The National Register.
London, England, 1821-09-16 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
...-.

These sessions commenced on Monday, before N. Co-
slant, Esq. chairman, and a full bench of magistrates.

CONSPIRACY TO DAIATAIE A SURGISON.

John Raseuscroft, Sarah (his wife), Mole! (his son),
Hannah Itarenscrat, and Nancy Woodcock (his daugh-
ters), and another, were indicted for a conspiracy to injure
John Roby, in his profession and credit, as a surgeon
and apothecary.
Mr. Alley stated the case for the prosecution with
great force. He said the prosecutor was a young gentle-
sian properly qualified, and had commenced the practice
cm his own account, as a surgeon and apothecary, in Old-
Street, in the ',lrish of St. Luke, about two years since,
and had exercised these professions with great credit and
success. About four months since the defendants had,
as it appeared, united together to do him the greatest
possible injury, by representing to his customers that he
was not qualified to act as surgeon and apothecary, nor
entitled by law to make any charge for having so acted,
being nothing better than an impostor, and that no one
who employed hint need pay him, as lie could not recover
by law.
Mr. Roby was the first witness called. He stated that
he has carried on the business of surgeon and apothecary
at Old-street for two years. lie had previously, from
the year Is 15, lived as assistant with surgeons atChatham
and Plaistow, and at the former place had practised for
himself during the former part of the year previous to the
passing of the Act of Parliament in that year, which re-
quired that all persons who had not practised as apothe-
caries before the Ist of August in that year should obtain
a certificate from the A pothecaties' Hall before they
should be allowed to do so. He mated that he had
several patients, one of whom, of the came of Davis, left
hint lately.
On his cross•cxanaioation by Mr. Adolphus, he stated,
that he served his apprenticeship at Keimilworth, in
Warwickshire; that he was articled in the year 1810,
and came to town about four years after.
Mr. Charles Butler Greatorex, surgeon, stated, that
he practises at West Ham, near Plaistow, in Eisex—that
the prosecutor lived with him for about a year, as assist-
ant, about the year 1816—that he conducted himself in
every respect with credit, and that he (witness) has ever
since thought highly of his abilities and honour.
Dr. Forbes, of Argyle-street, deposed, that he knew
the prosecutor since the year 1815, arid considered him
perfectly competent to carry on the business of an ano-
theca ry.—Ott his cross-examination, he stated, that his
opinion was founded on the knowledge of the prosecutor,
in consequence of his having attended two courses of
witness's lectures at the Surrey Dispensary, and also
from his having attended several other Medical Institu-
tions.

Mr. Charles Hyde, surgeon, stated, that the prosecutor
lived with him as assistant in the year 1818, during
which time he allowed hint to attend the poor at Lam-
beth, where he saw 30 or 40 patients daily, and witness
considered him a very clever young man.
Catherine Collins, a married woman, of Gee-street, St.
Luke's, staled, that the prosecutor attended her during
an illness early in the summer; that some time after the
defendants, Hannah Ravenscroft and Nancy Woodcock,
neither of whom she knew at the time, came to her
house, and inquired whether the prosecutor attended
her. Being answered in the affirmative, they said they
name to tell her that he was neither a surgeon nor apo-
thecary that he might be clever, but could not recover
any payment in a court of law, and she should soon get a
printed paper front the Apothecaries' Hall to prove it.
Collins, the husband of the above witness, confirmed
his wife's evidence, and stated, that soon afterwards Da-
niel Ravenscroft called on him, and brought him to the
George public-house, where he found the defendants
John Ravenscroft and Thomas Hopley, who asked him
whether he had paid the prosecutor. Hopley told him,
if he should be pressed for payment, he might defend it
in the Marshalsea Court along with two others, and the
costs would come light on all.
Eliza Davis proved that she had employed the prose-
cutor, and found great benefit front his prescriptions.
Hannah Ravenscroft and Nancy Woodcock, neither of
them she knew at the time, called on her and told her
the prosecutor was no doctor, nor any thing of the soil,
but a good-for-nothing fellow front the country, and
that she would never pay him, as he could not recover
by law.
Davis, husband of the former witness, stated, that
Ravenscroft, the Whet, called on him and desired him
not to pay the prosecutor any thing. He went to Ra-
tenseroft's house a few days alter, when be saw all the
family, who said the prosecutor was au infernal villain
and good-for-nothing scoundrel, in consequence of which
witness ceased to employ him.
J. W.Bickertort stated, that he called at Ravenscroft's
in conic uence of their reports respecting the prosecutor.
They UM him the prosecutor was not a professional
man, and could not recover payment; and Hannah Ra-
venteroft said her father and two other gentlemen were
dtdernained, when they came from the isle of Wight, to
ruin him. The defendant Hopley was there, and oficred
witness a note to an attorney in the rules f the King's
Bench, who, he said, would defend him against the pro-
secutor, should he sue for payment : Hopley at the c
refused to tell witness his name.

I lere the ca;e I;"...theprrTsectition closed.
Mr. Adolphus made an ingenious address to the Jury
for the defendants. He attributed the expressions that
bad been used to the too warm resentment of a female,
who supposed herself iopired, and the excusable sym-
pathy of her (ritual: He called no witness.
The Chairman slimily charged the Jury. lle said a
clvarer case of conspiracy could not he proved, and a more
honourable character could not be given to any man
than had been given to him who was the object of it.
l'h Jury found all the prisoners Guilty.
The prosecutor requested that the female prisoners
might be allowed to rennin at large on their mulct taking
to come up to receive the judgment of the Con t.

THE NATIONAL

REGISTER

The Chairman complimented the prosecutor,and corn-
plied with his request.
James Thompson was indicted for perjury, alleged to
have been committed in giving evidence against Burnell,
the prosecutor in a case tried in this court.
Mr. Andrews stated the case for the prosecution,
which he opened by stating, that Thompson was an
upholsterer residing in Davies-street, Berkeley-square;
that Ite had a female lodger named Harrir.gton, who lived
be means not at all creditable, and kit his house in debt.
He was recommended to employ the prosecutor, Burnell,
to procure payment, and afterwards he had, in confor-
mity with his instructions, received a part. Thompson
met Miss Harrington in the street, and learned from her
that she had paid part of the debt to Mr. Burnell, the
agent, but instead of preventing payment of the rest by
withdrawing the authority he had given, he brought Miss
Harrington with him before the Grand Jury, and pre-
ferred a bill of indictment against Burnell for having
obtained money on false pretences. On the joint evi-
dence of these two the bill had been found, and the
present prosecutor was afterwards found guilty of an
offence which might be punished by transportation, To
prove that the evidence given by the defendant, who
swore that he had never said he had employed !ha pro-
secutor, Burnell, to collect money for hint, was false, the
Learned Counsel called a number of witnesses to prove
the facts.

lktr. Alley made an eloquent speech in defence, and
called several witnesses, who gave au excellent character
of the defendant.

The Jury found a verdict of guilty.

LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.