The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-09-25 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY, &pr.

I Before Mr. Sergeant Anent tr.l
John George Leach, a painter, with one arm, was indicted for
cutting and stabbing James Brooks, with intent to do him some
.grievous bodily harm.
The prosecutor, who is a shopman in the employ of Mr. Careless,
a cheesemonger, in Clare-market, said, on the 27th of June last,
about seven o'clock in the evening, the prisoner came to the shop,
and, having called him outside the door, said he called upon him
respecting an illicit connexion that had subsisted between hint and
his (prisoner's) wife, and the prisoner desired to be supplied with
money, for the support of the child which his wife had had by him
(the prosecutor): he replied, that he had entered into a bond with
the parish to pay for its support, and that the aftisir was at end. At
that t'me the prisoner had his hand behind him, as if it was placed
in his pocket, and he suddenly made a rush at him, and aimed a
blow at hi.. breast. He parried off the blow, anti pushed the primer
away. The prisoner then walked off; and. after he was gone, wit-
ness found he had been stabbed :n the arm, but he did not discover
the blood until some time afterwards.
In his cross-examination by Mr. BARRY, he said he drove the
prisoner away from the shop : he did not drive him into a butcher's
shop, nor put hint in fear of his life. Ile had paid 501., and taken
an indemnity from the prisoner's wife not to trouble him again
respecting the child.
Thomas Kirby. a shoot:um to Mt. Careless, proved that, on the
evening of the 27th of June, the prisoner came ro the shop, and
inquired for Mr. Brooks. The prisoner asked Brooks if he knew
him ? lie said he did not. Prisoner asked him if he knew the
name of Murray ? Ile said he did ; and then the prisoner said he
called respecting the young, kmale lie had seduced. Brooks asked
him if he was the person who married her? The prisoner said he
was the person, and asked Works if he was prepared to pay 100/.
for the anppore of the child ? Brooks said he had paid 501. already,
and had nothing snore to do with it. So e words then occurred
between them, and the prisoner made a thrust at Firooks, who
warded of the blow, and drove him away from the shop.
Mr. Weaver, a surgeon, of Blackinoor-street. proved that he
attended the deceased on the 27th June, as he had received a wound
in the arm. The dividing of the artery was the principal injury.
The effusion of blood would be immediate when the artery is di.
vided. From the appearance of the wound, he should have thought
the blood would have been discovered immediately. The coat or
shirt sleeve would not have been sufficient pressure to stop the
bleeding.
William Couzens, a Bow-street constable, proved having Belpre.
headed the prisoner on the morning of the 28th June. He told him
he had a warrant, and lie said he hoped it was a death-warrant.
Witness said he apprehended him for assaulting a man named
Brooks ; and the prisoner said. " I hepe I have done enough for
them to take away my life; if they don't, I shall take it myself.
If I did stab him I must have done it with a pallet knife; but I
am not aware I did it."
ECouzens produced the prieoner's basket of painter's tools, among
which was a pallet knife; hut the Judge, upon examining it,
seemed to be of minion it would not have inflicted the injury upon
the prosecutor's arm. 1
James Green said the prisoner came into his shop about four
months before this affair took place, and desired to be informed
where Brooks lived. lie told him he slid not know, and the
prisoner then seized him by the throat, and said he had an instru-
ment to put Brooks and his wife and child to death, but he would
spare him (witness) for the present.
The prisoner, when eilled upon for his defence, declared he was
innocent of the charge. Ile had, unfortunately, lost his arm some
years ago, and he was in consequence compelled to carry glass and
other materials in his pockets, and it was possible that when the pro-
secutor was thrusting him away from the shop, he might have cut his
ann. He had, he said, kept the prosecutor's child for three years.
and never had a farthing as a recompense. lie was about to read
a long written defence, when
Mr. Justice Lt TTLEDALE observed that there was a great deal
of doubt in the me, and he thought the Jury would not require to
hear any farther defence the prisoner might make. The Jury con-
sulted together a few minutes, and then returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
Riel.ord Stevens, aged 25, was indicted for a highway robbery
upon Mr. Matthew Finch, on the 26th of June last, near the
brewery of Messrs. Banbury and Co. The prosecutor and his wife
were walking together on the night in question, when the prisoner
and another pa•sen, nut now in custody, came up to them, and at-
tacked them. The prosecutor, who is an elderly gentleman, de-
fended himself as well as he could, but was at length knocked
down and robbed. His wife was also knocked down during the
contest. On his crows-examination, lie said lie believed the prisoner
at the bar was one of the men that had attacked him. 0 the other
person he could not speak with certainty; he thought he could
speak to tie ptisoner, not only because he had had some opportu-
nity of observing the prisoner's face, but because he had struck the
ptisoner over the face in several places ; and when the prisoner was
apprehended, prosecutor observed marks which he believed to have
been those inflicted by himself; however, he would not swear posi-
tively to the prisoner. The r rofiecutor's wife was equally unwilling
to swear positively to the prisoner. The defence set up was an
alibi, and to prose this several witnesses were called, and stated,
that on the night in question they were at the Three Sugar Loaves'
public-house ;•that Stevens and a man named Fox were also there
that these two men quarrelled, and Fox and Stevens fought, when
the latter got the worst, hating been •repeatedly struck over the'
face by his opponent, and thrown down upon his face on the
pavement.
The landlord of the public-house confirmed this testimony : the
fight ()mend in the street, after he had cleared his house; he
merely looked out of his bed-roorn window, and when lie saw the
men were fighting in the street, lie took no more notice, but went
ta bed. _ _

By theJrDGE—He had kept the Three Sugar Loaves about a
year, and had previously kept a public-house in Mile End New
Town for two years. The robbery was said to have been corn.
mitted near llanbury's brewhouse, and since he heard that the
prisoner was in custody he had taken the trouble of walling thither
and running back again, which occupied him exactly five minutes
and a half.
The Ileadborough of Christ Church rpm the prisoner an excel.
lent character, and the Jury acquitted him.
James 'blies, who was convicted a few days since for assisting in
the robbery upon Mrs. Fuller, was again placed at the bar, charged
with having assisted in the robbery upon Mr. Finch ; and the pro.
secutor having in this instance sworn positively to his person, he
was convicted. .
Mr. Fuller appeared to complain of the rate of allowance made to
him by the officer under the order of the Court, to allow him his
expenses. Ile said he was a professional man—that the gang was
very extensive—and that ne could not afford to lose his time in pro.
smiting them if he was slowed no greater sum than 4s. 6d. per
day.
The two beamed Juntas, eter consulting together, observed,
that it was not in their power to alter the allowance made to the
prosecutors. They distinguished between the case of a professional
man attending in his professional character to give the Court the
benefit of his scientific assistance, and that in which he attended in
the character of a prosecutor. They said, however, that the officer
would be as liberal as possible.
Thomas Jones was indicted for procuring forty counterfeit shil.
lings and sixpences, with intent to circulate them for good and
lawful money.
A witness of the name of Romaine proved having seen the pri.
soner coming out of a house in Petticoat.lane, suspected of being&
mart for the sale of bad money. Ile was taken into custody, and
the counterfeit money stated in the indictment found on his person.
Romaine was rigidly cross-examined by the prisoner, and admit-
ted that he had been imprisoned two years and ten months , part of
the time for defrauding the revenue. He apprehended the pri.
soner, and assisted in the prosecution purely for the public good,
and expected no reward.
The prisoner, in his defence, attacked the character of Romaine
very severely, asserting that lie was in the habit of endeavouring to
entrap unwary persons, by dropping a small bag of counterfeit
money in their way, and, when they fell into the snare, apprehend-
ing and giving evidence against them.
The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to six mouths'
imprisonment and hard labour.
The SdAdOCII will terminate to-day (Monday).

NEW COURT.
(Before the Uoitatot: SERGEANT.]
•

. -
Frederick Sue Wag, a very respectable-looking young man, was
charged with embezzling a sum of 501. which he had received on
account of his employer, Mr. Robert Gray, proprietor of the Bolt.
Fleet-stress. The prisoner was a clerk employed by the
prosecutor to keep the books, and receive the monies paid into the
office by the drivers of the coaches.
Mr. Eastland, the driver and part proprietor of the Tunbridge
coach, had, in the course of business, paid lifty sovereigns to the
prisoner, no account of which appeared to his credit at the end of
the month.
The case being dearly proved, the prisoner attempted, in his
defence, to cast an imputation upon the character of Mr. Eastland
as a witness ; but Mr. Adolphus, his Counsel, reminding him of
the folly and mischief of such a course, that defence was not per-
sisted in.
The Jury instantly found him Guilty.
This case was the last of the trials for felonies in this Court. It
is expected that these Sessions, which have been protracted to aa
unexampled duration, will terminate to-day (Monday).

It is not generally known, even among legal men, that no
person can receive the benefit of Clergy more than once,
and that if convicted of a second offence, however trivial,
he is precluded from it, and the offence becomes capital. A
remarkable and unprecedented instance of the clerical im-
munity from punishment being twice prayed for by a cul-
prit occurred at the last Northampton Sessions. W. Smith,
aged 20, was convicted of steeling a shirt, the property of
J. Kean. When called up for judgment, he prayed the
benefit of Clergy. The Judge was about to pass sentence
as In case of grand larceny, but was informed that the
prisoner had on a former conviction received the benefit of
Clergy, and had been sentenced to four months' imprison-
ment. Mr. Justice Best observed that this was the first
time, during a long professional life, that he had known a
Jury called on to decide on a point like the present. It
was, therefore, for them to judge whether the prisoner had
received the benefit of Clergy or not. The Jury instantly
returned a verdict in the affirmative. Sentence of death
was then panel