The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-08 00:00:00

_~,'

delivered during the anti-corn-law agitation; and those
extracts, he contended, contained more sedition than aught
that bad been uttered by the prisoner.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it wee beside the qaes-
tion to quote seditious speeches delivered elsewhere.
Scrjeant Wilkie' would not quote any more, after the
intimation of his lordship, though he had a volume before
him. He considered it pertinent to the poeition
be had assumed, that, what one clan of persons
received honour, reward, and distinction for, ought not
to be made a crime in the case of a poor working
, man like the prisoner at the bar. Yet such it wee
in the present case, and the conduct of the govern-'
meat was, be considered, like that of the coward
toy who kicked the gosling because he bad been
bitten by the goose. The learned gentleman proceeded
to draw a harrowing picture of the miseries endured by the
population in the manufacturing distriete, and asked how
were they, the unrepresented, unentranchisecl, to make their
vitiate and privations known but by meeting in pub) c to
grumbled out their social wrongs. The learned counsel er
gued at great length upon the probability of the language
ascribed to the prisoner having been exaggerated—
PO easy was it for a reporter in a crowd to mis-
, take one epithet for another, amidst the anise and confusion
which prevailed. Ile argued that the general character of
the meetiogs was far lege dangerous than they were
described to be; nor could he APO in what respect they
were unlawful. It was very ditikult to conceive the
meeting to be a riot; but granting that it was, it wns
almost impossible to say by whom it was caused and
originated, After some other observations to a similier
effect, the learned counsel sat down, having spoken Lr
nearly two hours and a half
The Attorney Goren/ then replied. He said that all the
topics which bad been introduce) into the lengthened and
eloquent address of the learned serjeant had in his opinion
nothing whatever to co with the charge against the de-
fendant. It was nn excuse foe him that other p none lad
or had not, for really there was nothing upon which the
jury could rely to show which way it was, made use of ex-
pressions which amounted to seilitinn, and that for certain
reasons the government of the day had considered it not ad-
visiable to prosecute then:, and it did not justify his making
use of seditious language at the period in question. What
was the object of that meeting ? The resolution that was
proposed in the tied instance was a declaration of the
tyranny of the government in convicting John Mitchel.
Mitchel was convicted by the law, and in his
opinion most properly convicted; and be could only
say that if the offence had been committed in England
he declared he would have prosecuted him for high treason.
The Atterney-General proceeded to comment upon the
other circumstances ef the case, and said that there did not
appear to be any pretence for saying that the mectine iu
question was convened for any fair or legal purpose, or to
discuss any grievance, real or supposed ; and the only infer-
ence he contented that could he drawn trim all the circum.
chances connected with it was, that it was intended to create
disaffection in the minds of the spectators, and to excite
them to acts of violence and outrage. lie conclude d by
again expressing a hope that his lordship would coincide
with him in his opinion of the law respecting riot, so theft
those persons who set theme Ives up as the lead, re of these
proceediugs and excited their poor ignorant dupes to sets of
violence, but who basely ehrank from incurring any per-
sonal danger, might not serape the more degrading pueidf-
meet to whirls the others were subjected.
Chief Justice Wilde summed up, anti after some prelimi-
nary observations precceeted to explain the law upon the
subject of sedition and unlawful assemblages, which it will
be unnecessary to repeat. Ile thin said that as ho had been
AO strongly called upon to express the law with regard to
riot, he would state to the jury what was the opinion he had
come to, after a reference to different authorities, which it
would be unnecessary to advert to. ills opinion was, that if
persons assembled to the number of three or more, and
speeches were made calculated to excite and inflame them
and induce them to commit acts ofviolence, or having a clear
tendency to that effect, and if at that meeting, or hams.
diately after it, acts of violence constituting a riot were cons-
meted, and it was impossible to sever those acts from the ex-
citement occasioned by thespeeches that had been delivered,
then lee was of opinion that in law not only the men that
struck the Wow or threw the gone would be guilty of riot,
but the persons who had excited them by theiriddiammatory
harangues, if it should be considered that they had been
. cling with one common object. The learned judge then
went through the whole of the evidence, commenting upon
it as he proceeded, end concluded by stating that it was now
the province of the jury to decide whether all or any of the
different charges had been proved against the defendant, or
whether the crown bad failed in making out the case for the
prosecution.
Tne jury retired at a nuarter to eight o'clock, and did not
return into court until Ma past. They then gyre ave edict
of Guilty upon all the counts, except the one charging a
riot.

NEW COURT.—Beim Baron Parke.
THE Baia-NOTIS RUllllBll.lr. Abraham Simmons we
indicted for feloniously receiving two banknotes for the pay-
ment of 1,0001. each, well knowmg them to have been stolen.
The pelmet, r pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Clarkson, for the prosecution, said that the jury hail
heard from the indictment the nature of the offence with
which the prisoner stood charged, and he would briefly state to
them the fates in connexion with it, and then leave it to hie
lordship to say whether there was evidence enough for them
to consider upon the cue. Upon the 3rd of July 11143, Mr.
Richard Blakemore, M.P. for Wells, was in London,and
went upon that day to the banking-house of Me.sre. May-
terman, where he received three bank-notes, each for the
amount of 1,0001. He placed them in his pocket, and
got into an omnibus in Ludgate-hill, for the purpose
of proceeding to the west end of the town. In the
omnibus a fat woman continued to prem against him, not-
withstanding hi. endeavcurs to avoid her; and when he
got out at the West-end two men preceded him and helped
him to alight. Upon reaching his club he found the
notes bad been either stolen or lost. Towards the latter end
of the same year a clerk in the Branch Bank of Liverpool
was tried and convicted of having stolen notes in his posses-
sion, and amongst them was use of those belonging to the
prosecutor, which was returned to him, and witting was
heard of the remaining two until last May, when they were
paid into the London and Westminster Bank, and from there
to the Bank of England, where they were stopped. They
were then traced to the prisoner, who keeps a tavern
on the Surrey side of the water, who said he had
taken them on the Epsom race-c0..r..e on the Perby
day, in payment of a bet, but he did not know
from whom ; he had since then given every information to the
solicitor for the prosecution, and as they had found such
statements were true, and as it would not be fair to soy
the prisoner had feloniously receive d them, with his lord-
ship's permission he would beg to withdraw the prosecution,
and give the notes up to the prosecutor.
His Lord-hip decided upon beeriest the evidence before he
would permit such a clime to bo adopted.—Mr. It. Blake-
more corroborated the statement of the learned couusel es
far as he was concerned.—S. It. Goodman, clerk at the
Mansion House, said the notes in question had been im-
pounded with the mutual consent of Loth parties.
J. Forrester said he apprehend, d the prisoner at his own
hoime, the Surrey Coal Hole, on the first of this month. He
male no denial of the fact, and gave the explanation that
had been stated, giving every info: motion he could about the
matter.
Mr. Henry Child, a partner in the firm of Wire and Child,
mid they were solicitors to the pris mer, and before be we,
in custody he had told theta the notes wire stopped, and
added that he had taken them of a gentleman, who gave his
name u Mr. Green, of Manchester, in payment of a bet of
2,0001. to 1,0001. upon Surplice ; that he wrote the name on
the back of the notes, and that k ne.v ing there was a sporting
gentleman of that name in Manchester, he did nut but think
all was right.
Forrester was recalled and said that he had been to Man
chewer, and found there was ouch a person in the sporting
circles there, but that he knew nothing of the matter.
Mr. J. Robertson, proprietor of the Raiiteay Record, and
Mr. W. Upham, a gentleman also connected with that pub-
lication, deposed to meeting the prisoner casually at
Epsom, and gom to take lunch in hie harouche ; and that
alter the Derby wag s run, a gentleman came up and paid pri-
soner two notes which he showed them, and were the ones in
question. He was a dishing-looking man in green spec-
tacles, and gave the name of Green of Manchester, which
name was endorsed upon the notes.
Mr. Baron Parke said it would be too much to charge a
man with felonious poseession of a note taken during the
bustle cf a race. He only wanted to be sure it was not a
compromise.—The prisons r was then acquitted, and the
notes given up to Mr. Blakemore.