The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-16 00:00:00

OLD *BAILEY' SESSIONS.
TUVRSDLY, JAN. lb.

Vet Mr. Murray omits it altogether. As to the expressions which
• ate objected to, the very fact of their being placed in the u:uu.h of
Ratan, implies that the reverse is right • l'ar the sereitre, is are ap.
proprinte to him, and mule to correspond with his supposed views
and objects. The poet was finally introduced by Astuod,us, who
a supposed to be the devil that most resembles a man. Then Mr.
Couthey is ridiculed by the port : he offers to write the lives of all
c oteeta, and is severely upbraided by the poet for certain alleged
ine,A, in his political oph.itc-s. Finally he is flung into the flee-
s: cat water, at the foot of Skidding, when he sinks first to tie bee.
Ilke his works, and then is described, " like other corrupted
things, to the in the surface." This wasthe machinery of 'heparin.
Ile acid not tell them It was not all true, but would remind them
ref the expression of the poet, " fladzooks, who can vouch foe the
truth of .4 song ?" Ile besought their indulgence for poetry, which
.$7 insinuated that which was true. It was all they aspired to.
" 17njustly poets we asperse,
• For truth shines better clad in vase;
And all that they aspire to do,
Is to insinuate what is ton ."
to conclusion be conjured them to preserve the right of free corn-,
thirst on the conduct of 'kings and rulers. Lha Ilelde the Jesuit.
POVIIII.IOI, that in China there were two officers. whoa only duty It
was to note down all the actions and sayings of the Emperor. On
ore occagion the Emperor found something there that he did not
'lke, and be tote it out. The next day he found the :genie reinserted,
with the addition of his having torn the page recorded 111.3. (A I
.}l.) If this privilege were taken away, the King would be
+rapt round in orysta7 nail Alsace; and the future Monarch of
England would be assimilated to those despots who were leagued
against liberty—who saw their own bane in the prosperity of their
pecple—in their riches nothing but the rower of taxation—in glory
nothing hut selfish reputation. Ile concluded by the renewed,
expression of contempt and indignation with which the present
pnaecution filled his mind.
The LORD CHIEF JuSTICE briefly called the attention of the
J try to the two points fir their immediate decision: Ist, %I'hether
r is publication was to vilify the memory of the late King ; and,
dir. If to vilify him with a view of disturbing the peace of the
zeigning King's mini, anti bring his family into dist:rare. in
connecting these two propos;tiors, he would oily gay that a son
must naturally feel strongly any aspersions thrown out upon Ms
father's memory. It would be with them to 'lt chic if they were
such as were calculated todistieb the pace of th.r. King's mind.
..,As to the pobliestion, he thought it his ditty to say, that as it had
Men read it filled hint with great abhorrence. It containegi many
asset objecionahle passages. However, they would conlitec their
ettention to that port shoed in the indictment, and enognit their
own judgments end own consciences, and Inc telt assured that there-
cult would be satisfactory.
' Previous to the Jude's charge, Dlr. ADoLosirs Moved that
Reuther'', Vision of Judgement should be given to the Jury, as It
had been referred to by the Counsel for the defendant.
The Loren Cif IE r J TIC E replied that it had been referred
so gerendly • tae Counsel spoke only on a presumption of the
Joey's knowledte of the work.
• In twenty mi fetes the Jury returned into Court, and being asked
fns their verdict,
• The Foreman, with a strong emphasis, and in a peculiar tone,
thawed the defendant to be Goi:ey.

Anita was indicted for burgiariously breaking and enter-
' ing the dwelling-lionse of 31mars. William, Thomas, and Joseph
Leonard Keasley, with intent to steal.
Ale. Ahht in stating the ease for the prosecution, remarked.
that a permit' in the Might-time being found on premises to which
he had no legal right of secret., although nothing was taken away,
was as guilty of burglary as if he had stolen 10,0001. There was a
point of Ida in the ease, which it would be fur the Court to decide
upon. The point to which he referred related to the situation of
the prensiatm.
Thomas Keasley being called, stated that he was in partnership
with William and Leonard Keasley, as whaltsale harness-dealera :
they carried un their business in Great Queen-street, Lincoln's
The witness began to describe the situation of the premises, when
he was desired by cis Lordship to explain on paper to the Court
the precise state or them.
The witness retired from the box for that purpose, and, In the
meantime
Francis Wood, a journeyman of the prosecutors, was examined,
and deposed that he left the premises safe between eleven and
twelve o'clock on the night of the 2d of January ; and John %Fell-
spring, another of Kemileys' journeymen, proved that he went to
the warehouse between two and three o'clock in the morning of the
3d. When he opened the door he found a pair of shoes at the bot-
tom of the stain; aid on his going to the counting-house, he
found the door ttiLuked, and the prisoner rushed past him, and
stet:dr him. Ile, however, was taken by the watchman, and con-
veyed to the watchhouve.
'lr. Keasley again came into the box, and was called by his
Lordship to the Bench; he explained to him the situation ut the
preniive,, when
Mr. Justice Buanot•oit directed the Jury to acquit the pri-
soner, as, by the explanation given to him by Mr. Kraiiky, of the
situation of the premises, the counting-house clearly did not inOte
part of the dwelling-house ; and the indictment charged the fiti-4
tamer with being found to the dwelling-house of the prOsece*GlN
with intent to steal.
The Jury acquitted the prisoner under his Lorile;ip's
rections.

-----
Jaws Milker was indicted for burglariously breaking and attir-
ing the dwellingskouselof Mellen! Till, siturted in the parish of
Si. 31sthew.liethnal-gteen, on the night of the 6th of January, and,
stealing eight silver spoons and other articles, his propertye li
appeared that tile prosecutor, •ho was a green-grocer, in Tikes
st.ett, and his wile, left their house on the night in guanine about
seven or right o'clock, to spend the evening with a friend, hi:living
previously tastunsi the doors and windows. About ten v clock
infl-rmation was broughtto them that their house had been entered
by thieves. The alarm was given to them by the watchman, who
on going his rounds saw a glimmering light in the prosecutor's first
floor, and knowing lie was our, he imagined that the booze had
been broken open. The piosecutor returned with the watchman to.
his house, when he saw a friend of his, named Turner, 'standing
; near the front door. ill sent Turner round to the back door, and
he entered at the front door himself with the watchman. As soon
as the ii ceutor got into the house he heard a rustling noise on the
stain, and eoon'atter two men ran mistbini and went out at the back
door. One of the men had a stark lantern nearly closed; Turner
secured the prisoner, but the other man escaped. On searching
the prisoner, a phosphorus-box, some matehni, and a picklock-key
were found upon him. on going up stairs, the drawers., in the
first door mum were opened and in great confusion, and eight silver
spoons were missed; in the washalouse ail picklock-keys were
I found and a crow-bur.
The prisoner put io a written defence, in which he stated that he
was passing the prosecutor's house on the night in question, when
the cry of " Stop thief l" was raised, and lie was immediately
seized and sent to the watchhouse.
31r. Baron llusnocs, in charging the Jury, said, if they could
I have any reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt, in this, as in
other cases, they must give the benefit of it to the accused; but if
the evidence was to be believed, there could be no doubt that the
prisoner was guilty of the robbery.
Guiity—Denth.
- - - • •

AVCIIER V. 11•)IF011D.
This was an action on a bill of exchange, drawn on the sth of
thivesibtr; Irv, by Th3rnas Gray, on the defendant, for LIMN. at
three n,o date, and pAtble to the order of the drawer. The
F„,t,.. ii, a tine fie! ,r iffthe metropolis ; the defendant a man of
perry, residing in Shropslstre. (.ray, the drawer of the bill, is a
er in the inetrovolis, with whom the plaintiff has had extensive
railings in trade.
' It appeared that the bill had been lost out of the pocket of the
plaintiff's attorney, who sonic time ago was robbed in the Strand.
A cony of the bill was produced, according to which it had only
Giff''s name indorsed upon it.
' Fur the defence it was contended, that the defendant had been
Endured by the drawer to give this bill and two others, by fraud
and mirepresentation, and that the plaintiT knew that it had been
ileebtatned ; and funkier, that he had given no coed or valua,.le I
ednsiderntion foi it. From the evidence it appeared that the defend-
Ant bad given three bills to the amount of 603 L Its. 441. for the pur-
e/psi: of a mortgage on sonic property at Bennington, near Ches-
terfield, in Derbyshire, belonging to a relative of Gray, named
Holute3. It consisted of some copperas works, a homestead, and
tome land with a vein of ore. llohit:es had become embarrassed, arid
/tad assigned his property to the plaintiff and another creditor
sealed Walker, in trust fur the benefit of his creditors generally.
The first bill, for 2031. 15a. 401., was paid with3ut a lawsuit. On
the second there had been an action tried in this Court. That bill
Was produced on the trial, and it appeared to have passed through
the bands of the plaintiff, to whom it had been paid by Gray. The
bolder hail recovered ; end therefore, at the time of commencing the
present action, the defendant hod altogether paid 4031. Iris. 4d. out
of his pocket, in purchase of Gray's title, which had ultimately
proved to be of no value whatever to him. When he bought it
Ott premises were burdened with two prior mortgages, to the amount
015001., and an annuity of 3111. a-year for life to the mother of
1301111C3. - - - _ . . -._ -..—

Ilanter was indicted for burglariously breaking and
entering the dwelling-house of Thomas ingleson, with lucent to
steal.

The prisoner sent a note scram to Mr. Alley.
Mr. ALLEY said, that the prisoner should know that he had re-
ceived no brief for hint.
The prisoner said that be had instructed his solicitor to give •
, brief to Mr. Alley, and lie had informed him he had done so.
Mr. AILEY said that the solicitor had told him wrong, and
cheated his., as was too often the Cate.
The case then proceedril, and a Mr. Belebam, a neighbour of the
prosecutor's, who resided in East-street, Red Lion-square, stated,
that about seven o'clock in the evening of the let January he wail
standing near the prosecutor's door, and saw the prisoner and
another man lurking about the street. lie afterwards saw Hunter
go to the palisades of the area, get over them, and open the parlour
, window, which lie entered. Ile soon afterwards came out at the
'street door, and, on being asked what business he held in the house,
he said he lived there. Mr. Ingleson was from home at the time.
hut his wife and daughter were up stairs. They,,jaersiwter, neither
saw nor heard any thing of the prisoner when he lifee- in the hour.
IVben the prisoner was called on for his defence, be said he did
not know what to do. He bad desired Mr. Castles to give a brief
to Mr. Alley.
Mr ALLEY said that there was • set of men who went ittto
Newgste, and deceived the prisoner moat shamefully.
.he. Justice Di/moors:li asked who Mr. Castles war?

To prove the fraudulent misrepresentations of Gray, ll'm. Bam-
ford, the defendant's brother, was called, and be stated that Gray
his brother at the Fox Inn, at Birmingham, on this purchase,
When Gray stated that he had bad a letter from London from a
teniwith whom he was in treaty. and who had offered 1.1001.
tils mortgage. Getty also stated that he could sell the title of
die whole property, as he had purchased the equity of redemption ;
and on this understanding the agreedent was signed between the
defendant and Gray. To prove the plaintiff's knowledge of the
fraud, a letter from him to his co-trustee, ll'aiker, was produced,
is which he stated his opinion that the prior mortgages were more
than the estate would fetch, and that the copperas cost more to
make it than it was worth. Alluding to au offer by some creditor
to give 504, he said lie thought it would be advisable to accept
MO money, on condition that the purchaser signed Holmes s
eertifiate.
Mlelker also proved in evidence that on the return of the plaintiff;
pito bad been down at Bremington, to attend the sale of the estate.
it a seld he was *lndeed it would never clear the prior mortgages,
and afterwards, that alien Walker, in conversation with hint on
the purchase made by the defendant, said, " You must know the
false representations made by Gray," the plaintiff assented to
the observation.
The tiolleitor under the Commission against Holmes stated that
;elan the property was put up to auction in thiee late, the first
Was sold for 1751., but the purchaser afterwards was not forth-
coming to complete his contract, and that the last real bidding for
thi second lot was Mi. and for the thin) 1901.
No contradict this evidence, three witnesses were called for the
eriamtiff. The first was an appraiser, who valued the first lot at Tut LONDON DOCK COaiPANY e. THE rARISII or ST. Joint,
un., though the person who purchased it at 1734 repented of his warli•lNG.
bat:nein at that price. This was an appeal against an ansessment of poor-rate, amount.
The second witness stated that he hal mete a written offer of in to 15,0001. per annum on the London Docks.
1,04 for the estate ; but when his letter was produced it appeared 'Me Sergeant nOsANQUE 13 T, Mr. CURWOO, and Mr. Lim,
he was a relative, and on the face of his oiler had assigned as hie were counsel for the appellants; Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. A w DREws,
reason for making it, that he would give that sum rather than Mr. Anoernes, and Mr. Anion(' were counsel for the re-
suffef it to go out of the family. sporidents.
The third witness was a person who had offered 1,3001. but who 31r. Sergeant )losaetutrer opened the case to the jury.
had, Never seen the estate at all. Mr. (Ire, examined bdy Mr. HOLLAND.—Is a trustee of the
The evidence for the defendant, to prove that no good or valuable parish of Wapping, an knows the property in that neighbour.
emeideration had been given by the plaintiff, for the bill, was to food. In 11122 a survey was made by several surveyors, who, upon
We effect :—ln May, 11421, the plaintiff was made a bankrupt ; returning their estimate to the trustees, gave it in a way that did
flied on his hatancessheet Gray appeared as a debtor for 7304, the not ate cord with their wishes upon the rate. The trustees, therefore,
light being marked by the plaints as doubtful. The plaintiff' oh- considered upon the hest plan to enable them to form an equitable
Wind Isis ccrtificute in the Atigust following. It appeared that rate upon the docks. For this purpose they valued some ware-
Cray bad also ex ',creed a deed for the benefit of his creditors. houses, adjoining the docks and much like them, per square font,
For the plaintiff a witness was called. to prove that there had and, fonnitig a comparison between them and the docks, levied a
been dealings in Hour between him and Gray to the amount of se. comparative pour-rate, after deducting one•fifth for some part of the
eats) thousand pounds before November, when the bill was drawn; docks that were of lea value. The docks are now ( since varies
Inut on cross-examination, this witness admitted that he hail lieanl improvements have been mete in the Hermitage Dock. to enable a.
die plaintiff say, before his bankruptcy, lie would not trust Gray a ship to am in and unload without respect to tide) considerably new
games. creased in value ; and, if a rate were put on, compared with its ad-
Another witness was called to prove that he carried a bill from lan:ages above other property in Wapping, it would be decidedly
lash to the plaintiff, but what bill it was he did not know. On higher than 14,0004
seeessaxamination this witness stated, that he was only a servant to Crewe-examined by Mr. Sergeant liosetentere.—Valued the
My. He admitted that when the assignees came to take posses. docks in a degree upon the profits derived upon the extensive trade
MOO of Gray's shop, he refused to allow them, and said the shop carried on therein.
artes his ore. lie then stated, that in fact the lease was in his Mr. Wanton, examined by Mr. Ilotetwn.—ls a surveyor, and
:AWL in security for money owing to hint by Gray. surveyed the London ducks on the part of the parish of Wapping.
It was also proved, that a good deal of Hour had been delivered Mr. Joseph Sills was formerly a wharfinger. lied the lISM.
in limy on account of the plaintiff; and a miller stated, that he burgh and Three Cranes wharf. Examined the London docks, for
land ground a great deal for Gray, who had also a large mill of his the purpose of estimating their value, at the request of the trustees]
pwp at work al the same time. of the parish of 'Wapping, in June last. The docks possess every
The Loan CNixa Juseict said, the first question was, vibe- passible advantage for the purpose they are intended. The ware-
star the erfendant had been induced to give the bill by the frauds house and wharf's he considered wwth 17,2001. per annum, mid
sad inierewesentations of Cray. If it had not been so obtained he thinks they would now let fur that rent.
was without dofence, and the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict. Ale. Adams, a whartinger, had examined the London docks, and
If the jury were of opinion that it had been so obtained, it was estimates their value at 111,2a01. per annum, for which he thinks
then to be further considered whether the plaintiff; at the time he they could he annually let. lie made the estimate in July last.
took the bill, knew it* have been so übtatned. If he did, what- Mr. Laurie, a whartinger, estimated the London docks at 18,21.111.
ever consideration be odinin have given for it, he could not recover, per annum. fur which he is of opinion they could be let.
because the law would not endure that one man should perfect the Mr. White, a whirling*, was of opinion the London docks could
frawiesf another by giving a consideration for an instrument fraud- be let for 15,8871. a.yoar, which he thinks they are well worth. lie
Wendy obtained in order that he might recover what the other could made his estimate last month.
not. But supposing he did not know how it bad been obtained, Mr. Jackson, a what-finger, was confident the docks would let for
.tall be could not recover ueless he proved that he hail given a good 13.0001. a.year, and were well worth that rent. The pectinate ad-
and valuable consideration for it. It appeared clearly that, bur- vantages poweeried by the London docks are so great, that the
doped as the estate of Holmes was with the two prior mortgages fir water-side property in Wapping cannot be compared to them.
0101. and the annuity to his mother, whoever bought the title be- On his cross-examination, the witness said he did not conceive
**she became the owner of it absolutely must have paid a sum that the water-aide premises in Wapping were depreciated in value
amounting to Mil. at least, and when the estate was attempted to since Christmas 1822. If the privilegun given by Act ef
fee sold by auction, the utmost amount of real bidding* fur the meat to the London docks were withdrawn, they would still retain
Mita lots into which it was divided, wax Mal. There could their superiority.
Lis •no question therefore that the defendant bail agreed to Mr. Hartle, a whartinger, considered the London docks well
trssa a sum greatly exceeding the worth of his wawa. The worth 15,0001. a-year.
and ntierepregentations of (hay resolved thense)eai into Mr. Fareourb *dusted the docks at 17,0504 a-year, which they
his pretences that he had receivedletters offering 1,3001 Red were well w.wth to a aharfinger.
les concealment of the annuity'to Holmes's welter, and his state. Mr. Silver agreed with the last witness.
imps that he had minium-el the equity of redemption. Looking lelr. Humphreys cnn-iilered the London docks worth 17,5001.
to the period when the plaintiff wax bankrupt, and when this bill a-yestr, to let to a whetting*.
became due, the question was whether be could fairly and honestly Mr. Barber estimated the annual value of the London Docks at
hays given credit to Gray to the amount of 4001., for this was the 18,4001. Ile hail no doubt good tenants could be had at that rent.
Wand bill for 21101. drawn on the defendant be Gray that had been Mr. George Wheeler applied, in company with three other whew-
paid into his hands ? On the evidence, it seemed to be quite clear fingers, for liberty to exstaine the London Hocks and warehouses,
that in that interval the plaintiff bad add and delivered a good in December last, and was refused. The London Docks have *-
deal of fl rue to Gray. Whether it had been paid for was a ques. duced the value of water-side premises in Wapping, by their supe-
then not NO clear. The plaimiff wet described as a man carrying vime advantages.
its an extensive beside* if that was the fact, some person might Mr. Wm. Johnson, warehouse-keeper of the East India Cons.
lave bean called to prove from his books that both the bills had pany, having charge of their goods in the London Docks.—The
been given on the &menet between him and Gray. Gray himself Company at premed occupy haV the warehouse Eon the map, for
would have been a competent witness, but he was not called, though which they pay a rent of 1.3841. les. They also occupy two other
I. Cosik It been suggested that the bill had been given after warehouses, at a rent of 4,5101. ;in addition to which they pay ILI.
At was- at m. If that le as ire fact, no cousideretion given by the a bale on all goods at the tune of storing, and 2d. on taking the
plaireir could entitle hint to recover, provided be knew how it had goads away.
begs. obtaioeil. 01 his ernae-exeminatim, the witness stated, that the Company
The Jury delibcoated a few minutes, and found a verdict for the held die warehouses by the week. but had occupied part of them
defendant. since late; the zee-minder since 1820.
Mr. time/et and Mr. Conga were for the plaintiff; and the At- Mr. l lrifllthe receives the rents of Bridewell Hospital, which has
.ro.asa.theacra4 Mr. tisareey..suld Air. (;bitty, for the defeedant. a eonsiclerable wharfage property in the pariak of %Yapping, whirls

A per;o;aittingalibel;;;;3ters ;Tableas id that his name was
Castles, and the person alluded to by the prisoner. He bad spoken
to Hunter's friends about giving a brief to Counsel, but they de-
clined going to that expense.
The Jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner Guilty—
Death.

John Murphy, aged 19, was indicted for stealing a barometer,
value SL, the property of Stanley Stokes, from his dwelling-house,
situated in the pariah of it:4. tiiles's in the Fields.
The trimmer was seen to enter the house, and in a very few 114-
notes he returned with the barometer in his hand. He was detained
by the fiction who had watched him, until Mr. Stokes came up,
who ideto tiled the property.
liuilty of stealing to the value of 395.

MI DM ESE X SESSIONS,
THURSDAY. JAN. 13.