« AnteriorContinuar »
in conversation, and therefore not to be used by the criminal to a man of the prosecutor's quality, who was likewise vested with a double title to the wall at the time of their conversation, both as it was the upper hand, andi as it was a shelter from the wea. ther. The evidence being very full and clear, thre jury, without going out of court, declared their opinion unanimously, by the mouth of their foreman, that the prosecutor was bound in honour to make the sun shine through the criminal," or, asi they afterwards explained themselves, “to whip him through the lungs."
The Censor, knitting his browsinto a frown, and looking very sternly upon the jury, after a little pause, gave them to know, 6 that this court was erected for the fiuding out of penalties suitable to of fences, aud to restrain the outrages of private justice; and that he expected they should moderate their verdict.” The jury therefore retired, and be* ing willing to comply with the advices of the Cen. sor, after an hour's conversation, delivered their opinion as follows.
6. That, in consideration this was Peter Plomb's first offence, and that there did not appear any mannen Lice prepense in it, as also that he lived in good repu. tation among his neighbours, and that his taking the wall was only se defendendo, the prosecutor should let him escape with life, and.content himself with the slitting of his nose, and the cutting off both his ears." Mr. Bickerstaff, soiting upon the court, told them, " that he thought the punishment, eren under its present, mitigation, too severe; and that such penalties might be of ill consequence in a trading nation?. He therefore pronounced sentence against the crimirab in the following manner :
" that his hat, which was the instrument of offence, should be forfeited to the court; that the criminal should go to the warehouse from whence he came, and thence, as. occasion should require, proceed to the Exchange, or Garraway's coffee house, in what manner he pleased; but that neither he, nor any of the family of the Plumbs, should hereafter appear in the streets of London out of their coaches, that so the foot way might be left open and undisturbed for their betters." · Dathan, a pedling Jew, and T. R-, a Welsh. man, were indicted by the keeper of an alehouse in Westmioster, for breaking the peace and two earthen mugs, in a dispute about the antiquity of their fami-. lies, to the great detriment of the house, and disturbance of the whole neighbourhood. Dathan said for himself, " that he was provoked to it by the Welshman, who pretended that the Welsh were an ancienter people than the Jews; whereas," says he, " I can shew by this genealogy in my hand, that I amn the son of Mesheck, that was the son of Naboth, that was the son of Shalen, that was the son of
" The Welshman here interrupted him, and told him, “ that he could produce shennalogy as wellas himself;" for “ that he was John ap Rice, ap Shenken, ap Shones.” He then turned himself to the Censor, and told him in the same broken accent, and with much warmth, 6 that the Jew would needs uphold, that King Cadwallader was younger than Issachar." Mr. Bickerstaff seemed very much inclined to give sentence against Dathan as being a Jew; but finding reasons, by some expressions which the Welshman let fall in asserting the antiquity of his family, to suspect that the said Welshman was a Pre-Adamite, he suffered the jury to go out, without any previous admonition. After some time they returned, and gave their verdict, 66 that it appearing the persons at the bar did neither of
N° 256. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1710..
Nostrum est țantas componere lites.
VIRG. Ecl. ii. 108. 'Tis ours such warm contentions to decide.
The Proceedings of the Court of Honour, held in :
Sheer-lane on Monday the twentieth of November, 1710, before Isaac BICKERSTAFF, Esquire, Cen
sor of Great-Britain. Peter PLUMB, of London, merchant, was indicted by the honourable Mr. Thomas Gules, of Gule-hall in the county of Salop, for that the said Peter Plumb did, in Lombard-street, London, between the hours of two and three in the afternoon, meet the said Mr. Thomas Gules, and, after a short saluta. tion, put on his hat, value five-pence, while the honourable Mr. Gules stood bare-headed for the space of two seconds. It was further urged against the criminal, that, during his discourse with the prosca. cutor, he feloniously stole the wall of him, having clapped his back against it in such a manner, that it was impossible for Mr. Gules to recover it again at his taking leave of him. The prosecutor alleged, that he was the cadet of a very ancient family; and that, according to the principles of all the younger brothers of the said family, he had never sullied himself with business, but had chosen rather to starve, like a man of honour, than do any thing beneath his quality. He produced several witnesses, that he had never employed himself beyond the twisting of a whip, or the making of a pair of nut. crackers, in which he only worked for his diversion, in order to make a present now and then to his friends. The prisoner being asked, "what he could say for himself,” cast several reflections upon the ho. nourable Mr. Gules; as, « that he was not worth a groat; that nobody in the city would trust him for a half-penny; that he owed him money which he had promised to pay him several times, but never kept his. word; and, in short, that he was an idle beggarly fellow, and of no use to the public.” This sort of language was very severely reprimanded by the Censor, who told the criminal, that he spoke in contempt of the court, and that he should be proceeded against for contumacy, if he did not change his style." The prisoner, therefore, desired to be heard by his counsel, who urged in his defence, 66 that he put on his hat through ignorance, and took the wall by accident." They likewise produced several witnesses, that he made several motions with his hat in his hand, which are generally understood as an invitation to the person we talk with to be. covered, and that, the gentleman not taking the hint, he was forced to put on his hat, as being trou. bled with a cold. There was likewise an Irishman, who deposed," that he had heard him cough three. and-twenty times that morning," And, as for the wall, it was alleged, that he had taken it inadvertently, to save himself from a shower of rain, which was then falling. The Censor, having consulted the. men of honour who sat at his right-hand on the bench, found they were all of opinion, that the defence made by the prisoners counsel dių, rather age grayate than extenuate his criipe; that the motions, aud intimations of the hat were a token of superiority
them wear a sword, and that consequently they had no right to quarrel upon a point of honour; to prevent such frivolous appeals for the future, they should both of them be tossed in the same blanket, and there adjust the superiority as they could agree on it between themselves.” The Censor confirmed the verdict.
Richard Newman was indicted by Major Punto, for having used the words,“ perhaps it may be so," in a dispute with the said Major. The Major urged " that the word perhaps was questioning his veracity, and that it was an indirect manner of giving him the lie." Richard Newman had nothing more to say for himself, than that 66 he intended no such thing; and threw himself upon the mercy of the court. The jury brought in their verdict special.
Mr. Bickerstaff stood up, and, after having cast his eyes over the whole assembly, hemmed thrice. He then acquainted them, " that he had laid down a rule to himself, which he was resolved never to depart from, and which, as he conceived, would very much conduce to the shortening the business of the court: 'I mean," says he,
never to allow of the lie being given by construction, implication or induction, but by the sole use of the word itself.” He then proceeded to shew the great mischief that had arisen to the English nation from that pernicious monosyllable; that it had bred the most fatal guar. rels between the dearest friends; that it had free quently thinned the guards, and made great havock in the army; that it had sometimes weakened the city trained bands; and, in a word, had destroyed many of the bravest men in the isle of Great-Britain. For the prevention of which evils for the future, he instructed the jury to present the word itself as nuisance in the English tongue; and further proo