Letter – Robert Hopper Williamson to Nicholas Walton – 20 Jan 1787

Copy of Robt. Hopper Williamson Esqs further Opinion respecting a Pig of Lead supposed to be in Abraham Fawcetts possession.



       The circumstances stated in Mr Ruddocks Letter & in that of Messrs Mulcasters of the 17th Inst respecting the Pig of Lead belonging to Greenwich Hospital & now in Fawcetts possession make it extremely difficult to determine what method is the best to be pursued in that Business. The very inaccurate & unsatisfactory account given before Mr Ruddock by Wm Bell was certainly a sufficient Ground for the Magistrates declining to proceed in the matter upon his testimony; but I cannot help being inclined to think that a Search Warrant might have been granted upon the deposition of Robert Wilson, and such Search Warrant w[oul]d have had this good effect viz: to put Fawcett upon shewing how the Lead found in his possession was obtained, and if it realy turned out that he found it, as he pretends, then an action of trover might be brought for the recovery of its value – Wilson says he lost a Pig of Lead belonging to the Hospital, a Pig of Lead belonging to the same Hospital is now suspected nay almost known to be in Fawcetts Possession. Fawcett claims no property in it but insists upon a large reward for finding it, and refuses to let any of the Hospitals Servants or Carriers see it. 

       I own I cannot but think that upon Wilsons Oath before the Magistrate that he had lost a pig of lead and which he suspected to have been stolen and that he believed the same to be in Fawcetts possession (for there is not the least occasion for him to swear that he suspects it to have been stolen by Fawcett) a Magistrate w[oul]d certainly be fully justified in granting a Search Warrant for the purpose of searching the places in which such lead was suspected to be deposited. Whether or no Fawcett c[oul]d be committed upon suspicion of the Felony must be mut depend upon what Circumstances appear upon the investigation of the matter before the Magistrates after the production of the property. The circumstances of Fawcett offering the Lead to its owner does not seem to me a conclusive proof of his having taken the lead without an intention of stealing – he offers it again to its owner, but expects an exorbitant reward, and if such a conduct was to be looked upon as conclusive evidence that person taking the property of others did so without the animus furandi [i.e. intention to steal] I am inclined to think that such a mode of proceeding w[oul]d become the most general and also the most beneficial species of thieving. 

       If however a magistrate sh[oul]d decline acting in this matter by search warrant I see no Remedy but an action of trover for the Value of the Lead & which action must be brought by the persons who were at the time of its being lost the real owners of it, & who I take to be the Governors of Greenwich Hospital; & I sh[oul]d advise such action notwithstanding the smallness of the value of the property which upon the trial may be proved, to be brought in one of the Courts of Westminster Hall because upon a verdict in such Action altho’ the Jury sh[oul]d assess damages under 40s the Pl[aintiff] will be intitled to full costs unless the Judge before whom it shall be tried shall certify that the damages do not amount to 40s and this certificate is discretionary in the Judge trying the cause and under such circumstances of flagrant ill conduct in the Def[endan]t as w[oul]d appear in the present case it is probable that the Judge w[oul]d refuse to shelter him from full costs by such certificate. The expence of defending such an action as this therefore probably be in the event an heavier punishment than might be inflicted upon him even upon a criminal prosecution, and which his conduct seems loudly to call for.

       Sh[oul]d it be found expedient to proceed against Fawcett criminally I still adhere to my first idea, viz: that it w[oul]d be prudent to lay two Counts in the Indictment one stating the lead to be the property of the Hospital & the other stating it to be the property of the Carrier out of whose possession it was taken.

       Rbt Hopper Williamson 

       Newcastle 20th Jan 1787.