In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Monday, the Earl
of Waldegrave and Captain William Duff were brought up for sentence, for an outrageous assault on Wheatley, a Policeman at Hampton-wick. On the 4th of June, a party, consisting of the two prisoners and four others, bad dined together at Lord Waldegrave's house, Strawberry Hill, drinking freely of wine ; and had then gone in a fly to Kingston races. They stopped in the village on their way back at eleven at night, and alighted. One of them, believed by the Police to be Lord Waldegrave, tried to open a house-door ; upon which Churchill, a Police-sergeant, interfered. The party then fell into conversation with the sergeant, at first in a friendly manner ; but afterwards they were abusive, and one of them tried to unbuckle the rein of the horse upon which he sat. He ordered Wheatley to ascertain the name on the fly-door. The man was repulsed. The sergeant then told him to arrest one of them, while he went for assistance. Wheatley seized Lord Waldegrave ; who was violently rescued; the party, except Duff, who ran away, reentered the fly, and it drove off. Wheatley pursued them, and seized one of them by the leg as he entered the fly : he was then struck on the head repeatedly with a stick, and kicked : he fell ; the wheel of the carriage passed over his legs ; and persons drawn to the spot by his cries found hint bleeding and senseless on the road. He was confined to his bed for several weeks ; his mind was affected ; and an affidas it from Dr. Rook says that he will never recover the shock to his brain. Affidavits were put in on the other side. The two first, by the prisoners, pleaded in extenuation that they had drunk too freely of wine, and that the Police-sergeant was needlessly offensive and harsh ; and averred that neither of the prisoners was the person who tried to open the house, abused the sergeant, or struck the Policeman. Affidavits by Mr. Liston and Mr. Keate declared that Wheatley might have quite rezoN ered by this time if he had had perfect rest, instead of returniug too soon to his duty ; and by Alexander Brice, Wheatley's landlord, and John James, stating that Wheatley had been in delicate health before the occurrence. Counsel for the defence intimated that there had been an understanding, when the prisoners withdrew the plea of " Not Guilty," and pleaded " Guilty,' that an arrangement between them and the prosecutor w..tahl be allowed by the Court. This Mr. Justice Patteson denied : the indictment, be said, was all that had then been produced ; and it furnished no data by which a Judge could decide as to the propriety of sanctioning such an arrangement. He summed up the facts of the case. Oa the alleged indiscretion of the Policeman he observed " It appears, then, that king in the state somewhat of liquor, you spoke to the Policeman, talked to him inqhe way described as good-tempered, but which made it necessary for him to answer to the questions you were putting to him about how far he was going clown the road, and about takingdrink ; and in consequence of what he did then, the Sergeant is now charged with indiscretion. It is possible that he might have taken a more judicious course • but it is not to be tolerated that those who commit the first outrage themselves shall turn round and say that those on whom it is committed have not been so discreet as they might, and that they •■iho committed it shall therefore be held justified. That cannot be allowed ; and if these Policemen did not take a course which is very discreet, still the consequences must be considered to have originated with you."
With respect to the excuse of drunkenness
" This circumstance of the liquor is put forward es an extenuation. The Court would wish you and all other persons to understand that the law of this land does not recognize that as an excuse for an offence. On the contrary, it is generally an aggravation. It cannot be allowed that any persons who put themselves by a voluntary act of intemperance into a state in which their conduct is not under their control, should, when mischief arises from it, be permitted to say, I am not answerable for these consequences, for I was in a state of intoxication.' But I am far from saying, that though not an excuse, it may not alter the character of the offence. If you had been perfectly sober, an inference might be drawn that you had gone out to commit the offence; but the fact that you were in liquor shows that the violence arose of a sudden. So far, therefore, the circumstance of beim g. ia liquor alters the character of the offence, though it mimics not excuse the offence itself." Both the prisoners were sentenced to be confined in the Marshalsea prison for six months ; Lord Waldegrave to pay a fine of 2001. to the Queen, and Captain Duff a fine of 20/.
In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Thursday, Sir William Follett obtained a rule calling upon the Archbishop of York and Dr. Philli
more, his Commissary, to show cause why a writ should not issue to annul the late proceedings ia the Commissary's Court at York ; in pursuance of m hich Dr. Cockburn, the Dean of York, had been deprived of his dignity for simoniacal practices. Sir William's arguments were founded on the informality of the proceedings, by which the Dean was prevented from being apprised of the charge against him until it actually came on for hearing, and on the incompetency of the court. The rule was granted ; Mr. Justice Patteson observing, that, according to Sir 'William's account, " the proceedings had not the semblance or shadow of appearance of any court of justice."
Previous page
