782 
THE GARDENERS 
CHRONICLE. 
[Nov. 4, 
There were five large barracoons, in which the slaves were kept 
until an opportunity offered of shipping them to Havannah or 
Cuba. These slaves were mostly purchased by barter for cotton 
goods from England, and the names of the principal slave-dealers 
were Rolla, Ximenes, Alvarez, Burcn, and Glasse. The cargo of 
the vessels in question, it appeared, was consigned to the three 
first-named persons, and he begged the Jury to remember that 
at this time, as he was instructed, there was no other trade of 
any kind carried on at this place except in slaves. He should 
have stated another fact to show the connection of M. Zulucta 
with this vessel, which was, that shortly after she sailed from 
England, in consequence of bad weather, it became necessary 
that she shonld put into some port for repairs o 
tain, in spite of the rem 
crew, insisted upon going to Cadiz, where M. Zulucta had an 
agent, and at that port part of the damaged cargo was sent 
ashore, and M. Zulueta received the amount of the loss from the 
insurance. office in London. The vessel sailed from Cadiz about 
the 7th January, and, on her arrival on the coast of Africa, she 
was captured by Capt. Hill, who was not a little surprised to see 
the vessel which but a short time before he had caused to be sen! 
to England under the name o! a 
under English colours and a fresh name, When the captain 
boarded her he asked Captain Jennings to whom the cargo was 
consigned, and he at first refused to give any informe . The 
vessel, however, was again taken to Sierra Leone, where she was 
condemned and eventually sent to England. The chief qnestion 
for the Jury to decide, therefore, would be whether this vessel 
‘was despatched to the Gallenas for the purposes of honest and 
lawful trade, or whether she did not go there for the objects 
alleged in the indictment? The learned Sergeant then read the 
statements made by M. Zulueta in reference to this transaction 
before a committee of tiie House of Commons, and called nume 
rous witnesses.—Capt. Hill, who commanded the Saracen on the 
ze store- 
and found her fitted as a slaver ; but 
she carried Russian colours he sent her to England to be disposed 
of by the Admiralty. In 184] he again saw the vessel at the 
Gallenas, under the name of the Augusta, and alter receiving 
her papers from Jenhings, the captain, he resolved on detaining 
seized her on the ground that she was carrying on an illegal traffic. 
—Hon. Capt. Denman deposed that the slave-trade was the only 
trade pursued at the Gallenas, that no produce is ever exported, 
and that all goods landed there would be ultimately used to be 
bartered for slaves. 
factors, and there was 1o pro- 
. He destroyed several slave.factories 
there in 1840, for which actions had been brought against him. 
—Col. Nicholl, governor of Ascension and of Fernando Po, also 
At the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly 
tubmitted that there was no case go to the Jury,—Mr. 
Justice Maule thought there was a case.—Mr. Fitzroy Kelly 
then submitted’ that the offence with which the prisoner 
was charged was not an offence within the meaning of the 
Act of Parliament. The Court overruled the objection, Mr. 
Kelly then addressed the Jury on the part of the prisoner. He 
said that the case was one of the deepest importance to his client, 
who was a gentleman of undoubted respectability, whose father 
had been for years an eminent merchant in this country, and 
ne of themost distinguished fami- 
and commented upon it as he proceeded. 
apon th i 
the dence given by the prisoner 
com- 
t n stances 
of the case had been institute es i 
this country, who had 
matter, that the prisoner should be 
present charge which had been red ag him by Sir 
Stephen. He then contended that there was nothing in the ev 
dence on the part o ution which would warrant t 
Jury in returning a verdict of gui soner, and 
urged thatso far from the prisoner, or th respectable firm 
of which he was a member, taking part in or even countenancing 
or approving of the traffic in slaves, they had, even at a time 
when the !aw had not declared such traffic to be illegal, repeat- 
tion of the system. The Learned 
oring the Jury, by returning a verdict 
, to restore the prisoner to that respectable station 
ciety which he has hitherto o pied. then called as 
witnesses to character Sir Jobn Pirie, Mr, S. Ricardo, Baron de 
Rothschild, the Spanish, Portuguese, and Swedish Consul 
neral, Dr. Arnott, Mr, Gibbs, Mr. Jones Loyd, Mr. F. Huth, a 
Director of the Bank of England, Mr. Mocatta, and numerous 
other gentlemen of high standing in the city, who all gave 
str testimony in favour of the prisoner, and declared their 
belief that he was utterly incapable of engaging in such a nefa- 
rious traffic as the Slave-trade. Mr, Justice Maule then summed 
up, and the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, which the 
Foreman delivered with marked emphasis, The verdict was 
received With the loudest cheering that was probably ever heard 
in a Court of Justice; an n as the result was known out- 
side, the crowd collected in the street re-echoed the cheering so 
. that the i of the Court were actually 
interrupted by their shouts. Mr. Serjeant Bompas then saidthere 
another indictment against the prisoner for a misdemeanor, 
but after the verdict which had been just returned, no evidence 
would be offered in support of it. having been again 
sworn, M. de Zulueta was indicted for a misdemeanor. i 
dence was offered, and a verdict of Not Guilty upon this indict- 
ment also was returned. M. Zulucta was then discharged. 
William Haynes, a young man residing at Haggerstone, was 
indicted for the murder of his v The indictment charged 
that the prisoner, well knowing that sulphate of pot would 
have the effect of destroying life, unlawfully administered to 
deceased large doses of that drug to procure abortion, thereby 
causing death, This case has been already noticed in this Paper, 
and no new facts were elicited except that deceased was ver. 
likely to have died of apoplexy, and that sulphate of potass was 
For the defence, it was con- 
e was no distinct proof as to 
the cause of death, and that it would be impossible to find the 
prisoner guilty of murder after the evidence of the medical wit- 
nesses as to the innocent character of the drug. Mr. Justice 
oe 
o 
v4 
C) 
z 
Wightman summed up, and the Jury, after a short deliberation, 
returned averdct of Not Guilty 
u 
William Siolzer was indic 
stabbing him with a kn 
ting of ihe Occurrence, 
xermans: the former stabbed deceased in Si 
y D ilver-street, Golden- 
square, with a knife, and afterwar: e i } 
self. An effort was mad aed eneints rane 
‘ the murder of Peter Keim, by 
Chis case was also noticed at the 
opposite his name in t 
of Mr. Waller, a wine-m 
employment for him, After various endeavours to induce the 
prosecutor to take him again into his service, he fired 4 pistol at 
him. For the defence, it was contended that the prisoner’s fa- 
culties had yielded to the advance ot age, and that he was nota 
responsible agent. The jury coincided in this view, and ac- 
quifted him on the ground of insani 
The Rev. Isaac Bridgman, minister of a dissenting chapel in 
West-street, Walworth, and his son, John White Bridgman, a me- 
dical student, were indicted for stealing the body of Mr. Tawney 
from tie family vault in the burying-ground of that chapel. 
The removal of the body was fully proved; but the counsel for 
the defence called witnesses to prove an alibi on behalf of the 
elder prisoner, admitting that it was altogether hopeless to con- 
the case made out against the son, After a long 
® 
gs 
8 
3 
e 
& 
g 
& 
3 
g 
a 
& 
g 
8 
g 
8 
3 
mitted; bat with res 
had been set up in his behalf, and he thought, therefore, they 
would have no hesitation in pronouncing him guilty. The jury, 
after a deliberation of about ten minutes, said they considered 
the evidence failed with respect to the elder defendant, but they 
found the son, John White Bridgman, Guilty. The father was 
therefore acquitted, and the son was sentenced to imprisonment 
for }2 calendar months. 
The case of Mr. Burnard Gregory, which stood for judgment, 
has been again postponed to the next session, the Judges consi- 
dering it best that it should stand over until the Court of Queen’s 
Bench has disposed of a conviction of the defendant, which has 
already taken place in that Court for a libel, forming a portion 
of a series of libels of which the prosecutors complain. In an- 
nouncing this decision, the Judges intimated that it is not likely 
that counsel will be heard on either side: 
THe Srectan a JARDIFE after the 
judges took their seats on the bench, on Friday morning, John 
Hughes was arraigned at the bar for having unlawfully, riotously, 
and tumultuously assembled with other persons to the disturb- 
ance of the public peace, and feloniously, unlawfully, and with 
force begun to demolish the dwelling-house of one Wm. Lewis, 
toll-contractor, at the parish of Llandilotalybout. ‘The prisoner, 
(who appeared at the bar with his arm io a sling,) pleaded not 
guilty. he Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Chil- 
ton, @.C., Mr, J, Evans, Q.C., and Mr. E. V. Williams, appeared 
D. Hill, Q@.C., and Mr. W. 
for the prosecution ; and Mr. M <j 
Chambers for the prisoner. ‘The array of the panel of the grand 
jury was challenged by the prisoner’s counsel, on the ground 
that it had been chosen partially. To this challenge the Attor- 
ney-General demurred; and the Court considering that it was 
impossible to traverse the general allegations of the challenge, 
and that the challenge did not sta'e the grounds for alleging that 
the panel was partially chosen, decided on allowing the demurrer. 
The Attorney-General stated the case. He said that the disturbed 
condition in which this and several counties of the Principality 
had been for some time, rendered it imperatively necessary that 
at the earliest moment the law should take effect, and the justice 
of the country be vindicated. Since offences were increasing in 
numbers and enormity, it was necessary that the law should 
check them. Having stated the reason, then, why they were 
thus summoned, it next became his duty to state that the charge 
against the prisoner was founded upon an Act of Parliament, by 
which it was enacted that persons tumultuously assembled, pro- 
ceeding to pull down a house, dwelling-house, or office of any 
description, should be guilty o! felony. In this instance the 
mob attacked a toll-bar, and it appeared that some of them were 
uised, so as to give them the appearance of women , they 
e arrayed in female attire; had their faces blackened, and 
many of them were armed. Shots were fired, and i 
instance, when a gun had been taken, it was loaded, and the 
marks of shots were visible on the toli-hous The mob had 
implements of destruction of various kinds ; sledges, hammers, 
and pickaxes, were found after them. With these weapons the 
work of destruction was commenced : all the windows were 
broken, and the endeavour was made to pull down the house: 
That work would have been completed, but fur the interrup- 
tion given to it by Capt. Napier. There could be no doubt of 
i eter of this assembly. Then comes the next 
ion—what has the prisoner to do with this? 
It would be shown he was not merely present, but was taking an 
tive part in all this. His isgt 
When arrested by the police, who had taken me; 
the riot from being completed, they proceeded from the Glamor- 
ganshire side of Pontardulais-bridge by a route by which 
were not likely to be discovered, and arrived near the gate, 
Capt. Napier, hearing the noise, advanced with his men, 
the object of Capt. Napier, by wounding the horses, to prevent 
the flight of the parties, He fired at the prisoner’s horse, and 
he prisoner came down, and then came into personal conflict 
with Capt. Napier, and in that conflict was wounded as you see, 
A shot was fired by the mob, which was returned by a volley on 
There was much confusion, and parties 
come with your armour and covering, and assist me on Wedues- 
day next, or else you shall not,have more or further notice ;” and 
i ca.” The 
tected by every right and privil 
and I shall go along with my learned friend in any course to pro- 
duce that result. The case is one of great importance, and my 
y for the course he had taken ; 
whether there can 
which the prisoner is i 
have it shown before you that the prisoner was taken with arms 
in his hands, it will be for you to say whether he took any part 
in that riotous assembly. If you find any just ground on which 
this prisoner is entitled to acquittal, it needs no suggestion of 
mine to say that you will give him the benefit of it; on the other 
hand, Iam convinced, if you find circumstances proved which 
implicate the prisoner, there can be no doubt but you will dis- 
charge your duty to the country, and find him guilty.’ Capt. 
Napier and other witnesses were then examined, who deposed to 
the various facts stated by the Attorney-General, most of which 
were noticed in this Paper at the time of their occurrence.—- 
On Saturday morning Baron Gurney, in summing up the evidence, 
observed that it was no small consolation that they had been called 
on to fulfil their duties in a place far removed from the scenes where 
the recent offences had been committed, and where the minds of 
persons were naturally excited by those tr ansactious. The Jur 
were thus enabled coolly and dispassionately to consider all the 
facts that were laid before them. After recapitulating the charges 
i described in the indictment, and referring 
up. His Lordship referred briefly to the evidence on this point, 
and then observed that the temaining question for the Jury to 
consider was, whether the prisoner was one of those who were 
aiding and assisting in the acts of démolition, countenancing 
and augmenting the force of the mob, and concurring in its 
objects. In conclusion, the learned judge, having stated what 
was the law on the different parts of the case, reminded the Jury 
that the facts of the case were what they had maturely to weigh 
and consider, Should they believe the prisoner, after that solemn 
consideration of the evidence laid before them, to be innocent of 
the crime with which he was charged, they would acquit him of 
that charge ; but if, on the other hand, they belicved him to be 
guilty, they would find a verdict accordingly. The Jury then 
retired, and, after little more than half an hour’s absence, re- 
turned with a verdict of Guilty, recommending the prisoner to 
mercy on account of his previous good character. The Court 
then adjourned until Monday. On that day, David Jones and 
John Hugh were indicted for taking part in the same offence. 
The prisoners first pleaded Not Guilty ; butafter a short conver» 
sation between their counsel and attorney, they withdrew their 
plea, and pleaded guilty. The Attorney-General then said, the 
prisoners having pleaded guilty, he did not mean to press in 
aggravation of punishment. Mr. Hill said that their Lordsbips 
had heard the prisoners at the bar plead guilty. After the long 
trial which had occupied the Court on Friday and Saturday ; 
after the verdict which had been given, he thought it would be 
the opinion of their Lordships that the prisoners had not been ill- 
advised in pleading guilty. ‘Iheir Lordships would never consider 
it an imputation upon any man, though guilty, that he had de- 
mandedatrial. Inso doing, he only demanded hisright. The de- 
mand fora trial was no new offence, nor any aggravation of the 
former ofe. But when prisoners,on mature consideration, and not 
i without the advice of their friends and relatives, thought 1t 
right to submit themselves t w without such a trial, 
perhaps it would not be considered presumptuous in him in ven- 
turing to call their Lordsbips’ attention to this fact, as showing 
their contrite spirit, and doing all that lies in their power to 
atone for the offence of which they had been guilty. The prin- 
cipal motive weighing on the minds of those men was one which 
e was sure their Lordships would not receive with indifference, 
It was their desire to be of such service as they could be to their 
associate against whom a verdict of guilty had been returned, 
and in respect to that unhappy person, he might be allowed to 
call their Lordships’ attention to the character he had received, 
as showing the station and respectability from which he had 
fallen. The same remark applied to those who now stood at the 
bar, and he could be verified by witnessesif the Attorney-General 
required it, They all belonged to respectable famili 
months ago they might hold up their heads with the proudest in 
the land, because titey were innocent—men acting according to 
what was right, and walking within the bounds of the law. 
From that state their Lordships saw into what an abyss they had 
falien, They were now felons—stigmatised by the name the 
most reproachful known to the law; their property was forfeited, 
and more than that, with regard to two of them, they had 
received already severe punishment in the shape of gun-shot 
wounds, which it was not to be presumed would be without its 
weight with the Court, for from that no human power had the 
means of relieving them. Their Lordships would, he was sure, 
be glad to have motives for exercising that mercy, the feeling: 
towards which was at that moment working in their minds, and 
therefore he made no apology for laying these facts before them. 
DW _ 
R 
was convicted on Saturday, having been 
placed with the other prisoners at the bar,—Mr, Baron Gurney 
addressed the prisoners, and said, they stood severally convicted 
of a felony—and a felony of aggravated description. 
They had banded and associated themselves with others—they 
had assembled in large numbers at the dead hour of the night— 
they had armed themselves with deadly weapons, aud had 
proved that they were not indisposed to use them. 
pared, they had proceeded to the demolition of a turnpike-gate, 
and then of aturnpike-house. They had assembled themselves 
in such numbers as to overwhelm all resistance on the part, of 
the owner of the house, or even his neighbours. They were in- 
terrupted in their purpose by magistrates and peace-oflicers, and 
then they made use of the fire-arms with which they had equipped 
themselyes—thus setting the law at defiance, and disturbing the 
peace of the country ; all these circumstances, he said, were & 
reat aggravation, Until of late, such crimes were of 
very unfrequent occurrence in this country, The interruption 
they had received would, perhaps, prevent the repetition of the 
crime in this county; but it was impossible for the Court to be 
ignorant that in neighbouring counties the perpetration of such 
crimes continued to this day. 1t was absolutely necessary tha 
the law should be enforced ~ that the peace of the country should 
e preserved—that good order should be restored. In the course 
that had been taken by the Crown undoubtedly everything had 
been done to give to justice its fullest effect. The prisoners had 
been tried at a remote part of the county from whence the 
i © not excited, 
about to pronounce, which was, that cach of them should be 
transported for the term of seven r 
Hughes, the Court could not entertain the same view 0! 
He appeared to be one in a station of society far above the rest— 
from him against those who were not 
He had been recommended by the 
y to the mercy of the Court. The Court felt extreme difficulty 
in any degree lessening the punishment which the law awarded 
The law said that he was liable to transportation 
for life, and, giving all i jon to the ion of 
the Jury, and to all the circamstances which had been so ably 
stated by the Learned Counsel for the prisoner, the Court was of 
Li the Court, w 
all who might be disposed to associate thi 
ng offences against the law.—In the case 
of the other prisoners, the Attorney-General said he would not 
said that they had been convicted, on x own confession, Of 
constable in the execution of his duty. It was 
