The National Register.
London, England, 1822-07-08 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL ItEGISTER

abont the Constitutional Association; by seeing Mr. At-
kins's name, and the Dante ut Charles Murray, Honorary
secretary, lie supposed it belonged to the Constitutional
Association. lie never sent it to The Tinter, nor any other
newspaper, for publication, nor dues lie know who did.
He believed Ida clerk tuuk a copy of the paper at his de-
►ire, but had not seen it. lie took so little notice of the
paper that he cannot say how lung it was alter lie taw it
the defendant called on hint. He did out push the defen-
dant belote he was struck by hint. The stick with which
the defendant assaulted him was twice as Idlge as the one
lie Lad with Inns in C(11111. lie struck the defendant as
often and as hard as lie could.

By the Court.—He went out the next day on a gentle
horse, but was obliged to return in a coach—he also went
out three or four times in the course of the next week 011
urgent business, but with great difficulty and

Sepeiuuts Wiay, of Fleet-street, sot geon, stated, that he
was sent for by Mr. Parkins oil the I Mil ..11.4y, and tumid
sever al scratches bleeding on Ins face, about the integu-
ments of his eyes, amd several lacerations tin hi: legs tool
thighs; the wounds were rather severe, but nut extensive.
lie attended Mr. Parkins a lout ight or duce weeks. The
wounds were so tar inn tined thar they might confine a
person a day or two, and he advised Mr. P. to lay by.
Joseph Gill, the pe:son who delivered the message from
the defendant to Mr. Parkins. corroborated the evidence
of the assault in every particular. Mr. Parkius used uo
violence of any kind before he was sti tick.
William IValker said, that he was proprietor of the
house, No. lu, Bridge-street, in which Mr. Parkins had a
room witirely appropriated to himself. lie t the witin ss)
saw the defendant a day or two after lie had committed
the meta! It on Mr. l'at kins, and accused him of breaking
the peace iti his house. The defendant said, if lie (the
witness) did not take care of himself; lie would serve blin
the same hatter as lie had Parkins; lie was glad of what
lie had dune to Parkins, and wished it had been more.

The case for the prosecution closed here.
Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant; and
the Recorder recapitulated the evidence so the Jury, who
without any hesitation found the defendant guilty.
After sonic consultation on the 'sends, the Recorder
addressed the defendant. 1-le had been tonna guilty of
an unprovoked assault on the clearest evidence; and his
declarution after, that he was glad of what he had done,
was ass ag4ravation of his offence.—The sentence of the
court Nab, that he slsauld be issaprisussed two mouths its
Giltspus-strect Compter.

MIDDLESEX SESSIUXS.
PERJURY.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 3:--301111 Kuchler was indicted for
wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Cooper stated the case for the prosecution, which,
he Said, was carried tin at the snit of Philip Vincent, a
very old man, a farmer at Sudbury, in Suffolk. The Ilio-
secutot's son, William Hayward Vincent, who Cal i iod on
the business oils chemist and hatter, in Sudbury, being in
emir d circ 1111 l statuses, was arrested, and went to the
King's Bench prison, where lie had the misfortune of
having the defendant fur a chum. From their living iii
the same room, an intimacy took place,and the defendant
assisted Vincent in preparing his schedule, when lie soon
alter applied to the lusulveht Court, to take the billed of
the Act, tinder which lie was discharged in the month of
February, IStl. 'The defendant was discharged by simer-
maw the aante day, and went down to the country u,i an
invitation from Vincent, where he remained for sometime the successive guest of W. 11, Vincent and his tinker,
and endeavoured to make himself useful to them. iii the
course of some weeks, however, lie was given to under-
stand that be might take leave, and he did so ; in a short
time after the family of the I/niceties were astonished by
receiving from him several letters of a most extraordinary
nature. 'file learned vntleman here read the letters, tour
of which were signed by the defendant, and a fifth
signed Philip Hawley, was afterwards played to he in the
defendant's Vaud-writing. The letters signed by the de-
fendant demanded compensation hunt W. H. Vincent,
tinder pain of disclosing to his assignees concealment of
property horn his creditors; he also dire:nutted to nitwits
against Min for having a private stiflond the letter signed
Hawley, addressed also to W. H. Vincent, stated that he
knew the defendant intimately fur hi years, and that lie
was lime 11104 vindictive man upon earth, and it lie (Win.
Hayward Vincent) did not make bins some campensat 1011,
he would certainly be the ruin of him. All these letters
and threats, said the learned counsel, were disregarded ;
DO answer was relief tied, and :he defendant, in pursuance
of his design, applied to the assignee of W. H. Vincent,
and made an affidavit, charging him with having con-
cealed a variety of property 11-0111 Iris creditora. The cou-
sequence of Willett was, that W. 11. Vincent was again
called before the Insolvent Court and re-examined, And
on the testimony of the defendant his discharge was
revoked, he was remanded for three years, and it was
only by all irtegularity its the proceedings of the Court
that he obtained his discharge. In the affidavit swot nby
the defendant, charging W. H. Vincent with concealment
of property, lie had deposed, that in the month ofJatiesey
W. 11. Vincent was visited in the King's !tench prison by
his brother Philip, and that W. H. Vincent impiired of
his brother whether lie had got the note for 2001. that lie
had lull with his father when coining to town to go to
prison; and that Philip replied that he hail,asid in oduced
the note, at which W. H. Vincent es pi ess.al greet joy,
and said it would be a good thing for him when lie did get
out, if lie could keep it front Isis assigner, anti returned it
to Philip, with directions to keep it sale. On this charge
the perjury was assigned, and built Philip and W. H.
Vincent would prose that no conversation took place, and
that no note was produced, which world be also inured
by a wituess of the name of Turrell, who was also the
elium cif the defendant and W. H. Vincent, and in she
loom all the time Pink') Vincent was with his Mother.
Their mother would also wove that W. 11. Vincent gave
his fittlicr the note which the defenuant alleged to have
seen, in payment of le debt, in the nu-idle of the year
let), and that she hail it in kir possessioa ever since to
the present moment. Atte, such evidence he thought it
would be impossible to doubt the de fendaut's guilt.
The several witneases men-honed in the statement of
counsel [nosed the case exactly as he had stated it.
Mr. Andrews addressed the Jury for the defendant,
contending that the note had he...-
u concealed front tile
creditors, and even if Ilse:defendant had not seen it, his
declaring it mast he attriMited to his mistaking smite other
paper, to t
r it, *ben it was the subject of convrsat ion.
'the !human recapitulated the evidence to the July,
who. atter consulting for about 40 minutes, rctutueil a
Vti clic t of tkoilty.—Judgint ut deferred.

216

Tiniest)* v, Jur.v 4.—Mr. n.. -a appealed against
the apputiiiin rut of Mr. Ithades, the well-known cow-
keeper at Islington, confirmed at petty sessions, to be
one of the ...vet seei s of the poor of the parish ut Totten-
ham, on the grounds that, although he had a house in that
palish, and rented nearly WO acres of ground therein, yet
he also had a house and a larger (rand ty of ground in the
parish of St. Pancras, where lie was one of the directors
of the poor ; and besides, Mr. Rhodes considered it to-
tally inconsistent with bit dilly, Os a parish officer of St.
Piiiieras, to accept of a similar appointment in a neigh.
bout ing palish at the same !line. Hut the truth was, con-
tinued the learned counsel, that in the parish of Tottenham
a great many geutlemen lived, whose daily avocations
carried them to the metropolis, and being men of pro-
perty, they w ere usually fixed iipurs by certain individuals
to tilt parochial situations, well knowing that they would
sooner pay a tine of LA. than perform parochial duties in
person. In this satiation, lit addition to what he (Mr.
Adolphus) had above stated, stood his client ; and it was
must singular, that the house of Mr Rhodes, in the perish
of 'Tottenham, stood at least the distance of one mile front
any other house in that parish, and nearly nil ee mile*
from the village, from whence the poor :Always came fur
parochial aid. The learned advocate said, had his client
submitted to pay the prescribed fine, he would not have
trou'iled the bench this day on the subject ; and con-
cluded, for the reasons above stated, that it was his de-
cided opinion that the appointment ought to he set aside.
Mr. holland and Mr. Andrews argued at great length
for the appointment being confirmed; and,aniongst other
re:13011P, submitted, that great benefit and advantage had
accrued from men of property and consideration accept-
ing of the higher parochial offices; and that Mr. Rhodes
being a director of the poor of St. Pancras was nu answer
to the parish of Tottenham, inasmuch as there were alto-
gether not less than 4:1 directors of the poor in that parish'
and Chat five only were enabled by law to proceed to the
business anal' offices.

Atter some discussion amongst the magistrates on the
bench, the appointment wa, confirmed.
Mr. Adolphus rose, and stated, that his client was de-
termined not to p«rfoini the duties of the office, and the
pariah might indict him, when lie would appeal to the
Court of King's
The appeal lasted the greater part of the day, and ex—
cited a considerable degree of interest.