Читать книгу Norfolk Annals (Vol. 1&2) - Charles Mackie - Страница 115

5.—Arrived, at Yarmouth, part of the 40 sail of transports, for the purpose of receiving on board the 2nd Battalions of the 11th and 59th Regiments of Foot, the 1st Battalion of the 79th, and other regiments for the Expedition.

11.—At Norwich Quarter Sessions, George Hubbard was indicted for stealing a pair of velveteen breeches. “The offence being for a grand larceny the prisoner was allowed to plead the benefit of clergy.” He was sentenced to six months’ solitary confinement and to be publicly whipped.

12.—A curious case was tried at the Norfolk Quarter Sessions. In the course of the inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York in September, 1808, it was stated that a Mrs. Sinclair Sutherland had written to his Royal Highness to induce him, “for certain reasons,” not to permit Major Turner, 3rd Dragoon Guards, to sell out in favour of Lieut. Sitwell until the following March. In consequence of this communication, Major Turner’s resignation was not accepted until some months after it had been sent in. Major Turner went to reside at Buckenham, in this county. Owing to the annoyance to which he was subjected by Mrs. Sutherland, who, it was alleged, had been under his protection, he appeared in court and moved to exhibit articles of the peace against her. The court ordered the defendant to enter into her own recognisances of £100 and to keep the peace for one year. At the Quarter Sessions on October 4th, Major Turner exhibited fresh articles against Mrs. Sutherland, and stated that seven days after entering into her recognisances she again appeared at his house and committed a breach of the peace. The court thereupon ordered Mrs. Sutherland to find two sureties of £100 each, and to keep the peace for twelve months. Not being prepared with her bond, she was committed to Norwich Castle, but was afterwards released upon two Norwich gentlemen agreeing to be bound for her.

15.—Mr. Incledon appeared at the Theatre Royal, Norwich, in his entertainment, in three parts, entitled, “A Voyage to India.” A recitation was given by Mr. Powell, formerly of Norwich Theatre, and of Drury Lane Theatre.

22.—A duel was fought, “in a grove near Norwich, between Mr. B . . . n and Mr. L . . b . . t, both of Norwich, in consequence, we understand, of their paying their addresses to the same young lady. The parties fired, but neither received any injury, after which a reconciliation took place, and Mr. L. resigned his pretensions to the fair lady.”

24.—A letter was received by the Commandant of the Norwich Volunteer Infantry, from the Lord Lieutenant of the County, “signifying his Majesty’s intention not to make any further allowance for clothing to Volunteer corps, and desiring to know whether the Norwich Volunteers would consider themselves a corps, or transfer their services to the Local Militia?” The Colonel replied “that they would continue their services as long as his Majesty would be pleased to accept them and their present clothing held out.”

29.—It was announced that Mr. Henry Aston Barker, “who painted the pictures of London, Paris, Constantinople, Edinburgh, Dublin, Cairo, &c.,” exhibited in Leicester Square, London, had drawn “a panoramic view of Norwich and the surrounding country, as seen from the Castle Hill, accompanied by a perspective view of the Castle, engraved in stroke by Mr. Williams.”

31.—The annual exhibition of the Norwich Society of Artists was opened in Sir Benjamin Wrenche’s Court.

—At the Norfolk Assizes, held at Norwich, the case of the King v. Larke, Mileham, and others was tried. This was a prosecution for rioting in a Dissenting meeting-house at Aylsham, and for an assault upon a preacher, named Joseph King, on Sunday evening, March 13th, 1808. The defendants behaved in a very disorderly manner in the chapel, and carried off the minister by force to the Dog Inn. The case was settled by the defendants apologising to the prosecutor in open court, and by paying the costs of the prosecution.

—At the same Assizes, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield had before him the action, Leathes, clerk, v. Baker. It was brought by the Rector of Reedham, under a statute of Edward VI., to recover treble the value of the tithes of corn grown on the defendant’s farm there, in 1808, and involved in dispute a sum of between £300 and £400. The two main points which the plaintiff endeavoured to substantiate were, first, that the tenant had not set out the tithes according to law; and, secondly, if set out, it was done fraudulently and unfairly. It was proved that in one field defendant cut the whole crop, tithed and carried a part on one day, and the remainder on the following day. The Judge ruled that this mode of tithing was contrary to law, and said he was sorry to be obliged to direct the special jury to find for the plaintiff. The jury, after requesting his lordship to inform them what was the lowest sum they could award, so as not to subject the defendant to costs, assessed the amount at £8. A similar action was brought by the same plaintiff at the Lent Assizes at Thetford, on March 19th, 1810, against a farmer, named Maddison, when the jury found for the defendant. At the Norfolk Assizes, held at Norwich, on August 13th, 1810, before the Lord Chief Justice, Baker brought an action against Mr. Leathes, to recover damages for inconvenience and loss sustained by him in 1808, by reason of the defendant allowing his tithes to remain and rot on the plaintiff’s land. A verdict was given for Baker, damages, £150. At the same Assizes, Mr. Leathes brought an action against a farmer, named Long, for not setting out his tithes according to law. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £12.

31.—The Grand Jury for the County held a meeting, at which renewed efforts were commenced to procure the removal of the Lent Assizes from Thetford to Norwich. It was decided to petition Parliament with that object. At Norwich Quarter Sessions, on October 3rd, the Grand Jury made a presentment, asking the city magistrates to co-operate with the county justices. On October 11th, the Norwich Corporation resolved to aid the county in the application to Parliament, and in February, 1810, a petition in favour of the removal was presented in the House of Commons by Mr. Patteson.