1805—February 21—In the Court of King’s Bench an indictment was preferred by Mr. Forrester, of Elmley, in this county, against Colonel Passingham and a Mr. Edwards. Colonel Passingham had once been an intimate friend of Mr. Forrester, had debauched his wife, and carried her off, in January, 1803. Edwards was, also, once Forrester’s friend, but becoming a bankrupt, and prosecutor being his opposing creditor, he became his implacable enemy. Both then conspired to oblige the prosecutor to make a very large settlement upon his wife, and he was actually terrified into doing so by charges of horrible crimes. These facts being proved on the part of the prosecution, the defendants brought forward eleven witnesses to swear that Mr. Forrester had actually been guilty of the offences alleged—but they utterly broke down. The jury found both prisoners guilty of the conspiracy. Being brought up for judgment in the ensuing term, they were both sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in Newgate; the additional punishment of the pillory being specially remitted, lest their lives should be forfeited by any indignant violence on the part of the populace. Mr. Forrester afterwards obtained a divorce from his wife, she having contrived to visit Passingham in prison, and assumed his name.
1807—At the Summer Assizes a special jury cause at Nisi Prius, in which Sir John Geers Cottrell, Bart., as heir at law of Mrs. Freeman of Henley Park, brought an action of ejectment against Joseph Harris, Esq., of Stanford, the sole executor and residuary legatee of that lady, appears to have excited much interest. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, establishing Mr. Harris’s right to a considerable estate in the parish of Rock, and other property. Attorney for defendant—Mr. Hyde, Worcester. At the Summer Assizes the cause again came on, the plaintiff having obtained a new trial. Some of the most celebrated counsel of the day were engaged—Mr. Garrow being retained by the plaintiff, and Sir Thomas Plumer for defendant. After a twenty-four hours’ battle, the jury confirmed the verdict of the former jury by a verdict for defendant. The finding gave general satisfaction.
1808—August—At the Worcester Summer Assizes this year was tried the cause of Hill v. Smith, an action brought to try the right of the Corporation of Worcester to toll on wheat sold by sample, and of course a matter of great interest to the agriculturists of the county generally. The Corporation pleaded—“1st, that from time immemorial they had taken a pint of wheat out of each bag, as a toll on wheat sold by sample in the market, and afterwards brought into the city: 2nd, the same justification, except that the taking was in the name of toll, and not as a distress: 3rd, that the Corporation were seized in fee of the Manor of Worcester, and that the toll was taken in respect of such manor: 4th, that the Corporation had immemorially repaired the horse and carriage road in the Corn Market, amongst others, and by reason thereof had immemorially taken the toll on all grain brought over the Corn Market to be delivered to a buyer.” The evidence fixed the custom of sale by sample to have commenced in the year 1760. The learned judge directed the jury to withdraw from their consideration the question of toll traverse in respect of the manor, and toll thorough (the last issue), the Corporation being unable to support these issues, and desired them to consider whether the grant (by charter, enabling them to toll wheat) was not originally for all corn sold, both where the bulk or only a part was brought into the market. The jury, after an hour and a half’s consideration, returned a verdict for the Corporation on the second and third issues, and for the agriculturists on the others. Counsel for the agriculturists—Mr. Sergeant Williams, Messrs. Jervis, Abbott, and Lord; attorney, Mr. Hill: for the Corporation, Messrs. Dauncey, Wigley, Puller, and Mence; attorney, Mr. Weller.
1808—At the Summer Assizes, William Reynolds, convicted of an assault upon a female, was sentenced to be imprisoned fourteen days, and to stand in the pillory at Tenbury. Ann Green, for stealing brushes, was ordered to be privately whipped; and four men, for divers crimes, were sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment and a public whipping.
1809—July 14—Worcester Summer Assizes. R. Baylis, churchwarden of Elmley Lovett, was tried for painting up libels against the rector, the Rev. G. Waldron, upon the walls of the parish church. They were principally texts of scripture, the intended application of which, however, could not be doubted. He was sentenced to pay a fine, and to twelve months’ imprisonment.
1810—Lent Assizes—A. Lechmere, Esq., v. Disson, was a trial to recover compensation for negligence in the defendant in the manufacture of oil-cake. Mr. Lechmere had paid great attention to the feeding of cattle, and had brought oil-cake into much greater notice than it had been before. He purchased a quantity from defendant, but finding his cattle did not thrive upon it as he expected, he had it analysed; and several witnesses declared, that due attention had not been paid to the clearing of the seed by skreening and sifting it; so that a great deal of extraneous matter was left in the cake.—Verdict for the plaintiff: damages, £50.
1812—April 20—A case of assault and battery, Overbury v. Moseley, tried in the Worcester City Court. It arose out of a street row, which occurred in the previous November. Overbury and another insulted some lady in the Foregate Street, and Moseley came up to her help, and gave Overbury a thorough thrashing, for which he brought this plaint. The mayor having impartially summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Defendant conducted his own cause. Complainant was represented by Mr. Sockett, an attorney of Worcester, who exerted himself for his client beyond his strength, became ill, and soon afterwards died.
1812—June—Hill v. Smith in error, having been argued before the Court of Exchequer. Sir J. Mansfield, after many delays, now gave judgment. The court held that a sale by sample was not a legal contract for the sale of anything whatever, and that the lord or superior of an open market was not entitled to any toll on commodities not brought in bulk. A sale by sample had been held by Lord Coke, and other great law authorities, to be illegal, as contrary to the principle and object for which a market was established. The verdict for the Corporation (obtained at Worcester Summer Assizes, 1808) was therefore reversed, and the cause remitted to the court below to ascertain the amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to for the trespass committed in taking his corn; which were, of course, merely nominal.
1814—August—At the Hereford Summer Assizes was tried Ford v. Racster, being an action brought by the executors of Dr. Ford, as Rector of Cradley, Herefordshire, against Miss Racster, of Worcester, to try the question of the liability of blackpoles to tithe. It was argued for defendant, that these blackpoles, being more than twenty years’ growth, were timber trees; but the jury decided that they were not, according to the custom of the country, and thereupon verdict was entered for plaintiff, and damages assessed at £100, being for eleven years’ fallage.
1816—At the Lent Assizes was tried an action for libel, brought by the Rev. Joseph Shapland against Richard Mug Mence, Esq. Verdict for plaintiff. The Rev. Mr. Shapland pleaded guilty to an indictment for an assault. At the ensuing assizes he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and to enter into recognizances to keep the peace for seven years, himself in £500, and two sureties in £250 each. Mr. Shapland was Vicar of St. Peter’s, and had some unhappy disputes with his wife, to settle which Mr. Mence had been called in as a mutual friend. After a while, conceiving Mrs. Shapland to have been ill-treated, Mr. Mence took her part very decidedly, and refused to sit in company with Mr. Shapland. Mr. S. at this was greatly exasperated; and meeting Mr. Mence one day walking near the Guildhall, he struck him several times with a heavy walking stick. Mr. Mence received the blows on his arm, which was severely injured. Mr. M. afterwards published a pamphlet, containing a long detail of Mr. Shapland’s family jars, and the part he had himself taken therein; and this was the libel complained of. In November, 1812, Mr. Mence was called up for judgment in the King’s Bench, and sentenced by Lord Ellenborough to six months’ imprisonment, and afterwards to find sureties to keep the peace, himself in £1,000, and two sureties of £500 each. The two gentlemen were thus both imprisoned at the same time—the one in the city, and the other in the county gaol.