 3d of September
coniplete answer. Thomas Brown, the other church The Jury without hesitation warden, corroborated the testimo- found the defendant--Not Guilty. ny of the last witness, and proved that the church had been farther shut from the 15th of September to the 5th of November, no ser
BĘDFORDSHIRE LBNT ASSIZES. vice having been performed.
MARCH. Dr. M'Garth, a inedical gentle The King, on the prosecution of man, proved the precarious state James Harris, v. the Rev. Robert of Sir Montague Burgoyne's health Woodward, Clerk, and Susannah from his return froni Gibraltar to Woodward and Sarah Woodward, the present moment, and the dan- Spinsters. This case has produced ger of his going to church at par an uncommon degree of interest ticular stages of his disorder. in all parts of the county of Beck
Lucy Carrington, nurse in Sir ford, from the pecuhar character Montague's family, bore testimony of the crime imputed to the defento her master or mistress invaria- dants. The court was crowded at bly reading prayers to the family an early hour with persons of all on the Sunday when they did not ranks; but, from the nature of go to church.
the evidence and remarks about The Rev. Dr. Hughes occasion to be submitted to the Jury, it was ally visited Sir Montague's family deemed proper that the ladies for weeks together, and always should be ordered to withdraw. read prayers to the family when The defendants having taken their they did not go to church.
places in court, the clerk of the Mfr. Baron Graham being of arraigns read the indictment, opinion that a reasonable excuse which charged them with having for the non-attendance of the de- foully and maliciously conspired fendant at his parish church had together, falsely to accuse been proved, Mr. Serjeant Blos James Harris' of having commitsett did not call any more wit ted a rape on the person of Susan
nah Woodward; in furtherance of Mr. Baron Graham summed up which conspiracy the said parties the evidence. His Lordship ab- appeared before the Reverend W. stained from making any remark Hooper, one of the magistrates of upon the motives by which the the county, and preferred their plaintiff had been actuated in this charge, in consequence whereof a action;. but at the same time re warrant was issued for the appremarked, that no liberal mind could hension of James Harris : he was have construed the statute of Eli committed to gaol, and at the last
assizes wás prosecuted for the of the circumstance to her father. fence, but was acquitted. To this. The more formidable part of the indictment the defendants pleaded charge, however, she did not fix Not guilty.
till the Sth of October, in the Mr. Serjeant Blossett addressed game year; when, according to the Jury. The case denranded her statement, she was coming serious attention, not alone from its from the privy in her father's garpeculiarity, but from its import- den, within a few yards of the ance, because it involved the cha- house, the garden being overlookracter of a clergyman of the ed by cottages, and her sister and Church of England, and of his a servant being at home, this very two daughters, who stood charged man, :vho attaeked her in the with having conspired to take the duly preceding, again assailed her, life of an innocent man, for a rape and at an early hour of the evenalleged to have been committed ing, in spite of all her resistance on one of them. The defendant; and cries, again viulated her perMr. Woodward, was the vicar of the son. Her sister Sarah at length parish of Harrold, in this county, came to her assistance, when the and his daughters lived with him in ravisher got up, and after threatthe vicarage-house. The present ening both their lives if they atprosecutor; James Harris, was the tempted to disclose what had hapson of a respectable saddler in the pened,. went away. Whether it same town; and thechargeimputed was possible to have committed a to him by the defendants was such, violation under such circumstances that it only required to be stated the jury would, after a disclosure to convince every man that it was of the other facts, be able to deterfalse. In fact, such was the na. mine. From that period down to ture of the evidence given by the July in the following year, this young woman who represented young lady, according to her own herself to have been violated, that tale, never disclosed to any person, the jury before whom the trial except to her sister, what had haptook place, upon her testimony pened, and then the disclosure alone, pronounced young Harris came of necessity, for she proved Not guilty. That Miss Susannah to be eight montlis gone with Woodward had had intercourse child. During all this period she with some one, whereby she was lived in her father's house, and likely to become a mother, was under her father's eye. She, howbeyond a doubt : but why it was ever, kept herself excluded from thought proper to fix upo“ the public view, and when she did go present prosecutor must remain a abroad, always wore a large cloak. mystery. In the testimony given He believed it was barely possible, by the prosecutrix on the indict- under the deseription which she had ment against Mr. Harris, she given of the violence committed, stated, that he had, in the month that she should have proved preg. of July 1814, attempted soine vio- nant; but even allowing the poslence on her person : but that she sibility, it was not a little extraorhad resisted him, and on his pro- dinary, that, living in her father's mise never to repeat similar con- house 80 many months, she had duct, undertook not to mention not made a disclosure of the viola
tion, or that her father himself, it must be taken, that the charge from the state of ber person, had of violation was altogether false. not made some inquiries. It was So it had been pronounced by a not till it was impossible longer most respectable jury; and no to conceal the business, that her man would have the hardihood to father was found in company with say after this, that the charge by his two daughters before the Rev. Susannah was not foul and inaliMr. Houper, a most respectablecious. Thus, if the charge of viomagistrate in the neighbourhood, latinn was false, he apprehended preferring the charge against Mr. no doubt could exist, that Sarah, Harris. On that occasion Miss who had sworn that she was preSusannah Woodward made the sent when it was committed, joindeposition which she afterwards ed with her sister in the fabricagave on the trial; and her sister tion of a gross falsehood, and thus Sarah corroborated her testimony became a party to the conspiracy by the following statement:-"On against the present prosecutor. Tuesday the 13th of October last. The two sisters being clearly imI was alone in the house; I heard plicated in the transaction, the the voice of my Sister Susannah next question for him to consider calling out 'Sally!' as if in very was, how the father became affectgreat distress, from the garden. ed. In establishing the guilt of I immediately ran into the garden, the father, he was persuaded, he and there saw my sister on the should have as little difficulty as ground, and a young man, named with the daughters. He would James Harris, a saddler, of Har- ask, in the first place, whether it rold, holding her down upon the was within the scope of possibility, ground, with a knife in his hand that a father, a man of sense and close to her throat. I immediately discrimination,, could live in the cried out ‘Murder!' and then Harris same house with his daughter dujumped up, and putting the knife ring eight months of her pregclose to my throat, said, if I cried nancy, without discovering her siout, he would run the knife into tuation ? But, independent of my throat. I said, if he would this, when his daughter told him remove the knife, I would be si- the story, which she afterwards lent. Harris then left the garden, swore to before a magistrate, after saying, 'that if I told my could he believe it? But this was father, he, or some one else, would not all, for he would be found bekill me or my sister." Upon these fore the magistrate, as if to coninformations, Mr. Hooper granted firm his guilt more strongly, sethis warrant for apprehending klar- ting his daughter right as to the ris. He was taken into custody; particular state of the night on but, after protesting most solcmn- which the violation was alleged ly his innocence of the crime im- to have taken place. When Mr. puted to him, was committed for Hooperasked “what sort of a night trial. On that trial, however, as it was?" Susannah said, “It was he had already stated, he was ac a dark night;" upon which the quitted in the most honourable father stepped up, and placing his manner. In this view of the case hand on his daughter's shoulder,
said, “ No, my dear, it was a fine to her, and said, “No, my dear, moonlight night.” Now, he would it was not a dark night; it was a ask, how, if there had not been bright moon-light night.” Wit. something of concert and plan in ness took James Harris to Bedford this mysterious affair, Mr. Wood- gaol the same day. He utterly ward could have been prepared denied ever having had any con. thus to assist the memory of his nexion with Miss Woodward. daughter, who certainly ought best Mr. Marshall Eyles was present to have known the sort of night at the examination of the Miss on which she had been so dread. Woodwards before Mr. Hooper. fully abused?
He heard Mr. Hooper ask Susannah The Rev. W. Hooper examined, whether it was a dark or a light deposed, that he was a magistrate; night when the assault was comthat he knew the defendant, Ro- mitted ? She said it was a dark bert Woodward : he was vicar night; but her father stepped forof the parish of Harrold. On the ward and said, “No, my dear, 7th of June, 1815, he brought his you mistake : it was a light daughters to witness's house. Wit- night.”—Mr. Woodward spoke in ness took their depositions on an audible tone. oath, which they signed. They Mr. John Garrard, solicitor for were read over to them before they Mr. Harris, said he was present at were signed. The depositions the last spring assizes, when Mr. were then put in and read.
Harris was tried on the indictment Mr. Hooper continued. --In for the violation :, he heard Miss consequence of this information, Susannah Woodward give her he issued his warrant for the ap- evidence, and took a note of what prehension of Harris : Harris was she said. Witness then read his brought before him the same day, notes, which in substance accordand he committed him to prison. ed with the deposition given by He sent for a neighbour, a Mr. Susannah before Mr. Hooper, exEyles, to be present at the exami- cept that the particulars of the nation.
assault were more minutely deWm. Rogers, a constable, proved tailed. that he apprehended James Harris, James Harris examined. I in consequence of the warrant live at Harrold, and am 22 years granted by the former witness, of age. I am a saddler by trade. and conveyed him before Mr. I know the three defendants perHooper. Recollected Mr. Hooper fectly well. I never had criminal asking Miss Susannah how she intercourse with Sarah Woodward came to recollect the particular in my life. I went to school to night on which the violence was her father for about a year. I committed. She said she knew was then between 13 and 14 years it, because it was the night after of age. I had no acquaintance the gipsey row. [There had been with Mr. Woudward, except going some quarrel in the village with to school to him. I had no acthe gipsies.] Mr. Hooper then quaintance whatever with his asked her, what sort of a night it daughters. I
I did not assault Miss was: she said it was a dark night: Susannah on the night mentioned upon which her father stepped up in July, nor on any subsequent