The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-04-13 00:00:00

• MIDDLESEX SESSION'S, APRIL 12.

Two men, named Rorer and Metcalf were in-
dicted for assaulting Mr. Thomas •Watson, at
Stepney Fair.
Thomas Watson said he went to Stepney Fair on
the 3d of July last, where Rutter kept a booth ;
there were several gentlemen in it. A bottle of
wine wits called for; sandwiches were also called
for, and seven shillings were paid. Rutter said
they had not paid for the sandwiches, upon which
Pro...entor gave him his demand, one shilling.—
Rtitt.sr. then called him a swindler, :Kul struck him
severit tunes with the greatest viiileo.re. Prowess-
t.ir Ii u.I given no provocation whatever. Metcalf
joined in committing the assault, and was assisted
by other persons. Prosecutor could not of course
resist the combined efforts of the persons who as-
saulted him.

On hiu eruns-enomMtnion the Prosecutor said.
Rutter indicted him, but he was acqui•trd. lie
offered a ►um of 51. but Rutter wonted to/.

Two wit...vies were examined for the 'molten.
Their testimony went merely to the some
het., and to confirm the evidence given by Mr.
Watson.

On the pert of the Defendants three witnesses
were produced, who gave quite a different state-
meta of the transaction; they differed with the wit-
mimes for the prosecution, and they differed with
themselves. They admitted. however. that the
Prisoner Rutter, on demanding the price of the
sandwiches, called Mr. Watson a swiudler ; so lit-
tle, however, did he appear inclined to use personal
violence. that he kept his hands quite at ease in his
pocket', Whilst he deliberately called Mr. Watson
a swindler. One of the witnepsev. the "cutter-up,"
se he stated himself, of the Prisoner Rutter, gave
hit evidence in a very theatrical and impassioned
manner ; he iwore that the Prosecutor gave Rutter
the first blow, and there was such a cosi-anon of
blood about hpini is was shocking to the eye of man
to behold.—The next witness, a boy in the service
of Rutter. coald merely say, that he saw the first
blow given by the Prosecutor Mr. Watson.

The CHAIRMAN recapitulated the evidence. and
in the course of bit charge to the Jury, he took oc-
casion to lament that so many cases were brought
before the Court, in which different witnesses,
swearing to facts which could not be mistaken. had
yet given accounts of those facts as opposite as
black to white. The present, lie said, was precisely
one of those cases where a melancholy and du.
graceful difference appeared in the evidence `of the
witticisms for the different parties. and the question
was, to which side the Jury would incline to give
credit: VIII' respect to the fact that the Prosecutor
had offered money, in order to prevent the case in
the first instance front appearing before the public,
th:it only proved the reluctance of a young gentle-
man from bringing the matter into Court; opposed
as be was to persons of a description such► as now
stood at the bar. The witnesses for the prosecu-
tion, all of them persons of respectability, two
of them persons unconnected with the Prosecu-
tor, gave the same evidence in a clear and con-
sistent manner; but, on the other hand, the wit.
noses for the Defendants gave a representation of
the matter altogether contradictory and inconsis-
tent. Under all the circumstances of the case, he
left it to the Jury to judge between the conflicting
evidence of the witnesses, mini to find a verdict ac-
cordingly.
The Jury found a verdict of Gnilly against both
the Prisinwra.

The Count, after a severe and ju,t reprimand,
sentenced the Prisoner, Rutter, to pay a line or
90/. to the King, and sentenced Metcalf to be its.
prit,oned for two months in the House or Car.
rection.

-- Barmen, a boy of about seventeen years 4
age, was indicted fur feloniously receiving a mai.
tary cloak, the property of his late Majesty, cows
trary to the blet we.
In support of the prosecution, • rerjeant of the
Life Guards stated, that between the months of
October mud January last. there were eleven will-
ies,/ cloaks stolen out of Knightsbridge Barracks,
belonging to his regionesst. The corporal, who
owned the cloak its question, proved that it was
stolen, and that he had not since found it.
Jonathan H•sslin, a private of the Coldstream
Guards, was next produced. He ►tated that he
was the pr►son who actually stole the cloak and
sold it to the Prisoner.

On his cross-examituition he stated, that the
Prisoner was not the only person he had accused
respecting this property, though he had actually
stolen the cloak himself, lie accused a soh.'
dirt of his own regiment of paring stolen it.—
The men was brought to a court-martial for this
offence; witness appeared against him, and swore
that he hod stolen the cloak ; but notwithstanding
his evidence, the Mail was honourably acquitted.
Two officers, who attended with the last witness to
the ileighbourhood of the Prisoner (Rosemary-
lane), in order to search fur him, stated, that the
wittiest' brought them into the house of a person
of the name of Jacob, instead of the Pri.oner'r, and
the n 000000 ent lie saw 3.arulis son, he said, that he
was the Ip...roan who recrivril the cloak from bins.
On the other hand, the corporal, whose cloak was
stolen, positively maksl that lie had been all the
time with the itrieur Hasslin, that he went into
Jaculi s house aid, him, and that he declared that
was unit the house where lie sold the cloak ; bet
Out the boy, pointing to Jacob, was like the per.'.
son to whom he sold it. On being taken to the,
next house, which was the hone of the Prisoner,
the Prisrmer's father denied Inni, but the serjraist
went into a bads room mid brought[ lain out ; on
seeing him trasslin assrsled that be was the person
who bought •t he cloak from him ; he swore BO before
the Magistrate, and never retracted it.
Gamble, a girl who was with the witness
liasslin when he dllloarti of the cloak, having
been brought to the room where the Prisoner was
to custody, surrounded by a number of persons, and
having been asked to point him out, immediately
identified him.
Tlw CHkIRMAIr stated to the Jury, that nil.
doirlitrilly the evidence of Hassler, who confessed
himself to liege been •thief; a perjurer, end a Mire
accuser, was little deserving of consideration, unless
in those points where it was supported bribe tes.
!lawny of other' and more cOitible wituesitl—
I there the Jot, Pot boutsel, hot tinged to belied timi •