Monday, Nov 02, 1829

Court Of Common Pleas, Saturday, Oct. 31

SAUNDERS, GENT, v BAKER

RICHARD HUDGELL

  Mr. Sergeant Wilde, who was assisted by Mr Richards stated the plaintiffs case to the jury. The action was brought to recover the value of a grayhound bitch that formerly belonged to the plaintiff, and had been killed by the orders of the defendant. The plaintiff was an attorney, residing in the neighbourhood of Bristol, and having a great fondness for field sports, kept some dogs, for the purpose of enjoying his sports over his own lands.

   Those lands were in the vicinity of a manor belonging to Lord De Clifford, to whom the defendant acted as keeper. The jury well know what were often the feelings of men on the subject of game; and though Lord De Clifford might be in other aspects a most worthy and excellent nobleman, they were aware that the most honourable of men sometimes forget their usual principles and conduct, when the subject of game was concerned.     Whether the defendant did or not act by the orders of Lord De Clifford, it was impossible for the plaintiff to know. If that was the fact, no doubt his Lordship would indemnify his servant from the consequences of what he had done, but it his act had been prompted only by his own officiousness, he must suffer, and would deserve to suffer, the penalty for his misconduct.

  RICHARD HUDGELL* was then called, and said, I was in the defendants service in 1828; on a Sunday afternoon, in April, in that year, I found a grayhound bitch at Kingsweston, and took her to the defendants lodge, he know her, said she was Mr Saunders's and desired me to take her to the kennel; she was an excellent runner, and was very handsome. I know John Webb, he was under-groom to Lord De Clifford; on the Sunday evening, defendant ordered Webb and me to destroy the bitch; I told him it would be a thousand pities to destroy such a bitch as that, be he would have it, and he asked Webb to assist him in destroying her on the Monday morning: I was to call Webb in the morning, before anyone was stirring; I did so; we took her into a copse' Webb asked me to allow him to shoot her; i did so and he shot her' we buried her in the plantation; that was done by the orders of Baker; a dog of the plaintiffs was taken after the bitch was destroyed; the dog was  taken in September; a man named Goyman took the dog.

  I never heard Baker give any orders about the black god; the was concealed in the kennel for five or six weeks; Goyman looked over the kennel' Baker was the head keeper: Goyman and I were hired by Baker; the men who are hired by him act under his orders; I met him one morning coming from the lodge, and said to him, "This is another dog that you have got belonging to Mr Saunders".

  He said he acted under his lordship's orders in detaining the dog. I was discharged by Baker on the 21st of  October, 1829; I was at Lord De Clifford's house when I was discharged Lord De Clifford was present; his attorney was not there at the moment. On the 19th October his lordship sent to me.

  I went to him: his attorney was with him. On the 21st, I went to Lord De Clifford's dressing room, at eight o'clock in the morning; Baker was there; his lordship said, " It appears to me you want to bind me to give you 5/-. to go away:" then he cocked his leg up, and said "I once offered it to you but now HUDGELL, I will not give you a -----;" the 5/- was to be paid me to leave Bakers service, on account of destroying the bitch.

  I was to go home to my own country, Suffolk: I had refused to go away: an action had been commenced again me at that time; there was no other reason for my discharge; the bitch was worth about 10/- or 15/-; when Harley (Lord De Clifford's attorney) and Baker were together, Harley said, no doubt the action would be dropped if I went away from the service: Webb is alive, and in Bakers service.

Mr Serjeant Andrews addressed the jury for the defendant.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff - Damages 20/-.

July 24th 1830

Insolvent Debtors Court Friday July 23

In RE WILLIAM BAKER

  This insolvent, described as late of the parish of Laurence Weston, in the county of Gloucester, and since of the parish of Llangenny, in the county of Brecon, gamekeeper, was discharged at the Brecon sessions in March Last, when he was opposed by two creditors, named RICHARD HUDGELL and John Goymour, both of Gloucestershire.

  Mr Robert Saunders, a solicitor in the neighbourhood of Bristol, detaining creditor, upon a judgment obtained in the Court of Common Pleas, in an action brought by him against the insolvent whilst in the service of Lord De Clifford's, for destroying a valuable grayhound, not having been legally served with the order for hearing, and who did not oppose the insolvents  discharge, applied this day to the Court under the 67th Sec 7th of George IV., chapter 57th, which enacts, 'that such discharge shall be final and conclusive, unless the Court shall thereafter see good and sufficient cause to believe that such ad justification had been mad on false evidence, or otherwise improperly made or fraudulently obtained,' for a rule to show cause why the insolvent should not be brought up before this Court, to be reheard upon the matters of his petition.

  The application was made by Mr. Saunders in person upon the following grounds, supported by affidavits: That the order for hearing had been served up the detaining creditors agent in town, instead of the detailing creditor personally, that the insolvent having been formerly declared a bankrupt, had mentioned that fact in his petition, that the insolvents attorney being a partner with the clerks of the peace for the county of Beacon, in whose custody the duplicate schedule is ledger after being received from this court had altered it in a most material part.

   While remaining in the office of the clerk of the peace' that the justices refused to receive in evidence an official copy of part of the insolvents schedule, though duly certified from this court, to substantiate the alternation in the duplicate schedule; that the insolvent had not given a fair description of his place of residence while in the service of Lord De Clifford, it having been sworn by the opposing creditor and not denied by the insolvent, that the residence of the said insolvent when in his lordship serve was at Kings Weston Lodge in the parish of Henbury, Gloucestershire and not in the parish of Laurence Weston, as described by the insolvent that the insolvent a short time previous to entering into Lord De Clifford's service resided in Suffolk, occupying a farm under the Earl of Ashurnham and there became a bankrupt; that immediately afterwards Sir William Middleton, of Shrubland Park in the neighbourhood, out of kindness to the insolvent, stocked the farm which the insolvent was then occupying, but it was agreed that the stock should be considered to be the property of Sir William and under the control and direction of his steward and that the insolvent should assist in managing the farm and should reside thereon until he could discharge a debt which was fur to Sir William.

   The insolvent having liquidated this debt, was then to have the entire management of the far, that after the insolvent had continued to reside on the farm for two years pursuant to that agreement he assigned over the whole of the stock upon the farm, being the property of Sir William, to a person named John Kent, who sold the same by public auction and subsequently had an action brought again him by Sir William who recovered the full value of the stock; that in consequence of such proceedings, Mr Kent, who was a bond fide creditor of the insolvents to the amount of 180/- previous to the assignment was put to considerable expense in defending the action.

   And by such litigation became a creditors of the insolvents for 400/- which debt the insolvent admitted in his schedule as also the debt due to Sir William; that the improper decision of the justices at the hearing upon the points disclosed, rendered it necessary to have the insolvent re-heard before s superior tribunal, and that the opposing creditors could not have a fair or impartial rehearing before the justices at session it having  been sworn by a person who was present at the meeting that upon the reading of the affidavit of the opposing creditor HUDGELL on of the presiding justices stated that he was quite sure that a fact relative to the conduct of Lord De Clifford, and sworn to most positively in the affidavit, ant denied was false, as he (the Justice) knew Lord De Clifford too well to suppose incapable of such conduct.

  The Chief Commissioner said, he would take the affidavits home and read them carefully through, and that on Monday next he would renounce his judgement.

* signifies not connected to the tree at the moment