The Sun.
London, England, 1801-09-18 00:00:00

that his son was isrought up with him, anu lived with
him up to the time of his being apprehended upon
this charge. He lived at Mile end ; that his son at
that time worked over the water; that in his work
he received so violent a blow on, his head, the be-
ginning of the month of June last, that he was
unable to work ; that he was for several days, only
in and out of bed, and would not stir from home ;
that the Witness was sure his son was nor out any
night during the whole of the month of June. He
would undertake to say that he was not out of his
bed after eleven o'clock in any one night in the
month of June ; it was impossible, for he slept in
the garret, and always went up to bed about nine,
and could not come down again without the know-
ledge of his father, who slept in a room below.
The Mother was called also, and she gave the
same evidence as the Father did, as to the son being
at home—She added, that she nursed him for a great
part of the month of June ; for three days he could
not come out of bed, without help; a Dolor whom
she named, but whose name we could not hear,
attended him„,for the greater part of the month of
June, during which he was only able to come down
to the yard, &c.

Mr. Baron HOTHANf summed up the whole of the
Evidence, and observed on the most material parts
of it, first as to the Evidence that the Prosecutor
had given himself—He admitted that the day after
the robbery took place, he saw a person with whom
he had been drinking the over night, and did not.
tell that person, that he, the Prosecutor, had been
robbed, and one of the Witnesses swore. " that he
saw the Prosecutor on the evening of the 9th,"
when the robbery had happened in the morning of
that day, asked him, " How he got home ?" He
said, " very well, but that he fell down and rolled
himself in some cow dung," without a word of the
robbery. Now, said the Learned Judge, Gentlemen,
that is a very singular circumstance, and weighs on
my mind very much. You are to say what weight it
has on yours. I think that, if any man was robbed
over night, knocked down and rifled by three foot-
pads, and on the following day, met one of his own
companions with whom he had been drinking, but a
few minutes before he was robbed, he would have,
told that companion of the rubbery, and that the
more especially as that very companion had asked
him, how, he got home that night ?—Yet the Pro-
secutor tells you he did not say any thing about it,
thinking it was fitter to leave that to the Officer.—
This may be so, but -I own, to my mind, it is most
extraordinary condua, if lie was robbed. So ex-
traordinary as to make me doubt whether what he
says is true. I feel this very strongly on my mind,
but it is for you to weigh it in yours. Another
contradietiOn of•-.the Prosecutor is this, he swears
he had no dispute on that night, at the public-house
in question; whereas it turns out that he had a quar-
rel with a person who gave him' a blow, which it
was extraordinary if he forgot it, for it brought
him to the ground, and caused an immediate swell-
ing as large as a pigeon's egg. The identity of
the persons of the Prisoners, the Learned Judge
said, depended entirely upon the evidence of the
Prosecutor himelf, for he was not corroborated in
that particular by any body. The only point in
which his evidence was confirmed, was that of the
description he gave of the persons of the Prisoners,
and upon that it was observable, that he certainly
gave the very same description of these men to both
the Officers of the Police, and this was very strong,
for it appeared that he did go into these fields at
the time he stated ; and that almost on the instant
he made the alarm to the Officer of the Police,
whom he wanted to go with him at that moment
in search of the robbers. If this was a tale made
out by the Prosecutor, he must have contrived the
whole of it in one moment ; but it was possible that
lie was robbed, and that he was mistaken in the
persons oftthe robbers ; if so, the Prisoners were of
' course entitled to their acquittal. Now upon that I
lubjeCt, the Learned Judge observed, -that the Jury
would consider the evidence of the father and mo-
ther of the Prisoner Phillips. If they were :to be be-
lieved, the Prosecutor was wrong as to one of the
Prisoners, at all events. If he was wrong as to
Phillips, it was but fair to conclude that lie was
wrong as to Beach, for he swore with equal posi-
tiveness as to both, and he had no better means of
knowing the one than the other of them. On the
whole of the case, the Learned judge said, it de-
pended very much on the credit the Jury gave to
the evidence of the Prosecutor. If they thought
that the robbery took place at a time of the
morning when the light was clear enough, and
the Prosecutor's head clear enough, to distinguish
the persons of the Prisoners, so that he could not
mistake them, then they would find the Prisoners
guilty. • If the Evidence was not satisfactory to
them, that he was not wrong, but that he was,
as he said lie was, perfeOly sober, and that he had
. light enough to enable him to distinguish the coun-
tenances of these men (who, by.the bye, he never
saw before), and if they thought that the extraor-
dinary circumstance of his not telling his companion
he was robbed, was not enough to introduce a doubt
into the ease, they would find the Prisoners guilty ;
but if, on the contrary, they .thought it was very
strange that he did not tell his companion he was
robbed, and if they thought he was not recovered
from his drinking (since he did not remember the
blow by which he was knocked down), so that the
case was doubtful at least, then they would give
the Prisoners the benefit of that doubt, and acquit
them.—All these observations were made on the
case Oithout the evidence of the father and mother
oldie Prisoner Phillips ;—if the Jury believed their
evidence, the point would hardly admit of any
doubt, but the Prisoners would be acquitted.
The Jury deliberated for about half a minute, and
found both the Defendants—Not Guilty.

Beach was tried with' two Others, upon an in-
dietment. for a robbery, near Nightingale_
lane,. and taking'away 'the watch of a person of the
name of Richard Groom, on,the 7 di of July last.

The Prosecutor proved iliat he was robbed about
eleven o'clock at night, by three men, but he swore
he could not undertake; to identify one of the Pri-
soners. He said he could not swear positively to

RU CHANAN 11' MI LLA N,.(of Bow-street, Covent-Carden) ; an(I• PubUshed by Wli.LiAbi ARIA I Q filt,SC IP'S (of Hca;,e-f;
No.: .2 Z, Strand .; where 441T,ertisenrents Orders for the Paper, Letters for-the- Aditor,
.•risost-