Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Bath Chronicle. Thursday 09 Apr 1801
Page 3 Column 3
TAUNTON ASSIZES
Did not finish until Monday; when sentence of death was passed on the following prisoners, viz. Samuel TOUT, and Robert WESTCOATE, for breaking open the dwelling-house of Mary GRIFFITH, and taking thereout 15 loaves of bread, and putting her in bodily fear; Michael DAY, for horse-stealing; Robert DEO, and Robert WYGOOD, for burglary; Edward JEFFERY, and William WARRY, for sheep-stealing; Peter KINGDON, for heifer-stealing; Geo. TOUT, for stealing wheat and sheep; were left for execution.
Robert BENNETT, for stealing 100l. in notes, and 83 gs. in gold; George DAVIDGE, for a capital offence; Charles FINCH, for stealing 29 loaves of bread, and a hempen sack; Robert HALES, Jane HILL, and John TUCKER, for burglaries; and Wm. BRICE, for breaking open the box of his master at Milverton, and stealing 11 guineas; also received sentence of death, but were reprieved.
Clark PERRYMAN(?), Wm. DAVY, and Mary DUNNING, for burglary; Wm. BRANCH, and Wm. BRIDGE, for robbing a barn; Jas. COURT, for stealing wheat, &c; John DYKE, for stealing meal; Robert GOSS, for stealing sundry articles of linen, the property of Robert CUMMINGS, and J. H. WILLIAMS, esqrs. John HOWARD, for stealing a blunderbuss; Agnes LOCKE, and Mary SANDLE, for stealing cloth from the racks; Hannah MANLEY, and Jane JONES, for stealing cotton gowns; Constance PEWTERS, for being concerned in a riot, and stealing wheat; Wm. PEWTERS, for felony; Isaac ROWBOTHAM, for pocket-picking; Samuel BEER, for stealing a saddle; and Edward TYRRELL, for assaulting Dr. OLIVER; were sentenced to be transported for seven years.
John BUDGE, for riotously assembling with others, and taking away a quantity of potatoes; and John JEANES, for receiving stolen cloth; were ordered to be imprisoned 12 months. Mary CROSS, for stealing wearing apparel; Jas. FUDGE, for stealing meal; William NEWTON, and his son, for stealing geese; to be imprisoned six months. Charles BEER, for bigamy; and George FORD, for stealing wearing apparel; to be imprisoned three months. - Seventy-five prisoners were acquitted, one fined 6s. 8d. one ordered to be whipped, and another to be imprisoned two months.
Thomas HOLBROOK was acquitted on a charge of breaking oven a slaughter-house; but removed to Gloucester by habeas corpus, charged with a felony in that county.
---
The following were the only causes <sic> at Nisi Prius worthy notice.
STILL against TARR. - This action was brought upon the game statutes, to recover the penalty of 5l. for killing a pheasant without being qualified, and 20l. for so doing without taking out a certificate. It appeared, that the defendant's dog had sprung a pheasant, which he followed into an adjoining field, where the dog stood, and that the defendant knocked it down with a rake as it was rising. The counsel for the defendant argued ingeniously against a rake being considered such an instrument for killing game as was intended by the statute, but the learned judge being of a different opinion, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the penalties.
OLIVER against COX. - Was an action for a breach of covenant against defendant as lessee of plaintiff; the declaration stated three distinct breaches, one of which was the parting with the possession of the lands without the plaintiff's consent. It appeared, that the defendant had lett the after-grass from August to February, which he considered was not within the meaning of the restrictive convenant contained in the lease; and that it might be justified by the custom of the neighbourhood in like cases; but the learned judge being of opinion that it was parting with the possession, contrary to the intent of the covenant, the plaintiff was satisfied with a verdict for nominal damages, not being actuated by pecuniary motives, but desirous only of establishing the law in such cases.
POOL against LIDIARD – Was a cause of some importance to mill-owners; defendant had raised his weir several inches, by which means the water, being kept back and becoming deeper than usual, had considerably lessened the fall of water to plaintiff's mill above, and thereby diminished the force of the wheel at least(?) a fourth part in a given time, which was greatly to his disadvantage. - It was attempted to be proved, that the weir had sunk, and that the addition made by the defendant had only raised it to its original level, and that plaintiff could not consider himself damnined(?); but on the contrary, it was so clearly and satisfactorily proved to have preserved its ancient level, without the least apparent sinking, that the jury found a verdict for plaintiff.
<NOTES: The original article uses the long s>