Thomas Hague

343

Maureen Withey on 10th November 2019

Thomas Hague was tried at the Old Bailey. (online) THOMAS HAGUE, Deception - perjury, 1st December 1831. OLD COURT. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8. Second Middlesex Jury, before Mr. Recorder. 279. THOMAS HAGUE was indicted for perjury . MESSRS. ADOLPHUS and PHILLIPS conducted the prosecution. The following Documents were put in and read:-Two affidavits made by the defendant, sworn on the 25th of July, 1829, and the 4th of February, 1831, in the cause of Hague against Drury - in the latter of which the defendant had deposed that George Vandepant Drury was indebted to him in the sum of 500l. for goods sold and delivered by the deponent, to the said George Vandepant Drury, and at his request - a writ for 500l., returnable on the 15th of April - and a warrant dated the 5th of February, 1831 - the copy of a nonsuit - and the declaration which stated that the plaintiff, Thomas Hague, had become acquainted with various matters and things connected with the defendant (George Vandepant Drury) which if generally known, would be very prejudicial to the defendant, and that upon his undertaking not to disclose the same, the defendant had undertaken to pay him a reward of 500l.; in another count it stated the amount to be due for work and labour - there were other counts stating it to be for money lent, advanced, laid out, &c.; the plaintiff was nonsuited, and to pay costs, 32l. 10s. - the bill of particulars of the plaintiff's demand, dated the 31st of May, 1831, stated it to be for 500l., pursuant to an agreement or promise made to or with the defendant in 1829 - another bill of particulars, dated the 11th of June, 1831, stated it to be "the balance of an account as stated and settled with the defendant." - DEVERELL. I was attorney for the defendant in this action; he is the prosecutor to-day - I attended a Judge of the Court of King's Bench, upon the delivery of the second particulars of demand - the agent to the plaintiff's attorney also attended; I said the general item as to the balance must be struck out, unless the account was furnished, to which the Judge agreed; they delivered no account at any time, but a third bill of particulars was delivered with that item struck out. On the 15th of June Mr. Justice James Parke made a rule to strike out that item. GEORGE VANDEPANT DRURY , ESQ. I am the prosecutor of this indictment, and am the grandson of the late Sir George Vandepant; I spent the early part of my life in the East Indies, till 1806 - I then returned to England,and married a lady in Yorkshire; I went with her to India, and came back in 1813 - I resided at a place called Skelton, in Yorkshire, up to March, 1830, being absent occasionally. I first saw the defendant about thirteen years ago; I saw him as any other person about my house - he then lived at Rawcliffe, a village near me; I was arrested at his suit for an alleged debt of 130l. in 1829 - that was settled; he afterwards commenced a suit for 500l.; I put in bail to that, without being arrested - I never had any business transaction with him, and never purchased any thing of him; I swear that positively - I remember in 1824 his acting as agent to his mother, who kept a little farm near my residence; I purchased 5l. or 6l. worth of straw of her that year, and he acted as her agent - I had no other dealings whatever with him; I paid for that straw. Q. I need hardly ask you, whether up to this instant you ever owed him for goods sold or delivered, or for any thing, the sum of 500l? A. I never did, I swear so most positively; I am living on my fortune, the result of my service in India. Cross-examined by MR. ALLEY. Q. Do not you know that the defendant has a farm, for which he pays 200l. a year rent? A. He had nothing to do with the farm - it was his mother's; she is now dead: the defendant is a member of the yeomanry corps of the County, which is commanded by Lord Grantham; I have heard he was an overseer of the poor - the action for 130l. was settled before the declaration was filed; I paid the costs. Q. Was there not a receipt in full, demanded of the defendant, before the money was paid, and did not he refuse to give it? A. Not before the money was paid; I only know that from what I learned from those who were engaged in the business - I instructed my attorney to demand a receipt in full, but never got it; I had paid him money before the 130l. in 1825 and 1826, under circumstances of threats; I paid him various sums - I paid him 200l. at Aberford, in 1825. Q. Did you happen to meet him on the 7th of November, 1824, at a place, not at your house? A. I did on the road to York, in a field - I had a person with me; I was walking - I had not been sitting down at all; the person with me was the defendant's brother - he is now living: I have not brought him here - I did not request the defendant to call at my house the next day; my brother-in-law went to him with that request, in consequence of the representation I made to him - my brother-in-law is not here: I saw the defendant at my house on the afternoon of that day - nobody was present at the interview, not even my brother-in-law. Q. Did you not request the defendant, for God's sake, not to repeat to any body what he had seen the day before, but to keep it secret? A. I did not, on my oath - I positively swear I did not tell him I must make him a friend, and if he would keep it secret I would introduce him among gentlemen in the country. Q. Am I to understand you to swear you did not at that time solicit him to keep a secret for you? A. He obtained money from me - from the nature of his threats, I paid him money; I did not solicit him to keep a secret - nothing was said to him about keeping a secret; I swear that positively: there was a Bible in the room, and it might be on the table - there were very likely other books there, for the conversation was in my study. Q. Did you not at that time ask him to swear on the Bible that he would keep the secret? A. When he had received the money - he had received the money - I do not recollect whether it was before he had received it, that I asked him. Q. Did he swear on the Bible? A. He might have done so - Yes, he did; he swore he would not mention any thing which, of course, would have affected my character. Q. Any thing he had seen the day before? A. Any thing he might devise for money; he swore he would not make any more demands for money; this was in November, 1824 - my brother-in-law, Mr. Thompson, was in the neighbourhood at the time; the prisoner was there a very short time - I did not ask him to take some wine: he might be treated hospitably, as any other person, by my servants; he was not treated with cake and wine - he lived about three-quarters of a mile off; I did not put any thing into his pocket - I put the money into his hand - I keep a butler, footman, and other servants. Q. Did you happen to leave home at that time for a few months? A. I was going a journey; I went to Scarborough, with a niece who was ill - I was there about two months; I returned home for a few days - my niece asked me to accompany her to the South, and I went; on my return home, I stopped at the Morris Arms , Aberford, a few miles from my house - it is the principal inn; my lady and niece were with me - I did not send for the prisoner to come there to me; I waited for him - I found him there; I had not sent him word that I was coming home - I was not in correspondence with him. Q. Did he not come there in consequence of an invitation - no matter how it was conveyed? A. Yes - I saw him in the principal sitting-room; my niece was walking in the garden; my wife was present. Q. Did you not there, in the presence of your wife, request him to take an oath that he would still keep the secret? A. I made no request - he did take an oath; the Bible might be in one corner of the room, or probably it was on the table: I did not promise to give him 250l., and promise a further payment of 500l. to him - I did not prosecute him for extorting the money in 1824; I had a little boy named Cooper in my service, he is the son of a poor woman in the neighbourhood: he lived with me about seven years, and left to better his situation; my wife is here. On my oath, I did not request the prisoner, that if he should arrest me for 500l., to say that it was for goods sold and delivered; I did not see him, and never said a word on the subject to him, nor has any body by my authority - I have not seen him to speak to him for three years and a half. MR. PHILLIPS. Q. In what state of health is your brother-in-law, Mr. Thompson, at this instant? A. In a most wretched state of health - he generally has very bad health; I do not think he could attend here without considerable risk to himself in a case like this: this is the receipt for the 130l. - (read) King's Bench, Hague against Drury - Received on the 9th of November, 1829, of the above-named defendant, by payment of Mr. Russel, 140l., in discharge of the debt in this action, brought to recover the balance of a promissory note, drawn by the defendant for 250l. Q. Now, on your oath, had you ever given that man any promissory note whatever? A. No - before the receiptwas given, a demand was made on the defendant to give up the promissory note, if he had one; I never received one. Q. You have been asked if you implored the defendant never to mention what he had seen - had you done anything that you was afraid of being seen or told of? A.Certainly not, he had no secret to keep if he told the truth; I gave him the money because I dreaded even the name of what he threatened, which was to charge me with an unnatural crime with his (Hague's,) own brother; there is not the shadow of a foundation for such a charge; I did not prosecute him, as I acted entirely from beginning to end under the advice of a solicitor in the country; (looking at two letters) these were received by Mrs. Drury; I know sufficient of the defendant's hand-writing to swear they are his - these other two are also his. - (read.) York, 2nd of June, 1829. To MR. DRURY. - The time has now elapsed) which will render all further correspondence in private; between you and me, unnecessary; you will find by the enclosed, its meaning - I have been this morning to Mr. Preston, to prevent all unpleasant consequences, but he has given me a determined refusal; I have asked, at your hands only, a favor, which I care not if all your family were witness to - I have no clandestine secret in view, but what I care not if all the world knew; I am sorry it comes to pass under your present family affliction, but I must take care of myself - I shall expect a personal interview to-morrow; coming to your house, under present circumstances, I do not wish, unless compelled to do so. THOMAS HAGUE. Q. What family affliction were you enduring at that time? A. My niece, whom we had taken to the South, had died; we had numerous afflictions, and some deaths in the family - (the following letter was here read.) 2nd of February, 1830. To MRS. DRURY. - Honored Madam - It is with the utmost reluctance I again address you, particularly when I think of the handsome manner your generous conduct has been to me; I have this moment received a letter from a corn-factor at Leeds, remitting me 30l. instead of 50l., and our rent day being next Thursday, I have no means of raising the amount without assistance: it will greatly oblige me, if Mrs. Drury will add another obligation to those already conferred by the sum of 12l., on or before Saturday, at the post-office, York, till called for; to see you is impossible, for I cannot ask for it personally, after what has transpired. MR. DRURY. Mrs. Drury has been subpoenaed here to day on the part of the defendant, and is in attendance; with the exception of 5l. or 6l. which I paid the prisoner for his mother's straw, I never paid him any other money, except under threats; he obtained 120l. at my house, and gave a promissory note for the re-payment - I came here last Session, prepared to prosecute this indictment; the defendant, from first to last, has had some thousands from me under threats. MR. ALLEY. Q.Where is the 120l. note of hand which he gave? A. It is mislaid; it was given three years and a half or four years ago; the letter written to my wife was not in answer to one written by her to him, by my desire - I was out; I am a native of Suffolk, but have lived in Yorkshire from 1813. MR. DEVERELL. I am attorney for the prosecution, in the case of Hague against Drury, on which the affidavit in question arose; I was not attorney in the first cause - I did not know Mr. Drury then; the cause in question stood for trial at the last Lent Assizes at York - here is a letter, dated the 17th of July, 1831, which has been proved to be the prisoner's hand-writing; it is dated on the Sunday previous to the day on which the cause was to come on - (read.) To HENRY THOMPSON, ESQ. - Sir, - I have this moment received a note from Mr. Anderson, requesting me to send him the letters I have in my possession, from Mr. and Mrs. Drury, to be at his office this evening at six o'clock; I think you know so much of this business, it is possible to satisfy both parties; without it coming into Court - if you will honour me with an interview before six o'clock this afternoon. I can give plenty of written demonstration to satisfy both parties; an answer by your servant will oblige. THOMAS HAGUE . MR. DEVERELL. This letter was communicated to me by Mr. Thompson, about the middle of the day, on Sunday; I desired him to take no notice of it whatever, and I believe none was taken - I went to York fully prepared to try the cause, and delivered briefs to counsel; upon going into Court in the morning it was to be tried the record was drawn by the plaintiff - here is a note written by the defendant, the day after the record was drawn.(read.) Tuesday morning, ten o'clock, 19th of July, 1831. Thomas Hague begs leave to inform Henry Thompson , Esq. that a regular Bench-warrant has this morning been obtained against G. V. Drury, I give Henry Thompson , Esq., the information to use his discretion accordingly. MR. DEVERELL. I have searched, and can hear nothing of a Bench-warrant or an indictment being preferred against Mr. Drury - I was first employed by him about February, 1830, since which he has acted entirely under my advice. MR. ALLEY. Q. Are you an agent, or his attorney? A. No, he is my own client - I am an intimate friend of his nephew; Mr. Russell, of York, had been his attorney before. WILLIAM HILL. I entered Mr. Drury's service, as butler, in April. 1819. It was my business to purchase the goods used on the farm, and in the house; the defendant's mother held a small farm under Lord Grantham - she has been dead about twelve months; the defendant and his brother attended to her business; in 1824, 5l. or 6l. worth of straw was bought off their farm; I always understood it had been paid for - I took the mother some money, and Thomas Hague came to offer the straw in part payment of 25l. which had been lent to him; nothing else has ever been purchased of Hague for my master - the defendant had no appearance of being worth money; he had two brothers and two sisters, and what the mother left, was between them - she had nothing but the farm, and a little property left by Mr. Ratey. Cross-examined by MR. BARRY. Q. Do you recollect one night in November, 1824, the defendant calling when Mr. Thompson was there? A. He frequently called in an abusive manner; I and the other servants were about- I do not recollect Mr. Thompson ever going and fetching him back; I have occasionally carried letters to the defendant to the gate - when he has come with letters or messages, I have brought him out the answer. Q. Did you not meet him when you were in a gig, and tell him Mrs. Drury wanted to see him? A. No, I met him once; he had borrowed some money of master, and I went to ask when he was going to pay it. RICHARD LAWRENCE. I am in Mr. Drury's service, and have been so about thirteen years; I have known the prisoner about that time - I remember 5l. or 6l. worth of straw being bought once at the farm; nothing else was ever bought of him for our house. THOMAS COWL . I keep a public-house, at Clifton, near York, about a mile and a half from the defendant - he has frequented my house for fifteen or twenty years; he was not able to pay his way - I have applied to him for payment of a score, which was never more than 2l., time after time; he once paid me 11s., which had been running eleven years. Cross-examined by MR. ALLEY. Q. Did you ever hear that he had had thousands from the prosecutor? A. If he had one would have supposed he might have cleared a pound off his score, if he had been an honest man - he used to pay me by a little corn at a time. An affidavit made on the part of the defendant to put off the trial last Session, on account of the absence of Mr. Russell, was here read, and Mr. Alley admitted that Mr. Russell was now in attendance. MR. ALLEY addressed the Court and Jury on the part of the defendant. GUILTY . Confined Six Months , to stand in the Pillory , and be Transported for Seven Years. HO 17/94/55 1832 May 28; 1832 Nov 27 Prisoner name: Thomas Hague. Court and date of trial: Old Bailey December Sessions 1831. Crime: Perjury. Initial sentence: Six months' imprisonment, to stand in the pillory, and be transported for seven years. Annotated: Nil. Petitioner(s): 496 inhabitants of York and county of Yorkshire (names, residence and occupations given); the prisoner; Baynton MP. Grounds for clemency: Respectable background in Rawcliffe [Yorkshire]; previous excellent character for honesty and integrity; three infant nephews, niece and other family members left without support; poor defence at trial by counsel R H Anderson; important documents not produced; many witnesses came from York to speak at the trial but were not called; health affected by time in pillory. Other papers: Copy of Recorder's address when passing sentence advising against clemency. Letter from Thomas Deverell also against clemency. Covering letter from Lord Grantham. Letter from [illegible], Minister, explaining that he only signed the petition as an expression of sympathy for the prisoner's family not to support the prisoner. The National Archives have a record of a petition