Did: Was it returned altered in any respect-I think it very likely that I might have written my opinion upon parts of it; I recollect perfectly well having written a letter, or at least sent an answer. You sent an answer to that letter ?-I did. What was that answer?-I said in that answer, that I did not think that I could make any affidavit to the facts he had alluded to, for that really the circumstances were all out of my recollection, with the exception of my having granted a search warrant; but with respect to the affairs of Franks, I told him by all means not to state that, as there was not the slightest proof of Franks' having been guilty of that which he supposed he was. There is one thing I ought to explain, both for Mr. Kenrick's sake and my own. Till I read the letter this very morning, so little notion had I of Franks having any thing to do with the second sheep (and I only slightly suspected him of stealing the first), that I thought Mr. Kenrick alluded to the first; and I stated, therefore, that there was no evidence against him, but the piece of paper having been found, and therefore I said he ought not to put it in, because the man had been taken up and convicted, You mean by "the man," the real culprit ?-Yes, the real culprit. Cross-Examined by Mr. Gurney. Is not the constable who acted upon that occasion dead?—I never heard of any constable acting upon the occasion. A man of the name of Rose?-There was a constable of the name of Rose, but I employed no constable. Is not Rose, who was the constable of the parish or district at that time, dead ?— Rose is dead; but whether he was constable or not, I really do not know. You do not know whether he was constable at that time?—I do not. Do you remember whether there was not a circumstance of a bloody knife as well as a piece of paper?-I can assure the counsel that I never heard of a bloody knife, till either Mr. Kenrick or Mr. Wimburn mentioned it. I never heard of a bloody knife at the time; there was a space of two years between the time of my sheep having been stolen and the one sheep having been killed, therefore the bloody knife could not be in the fold where the sheep were taken; and I am certain I never heard of a bloody knife at the time. Examined by the Committee. Were any sheep killed on the occasion of the first sheep stealing, when the paper was found?-No, there were not. How many years ago was this affair of the sheep?-I should think somewhere about six or seven. Or ten?-I really cannot remember the year. You have been a magistrate a good many years for the county of Surrey?—Yes, a great many years. And residing in the neighbourhood of Franks?—Yes. Was Franks ever brought before you as a magistrate ?-Never; I never heard his name mentioned before me as a magistrate. [The Witness was directed to withdraw.] Edward Arnold, was called in; and Examined, as follows: ARE you Mr. Peters's bailiff ?-I am Mr. Peters's bailiff. Do you know any thing of a charge against Franks's daughter, some years ago? -No, nothing. Do you know of a suspicion that fell upon Franks with respect to stealing some of Mr. Peters's sheep?-When Mr. Peters's sheep were stolen, or after they were stolen, there was a paper found in the field; I took the paper to Lord Rothes, and he said he could see nothing to justify him in granting a warrant to apprehend Franks. Mr. Kenrick said that he thought there was a suspicion to grant warrant against Franks; Lord Rothes afterwards said, that he could see nothing to justify him to grant a warrant against Franks, for any other person might be going up the field, and taking their handkerchief out of their pocket, they might drop a paper out, and it might be carried there by the Henry Peters, 17 February, 1826. Edward Arnold. Edward Arnold. wind; therefore he could see nothing to justify him to grant a warrant against 17 February, 1826. John Franks. Franks. Were you the witness that went before Lord Rothes, with respect to that business? Was there any other circumstance to charge Franks, except the finding a piece of paper near the fold where the sheep were taken from ?-No, nothing that I heard of. Were any of those sheep killed?-There were none killed at the time those were taken. Was there a bloody knife found ?-Not that I know of. Was there any other person afterwards tried and convicted of stealing those sheep?—Yes, a person of the name of Bignold. Did you attend his trial?—I did; he was tried, I believe, before Lord Ellenborough, at Lewes. Did you hear the verdict?—I did; he was found guilty, and afterwards transported for the said offence. Did you ever hear of any other circumstance that fixed Franks with any suspicion of stealing any sheep of Mr. Peters's?-Not to my knowledge. How long have you lived near Franks in the county of Surrey?-Ever since the year 1811, I have lived little better than a mile from him. What character has Franks borne during all that time, as an honest and industrious man?—I know nothing in respect to Franks's character, for at the time our sheep were stolen, those sheep that were stolen out of the turnips, when the paper was found, I scarcely knew there was such a man except by name. Since that time, have you ever had dealings with Franks?—Yes; I think the sheep were stolen in April, in the November following I sold him a sow. [The Witness was directed to withdraw.] John Franks, was called in; and Examined, as follows. WHAT is your name?-John Franks. Where do you live?—At Alverston, near Stratford-on-Avon. In whose service?-Lieutenant-General Jenkinson's. In what capacity?-As gardener; I have the care of all out of the house. Did you live some years at Betchworth, in the county of Surrey?--Yes, I did. Do you recollect your daughter being taken before Mr. Peters, the magistrate, on Was any charge made against you, of being an abettor in that theft?—I do not know that there was any charge made against me, only Mr. Kenrick rose up in a passion, and told me, if he could get any hold of me, he would make a public example of me. Were the articles missing found any where in your house?-They were. In what part of the house?-In a little small box belonging to the girl herself. How old was the girl at the time?-Nearly about ten years of age; I do not know to a month or two. What were the articles that were found in the box?—I cannot say exactly, for I never saw them till I saw them in the room, but they were slips of silk, or something of that kind, and a bit of lace, and a pair of small scissors. Were those things found in your bed-room?-They were beside the girl's bed, she sleeps in the same room. Were they concealed any where?-No; only in a little deal box where she kept a doll and other things; it was a box given her by her godfather. The charge was dismissed, it was not prosecuted ?—It was not. Out of compassion, probably, to the youth of the child?—Yes, it was. Did Mr. Peters say any thing to you on dismissing the charge?-Not that I recollect, he did not. Mr. Adams called to me, that was Mr. Kenrick's butler. Was that before the magistrate?—It was just withoutside of the door in the passage, but he went in to the gentlemen and sent the constable out after me to call me back. You were sent to prison on a charge of stealing a piece of wood?--I was. You You were in prison two months on that charge?-Exactly. Did you give your wife any authority to intercede with Mr. Kenrick to show you any lenity on that occasion ?-Not at all; I never spoke to her any thing on the subject; the last thing I spoke to her when I went out of the house was, to be sure that the children did not make use of any ill language to any of Mr. Kenrick's people, though I was sent away. Did you ever express any gratitude to Mr. Kenrick, or his bailiff, or any of his people, for his conduct to you in the course of that prosecution?—Not at all. Is your wife here?--I do not know that she is, unless she has come in by the coach since I came down here. [The Witness was directed to withdraw.] The Counsel for Mr. Kenrick being asked what course they wished to pursue, Mr. Gurney stated, that he proposed to call a witness to deliver in certain docu ments. Charles John Lawson, Esq. was called in; and Examined by Mr. Gurney, as follows. WHAT is your name?-Charles John Lawson. You are clerk of the peace for the county of Surrey?—I am. Are you possessed of the depositions taken by Mr. Burges, the magistrate who committed Franks?-I am. Will you produce them? [The Witness produced the same, and they were read, as follow:] agst "The King THE Information of James Scragg, of Betchworth, in "James Scragg-Says: I am a labouring man, and work for William Kenrick, John Franks. 17 February. 1826. C. J. Lawson, "James Beal, Sworn :-I am bailiff to William Kenrick, esq. of Betchworth; and directed the last witness, James Scragg, to take an elm slab, for the purpose of standing upon and cleaning out a ditch on Mr. Kenrick's land. This was about five weeks ago; and about a week ago I missed the slab, which had been used by Scragg, which had not been returned to the saw-pit, In the morning of yesterday, the 13th May instant, I saw an elm slab standing against a new building, in the garden of John Franks, in Betchworth, and near to his dwelling-house, and about one hundred yards from Mr. Kenrick's saw-pit. Having a suspicion that the slab I then saw was the property of Mr. Kenrick, I went to day into the garden where the slab was still standing and examined it, and found that it was the elm slab which had been used by the last witness, Scragg, and that it was the property of Mr. Kenrick; I then took the slab away, and took it to the timber yard, belonging to Mr. Kenrick, and fitted it to the piece of timber from which it had been sawed off. The pieces now produced are the two pieces of timber that which I took from Franks's garden, and that I brought from the timber yard, C.J. Lawson, 17 February, 1826. and which fit together. I am certain the piece of timber or slab, I found in Franks's garden, is the property of William Kenrick, esquire, and is of the value of one shilling. Taken, sworn and subscribed, the day and year first above written, Ynyr Burges. James Beal. "John Franks, in his defence, says :-The piece of timber produced, is the piece which I set up upon my premises, but I do not know where it came from; I first saw it there about a fortnight ago. It was lying down, and I set it up. I made no inquiry about it, as to where it came from." Surrey, THE Examination of John Franks, of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, labourer, taken before me Ynyr Burges, esquire, one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the county of Surrey, this fourteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four. "This Examinant being charged before me the said Justice, on the oaths of James Scragg and James Beal, with having, on the fourteenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, at the parish of Betchworth in the county of Surrey, feloniously stolen and carried away one piece of elm timber of the value of one shilling, the property of William Kenrick, esquire, on his examination now taken before me,-saith, That he is not guilty of the offence aforesaid, though the piece of timber was on his (the Examinant's) premises; but how it came there, he this Examinant doth not know. Taken and subscribed before me, Ynyr Burges. "John Franks." During Franks's imprisonment for trial, did you receive a letter from Mr. Kenrick, respecting the stopping of the prosecution?—I did. Will you produce the letter? [The Witness produced the same, and it was read, as follows:] I WISH to have a little of your advice, arising from your practical knowledge as clerk of the peace. John Franks was committed by Mr. Burgess, of Ryegate, for stealing a plank, valued at one shilling, from me, a day or two after the late sessions, and of course has been in gaol nearly three months, a punishment perhaps sufficient for such an offence. The man has, I learned, behaved very well since he has been in gaol. He has a large family, and is a member, and has been some time so, of a benefit club, the advantage of which, by one of their rules, he would forfeit on a conviction of felony. The facts are so short, and so very clear against him, that such conviction must I think follow. Though I cannot speak in favour of his character, I believe the confinement he has suffered will operate as much, and perhaps more in his reformation, than any further punishment the court might be disposed to award; and I am unwilling to inflict upon him and upon his family, for so it would be, the further consequential punishment of forfeiting the benefit he may be entitled to from his club, if I could avoid it. I do not know if Mr. Burgess has returned to you the recognizances. Would the court, upon this statement, permit me to decline prosecuting, and cancel the recognizances? Would you enclose this to Lord Middleton, or should I ask Mr. Burgess to withdraw or not return the recognizances? I am desirous the man should not be punished beyond what he ought, and am willing to take any course it may be thought proper. I shall probably see Mr. Burgess at the bench on Tuesday, after I get your answer, if you write by Monday's post. Broom, Dorking." "Yours truly, "W. Kenrick." Did you transmit that letter to Lord Middleton?-I did. Lord Middleton was the chairman of the sessions, was he not?-He was. Did you receive an answer from Lord Middleton?-I received an immediate answer from Lord Middleton. In the negative ?—Yes. And you communicated that to Mr. Kenrick ?-I did. [The Witness was directed to withdraw.] Mr. Gurney stated, that he had now concluded the evidence he proposed to adduce, and that he was desirous, either at the present or a future time, to address a few observations on behalf of Mr. Kenrick. [The Counsel were directed to withdraw.] C. J. Lawson, 17 February, 1826. |