298 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



pear. The solicitor-general there- 

 upon submitted that the witness 

 had been guilty ot gross prevarica- 

 tion; and in consequence it was 

 decided by Mr. Serjeant Marshall 

 that his evidence could not be re- 

 ceived ; and as Mr.Serjeant Blossett 

 declined calling any more witness- 

 es, the jury was directed to acquit 

 the prisoner. 



It is proper to add that the mas- 

 ter and fellows of Sydney college 

 have expressed their approbation of 

 Parkinson's general conduct and 

 character ; and in order to make 

 their sentiments on this particular 

 occasion more public, they wish it 

 to be known that he is retained in 

 their confidential service. 



Mr. Kendall's name was imme- 

 diately erased from the college 

 boards, by order of the master and 

 fellows, and a memorandum to 

 that effect entered on the college 

 books. 



Wood V. Groo?H.— This was ^ 

 motion for a rule to show cause 

 why there should not be a new 

 trial. The circumstances of the case 

 were as follow : — Wood, who is a 

 carpenter,gave public notice,tha the 

 would preach at a certain time and 

 place ; and of this a clergyman of 

 the name of Rakeshaw gave in- 

 formation to sir R. Corbett, who 

 thereupon issued his warrant to the 

 defendant and others, appointing 

 them special constables to dis- 

 perse the conventicle to certify 

 the names of the persons present, 

 and if there should be any dispo- 

 sition to riot, to arrest Wood and 

 those who might riot. The de- 

 fendant went to the meeting, and 

 when he came in, some person said, 

 «' let us mob hijn ;" op vhich ke 



immediately went to Wood, with* 

 out showing his warrant, who was 

 kneeling at his prayers, seized 

 him, and dragged him some paces 

 on his knees, but being then 

 alarmed, he left him. For this 

 assault the action was brought. It 

 was tried at Chester, and the chief- 

 justice told the jury, that the 

 questions for them to consider 

 were, whether the plaintiff knew 

 that the defendant was a special con- 

 stable, and if they found that he 

 did not know it, then they were to 

 consider what should be the amount 

 of the damages. The Jury, with- 

 out the least hesitation, found a 

 verdict for the plaintiff — damages 

 200/. It was contended^ that there 

 should be a new trial, on the ground 

 that the damages were excessive, 

 and that the learned judge had mis- 

 directed the jury, as it was not ne- 

 cessary that the plaintiff should 

 know that the defendant was a 

 special constable : the warrant, 

 which he had from a magistrate, 

 being a complete justification, and 

 under the statute of 24- Geo. 2 

 chapter 44, a copy of the warrant 

 ought to have been demanded, in 

 order to make the magistrate a 

 party. 



Lord Ellenborough said, that 

 the question, was, whether the 

 warrant not being shown, was a 

 justification, as it was directed to a 

 special constable, and not to a re- 

 gular constable or headborough : 

 it was not within the 24 Geo. 2. 

 As to the amount of the damages, 

 he could not say that if the de- 

 fendant was not justified in point 

 of law they were excessive, consi- 

 dering the time at which the 

 assault had taken place ; but it was 

 qi^^erjal to consider whether the 



