HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0527 and id is 1 raw text is: 134
THE KING V. JOSEPH ALEXANDER
1 LEACH 63.
London, the 16th of Feb. 1764.
Received of Mr. William Hunt, the Receiver, the sum of £437, 13s. 7d. pursuant
to an order dated 13 Feb. instant, made in the cause of Lee v. Pringle, which money
is placed to the account of Thomas Anguish, Esq. as Accountant-General of the
Court of Chancery, and to the credit of the cause of Browne v. Pringle, in Master
Bennet's Office, in the books kept at the Bank for the Suitors of the said Court of
Chancery.
For the Governor and Co. of the Bank of England, £437, 13s. 7d. entered.
T. Gradwell, examined. B. Sabbarton.
[63] And the offence was laid with intent to defraud the said William Hunt
of the sum of £437, 13s. 7d. against the form of the statute.
The Jury found a special verdict comprizing the facts above stated (see this
special verdict stated at large, 2 East, Pleas Cro. 899), and on the. 26th November,
1767, following it was argued by Counsel (see the arguments of Counsel, 2 East,
Pleas Cro. 901) before Lord Mansfield and nine other of the Judges in the Exchequer
Chamber. After the argument Lord Mansfield observed, that the verdict left but
one question to consider, namely, whether the offence was within the statute 12
Gco. J. c. 32, s. 9 ; and said that if they had any doubts, the Judges would appoint
it to be argued again the next term ; and therefore their Lordships deferred giving
their opinion. But in Hilary Term 1768, eleven Judges met at Serjeants'-Inn,
and they were of opinion that the indictment and the special verdict were sufficient
and needed no amendment; and that the case was within the statute.
The prisoner was executed on Wednesday 23d March, 1768.
]767.
CASE XXXIV.
THE KING v. JOSEPH ALEXANDER.
(Qu. Whether a false oath taken in Doctors' Commons for the purpose of
obtaining a marriage licence is perjury ?)
At the Old Bailey in January Session 1767 Joseph Alexander, a Negro Servant
belonging to the Duke de Nivernois, was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, in
falsely swearing in Doctors' Commons, that Charlotte, the daughter of Robert
Nesbit, Esq. of Marybone, was of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, whereas
in truth and in fact she was only of the age of sixteen.
It appeared in evidence, that the prisoner being left in England on the departure
of the Duke his master, had procured recommendations to Mr. Nesbit, and was
admitted into his house in the character of a Preceptor, to teach his daugh-[64]-ter
the French language, and other fashionable accomplishments, of which the prisoner
was perfect master. Taking advantage of the opportunities which this employ-
ment afforded him, he obtained Miss Nesbit's consent to marry him. In order to
warrant a Clergyman to perform the service, he obtained a licence by means of the
false oath, for which he was now indicted ; and in consequence of which the parties
were married.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty ; but the case was reserved for the opinion
of the Twelve Judges. The question was agitated several times ; but the prisoner
dying in Newgate, the result of their Lordships' deliberations was never publicly
communicated.(a)
1768.
CASE XXXV.
THE COAL-HEAVERS' CASE.
(Persons present aiding and assisting in shooting at another, are principals,
and within the penalties of the Black Act.)
[S. C. 1 East, P. C. 413.]
At the Old Bailey in July Session 1768, the seven prisoners were tried before
(a) The same point also came before the Judges in the case of Robert Woodman,
who was indicted at the Old Bailey in September Session 1768, before Mr. Baron
Perrott, present Mr. Justice Willes and the present Lord Chief Baron, Recorder, for
perjury in an affidavit in Doctors' Commons, in order to obtain a licence to marry
one Catherine Hill, Spinster, to which he knew no lawful impediment ; Whereas
in truth and in fact he knew she was the wife of Ezekiel Shepherd. But the opinion
of the Judges was not publicly communicated.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0527&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)