The Sun.
London, England, 1808-10-25 00:00:00

LOADON SESSIONS; Oar. 24.

BEFORE ?HZ ic.ECORD&R...ND A BENCH OF ALDERMEN.
lPilliam Smith, Thoutas Aughton,
.and Mary
Granley, were indi&ed for assaulting Priscilla Cook,
wife of James Cook, publican, Long-acre, on the
17th of August last.
Mrs. Cook deposed, that she went to -the Justice-
Rom, Guildhall, with- the wife of the Defendant,
Wiliam Smith, to state her case for her to-the Al-
derman, she having summoned Defendant, Smith.
The Magistrate dismissed the complaint. When
the witness and Mrs. Smith were going out of the
Office, the Defendants began to abuse them; the
witness said to her companion,
," don:t let us have
~:ny consolation here," and they went away; the
Defendant, Smith, followed them, lifted up his
elbow to the witness, and shoved it in her face, say-
" she had not any business there, and he would
Orive her teeth down her throat." She desired him
to let her pass, as she did not -want to have • any
thing to say to him : on which Defendant, Grunley,
came up, and spit twice in her face; and the
Defendant, Aughton, caught hold of her by the
arm, and swore he would shake her out of her skin,
for she had no business there.
On her cross-examination, by Mr. ARABIN, she said
shedid not come theretoberifiedby a lawyer, and that
she was not more ruffled in her temper, " when the
assault was committed, than she was then, and she
was not then ruffled, for she could look an honest
man in the face—she hoped she had not miscalled
him.

Elizabeth Smith corroborated the testimony of
the last Witness, and the evidence for the Prosecu-
tion closed.
Two Witnesses for the Defendants, proved, that
Mrs. Cook was the aggressor, and the Jury, without
hesitation, acquitted the Defendants.
John Chalk, keeper of Will's Coffee-house, was
inditted for refusing to serve as constable in the
prish of Aldgate, he being duly eluted:
Mr. KNAPP, in defence, stated, that the Defend-
ant refused serving as Constable, under an,,idea that
,he was exempted from serving the office, he having
a licence from the Lord Mayor to keep a common
ale and viSualling-house, - and the Lord Mayor
always cautioned persOns who were chosen Con-
.- stables from entering into that line of business.
.The RECORDER observed,- that there was no class
Of men exempt from serving as Constables, even
military Men could be obliged to serve ; it had been
even determined that women were not exempt ; and
if the Lord Mayor gave such instru6tions or cautions,
he was wrong, and the law would not bear him out
in it.

The Jury fotind him Guilty. Judgment was
:espited untilnext Sessior..

.13er.,:'ird Solomon and his wife were brought up to
receive judgment, they having pleaded guilty to an
in,liament last Session, for keeping a house of ill-
fame in Lombard-street, Fleet-street.

. -
Solomon was sentenced to pay a fine of 1501. and
to be committed to prison until it was paid—his wife.
was fined Is. and discharged._

CLER KE N !FEL L. S E!SSIONS.

HICKS's HALL.

These Sessions commenced yesterday before Wm.
MAINWARING, Eig. and the Bench of Justices.

Richard GaMelly was indicted for assaulting and
beating John Hudson.
The Prosecutor, who is a weaver, deppsed, that,
on, the 13th of September, last, as he was returning
from his employer's, with work„ he was attacked
by the Defendant in Wheeler-street, Spitalfields,
who beat him severely, thougl.l he defended• himself
as well as he was able; and that on the next day,
after bringing the Defendant before a Magistrate, he
again kicked him in a veey.dangerous part.
.He ac-
knowledged that he had formerly had a quarrel with
the Defendant, and had ever since avoided him, on,
account Of his quarrelsome dispiition. He also
owned he had been one of the mutineers concerned
in the mutiny at the Nore, but that he had suffered
severely for it.

Being asked whether he did not challenge the
Defendant, the night before the assault, to fight him
for ten guineas, he owned he had. -
Wm. Wheeler, a friend of the prosecutor, swore
that the Defendant had knocked hiM down three
times before he could save the goods he was carry-
ing from injury.

The Defendant, on the other hand, said, the pro,
secutor and the witness were in the constant habit
of aggravating and insulting him, and that be was
the person attacked. This was corroborated by a
witness, k: ho was present the night before, when
the prosecutor abused the Defendant.
The Jury found him Guilty, and he was sen-
tenced to pay a fine of 1 s.
Mr. MAINwARI NG, at the same time, admonished
the Prosecutor that he ought to conduit himself
more peaceably, alter his lite had been ,terfeited for
his conduct at the Nore 3 reminding him how ill he
conduced himself while confined in the House of
Correi.-tion.

Sarall AMOS was indi&ed for assaulting William
Allen. The Prosectvor and Defendant had lived to-
gether, or rather; to use his own words,, she had
kept him coMpany, but upon his determining to
marry, she had behaved in the 'most outrageous
manner, thl'eatening his life, and, in fael, had re-
peatedly a:,..sauhed and abused him.

S:ie was ft und GRilty, and was ordered to find
security to keep in a recogni-
zance of QOl. alid two s,retie.: is 10. each.

A man named Glaswith, who keeps a house in
Little Pulteney.7street, was charged with a violent
assault o a M n. r. Spilsbury, an eminent working
jeweller,-near the Strand, in his owa house.
Mr. ALLEY, who 'stated the case for the prosecti-
tion, expressed great satisfaffion that the Prosecutor
in this case had so much firmness, in bringing this
prosecution forward, for the sake of public justice,
undeterred by any motives of private consideration ;
a.: it was one of the most daring and atrocious a& of
vi4)l•.nce ever attempted, and oue very near akin to
cipital felony, inasmuch as it was an attempt to ex-
tort money from the prosecutor under thieats and
te,for. He represented the Defendant as one of
Elam miscreant:4 who keep houses for the rcccption
unitrtunate women of th town, and live by

exorbitance,and extortion upon the Fretehed earn
ings of their calling. One of those Tinforturmte wo-
men who lodged in his house, the prosecutor, though
a married man, in business, and the father of a family,
was induced occasionally to isit, under the influence
of that frailty and infatuation incident to human nature,
for which, no doubt, his client was now extremely
sorry. This young woman had been grossly in-
sulted by the defendant, and an exorbitant bill was
trumped up against her. Mr. Spilsbury, as a friend,
advised her to quit the house, which she 00. The
defendant, its conseqUence, inquiired out the resi-
dence of Mr. Spilsbury, came 'to his house, look an
opportunity while his servant opened the door, to
brush stairs without leave, to his drawing-room,
and ipsisted upon his paying the exorbitant demand
against this unfiirtunate young woman, and threaten-
ing, if he refused, to expose him to his wife and fa.-
mily, and to the whole'neighbourhood. He assaulted
him twice in his own room, swore he would. not
quit the house until he was paid; and after Mr.
Spilsbury was obliged. to get him doWn stairs, and
into the street by forcer be raised, a mob-round the
door, and exposed his.charaaer to the whole neigh-
.bourhood, which induced him to commence this pro-
secution.

The evidence of Mr Spilsbury was nearly to the
same effeet.
The Defendant's story was, however, materially
different. He said, he was not the keeper of a,
hrothel, as represented, but a hard-working'" indus7'
trious man,- keeping a shop in Pulteney-street.,-. He
let lodging() to a lady, who was constantly visited 'by
the Prosecutor, whom he did not then' know;" and
she owed him 31. rent, for which he -repeatedly
asked her, but could not get it: He then gave her
warning to quit his premises, which Mr. Spilsbury
advised her to do, and brought 4 coach to the door
to bring her away. She wanted to quit, and sur--
render the keys, without paying her rent. The de-
fendant applied to the Prosecutor to settle it ; but he
refused, and the Defendant would not' receive the
keys; upon which the Prosecutor threw them over the
Defendant's shoulder into his shop, and taking the lady
into the coach, bade the coachman drive to Westmin-
ster-bridge, where he should take a post-chaise for
Woolwich. The Defendant said, he followed the
coach, and saw thelady set down at a house in King-
street, Soho. He afterward; made inquiry for Mr.
Spilsbury's residence, and having found it, went there
on the night of the 15th of June, knocked quietly
at the door, and asked if-he was at home ?. He was
answered by Mrs. Spilsbury, who told her husband,
and be was desired to walk up stairs, where he found
Mr. Spilsbury writing. Mrs. Spilsbury was desired
to leave the room. He then quietly and civilly asked
Mr. Spilsbury to settle the demand upon the lady
whom he had so constantly visited, adding, that he
did not know where to find her, a woman of the
town ; and that he looked to Mr. Spilsbury, as a
gentleman who had visited her constantly, had ad-
vised her to quit the house, and took her away froiu.
as the proper person to pay his bill. But Mr.
Spilsbury refused, and instantly forced, him down
stairs into the street, and slapped the door in his
face; and he had certainly explained the business to
the people who saw him so treated.
The CHAIRMAN said, that the story of both par-
ties materially differed. That of the ProSecutor's
was upon oath, and depended solely on his own evi-•
dence. That of the Defendant he could not be ad-
mitted to give on oath ; but the Jury would give it
the credit they thought it deserved, and consider
their verdiet.
They found the Defendant guilty of. the assault ;
and the Court fined him 13s. 4d.

Arthur Betts was indicted for an assault on John
Sterland.

Mr. GURNEY opened the case, and then called
Upon the Prosecutor, who stated, that on Mon-
day, August the 15th, the Defendant came up to
him in the City Road, and stopped him in a violent
manner, by thrusting his fist and stick in his face,
saying, " Now, d—n your eyes, I have a good mind
to give you a d—n good hiding ; you are the
d—est blackguard and scoundrel' on earth." Pro.
secutor made no reply, but endeavoured to get away
from him, and walked on. Defendant walked along
with him about a quarter of a mile, constantly using
this kind of language, and repeatedly putting his fist
in his face. He spoke so loud, that the prosecutor
said, he feared a mob would colle&, and said to him,
" If you have any thing to say to me, you know my
address."' Defendant replied, " 0 yes, I do, and I
mean to come and give you a d—d good blowing
up at your counting-house." Prosecutor apprehend-
ing he would proceed to further violence, went into
the middle of the road, and took down the number

of a cart a man was driving, in order to know where
to apply to the driterin case of need. Defendant
followed him, and said, " 0, you want to subpatna
this man as a witness, do you ? Now, mind I call
you a d- blackguard and scoundrel before his
face." Defendant still continued insulting him, and
putting his fist in his face, drove him up a passage,
and detained him there a short time; and afterwards
meeting with a person whom the Defendant knew,
laid hold of Prosecutor by the arm, and held him
fast, while he said to this person, geeringly, " this
is the great Mr. Sterland, he is the d-est black-
guard and scoundrel on earth."

•
Mr.'ALLEY, Counsel for the Defendant, interro-
gated prosecutor, if he had ever called Defendant an
informer, which prosecutor denied, but admitted

that he had said that " Defendant had been guilty
of an at'',t which would have been a disgrace to ally
man who valued his charader above that of a com-

'mon informer."

The Jury pronounced t he Defendan t Guilty, w here-
upon theCnatamAN reprimanded the Defendant in
very severe terms, saying his condutit was highly
censurable, and that it was fortunate that the Pro-
secutor's peaceable disposition had not carried mat-
ters to greater extremities. He then passed sen-
teuce upon the Defendant to pay a fine of 6s. and
kiwi security for his good behaviour for twelve

months, hiniself in 501. and two sureties in 251.

each ; Mr._ GURNEY declaring this to be . the sole
object of the prosecution.

Edward IPilson was indicted for assaulting and
vi3letltly beating William Ruston, a boy, about 12
years of age, who swore the Defendant cut him se-

- ,
verely With a cane, for playing with another boy, at
cricket, near LinColn's-inn-fields.

'Volchard, of Queen-street, Line°ltt's-inn-
fields, atld another Gentleman, swore they saw the

•
Defendant, who is a beadle in'.the employ of the,
Society of Lincoln's-inn, for.the purpose of keeping
the square clear of improper persons, seize the child,
and holding him by the arm, flog him most unmer-
cifully-; upon which Mr.- Folchard seized him, and
brought him before the. Magistrate, at Bow.stNet,
by. whom he was committed.

_
The Jury found him Guilty, and he was sentenced
to• pay a fine of forty shillings.
There. being no further business to come before
the Court, the Recorder distnissed the Jury, and the
Session cloied.