Star. — London, England, 1828-12-13 00:00:00

dr. Callaway LI do sot wish to apron an to delicate a question y say that Mr. Cooper was the attest penop o—Beetitrie we had selected a surgeon. wbo lave attended to the surgical school recently at Guy's Hospital. d merely wanted a surgeon, without refit school, which of the two gentlemen would msen?—i do not think it necessary to say ntld have done in any supposed case; it is ;h to answer what were our motives in the nstance that occurred. NTERDIN—The witness has given a most per, in my opinion ; and I must say, that I of this mode of instituting comparisons be. kill or merits of two professional gentlemen. less, in answer to a question whether Guy's 'omits's Hospitals were not united till ro. l l the Medical School was at the latter Hos- 1 he Surgical School at the former ones an far inked. Upon being asked the cause that led Iblishment of the Surgical School at Guy's he said the story was a long one, and would ion take up the time of the Court unneces examination as to that point was not pressed 'mined by Sir J. SOAILETT-Mr. B. Cooper sonstrator under his made, and gave great in that capacity; he was recommended to ed as surgeon by all the d purgeons of the Sir Astley Cooper did not inow that it was elect his nephew until the circumstance was aced to him by witness; Sir Astley Cooper to witness at the time, but Sir Mtley had do with the arrangement of appointing his witness knew that the plaintiff had been a le Nurwich Hospital. and had been with the pain, during two campaigns, and went with !nt to Canada, but in the intermediate period en improving himself at Edinburgh ; he sub became apprentice to his uncle ; Sir A. Cooper , on of the first eminence and practice, and his ad the advantage during his apprenticeship ing his uncle's practice; witness has heard inrwich Hwital is celebrated for operations ny. mined by Mr. Wakely—Mr. B. Cooper was of a Society in Edinburgh. That was before his apprenticeship. fondant then brought into Court anatomical am of the parts upon which the plaintiff derman Partridge was called to examine and the incbion. but the witness declined giving on upon the preparation in its then state. He have time to examine it minutely before he evidence. se for the defendant then closed, and Sir J. r asked whether it would not be convenient to he proceedings mad to-morrow? /RD CHUN JUSTIOR observed, that Sir James night then open his case, as it would expedite ion. iCARLDTT expressed a wish that the plaintiff rethe advantage of a Jery coming fresh into n rder that due attention might be paid to especiallyoftet the defendant bad-commenced •••_ _ _ _ ftwreanns then said the Gentlemen of the t attend -teomonow on the case could not finish t, and they might es well close it at owe. iCAOLSTT said he had not many witnesses to it would be convenient to all parties to ad• windings were eonseqwetly *dimmed at half o'clock .oetil to-sorrow memos (this day)., plaintiff's ease will be beard. CoeFer and other eminent surgeons were in be ezamined for tbe,plaintiff. OF. COMMON %PLEAS, Waienntseaa, Dee. VINCZN? -11. DAVIFIS MID ANOT*III. ergesat Caou and • Mr. Sergeant Jones ap• w the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant *rape and ;cant STCUIDUIS few the defendants. was an action brought by the holder against the is bill of exchange f0r.2001. dated io Deceits 7, and made payable at the Bank of England, inths after date. It was accepted by a person ohn Cooke, sod was endorsed by Peter Finn, in now under potence of death for fprgery.— red that Fenn .bad got Cooke (the party who eutly prosecuted him, on one of the indictments cry, upon which be was convicted) to put hie eto the bill heroic it had been drawn, and before date or the sum for which it was to be drawn ified ; the bill having. been thus Obtained was I endorsed over to Jones, in whose hands it was became due, which was in Marsh last. Before e, however, Fenn bad been apprehended pn a of forgery ; end when Coate was cod. on the March. that .the . bill. in question accepted by old become due- on the.following day. be de- Mat it had been oftraised from him by fraud, t be should not take it up. ..)kt the time that be sis declaration, Davies, one of .tbe.defiendeota, scent, the piliOtiff, were present 1 and OD Davies ng to be much agitated. exclsimiogy.." . Good ere is another less of 41001." Vincent said, if it be any accommodation to biro, be would take bill, and held it until it would be more conve sr to pay. Davies appeared to.be very thank the offer, and immediatelyacyeoted it, promising the plaintiff who hie dividends trots paid, which be oft the sth of 41nil. These were the circum of the case as • stated by the plaintiff, .but the of the cote turned upon a question raised by the nit, of whether Vincent had not taken the bill up Protection and benefit of Cooke, and .not upon account? It would be proper to observe here, e ease has been once.,before tried, and that a was then returned for the plaintiff; but as the ante had since been able to Collect , ovideoce they th.ughc would be able to contaadict the :e of Cooke, whom they accused of perjury, a al was moved for and granted by the COWL- Ise accordingly now came down foe a : second tad to prove the plaintiff's case Cooke. wasagain in the boa, when he stated that Fenn bad duped idled him out of the bill in question, and that/e •retore refused to pay it when it became due: ivies, who was present, exclaimed," Good GOD I another Inas of , MIT that Vincent, who was also :Pitting Davies snuck distreued.proposed to take I no for him, and that Davies, %banking him very 1. accepted his offer, and promised to pay.bios sis dividends were paid phe also.stalede Outs& rawly nor his another,whosirbusioesahe carriodoo, bola-bars, had provided Vincent with any part of to take up the bill ; but he admitted that he i that day paid Vincent 1001. which be said was kale of a debt which his soother bad contracted Vincent. In addition tr . this, he said. ;bat as "me -was at.she back of the bill, Davies was is that it .aboald not. be. pretested as , she Rash of "dr and it gird sbesafee-deteratiaed that Viaceni should Meet Jones, b. !spider, at Garrawa7's coffet house, and givishim the money for h there. la cross-ee arnination*Cooke snore that he had never seen Jones be fore this arrangement was made, and that he had never methim at a meeting at the defendant's house in Plstn. tree-street. Bloomsbury. He admitted that he had had bill transactions with Fenn to the amount of 4,0001. or 5,00 W. but denied that he carried on the business at Holborn•bars on his own account, although the account at the Bank was kept in his name. He was not in the habit of accepting bills in the manner that he had done this, which, !simpered, he should not have done had not Fenn worried and teased him to have done go, as- swing bins that it was all quite tight, and that he had nothing to fear. In the course of his examination, Cooke prevaricated so much, and gave his evidence in so abating a manner, that the Chief Justice more than once warned him to be careful as to what he said. It was not without much difficulty that the Learned Counsel who cross-examined him could get distinct answers to the questions he put to him. lie stated that he always gave either cash or goods for Fenn's bills, and that he did not receive them as an accommodation. Proof of the presentation and di.hononr of the bill was then given ; and that, with the evidence of Cooke, constituted the plaintiff's case. For the defendants, it was contended that Vincent, as the attorney of Cooke, had taken up the bill for him, and not for himself; and in proof of this it was stated, that many of the identical notes with which Vincent had 'taken up the bill, would be proved to have been imme distely before in the hands of Cooke; for they had the initials "J. C." at their back in his handwriting, and would be traced from Jones, the person to whom they were paid, to his banker, and from thence to the Bank of England. It was admitted that Cooke had in some me*. sure explained the manner in which the lOW. had been paid to Vincent, and although that appeared very im probable, it might still be received as an explana tion ; but it was not upon the fact of that note's having been in the hands of Cooke, immediaely before it was used to take up the bill, that tt.e defendants rested their me. It would be proved that there were seven' 31. notes also bearing the initials of Cooke, and which, as they were since discovered to have been paid toJone• in part payment of the bill, it was insisted most have been given to Vincent by Cooke for that express pur pose, and that in fact the bill was taken up for Cooke, and not for the purpose of affording any accommoda tion to the defendants. Another proof to show that V ncent had taken it on Cooke's account was this:— Fenn's endorsement was upon the bill, and he was there fore liable to Vincent if he was the real holder of the bill; yet when the commission of bankruptcy was issued against Fenn, Vincent swore before the Commissioners that he had no claim upon his estate. Under these circumstances, it was contended that a verdict must be given for the defendants. In support of this case Edward Jones was called, and he swore most positively that he was present at the meeting at which Cooke had sworn he had not, and that he had even joined him and other persons in con versation, and was aware that an.arragement had been m;de for Vincent tOmeet him at Garrey:ay'', for the putposeof taking up the bill. Vincent did meet him, and paid him a 1001. note, and 651. more in other notes. and as he was not provided with more money at that time, he (the witness) consented to take,an I 0 U for the remaining -351. which was paid nn the following day. The witness then stated that he had had many bill transactions with Fenn, by whom he had now be come a great loser. Thjawatness was cross?examined at great length with tespectato. his own private affairs, but the facts elicited did not tooch the real question in the cause. Two cleaks from the Bulk of England proved that a KV. note and seven 51. notes, the numbers of which they described, were paid into the Bank of England on the 87th of March. The 1001. note bad been paid out on the day before. A clerk from the banking-house of Sir Wm. Kay and to. stated, that all the small notes had been paid in the day before to Jones's account. John Cooke was here.recalled, and after some hesita tion be admitted that the initials, "J. C." on the back of each of these notes was in his handwriting; and he then gave a very confused account of how they had come into his possession, and hew he had patted with them to Vincent. Several other witnesses were then called, all of whom confirmed the materiel part of Jones's evidence. James Collard Davies, one of the defendant's sons, stated, that Vincent did not proceed against them tot payment of the bill, until after* their attorney had re fenati to concur in the pro,ecution of Fenn, when Vincent said, .4 4 Theo I shall look to Davies and Northwood for payment of the bill." The whole of the evidence having been concluded. The Loan Cllial 41111TICa summed up., and after having remarked upon the nature of the action. told the Jyry that the Simple questi , in for their consideratiost was, whether Vincent had taken up the bill for the pro, section of Cooke, or whether, as he alleged, he had taken it up for the accommodation of Davies and Not thwood ? If the Jury were of opinion that he bad really taken it up for the latter purpose, they would return their verdict for the plaintiff; but if they should be of the former opinion, their verdict must be for the: defendants. His Lordship then remarked upon the' evidence of the witnesses on both sides, end observed; that in his opinion Cooke certainly was not a witnue of truth ; but that was wconsideration of the Jury, aad they would say whether they could believe his evidence when it was. flatly contradicted by a great many rif• spectable witnesses on the part of the defendants. The Jury deliberated for some time in the box; but' being unable to come to a decision, his Lordship read over the whole of bis notes of the evidence, repeating his opinion that the testimony of the defendants' wit wises appeared to bins most worthy of credit. TheJury..however, retired at half past nine o'clock, Athiee,ase having been on just 12 hours), and did not re• unusual a quarter past 12, when they gave a verdict for the plaintiff. CONSISTORY COURT, Dec. 15. Dv LA SECIIa v. DC LA This a suit fir a divorce, on the ground of adultery. iThq pantie} separated in 1825, when a deed was drawn op, by whichthe husband agreed to allow Mrs. de la Bache a separate maintenance. Suspecting his wife commitsed adultery, he caused inquiries to be set pa foot. end theresult was that all doubt as to his wife's guilt was removed from his mind. He then stopped her maintenance. ,Mr. Do t tie% on the part of Mrs. de la Beche, said that he had looked into the clue, and felt that he could not snccessfu,lly oppose the prayer of the husband. The JuDot agreed in the view which the Learned . Counsel had ;Alma the case. He had carefully read shoisbek ad the depositions of the witnesses in support be could par eatectain the slightest doubt. ut y had evporitted adultery, The Learned . ptcatooncid 4,4scise Itopap!tion. THE REV. HEAT DE CRESPIGNT. - • ....Air-- 711011 THE LIPMAN /41111 CUM ' A short time ago, the Earl of Plyaiouth received a letter from his cousin, the Rev. Heaton C. de Creapignp, desiring his Lordship to send.him, within a fortnight, 1,50Q1. Or the purpose of copping the publication of a novel which libelled metal members of the Earl: fa mily; the letter also, it is said, contained threa!s, the precise nature of which we are unacquainted to extort money from his relative. A warrant for the apprehension of Mr. De Crespigny No granted by .Richard Norman, Esq. en Thursday the 4th instant, and on Friday the Reverend Gentleman was con veyed from the Rectory of S:oke Doyle, near Oundle, to Melton Mowbray, under the care of Mr. George Owston, the Chief Constable of Leicester. He ss as that evening taken before Mr. Norman, at Messrs. Latham's office, and after examination was fully committed fir trial at the next assizes for felony. A chaisi Was at the door of the Bell and Swan Hotel, into which the consta. ble and Mr. De Crespigny were about to enter, when Mr. ar Crespigny took advantage of a favourable mo ment,and though several persons were near him, escaped. He ran over the bridge leading to Leicestet ; butllll.o ws ton coming within tin yards of him, and threatenineto shoot him. the pursued made a sudden turn to the left. and got into Mr. Fryatt's field, which is surrounded by water and the turnpike road : here he would have been re-taken, had not the constable fallen in getting over the fence; and mistaking. when he got on his legs again, a horsefir Mr. De Crespigny, the latter *as enabled 10 reach the river, across which he swam. and; favoured by thedarknessofthenight.got clear oir.Me.Owston returned to Melon,and sent men in all directions in pursnit, but nothing, could be hesrci of the fugitive. He then sit off on horsetatk, cashed people up at Oakham and Upping , ham, and reached Mai ket H se borough about six o'clotk on Saturday morning, where he heard that a Gentleman answering the description of De Crespigny was at .Lbss cid!, waiting for a chaise which he bad sent 1 it irnm Harborough. Mr. 0 sstop thereupon himself or dered out a chaise, and re took his prisoner in bed at a public-house in Kibworth. The latter remained for some time, till his clothes{ were dried ; n 4 after being tefrelhed he was at last safely lodged in Leicester county gaol. Mr. Oeston had not taken the precaotion of handcuffing his Reverend prisoner, ai it was de.iied that be sfanld be treated with as much delicacy as a person in his unintunate situation could be. It appears that Mr. D. Crespigny was all night in the fields,' passed through Queenstorough and Barkhy Brooks, and monnte4 a coach near to Leicester. The coiitents ofthe threaten. ing letter have not yet transpired. but we understand that the letter has been submitted to eminent counsel. who are of opinion that *the writer of it may be criini nallf proceeded against 'tinder ;mot Mr Peel's late Acts. LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS. Ye: terday the Adjourned Sessions was held before Messrs. Aldermen ASSAM aud Kai, ,and the Re- COHDRII. • Mr. ADOLPHUS applied upon the put of Mr. Deacon, the owner of the Colonial Coffee House, at the corner of Fleet market, for a license for the sale Pt wine tit that house, under the new Act for graniing licenses to established hote s. This house had, the Learned Counsel said, been long used as an hotel, but it was without a wine license. An application was made' at a former Sessions, and refused on mere technical grounds, but that objection was now completely removed. The RLCORDSR . ,.4I, that the application must be made to the Sessions held on a Special Gennal Licensing day. An intermediate Session would not answer. Mr. AvOt.raus said, that such iirgnaiient had not been used before, and that licenses had been granted, under the Hotel Act, in the intermediate. Sessional dal s. Mr. SHILTON, upon being mimed stated that ti e Learned Counsel's statement was borne out by the practice of' t e Court. Mr. Agoulius said, that when the previous applica tion wits made, it was stated that there was a want of I recommendations from the inhabitants of the neigh. bourhood. a want of Alderman - Waithinan's consent. and a waat pf the consent of lire D..pety and Common Coulcil. All these, deemed requ . site to enable the applicant to retail wine, were now supplied. Mr. George stated in evidence, that three or four weeks ago he applied to the Alderman of the Ward, for his, consent to a wine license for this hotel, under the new Act. The Alderman said he could not corectly sign such a consent, as he was a Member of the Court to which the application was to be made, and might be ;,bliged to sit on the Bench at the time of decision. He was told that his liinature was not wanted—his verbal assent would do, or his statement of rejection. To this he replied that he thought the whole trade ought to be thrown open, and that every respectable house ought to hate a license upon application. He gave a clear consent in this instance. Mr. Deacon confirmed Mr. George's statement. He said that Mr. Mullet. the Deputy of the Ward, had called upon him and espiessed his hopes that he would obtain a license, advising him, at the same lime, to make hay while the sun shone. The other Common Councilmen also espressed their reedy assent. The Recoanea said that the recommendation ought to have been in writing, and with the'signature of the , parties attached. Mr. ADOLPHUS said they could not correctly give a recommendation to that Court, which it would be their public duty to superintend. All that was required -by ,lasi was a statement of any objection which they might haieto the house. The Ksoontosa said, that even a formal written con sent could not be concluiive with the Court. Not more than three months intervened between the present time and the licensing day ; and he for one saw no reason for greeting the license before that time. Mr. ADOLPHUS said his client was sustaining loss daily from the restriction, and his customers were in convenienced greatly ; besides, the ensuing three months were the busiest iii the year. The liaconola Then it is most important that, during that time, the Court should lake care to pro tect the public. A recommendation was then_ put in, signed by a number of the inhabitants of the Ward, testifying to the respectability of Mr. Deacon's character, to the perfect correctness of the manner in which the house bad been hitherto conducted, and the utility of such a house in the neighbourhood. Mr. Sllll.lOll here said to the Recorder that there appeared no proof that a written notice had been served on the Aldermen and the Common Councilmen that the license would be applied for on this very day, so as to enable them to come and oppose it, if they should think proper. The Recount* at once saw the force of the objec tion, and repeated it. Alderman AnaLes.....Mr. Alderman Waithman told use, the other day; that be was for granting the license. He certainly had notice. Mr: ADOLPISUS said, that the Act only requjied . that the Aldermen sad common,Coaacil 'hold bare ao• gs&GoRDE* said that, without dou "t. makat should have been twin in vri,in." Mr. oLvuuls 7 -:Why . you' ear fLOM One lit; the Ovid% thatlie Weird. Alderman Yaithman himself tic cli t that he hid notice of, the in which he fully concurred. • What better evidr - nce could be se muiied ? The applicant applied fora license to the Sessions held in August, and it was then found rut that he curie without professional edvice, and he was sent back to get ir. At . the September Szssions I e Came with MO 'assistance, and it vas found that be had not got recommendations from his neighbours, or the authorities of the land, and be was again seat back. Me came again at this Sessions with the recom mendations, and now he was told - that he should have given a written notice, which the Act did not mention, to those who had full pat ole notice, and were favourably disposed towards him. Alderman Kay said it appearei to him that the notice given was sufficient. If the Aldermen or the Common - Council intended to oppose the application, they aught to have been present. As far as his opinion went, he should be for granting the license. .* • 'The RECoRDIM said, he was not for dispensing with the ordinari rule of . justice in such cases. Tilers were four Aldermen in the Commission, and there must hate been a Majority of votes to grant the license. Two *ere wit sufficient—his vote war against it. Mr. ADoLPHos said that the Act provided, that ally two Magistrates Might 'grlnt the license. -• The IttCoRDER—Vs. Hut that is out of Sessions. Mr. ADILPHOs—Aye, but it makes ski difference if 11:e two Magistrates happen to be in Sessions at the time they grant the license. The Rac RDIR asked why the application was not Made out Sessions? Mr. ADOLPHUS . sAid, that his client was induced to apply in the least objectionable manner, namely, pub licly ; when hieclaims /bight be Most openly discussed and scrutinized. • Ald. ANSLIY said, the applicant would have an op. po.tunity of giving formal notice to AlJ.Wa.thman. The license was then refused by the Court, but the Aldiraien intim:aril their assent to the granting of the license out cf S:ssion. .• WINTER HOME CIRCUIT. - CHELMSFORD, Dac. 12. BEFORE NIR:B‘RON VAUGHAN. Michael Cashon ant John Brien were charged with feloniously assaulting Whim Gra. &ill. at East Ham, and forcibly t.sking 'front his person, against his will, one watch and other articles, his property. The prisoners, on being arraigned, pleaded Guilty. Mr. Baron VAUGHAN asked them whither they weft aware of the consequence o. their plea? It would not necessarily induce an evension of his Majesty's melt" to them. The prisoners said they knew they were guilty. and therefore would not deny it. This was,.the fir t trite they had committed any offence. ?dr. CLARK then asked whether it was his Lordship's pleasure that their plea should be recorded ? Mr. Baron VAUGHAN again %smiled them of the effect of their plea, and they suit continuing to insist on plead ing guilty, directed theii pie s to be received. In order to determine what course ought to be pursued with respect to them, his Lordship desired that the prosecu tor should be placed in the witness box. Mr. Greenhill, a very fine old man, above 72 years old, then appeareJ. He st .ted that the prisoners were two of about 70 Irishmen *horn he employed on his farm, at Eat Ham. On the nik,ht of the sth of Nov. about harpast five o'cl. , ck, he was going away irom ilia house down a frivate footpath. when the two pri. toilers suddenly 'tasted out r f a ditch on the other side Of a hedge near him, in which there was a gap. Alarmed at this unexpected appearance, he asked them did they want to rob or run him by their lurking there aft's° unseasonable an hour, and in such an unusual place? He was instantly answered by a shower of brick bats and stones from the prisoners; and almost immediately' after ' they. sprang over the kedge; Brien with a huge cuJgel felled Mr. Greenhill to 4 . 13 e ground, and Cashon s t on his head. The ran of the blow on the head was, the taring off the scalp Of the skull. Mr. Greenhill was quite deluged in his ,own blood; and while he was lying pro irate, Cashon took out his gold with fr m his lob ; he then ran away, leaving the unhappy m n in this dreadful state. With great difficulty tt e prosecutor managed to crawl (home; and although medical assistance was forthwith obtained, his 1 fe was for a long time in great peril. Mr. B iron Vaucinax here aedressed the prisoners, and told them that from this evkence, there was nothing which could authorise him to make amy favourable re presentation to his Majesty of their cases ; and therefore he advised them to ithdraw their pleas of guilty.— They might thus avail themselves of any advantage the law afforded them, from defective proof of identity or other citcnmstances. • •-• The prisoners said they would leave it tohis Lordship. His Lordship advised them again to withdraw their pleas. They, however, still persisted in pleading Gay. Mr. Bunn VACOHAN then said, that afttr these re peated warnings the pleas might be recorded. A witness; an Irishman, was then examined, who proved that he had overheard the pi isonets tonversing, in Irish, on the lowness'of the wages they received from their employer, and Brien said he would have the worth of his wages—be would have his watch. . A pawnbroker from Bristol produced the watch of the prosecutor, which had been pledged with him by the prisoners. An officer produced the hat of the prosecutor, which was found on the head if one of the prisoners. The prosecutor identified the two articles as his property. The prisoners on being asked what they had to urge against the passing of sentence of D:ath on them, said they had nothing to urge—threw themselves on their knees, and with uplifted hands and streaming eyes, im plored the mercy of the Court. Mr. Baron VAUGHAN, who seemed deeply affected by the situation of the unfortunate men, observed, that no mercy could be shown them. He depicted wi.h great eloquence and feeling the conduct of which they had been guilty. It only remained for him to pass the awful sentence of the law ; but before he did so, he besought them most earnestly to make every use of the spiritual assistance which would be afforded them, to pray foe that mercy in another place which must b e denied them here.—The prisoners were then removed from the bar. William Brooks was indicted, under the 7th and Bth George IV. c. 29, s. 96, for stealing oysters, oystede brood, .and.spot, from certain oyster layinp in as atm of the 'river Crouch, in this county. The prosecutor was the renter of certain oyster lay. ings in tkie Crouch ; and hawing some suspicion of the prisoner ; be wattbed him. Oa the 6th of November . .. tick; ilk 40. yoydb thlit thel sboldra kellydrir of the) intended Applicati o n. . Thie - iri 9cit:ittitierti dist they bad. knowledge of it. Had the Act intended tile written notice Walla be given, th a t wlnild haws imiica speCified. thi RIECORDER said that, without doOt. the =tie* ~..