![\"\"](\"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/files\/2024\/01\/Queen-v-Frampton-map-annotated.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Today, Martin looks at what happened next for Frampton and the law…<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
Rule challenged<\/h3>\n
A challenge to the Rule was indeed presented on behalf of the prosecution, on 8 May, contending that Frampton was \u201cnot entitled to be discharged from the indictment upon the production of a certificate of two justices and affidavits, which merely state that \u2018the road is now in repair;\u2019 they should shew something done since the finding of the jury.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, this was over-ruled by the judge as the prosecution could not provide any evidence that the road was not<\/em> repaired, and so James Frampton\u2019s discharge from any further requirement was confirmed.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Surprisingly, it appears that the discharge resulted in the whole indictment<\/em> being dropped retrospectively, meaning that Frampton would have a completely clear \u2018criminal record\u2019.<\/p>\n The justification was that his legal team considered the main instigator to be John Carter (age about 40, Attorney and Small Farmer in Wool), and that James Kellaway (age about 70, Agricultural Labourer living in Wool) had been persuaded to join in (\u2018procured\u2019) by Mr Carter. The defence team\u2019s briefing notes making this clear:<\/p>\n The Prosecutor Kellaway is a person procured by Mr Carter and a Man of Straw for the purpose of this Indictment and Mr Carter is a Gentleman who served his Clerkship in an Attorney\u2019s Office and has been Admitted, but he resides in the Village of Wool where he Farms a Small Lifehold Property which he holds under Mr Weld.[2]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Further, Frampton\u2019s team asserted that John Carter\u2019s complaint was \u2018vexatious\u2019, and this aspect resulted in a modification to Case Law. In the Eighth Report of Her Majesty\u2019s Commissioners on Criminal Law,<\/em> Chapter XI, Section 3 relates to \u2018Costs of Prosecutions\u2019. [3]<\/a><\/p>\n Article 30 of Section 3 (below, with emphasis added) basically says in some cases the prosecution\u2019s costs must be paid by the defendant (as we might expect), but<\/em> there were also circumstances when the defence\u2019s costs should be paid by the prosecution (even though the defendant was found \u2018guilty\u2019) if<\/em> the prosecution was considered to be vexatious:<\/p>\n Article 30: The court before whom any indictment or presentment shall be tried for not repairing bridges, or the roads at the end thereof, repaired at the expense of the county, may award costs to the prosecutor<\/strong>, to be paid by the person or persons so indicted or prosecuted, if it shall appear to the said court that the defence made to such indictment or presentment was frivolous, or may award costs to the person indicted<\/strong> or prosecuted, to be paid by the prosecutor, if it shall appear to the said court that such prosecution was vexatious<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The modification to Article 30 arising from the Queen v. Frampton<\/em> case was that instead of just awarding costs to the defence, the court could rule that the whole indictment should be \u2018removed\u2019:<\/p>\n Article 35: The provisions of Article 30 include those of preferring and removing the indictment<\/strong>. (k)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n where reference \u2018(k)\u2019 is the Queen v. Frampton, 1843<\/em> case.<\/p>\n Thus, James Frampton had the whole indictment retrospectively dropped, and in the process had a new \u2018Article\u2019 added to Case Law. Clearing his name was no doubt of great importance to Frampton, as he was a local magistrate himself and a member of the Grand Jury at the Dorset Assizes.<\/p>\n Incidentally, James Frampton was probably right that Mr Carter was being vexatious \u2013 in the Dorset History Centre archives there is a lengthy set of correspondence from June 1847 to June 1849 between the two of them, regarding a path from Winfrith to Bovington, and a bridge over the River Frome, which Carter accused Frampton of obstructing. Mr Frampton wrote for help to Carter\u2019s landlord, Joseph Weld, Esquire, of Lulworth Castle. Mr Weld wrote a very pleasant letter back, saying it was nothing to do with him but he was on Frampton\u2019s side as he also found Carter troublesome! [4]<\/a><\/p>\n —<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0 Reports of New Magistrates\u2019 Cases \u2026 From Easter Term 1844 to Trinity Term 1846<\/em>. Google Books: https:\/\/www.google.co.uk\/books\/edition\/_\/9lcDAAAAQAAJ<\/a> , page 29.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0 See Footnote 1.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0 Google Books: https:\/\/books.google.co.uk\/books?id=ARRcAAAAQAAJ<\/a>, page 202.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dorset History Centre, D-FRA\/E\/22<\/a>, Correspondence concerning disputed footpath and road from Winfrith to Bere Regis through Bovington Farm from Messrs. Coombs and Joseph Weld and copy letters from J. W. Carter and James and Henry Frampton, with memorandum<\/em>, 1847-49.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In January 2024 Dorset History Centre will be undertaking two collections weeks and we will be closed to the public for this period. Whilst staff and volunteers will be getting on with the important work we have to do during this period, we have this two-part guest blog for our readers, from Martin Gething. On… Read more Queen v Frampton [Part 2]<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1892,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[58,10],"tags":[82,588,109,590,589],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4094"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1892"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4094"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4094\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4098,"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4094\/revisions\/4098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk\/dorset-history-centre-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Enlarged Rule<\/h3>\n
Final outcome<\/h3>\n
Postscript<\/h3>\n