The National Register.
London, England, 1822-06-03 00:00:00

(i 1.1) !MILEY SESNIONS.

SATIRD4 V, PTA 27.—Thomas Ramsey, Samuel Green.
wood, and Joint Beet tr. ee. e capitally indicted for
assanhine Tlups. Stattehion, in the parish of St. Leonard,
Shoreditelt, and tobbiug him of a watch, value 71., and a
gold seal.
Thomas Stoughton stated, that on the 15th Slay, about
eight o'clock in the evening, he was going through Long-
alley, Moos fields, in company with his wife, when lie saw
a man standing at the end of Angel.ulley, who elood still
till he came up to hila, when he received a back-handed
blow across the bridge of the nose, and at the stone time
his watch was snatched front his fob, and the guard-chain
was broken in several pliers. He pursued the thief down
Ant el-alley, and was shoot to seize him, when three men
relight the witness, and said," What's the matter Wit-
nests forced his way through them, and the thief escaped.
He had no doubt but that Ramsey was the very man who
robbed him. It was Greene,. sud who caught him by the
body, and Hewer, lie he lieved, was another of them. He
Rave information to an officer, and next night he saw the
three prisoners in the watelishouse, aid immediately knew
them to be the melt.
The case (upon this evidence) went to the Jury, who,
alter considerable hesitation, returned a verdict of Not
Guilty as to all the prisoners.
MONO/AY, MAY 141.—The C mon Sergeant took Ills
seat on the bench this morning, for the first time siuce
his election.
Henry Snellgrove, aged Is, as principal, and Samuel
Deighton, Thos. Buckusinster, Joseph Smith, and Francis
Boyd, as alders and abettors, se ere put to the bar, charged
on the verdict of a coionees inquest with killing and
slaying William Pratt.
Satntel'l'hompson, a beadle in Mile-end New Town,
said, lie was at the tight on the 22.1 of April last, and it
appeared to him to base been conducted very fairly.
William Fordldism, head boi tough, deposed to the same
effect and four other witnesses e-ere called, who cot-
tinned; the testimony of the above.
William Black, a surgeon. said he was called in a few
bouts before the death of the deceased, who was at the
time in a state of insensibility. After his deash,lie opened
the bead, and found au extra vasation of the blood upon
the brain, which might have been occasioued either by a
blow or fall.
The prisoner Snellgrove, in his defence, said, that the
deceased had sent him a challenge, which provuked him
to fight.
The Recorder, in summing op, observed to the Jury,
that there did nut appear to be aggravated circumstances
connected with the tight. The prisoner Snellgrove, ac-
cording to the testimony of one witness, said, before the
fight— "He loved Pratt as his own brother." There was
not a certainty that the deceased had come to his death
by the blows on that particular day, because the surgeon
said a fall on a previous day, viz as n itch as three days
before the decease, might have occasioned his death.
respect to the other prisoners, there was not eutli-
cient evidence to convict them.
Verdice--Snellgiove, Guilty. The other pi isoners Nut
Guilty.
TRIAL OF THE MAN UNKNOWN.
At five o'clock the Common Sergeant again took his
seat, and " the man unknown' was put to the Isar.
Ale. Clarke read the hidictment, which charged " that
lie, a man whuse name to the Jurots is wholly unknown,
and who, being brought before the said Jot ot s in the ens.
toffy of an offi, er of his Majesty's gaol of Neweate, did
wilwlly refuse to disel-se his 11141111`, did publish a sedi-
tious and blasphemous &c. dec."
Pi isoner.—l pleaded to that two sessions ago.
'the Cotuntun Sergeant.—'Phis is not tit- same indict-
ment as was preferred too sessions ago. Sou have now
fi plead guilty or not to this.
l'tieont r.— I am not entity.
Sir. Clarke.—Will you he tried now, or traverse?
P. ismier.—l will be tt ie.! now.
\Then the Jury were about to he sworn, lie asked if any
of them were in the box two sessions ago, and being an-
swered in the nega.ive, the trial proceeded.
Mr. Adolphus their proceeded to read the indicted
passages, and concluded by calling upon the Jury to con-
sign the prisoner to the putsieltment which he met hell.
The wos k was then read by the Cleik of the Court, and
the following witnesses were called :
Mr. Paine, the cit.' k of the Justice Room, Guildhall,
proved that the pamphlet was put into his hands by Wm.
Smith, who obtained the warrant 10. the pi isonei's
William Smith proved purchasing the libel of the pri-
soner in Cnrlile's situp.
The prisoner, on being called on for his defence, read
it from a voluminous collection of papers which he held in
his hand. He began by requesting the indulgence or the
Jury, tie being only a journeyman mechanic, and there-
fore, as tio.y might suppose, an unlettered mats He went
on to justify the es hole of the work which he was charged
with publishing, and boldly avowed a defiance of the law,
said Ito cared not for punishment, and indulged in lan-
guage which called forth audible expressions of horror
and indignation.
The Common Sergeant proceeded to charge the Jury,
and having read the several passages indicted, said, he
tilt himsell bound to state, that, in his opinion, they could
not be regarded in any other view that, as 1410/4 libellous.
There was great difference of opinion as to what was, and
what was not, libellous, and it was undinibtedly the pro-
vince of the Jolty to decide finally upon the question. The
law of libel was not ;willows defined ; it was not certainly
to be traced to any particular statute, but it was a part sal
the cuntnun law of the land, %Inch existed for the pur-
pose of giving protection to the property and the 11110taift
of the co 1111111 l eity at large, amid if a man published luny
thing to the world by se Itich either was endangered, he
was undoubtedly a lit object for prosecution and 1 'b-
oosts, It was fur the Jury to deride whether the to Owner
had, or lied not, done so its this instance. With respect
to any difficulty which might have esssted as to his name
being unknown, that had been re-tweed by his having
pleaded to the itolittment in its present shape. It was
with deep et gtet he had heats, the prisoner pursue the
line of di fence which be bad done, mid the Jtny would
judge whether be had done WM.OI any service iu it. In
sense cases it happened that a Jury might be justified in
acquitting a man on the ground that he was the unwilling,
the unwary, or tile ignutaut instiunient of publication of
libels ; but this could nut he urged bete, (or the prisoner
118.1, in his dt.fetice boldly adopted the principles and
languare of the indication, Anti avowed them to be his
Ise had not interrupted the primmer in his defence,