The Sun.
London, England, 1825-10-21 00:00:00

r..ssrmrftisorimEN T.

John Wright and Ge&ge .lackron., two officers in the em-
ployment of the Mendicy Society, were indicted far assault-
, ing and falsely imprisorag James Grant. ;;here was a second
count in the indictment, .itsrging the tiefent.f.ants with the as-
sault only; and in a seciiid indictment they were charged
with assaulting Helen, to wife of the above-named James
Grant.
Mr. ADOLPNUS, who las Counsel for the defendant Jack-
son, moved the Court to repite his client's recognixances, upon
an affidavit stating that Is was unable fb attend to tame his
trial to-day, in consequene of indispaiition.
Mr. ANDREWS', on beltlf of the other defendant, suggested
to the Court, that it wouti be convenient to let the case stand
over to the adjournment day, in order that both defendants
might. be tried at the sari% time.
The Citatamax thought that this would certainl.i; be the
more conveniencrse to )ursue, as it wbuld save the neces-
sity of two trials instead of me.
lilt. C. Pit howerer, on behalf of the prosecuticn,
said he was instructed_ to pia the Coum to proceed with the
trial of Wkight at preserrt, as,there were a number of wit-.
nesses in attendance at a coisiderable-expence to his client.. .
After some discussiononthis point, the Lehrneti C HAI R max
decided that he was bound* proceed with the trial, if the pro-
secutor insisted on it.

The witnesses on both idles were then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. C. Pati.t.uPs states the facts of the case to the Jury.
It was a case, he said, of considerable interest to the partiei,
and involsing a principle of some importance to the public in"
general. The prosecutor was a poor man, who came there to
ask protection against the oppression of the powerful. He filled
the hUmble situation of a private in the Last Middlesex Mili-
tia. The defendants, against whom he now complained, were
officers of the Mendicity Society; and he trusted„for the credit
of that Society, that the misconduct of their servants was not
known or countenanced by them. On the 19th of May last, at
about six o'clock in the evening, the Prosecutor and his wife
were passing along Piccadilly, when their attention was attract-
ed to a handsome equipage before the shop of Mr. Hales, the
bookseller, near the Egyptian Hall, which upon inquiry, they
learned belonged to the .Marchioness of Londonderry. It was
the 'carriage of the present Lady Londonderry, but the prose.
cutor supposing it to be that of the Dowager Marchioness, the
widow of tile late eminent statesman, whom he had seen in
Ireland, was anxious to obtain a sight of her la4ship, and for
that purpose he, in common with several other persons, ap-
proached the side of the carriage, into which the lady imme-
diately afterwards stepped, and it drove away. When her
ladyship was passing from the shop to her carriage a tall
man attempted to solicit alths of her, bat was pushed aside
by the footman. This; however, was the only person who
had attempted to beg ; and yet the defendant Wright
thought proper to seize the prosecutor's wife, who had
a child in her arms, and alleging that she hadi begged;
he dragged her along the street. The huSband demanded
to know why his wife was treated in this manner? Upon which
Wright replied, " We'll take you too;" and although there
was not even an allegation made against him, he seized hint b •
the collar, dragged himalong, struck him about the head with
a stick, threw a child, which he was carrying, out of his arms,
and tore his coat off his back. The mob cried " Shame," and a
gentleman Who was on horseback, came up to expostulate With
the defendant, from whom the answer he received was, "You
vagabond, who are you ?" This was at 6 o'clock in the evening,
and although the ill agistrates,.it was well known, sat in the police
office long after that hour, the defendants carried the prosecutor
to St. James's watch-house, and actually had him locked into the
black-bole, where he remained until next morning. When taken
before the magistrates next day, the charge of vagrancy wasscout-
ed at once, as indeed there were .plenty of respectable witnesses
to prove that there wfts not the slightest foundation for it. But
Wright Coen swore tots it...seises againit the prosecutor; . for Which
Mr. Conant, not going into the evidence for the ePffenee of
course, that being more properly the province of a Jury, held
him to bail, in default of which he was committed tp prison,
where he remained for five of six weeks, until Mr. Hales, with
a feeling of benevolence that did him honour; interfered on his
behalf, and bailed bins ; and he it was to whom he was now in-
debted for the means of seeking justice against his oppressors.—
While he Was in prison the defendants went to him and told
him; that if he would write to the Magistrates or to the M en-
dicity Society, acknowledging his fault, he would be forgiven.
Conscious of his innocence, tOwever, he declined to do so.—
They then preferred this bill against him for the alleged assault;
but ever, upon their own evidence it Wits scouted by the Grand
Jury. Under these circumstances, he noW came before the
Jury, and at their hands, and at the hands of the Court, he
sought for justke.
James Grant, the prosectitor, Sias then examined', and corro-
borated the principal part of the statement of his counsel. He
denied most positively that either he or his wife had attempted
to beg. Wright seized him by one arm and Jackson by the'
other, and upon his resisting being. dragged along, Wright
struck him on the head and arm with a stick several times,
which obliged him to let his child drop from his arm. He, how-
ever, did not resent this treatment, until one of the blows fell
upon his child, when losing all patience he struck Wright on
the mouth and made it bleed. When they reached the watch-
house, Wright pushed him down the stairs into the dungeon
below, where he was locked hi for the night. In speaking of
the interview afterwards with Wright in the prison, he said that
Wright asked him to write to the Society, confessing his fault,
which he affected to do, but never did.

, .
• .
.On his crossexaminatitM by Mr. ANDnEws, he said he
was by trade a tailor, and had enlisted in the East Middlesex-
Militia about two years ago, bnt had never joined. He had
been once taken i.lp because an Irish gentleman had given his
wife a shilling, anti upon.another occasion he was taken before
a fat gentleman at Helton-garden for singing ballads, whet] he
was discharged. These were -the only occasions upon which
he had ever been taken before a Magistrate; and he had never
been before the Mendicity Society except once, when•having
been robbed in St. Giles's, he went to ask for. the price of a
pitchfork with Which to gb a hay-making, and they gave him
a basin of soup and sixpence. He as a native of Drogheda,
but he did not know whether he had been born in Martinique
or not, as his father, who had been a drum-major in an in-
fantry regiment, died on the island. He had been brought up
in Drogheda, and he did not know whether that made him a
native c: not. He had been married there by a Roman Ca-
tholic priest. •
Helen Grant, the prosecutrix, gave similar testimony. On
her cross.examination, she said that on the day in question she
and her husband were going to sing ballads in Albemarle;.
street.

Several other witnesses, who had seen more nr less of thi"
transacti,,n, mainly corrobreed tire prosecutor's statement.
None of them had seen either him. or his wife attempt to beg.
Mr. ANDrerwi, for the defendant, declined calling any,
witnesses, but observed at considerable length upon the evi.
dence on t;.e other t=dc, contending that the defendant Was
perfectly justified in eking the prosecutor and his wife into
custody, as he had already known them to be mendicants, and
upon this occasion saw the wife have reccursta to those modes
of asking alms Which
were perfectly intelligible, without resort-
ingto the use of wortlg.
The CHAinstA:l iummed 4 the evidence wi:h great
uponmi nuttehneesml
s,ate p
herJiiittornyerretttre t Gz,i* of the false imprison..
Verdict of Guilt of the as,ault
mentor of the assault u \ on the wife.
The COURT ordered the defendant to give bail for his at-
tendance to receive juktne;t when the trial of thq other de-
fendant, Jackson, shtl have taken plac.e.

POLEMICS.—Thp idea of a confererice • be.
tween Catholic and Protestant Divioes, to discus
points of faith at a, personal interview and before
an umpire, may he new in Ireland ; but we have
in modern times, an instance of it in England,
where two Catholic Priests, a Divine of the
Church of England, iiod two Disieotiug Clergy.
men,met at the Pope's Head Taverti,Cornhiii,aud
afterwards, by adj"ioroPnt, at the Bell Inn in
Nicholas.lan,, The reeting, which, alter a good
deal of controversy,
.ended in nothing, as'
such discussions usually do, arose out of the
wager of a Protestant Gentleman, and the parti.
culnrs of it will be found in the Gent/17/1(W, Ma.
gazine for May, June, and July 1735,

LAW INTELLiGENCE.

COURT OF KENO'S BENCII, Gcnt.DHALL, (.)ct. . 20.
(Before the Lord Chisflucticf. A2EiOTT , and a London Jecry.)

'kid: KING v. dARNETT.
This was an indictment against Mr. Garnett, a partner in the
firm of Scott, Garnett, and Palmer, cornfactors, in Alderman-
bury, for having refused to serve the off de of conStaide for the
Ward of Cripplegate, to which he bad been duly elected. The
defendant pleaded " not guilty."
Mr. COZI.MON-SEKGEANT conducted the CaSe for the
prosecution, and from the evidence he called, it apt...:Ared
that the defendant bad been duly,. e!etted constable-for the
Ward of Cripplegate, that he. had always beet CaugnOned
to attend Ward an;,./ Parish meetings, and that ort7one oc-
Ca,ion he had Toted as a boos:eh:alder at the election of a vraid.
beadle.

Mr. GURNEY submitted, that persons liable to serve the
offie,g - constable, must be. inhabitants as .well as householders
in di-F.parish. .Now, there was no evidence to show that t,e
defendant was an inhabitant, he must be acquitted.
The Lord Chief, Juitice ABBOTT said, that liemust con-
Sider a householder as an inhabitant, aota the dafendint offe,ad
some evidence.to prove that he was riot so.
Mr. GURNEY ,addressed the Jury for the 'defendant, .and
Called Mr. Paloiet to prove.that the &reliant waanot an.tnha-
bitant of the ward.

Mr. Palmer, who is a partner in the same firm with the
defendant, said that the dwelling house attached to their.
counting-house was occupied by him ; that the servants in
that house were his servants, and were paid out of his pri-
vate property ; that neither .of the clerks who were paid
by the firm, slept in the house; that as occupier of that
house he had served the offices f churahwarden and. over-
seer of the poor of the parish, and had also fined for con-
stabh ; that the defendant resided at Hampton, and had not
dept one night in the house in Aldcrmanbury in the List 20
years, during which he had occupied the house. On his
cros-examination, he admited that the rent, taxes, and pariah
rates of his dwelling-house were paid out of fhe partnership
funds.

Mr. COMMON' SEIIGICANT did not think that there was
any question for the consideration of a jury, as the real ques-
tion in the case was one of law, on which both his Learned
Friend and himself were anxious to have the opinion of the
Court.

The Loan Cniti JUSTICE told the Jury, that as it Was
the intention of the parties to take the opinion of the Court of
King's Bench, he should not now give any opinidn on the
point. In order to enable the parties to take the opinion of the
Colin, the Jury must find the defendant guilty.
A verdict was taken accordingly.
ZIOwSE v. KIDNEY.

Mr. MaNitraitd opened the pleadings. This was an fiction
of trover brought by the plaintiff Charles Howse against Miss
Kidney, to recover the value of a Danish dog, his property,
which she had taken and converted to her own use. The de.
fendent pleaded " not guilty," and thereon issue was. joined.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT stated the plaintiff's case. It
appeared from the e'idence called in suppert of it, that the
plaintiff, who is a gentleman's coachman, gave a guinea in
April, 1824, to a coachman of the name of Singfield, residing
in Wimpole-mews, for two young Danish puppies, which were
bern on the 13th of February, in the same year. The plaintiff
kept these two puppies in the mews, where he himselflived, till
the 25th of the following July, when the dog, which gave rise
to the present action, was unfortunately stolen from him. At
that time the dog, as was sworn by several coachmen
who were in the daily habit of seeing him, had se-
veral spots on his akin, by which he could be recog-
nized. His tail was crushed by the wheel of a car-.
riage ; his ears, which had been cropped, were of unequal
size; his dew claws had been recently cut; and, to crown all,
he was ill of the distemper. In the December following,, two
coachmen who saw this dog following a carriage, .bet Ween
Harley-street and Wiinpole-street, went to the plaintiff
and informed him of what they had seen. The plaint as
soon as he heard tidings of his dog, went is pursuit Of it, and,
on coming up with it in Weymouth-street, seized it by the col-
lar and claimed it as his property. The carriage, which the dog
was following, belonged to Miss Kidney, the present defend-
ant. She desired that the dog might not be taken from her at that
time ; and the plaintiff permitted it to go home with her, on hcr
giving him her card of address. On the r‘ext morning, at nine
o'cldck, the plaintiff called at the defendant's house, IA Maids-
hill, with Singfield, the coachman, of whom lie had bought the
dog. The defendant would neither see him at that hour herself
nor would permit him to see the dog. She desired him, how.
ever, to return at one o'clock, when she would speak to him on
the subject. The plaintiff returned at that hour, when he was
taken into custody by a constable, and carried to Merylehone
police office for some alleged offence, which turned out, how-
ever, to be untenable. As the Magistrates refused to decide the
question of property in the dog, the present action was brought
to obtain that decision ; and in order to establish the identity of
the dog lost in July with that of the dog found in December,
two coachmen were put into the box, of whom one, called
Hill, had been discharged from the defendant's service 'kir
drunkenness, and the other, Bigg, had been taken up by her
since he had left it, on suspicion of having robbed her of some
old harness, which was afterwards found upon her premises. Hill
stated, that Miss Kidney, at the end ofJuly or in the beginning
of August, 1824, had given a guinea for this dog, which was
then a puppy, about 5 months old, and which answered in every
particular to the one which the plaintiff had just then lost. He
admitted that he had sent the person to the house who had sold
the dog, but swore that he had never represented that person
as a friend of his own, whom be had known for upwards of
nine years. Bigg swore, that while the plaintiff was at the de-
feudant's house at nine o'clock in the morning, he gave, with-
out seeing the dog, an accurate description of it in every re-
spect, except as to the spots on its shoulders, and that this con-
vinced him that he must be the owner of the dog, as he had
not had time when he seized hint in the street to overhawl it.
On his cross-examination, he swore positively, after some pre-
varication, which made the Lord Chief Justice remind hitn of
Newgate, that he had never told Mr. Harmer that from the
correct description the plaintiff had gi'sen of the dog, it could
not belong to him ; for that the dog's tail had never been hurt,
and that the spots upon him had conic out SO recently, that no-
body could recognize him who had not seen him for some
months ; other witnesses, who were not impeached, swore,
howeVer, without hesitation, to the identity of the dog. It was
stated by Bigg that a Frenchman offered ten guineas for the
dog whilst he was with Miss Kidney; and bI another witness,
that if he had it, he should be very sorry to part with it for
less than eight guineas.

Mr. SCAIILETT, for the defendant, represented this sis
nielicieus action, which had been got. up against her by the
two coachmen (Hill and Bigg,) whom she had been ob.,
liged to discharge for their miscondbet and intolence. Me put
Miss Cressy into the hax, who swore that the. was at thfr house of
the defendant, in July or August, .1824, tirlien this dDg, then
quite puppy, was braUght to her to be purchased-by Hill, who
said that it belonged te.an old friend of his, called Jones, who
lived as groom with Lord Aehburnham; that the dog was
then free from distemper, and had neither spots on his skirt
nor injury on his tail; and that, in consequence of his spots
coming out in the interim. nohod; , who had seen him in
July, could have recognized him for the same dog in De-
cember. The effeet of Miss Cressy's evidence was much
weakened by that of Mr. Spagnoletti, who examined the clog
before Miss Kidney bought it., tie stated, that it'had spots
upon it—that it Was in distemper, p and that it appeared to be
about four months oil. Two veterinary surgeons were also
called to prove that there was no enlargement of the bone in
anv•part of this dog's tail, which there must have been, if it
had been the dog of the plaintiff which had had its tail crushed
by a carriage go:ng over it. Theconstable who had taken the
plaintiff into custody sald, that when the plaintifFealled at the
defendant's house he gave a description of the.dog, which he
could not recollect, but which convinced him that the dog lost
was quite the reverse of the dog found ; and Mr. Ilarnier :wore
that agg had used to him all those exp*ssions which he had
disclaimed in his cross-examination. Under these CITCI3I3I
e:ances, Mr. Searlett contended, that the dog now in the pos-
Session of the defendant was not the dog which the plaintiff
had lost; and consequently that the plaintiff could not be en-
titled to their verdict.
COMIIOX SERGrAitT replied upon the evidence, and
said, that putting the testimony of Hill arid Bigg out of con-
sideration, there was evidence sufficient to prove that the dog
bought by the defendant in July last was the very dog which
the plaintiff had lost about that time.
7 he Jury were
that Chief Justice ii as unnecessaryoftlwlesatoeopinion; for they told the Lord
for
him
to
sutra
up,
as
they had deterroitski to end a lretdirtt for, the
triages 101.10-s.-