The National Register. — London, England, 1811-09-29 00:00:00

THE IViTioNAL RE the Coffee-house was set up for my son, but that I was the owner of it. Cross Examiited by Andrews. Are you not an uncertilicated Bankrupt ? [Here Mr. ALLEY interfered, declaring he would not suffer his client to answer any improper or illegal questions. 3 Mr. Kendall—l am not, nor never was a Bankrupt. The Cas.hier of Messrs. Drummond produced the booltS of that firm, from which it appeared that Andrews had no account Kith that house since the .gth of January 1E08; there then re -trtained a balance in his favour of Se. 6d. which he afterwards drew • the whole of his account amounted t o a b out 30751. ; h e sometimes lodged 5001. or 6(./01. together, but generally drew tut the money he lodged one day, the day after. Here the prosecution c:osed, and the prisoners being Called on for their defence, Andrews Gddressed the Court and Jury.. He confessed he had written the draft on the Banker, and that the statement of the prosecutor was in part co,.rect, and in part false. As far as related to his giving the checque, and the balance being paid to Hall, he admitted ; but as to the crime itself, he denied it altogether. He had not obtained the money under any fah:e pretence whatever; he had kept cash at the Bankers, as had been proved, nor was there any extraneous aid used to. Induce the prosecutor to pay the money. He expressed this. acknuw • lodgments to Mr. Alley, for the very humane and handsome manner m which he treated. his case. He regretted that his un fortunate friend (Hall) should he led into such a situation ; and, thinking it useless to waste the time of the Cool t with further observation, he threw himself entirely en their mercy. Gull said, he had nothing to offer in his defence. He should call no witnesses, as he had not an opportunity, or means - of procuring any. The CU AIRMAN, having summed up the evidence, left it to the Jury to decide on the tact, whether they could conic to the conclusion, that these persons had (according to the charge in the indictment) obtained money under fake prin‘lices. The Jury immediately found a verdict of Guitiy against both the prisoiets. '1 hey were nett indicted for obtaining money 00) under false pretences from Mr. Brendel, of Blackwall. Mr. Guy. NEY having stated the case on the pdrt of the prose , anion, Mr. Brendel, the prosecutor, being sworn, stated, that he Piept the Artichoke Tavern at Blackwall, and upon Monday, the 12th of August last, the prisoners came to his house, and after bespeaking a Witte dinner for some of his friends on the following Thursday, for which they, agreed to pa; one guinea a head, exclusive of wine, they ordered a spaali dinner for themselves. In the course of conversation the prisoner (Andrews) told him he expected a letter in the coun:e of the evening, which would he directed under cover to him (the witness), and they told him their names, Mr. Andre': s and Mr. Hall. After dinner they asked him to take Wine Mtn them, to *hich he assented, and in the mean time the messenger iir fived with the expected letter; he tuck off the cover, and the enclosure was directed to" Richard Andrews, Esq." Andrews opened the letter, and having read it, said it was from a parti.: Cular friend, who wanted 501. to complete a most advantageous purchase, whfch he should forfeit unless he had that sum inane diateli; then turning to Hall, Andrews asked him if he had any money, to which the former answered he had got but 101. about Lim, and pulling out hispocket-book gave Andrews a 101. Bank note, Andrews produced 101. more, and apparently in a great dilemma expressed muck regret that he coin not send his friend the wlrole sum he had written for, as it' he failed in the purchase, it would be attended with a great loss. Andrews then asked the witness to accommodate him with SOl. and he would give him a cheque on his hanker for rul. Which he could receive the next day, it being then past banking hours. To this the witness, not suspecting any thing from the respectable appearance and manners of the prisoners, asst wed ; Le gave Andrews the 301. and the latter drew a cheque on Messrs, Biddulph - and Co. for 501 which Hall indorsed, the 201. balance being understood to go towards payment of the turtle dinn.r, and to defray the expenses cf tha: day's dinner, which amounted to 11. 151. including four bottles of wine. lie went to the bank with the cheque the next morning, w hen he elkcovcred that Andrews had kept no cash there for several years; of course, finding he had been thus imposed upon, he did - -ovide Lhe ..rtle not provide Lhe turtle feast. Mr. Smith, clerk to Messrs. Bidduiph, proved that Andrews kept an account at their house five years ago; that the accurst was closed on the 6th November, 1806, when he had overdrawn 831 which he afterwards paid, and took up the bills then in their hands; the witness could not tell where the prisoner lived at that time, hut Mr. Andrews said he then resided in Rusiell- reet, Bloontsbury. The prisoners urged nothing in their defence. and the Jury kuud both Guilty. ,r ~:iay 'The Court then sentenced them to Si: AT liths Intprisonmett on the first indictment; and to Seve n rears Transpuriatioa utt tue sLcand. LITTLE GOES, David Davis Was brought up for the further sentence of the Court, hiving beete&mvived and sentenced to six months im prisonment under the Vagrant Act by the Magistrates of Bow street, for keeping a Little•go, or private Lottery. Mr. Guit NET on the part of the prosecution, urged the ne cessity of some exemplary punishment for this offe4e, not merely to deter others from continuing the practice, but to in duce those convicted to give up the principals, as this practice was now carried ou to so great an extent as to be highly alarm ing and injurious to the Public. The facts being proved, C. Mr. Ae;oeeuus, for the prisoner, addressed the Court In rni lotion of punishment; but The Court conceiving that some singular example should be made, in order to suppress this offence altogether, sentenced the prisoner to six months imprisonment, and within the first month of that period, to be publicly whipped for the. space of yard, , , near Yeoman's-row, .on the brompton-road, the place wh ere the offence had been committed. Thunyas Phillips was also brought up for the further sentence of the Court for a similar offence, committed in the same neigh bourhood. The prisoeer attempted to prove an alibi, but hi s witnesses contradicted each other's testimony in such a manner, that the Court conceiving some of then' pereurt d i and consider ing this a great aggravation of his offence, although they had in tended to, pass upon hint a more lenient sentence than the fornier, he was also sentenced to six months imprisonment. and to be publicly whipped. Jeetee Salmon, William Brown., aiid Thomas Dowker were also hi ought up for similar oflences, and sentenced to six MOntlis imprisonment each. BUYING GUINEAS. ./4.e:1,i,t, a stage coachman, was indicted under the late Act of Parliament (Lord Stanhope's Act) for "purchasing the legal coinof the realm for more than its true and lawful current value." • The prosecutor was a tow-street patrole,and was emPlOyed by the officers of the Mint to di . ..cover persons in the practiced buying and selling guineas fur more than the current value.; Being furnished with sonic marked guineas and instructed by them, he repaired to the White Horse-cellar, Piccadilly, at al time when the stage coaches were collected there, he fell into Conversation with the prisoner and displayed five guineas among some siiirer; the prisoner offered tq give him change for two' which he wanted for his wife, but this the witness refused, un- . less he would purchase four. After some time the prisonei consented, and offered him 225, a piece for them; this the witness declined, he then offered him 2Cs. 60.. which he agreed to, and the prisoner having borrowed the money from some neighbouring friends, after some hesitation, paid him four 11. notes, a dollar, and four shillinAs for the four guineas, and the, purchase being thus completed, he immediately apprehended hint, Made hint disgorge the four guineas, and brought him' before . the Magistrates at Bew-street, who cammitted him for trial. Itf r. ANIYRF.WS, ai Counsel for the prisoner, made a very Ale • and ingenieus trefence ; contending, in the first instance, that Litt client had been entrapped into the commission of this crime, and deprecated the mode thus resorted to, in order to bring offend ers of this kind to justice. He also contended, that this was not a baying and selling veithfri the meaning of the Act, the prisoner bring compelled to relinquish his purchase almost at the mo ment he made it; andefurther, as. this charge was a criminal (it:nce, it was incumbent on those on the part of the prosecu tion to produce the best possible evidence;—they should allow what was the trite and lawful current value of a guinea, by pro cliwing- the lil!ng's Proclamation to that effect. Several most respectable *itnesses wiere then then called on behalf of the priSonet, who give him a moat excellent cha -racter. The Lenrned Cnititim .1 N, in summing up the evidente to the Jury, controVerted the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the priioner, observing that the Jury bad only to try the fact, whether the prisoner had trat'sgressed an Act of ParliaMent„ but that this bbing, the fi rst o ff ense tried under this Act, and" from the means wed to induce the prisoner to commit the' offence, he not being accused of any moral turpitude, and from the exemplary character given him by the witnesses, the Court were induced to pass a very lenient sentence on Min ; should the Jury find him Guilty. The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, but strongly rec-)m-* mended the prisoner to mercy—'and having been already four teen days in confinement, the Court ordered him to be dis charged, upon entering into recognizance not to repeat the offence, and to appear forjulgment hereafter, should the Court' think proper to call upon him fur that pur2ote. . -61