The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-02 00:00:00

TILE KING V. RADFORD.

The defendant, a slietilr's officer. appeared 10 receive such
punishment as the court in its judgment should award, fur exact-
tog from a person mimed Wood, whom lie had in custody in a
lock-up house. the sum of 211. 13s. lid more than lie was legally
entitled to demand.
'The subject matter having been referred to the muter of the
Court, that ollieer read his report, by which it appeared that the
defendant had received the overcharge already stated.
Mr. Cooper. who moved fur the attachment against the defen-
dant. under which he was brought betore the court, stated, that
this was not the only instance in which the defendant had im.
posed on his client.
The court sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of 251. to the
King, to refund the sum illegally received, to pay the costs, and
stand committed to the prison of the court until the whole is paid.
QUEEN MAR.—THE KING V. WILLIAM CLARKE.
The defendant in this vise. when brought up finjudgment last
week, had time given for the purpose of making an arrangement
with his printer. to induce him to give up the unsold copies of
•• Queen Mali." The defendant now put In an affidavit, and
produced twenty-live copies of the wink, as all which remained
in the printer's hands.
Mr. Gurney said he felt it to be his duty to press for the judg.
trent of the court against the defendant, a. it apneared from his
schedule, filmd in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, that at that time
there were 529 copies in the printer's hands; either, therefore,
there had been a very extensive sale since, or, what was more
pnitiahle, some of the copies were kept back. The court would
also observe• that by the defendant's withholding the printer's
tame, it was impossible to have his affidavit as to the copies
unsold.
The Judges conferred together for some time, when
Mr. Justice Bayley proceeded to pass the sentence of the court.
His Lordship observed, that, from the recommendation of the
Jut y and the defendant's subsequent conduct, the cour had been
inclined to spew a very extraordinary degree of lenity towards
him., hut as he had chosen (from motives which the mull had no
right to censure) to conceal the printer's name, the case must be
considered as one where the printer's name was withheld. The
court, taking the recommendation of the Jury into its consider-
ation• and the defendant's conduct at Cie trial and since, did
order and adjudge• that he should be confined in the house of
corrcetion, in Codhath-fields, for four calendar months, and find
securities for his good behaviour for live years, himself in 401.
and two sureties in 201. each. _ _

The defendant asked what was to he done with the twenty-five
copies of the work which he now held in his hands ?
Mr. Justice Bayley—The court makes no order with regard to
them ; but if you are prudent you will destroy them.
The defendant said he had no objection to woe them up the
Society for the Suppression of Vice, and accordingly handed
them over to the solicitor fot the prosecution.
Alt. Justice Bayley—That, ae u voluntary act of your own, is
extremely ptoper—very proper conduct indeed.
The defendant then bowed to the court and withdrew in
custody.
TILE CMG V ANDF.RSON.
The defendant, who acted as suir.tyor of highways at Mile-
Eud and Whitechapel, appeared, on the motion of Mr. Gurney,
to receive judgment, having been Mund guilty of a traud,
keeping back various rums received by virtue of hisoflice.
The defendant, who is a man of respectable appearence, put
in his affidavit. stating that lie bad been prosecuted in eonse-
squence of the ill-will entertained towards horn by an individual
and that he had not been allowed the opportunity to explain the
apparent deficiency in his accounts.
',Mr. Gurney said. he was suipriscd with respect to the defen-
dant's affidavit, and he prayed the court to allow one day to
answer it.
The court complied with the request, and ordered the defen-
dant to he brought up to-morrow.

TEEsDAY, NOV. 26.
JONES, GENTLEMAN, r, BRADLEY, GENTLEMAN,

This was illll action fur work and lanour—business done by
one attorney for another. The plaintiff in a clerk in court.
A letter oftlie defendant's was pot in, requesting larthei time
for pat ment.
A clerk of the plsintirs proved the business done, and the
reasonableness of the charges.

There being no defence—verdict for the plaintiff 1061. and
coots.

undefended causes were disposed of, but of uo public
interest.

At twenty minstea to eleven the Lord Chief Justice, Justices
Best and Holrnyd, took their seats in Itanco, hearing short
motions, until eleven, when Mr. Justice Bayley came into court.
The attention of the court was occupied in bearing an argu-
ment upon the terms of an award respecting paying of costs, of
no interest, until past twelve.
The c ase of certain attorneys being moved to be struck off the
rill* was called again to-day.
Mr. Header, for the defendants, observed the parties were
now unending the Court of Common Pleas, which Court had
determined to proceed in its judgment without waiting for the
decision of this.

*I be motion was accordingly permitted to stand over.
TILE KING V. ANDERSON.

The defendant, who was up for judgment yesterday, and re•
witicied to give counsel for the prosecution an opportunity or
si.sw, ring tiflidai its, again stood upon the floor of the court.—
d. fender', In his aHidavit had slated that his prosecution
WWI to he traced to hostile feeling on the part of • Mr. Pepper-
mire, one of the churchwardens, and unfair proceedings against
Lim at a parish met ling. He denied that he had embezzled
the perish money, and attributed the spparent deliciency in his
accounts to errors wlich he bud not been allowed to explain.
. _

Mr. Gurney on this occasion, put in the affidavit of Mr. Pep-
percorn, who deposed that the defendant had contrived during
nine years to hold the office of surveyor of the highways, and
during that time hid defrauded the parish to the *amnia of
eighteen bnndred pounds.
Other affidavits stated that the prosecution had been com-
menced in cunsequ• nce of reao!utions passcd at a meeting of
trte tithallitants of the Hamlet of Mile Lod.

The allidasit of Mr. Mariner the situ, ney, aillo stated, that
the dehmdant having been indict. d at Hicks's Hall, had re-
nmsed the Kiwi...dings, by eri ti.trari into !Ida court, and that
be ultimately suffered& verdict of guilty to be recurded against

The Common Sergeant addressed the court in mitigation of
panistiment, and Mr. Gurney in aggravation.
The Lord Chief Justiec.—Let Ow defendant he remanded in
the I .1.4,1 ti rOl the Nlaishall, and he liroii6Lt a.,;vin to 1120110 W.
Tug &hi/dant nab taken out of court.

_
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 27.
THE KING V. WM. ANDERSON.
The defendant was brought up in custody of the Marshal,
pursuant to the order of yesterdAy, to receive sentence.
Mr. Justice Bayley, pronouncing the judgment of the court,

The defendant, as surveyor of the highways, in the Hamlet
of Mile End, Whitechapel parish, was prosecuted under two
via.—fur unlawfully and fraudulently making and
producing false accounts in writing, and fraudulently concealing
and neglecting to enter in those accounts several sums of

money received from 12 different persons. The sums certainly
were very small, not exceeding on the whole 41. and a fruition
nn the first iouictmeot, and 31. sad a fraction on the second.—
Aud that he did aftervvards'iake a false oath in swearing to the
truth of the lir4 account, ■nd would have sworn to the second
account, but that the magistrate before whom the oath was ten-
dered refused to administer it.
The court held that this was a very considerable aggravation
of the defendant's criminality.
The court adjudged, that upon the first indictment the defen-
dant should pay a line to the Ling of 3001. and be imorisoned
four calendar mouths, and until such fine should be paid. And
on the second indictinent, after the payment of such hue, and at
the expiration of such imprisonment of four months, that he
should be further imprisoned for two calendar mot.sas.