The National Register.
London, England, 1822-07-07 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

about the Constitutional Association; by seeing Mr. At-
kius's name, and the name of Charles Murray, Honorary
Secretary, be supposed it belonged to the Constitutional
Association. He never sent it to The Times, nor any other
newspaper, for publication, nor aloes he know who did.
He believed his clerk took a copy of the paper at 114 de-
sire, but hail not seen it. Ho took so link notice of the
paper that he cannot say how long it was alter lie saw it
the defendant called on him. He did lint push the defen-
dant beluie lie was struck by I ' . The stick with which
the defendant assaulted I • was twice as large as the one
lie had with him in court. 11e struck the defendant as
often and as hard as he could.
By the Court.—He went ont the next day on a gentle
horse, but was obliged to return in a roach—he also went
out three or lour tunes in the course of the next week un
urgent business, but with great difficulty and pain.
Septimus Wady, of Fleet .street, Illageult, stated, that lie
was sent for by air. Parkins on the lath May, and found
several scratches bleeding on his face, about the integu-
melds of his eyes, and several lacerations on his legs and
thighs; the wounds were rather severe, but nut extensive.
Ile attended Mr. Parkins a foi might or three weeks. 'the
vroilials woe eo tar lull mud that they might confine a
person a day or two, and he advised Mr. I'. to lay by.
Joseph Gill, the person who delivered the message from
the defendant to Mr. Parkins, corruburatsd the evidence
of the assault in every particular. Mr. Paiktits used uo
violence of any kind betine lie was struck.
William Walker said, that he was proprietor of the
house, No. 10, Bridge-street, in which Mr. Pm kin. had a
Town entirely appropriated to himself. lle (the w inn SS)
saw the defendant a day or two after lie had committed
the assault on Mr. Pai ions, and aveused Idia of breaking
the peace in his house. The defendant said, if he (the
witness) did not take care of himself, he would serve Wm
the saute sauce as he had Parkins; lie was glad of what
lie had dune to Pat king, anal wished it had been more.
The case for the prosecution closed here.
Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant;and
the Recut der recapitulated tie: evidence to the Jury, who
without any hesitation found the defendant guilty.
After some consultation on the bench, the Recorder
addressed the defendant. He had been lotind guilty of
311 unprovoked assault on the clearest evidence; and his
neclaration after, that lie was glad of what lie had done,
was an aggravation of his offence.—The sentence of the
court was, that lie shauld be imprisoned two mouth* in
liatspur-stteet Compter.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

PERJURY.
WEDNESDAY) JULY Kiteller was iodicted for
wilful and cot' opt perjury.
Mr. Cooper stated the case for the prosecution, which,
he said, wat carried on at the suit of Philip Vincent, a
very old man, a farmer at Sudbury, in Suffolk. The two-
seentut's son, William Hayward Vincent, who carried on
the business of a chentist au.l hatter, iu Sudbury, being iii
embarrassed circitinatances, was arrested, and went to the
King's Bench prison, where he hail the mistortuue of
having the defendant for acl . From their living hi
the same room, an intimacy took place,aud the defendant
assisted Vincent in preparing his bchedisie, when he soon.
alter applied to tile Insolvent Court, to take the benefit of
the Act, under which lie was discharged in the month or
February, 152 1. The defendant was discharged by super -
seatius die same day, and went down to the (mildly on an
invitation from Vincent, where lie remained tor souse
time the successive guest of W. H. Vincent and his father,
and endeavoured to make himself useful to them. In the
course of some weeks, however, he was given to under-
stand that he might take leave, and lie did so ; in a short
dine atter the family of the Vincent, were astonished by
receiving trot him several letters of a most extraordinary
nature. 'flue learned gentleman here read the letters, tear
of which were signed by the defendant, and a huh
signed Philip Hawley, was afterwards moved to lie in the
defendant's hand-witting. The letters siatied by the de-
fendant demanded compensetion from W. 11. Vincent,
under pain of disclosing to his assignees concealment of
property from his creditors; lie also threatened to inform
against him ter having a titivate still,attd the letter signed
Hawley, addressed :also to W. H. Vincent, stated that he
knew the deleattlant intimately fur Is years, and that lie
I was the t vindictive man upon earth, and it lie (Wm.
Hayward Vincent) did out make liim some compemation,
lie a mild •certainly be the ride of him. All twat letters
and ducats, said the learned counsel, were disregarded ;
no ansaer was returned, and the defendant, in ptirmance
of his design, applied to the assignee of W. H. Vincent,
and Millie au altidat it, charging him wilt having con-
cealed a variety of property from hi, creditors. The con-
sequence of which was, that W. 11. Vincent was again
called before the Insolvent Court and I.e-ea:wonted, and
on the testimony of the defendant his discharge was
revoked, lie was remanded for three years, and it was
only by an its egularity in the proccediegs of the Court
that he obtained his discharge. In the affidavit sworn by
the defendant, charging W. 11. Vincent with concealment
of property, he had deposed, that in the month of January
W. 11. Vincent was visited in the King's Bench prison by
his brother Philip, and that W. H. Vincent inquired of
his brother whether he had got the note for InUl. that he
had left with his father when coining to town to go to
prison ; and that Philip replied that lie hail,aud produced
the note, at which W. IL Vincent expressed great joy,
and said it would be a good thing for hint when he did get
old, if lie could keep it flout his assionee, and returned it
t, Philip, with directions to keep it sate. 1. .1 this charge
the perjury was assigned, and both Philip and W. H.
Vieeent would prove that no conversation took place,autl
that no note was produced, which would be also proved
by a witness of the name of Turtell, who was also the
chum of the defendaot and W. H. Vincent, and in the
room all the time Philip Vincent was with his Mother.
Their mother would also prove that W. 11. Vincent gave
his father the note which the defendant alleged to have
seen, in payment of a debt, in the middle of the year
Ititt, and thud she hail it its her possession ever since to
the pi email morneut. After such evidence be thought it
would be impossible to doubt the delete:ant', guilt.
The sevetal witnesses mentioned in the statement of
counsel proved the case exactly as he had staled it.
Mr. Andrews addressed the Jury ter the defendant,
contending that the note had been concealed front the
creators, anti even it' the il;.fettilatit had not seen it, kis
declaring it must be attributed to nit mistaking mime other
paper for it, when it was the subject tot caret rsatien.
'file chairman recapitulated the evidence to the Jimmy,
who, after consulting for about 20 'Moults, returned a
icrtlict of Guilty.—Judgmeul deferred.

21f

USDA Y, JULY 4.—Mr. Adolphus appealed'• against
the appointment of Mr. Rhodes, the well-Icemen cow-
keeper at Islington, confirmed at petty sessions, to be
one of the overseers of the poor of the parish of Totten-
hens, on the grounds that, although he had a house in that
parish, and rented nearly 600 acres of ground therein, yet
he also had a house and a larger quantity of ground in the
parish of St. Pancras, where he was one of the directors
of the poor; and besides, Mr. Rhodes Considered it to-
tally inconsistent with his duty, as a parish officer of St.
Pancras, to accept of a similar appointment in a neigh-
bouring tsarists at tho same time. But the truth was, con..
ti 111 l ed the learned counsel, that in the parish of l'ottenlaaaa
a great many gentlemen lived, whose daily avocations
castled theist to the mew:lom, and being Earn of pro-
perty, they were usually fixed upon by certain individuals
to lid parochial sittiatious, well knowing that they would
sooner pay a fine of rol. than perform parochial duties irr
person. In this situation, hi addition to what he (Mrs
Adolphus) hail above stated, stood Isis client ; and it was
niost singular, that the house of Mr Rhodes, in the parish
of Tottenham, stood at least the distance of one stale from
any other house in that parish, and nearly three mile*
twin the village, from whence the poor always ease for
parochial aid. The learned advocate. said, had his clients
submitted to pay the prescribed lisse,lie would not have
trou'iled die bench this day on the subject ; and con-
cluded, for the reasons above stated, that it was his de•
citied opinion that Ilse upping:timid might to be set aside.
Mr. Bolland and Mr. Andrews argued at great lengths
for the appointment being confirmed; and,amongst other
reasons, submitted, that great benefit and advantage had.
accrued frosts islets of property and consideration accept-
ing of the higher parochial offices; and that Mr. Rhodes
bring a director of the poor of St. Pancras was no answer
to die parish of Tottenham, inasmuch as there were alto-
gether not less than 43 directors of the poor in-that palish*
and that live only were enabled by law to proceed 10 tbs
business of such offices.
After souse discussion amongst the magistrates on the
bench, die appointment was confirmed.
Mr. Adolphus rose, and stated, that his client was At-
termined not to perform the duties of the off►ce, and the
palish might indict hum, when be would appeal to the
Court of Bench.
The appeal lasted the greater part of the day, and es-
, cited a considerable degree of interest-.