The Sun.
London, England, 1838-09-07 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

William Garrett, a publican living in the Tower Ham-
lets, was indicted for assaulting Francis Carter.
The prosecutor having stated the particulars of the
assault—

Mr. C. Pnit.urs, on the part of the defendant, objected
to the case proceeding furtherj oh the ground tl.at the al-
leged assault having been eortutitted within the boun-
daries of the Tower Hamlets this Court had nu authority
to try it—the Tower Hamlets having a Court estdiilished
there to try all cases of misdemeanour, assault, &c., com•
m;tted within its jurisdiction, and by which alone the pre-
sent case could be disposed of.
The CHAIRMAN said the objection was certainly a novel
one, and of very great importance. He wished to know
by what authority the Court alluded to had been es-
tablished.

Mr. C. PHILLIPS handed up the chairman a copy of a
a royal charter establishing such Court, and declaring
that it
.should have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases of
misdemeanour, assault, &c., committed within the Tower
Hamlets.

Mr. JONES, for the prosecution, contended that if the
defendant had any objection to offer to the jurisdiction of
the Court he should have pleaded it in the first instance,
and before pleading to the indictment ; and in support of
his argument quoted Chitty on Pleas, where it was stated
In general any objection to the jurisdiction must be
pleaded, and cannot be taken advantage of under the
general issue. But where a statute directs that particular
matter shall be determined only within a certain boundary
or by certain Magistrates, this may be shown under a plea
of not guilty, and it has been holden that an objection to
the jurisdiction which is apparent on the face of the indict-
ment by the caption, when returned on a certiorari or
otherwise, may be well taken on demurrer ; but if a party
be indicted before Justices at Sessions, it should seem that
he may plead specially that the offence did not arise within
their jurisdiction, though the matter may be given in evi-
dence under the general issue. From the nature of this
plea it must evidently bo pleaded before the general issue,
because, by pleading not guilty, the defendant admits the
power of the Court to try him, and refers the cause to their
decision ; but we have seen that, by permission, the latter
plea may be withdrawn, and the former substituted in its
place."
Mr. C. PHILLIPS contended that, according to the latter
part of the quotation, the Court had the power to permit
defendant to withdraw his plea.

The CHAIRMAN should like to know if the Court of the
Tower Hamlets had the exclusive jurisdiction stated ?
Mr. Lush, the Steward of the Court of the Tower
Hamlets, stated that the Court had such exclusive juris-
diction granted by Royal charter ; and mentioned that in
a recent case where some persons resident in that district
had been fined for non-attendance as jurymen at the Mid-
dlesex Sessions, on the attention of the Court of Exche-
quer being called to that charter, it took off the fines.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS said that, supposing the defendant
should be acquitted on the present occasion, that would be
no answer to an indictment for the same assault if pre-
ferred against him in the Tower Hamlets Court.
Mr. TULK (a Magistrate)—Your argument would
equally apply in ease he was convicted.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS said it would not, because no motion
could be made in arrest of judgment except where there
was error on the face of the record.
After a long argument,
The CHAIRMAN decided that the defendant should have
taken his objection to the Court's jurisdiction before he
pleaded to the indictment.
The trial then proceeded, and the defendant having been
found guilty, was sentenced to pay a fine of 40s.
The MAGISTRATES generally were of opinion that had
the defendant's Counsel taken the objection in the first in-
stance, the Court must have admitted it, thus acknowledg-
ing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tower Hamlets Court.
Several other assault cases having been disposed of, the
Court adjourned to the 18th inst.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

Yesterday a man of very respectable appearance, named
Michael Burns, was brought before the LORD MAYOR,
charged with havingmost flagrantly assaulted several genteel
women in the streets.

William Miller, shopman to a woollen draper in Cornhiil,
stated that on the preceding evening he saw, as he was
leaving the shop, the defendant walk up to two ladies and
assault them in a manner that excited his utmost surprise
and indignation. The ladies resisted, and got out of
his way, and he immediately afterwards shocked ano-
ther respectable female by taking a similar liberty.
Witness and another person who had followed and
observed the defendant, ran up on findinc, that the man
was persevering, notwithstanding the checks which he
met with, and expostulated with him on the atrocity of
his conduct ; but he made no observation except that he
would knock the head off anybody who attempted to lay
hands upon him. The defendant then went into Birchin-
lane and attacked three ladies whom he met, after which
he fell foul of two others, who appeared to be mother and
daughter. Witness then could restrain himself no longer,
but went up and told the defendant that he would take him
into custody himself. When he proceeded to act, the de-
feadant made a blow at him, but was secured, and with the
assistance of an officer apprehended, and conveyed to a
place of security.
The LORD MAYOR—Did you not see an officer, whose
assistance you might have obtained before ? Witness—
No. The moment I saw one I called for his assistance,
and obtained it ; but I looked about for a long time without
SUCCeSS.

The LORD MAYOR—Did you strike him. Witness—l
struck him with a cane, and he endeavoured to get away,
but I ;vas determined not to let him escape.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, defendant, what have you to
aray—were you drunk.
Defendant—l am, my Lord, suffering under an aberra-
tion of mind. I have been for some time subject to attacks
of the kind occasionally. 1 did not, however, move the
clothes of any one of the females ; of that I am convinced.
The LORD MAYOR—Why did you presume to approach
females in such a manner ? Defendant—l was not myself
at the time. lam conscious now of the impropriety, but I
was not then.
Mr. Miller said that he could not prevail upon any of
the ladies to come forward, although they were evidently
greatly shocked.
The LORD MAYOR—No doubt they were shocked. The
consequences might have been extremely injurious. Defen-
dsant, have you ever acted in this manner before? Defen-
dant—I have, my Lord, unfortunately.
The LORD MAYOR—And been apprehended for it ?
Defendant—Yes, my Lord ; I have been taken up and
committed to Coldbath-fields prison for similar conduct. It
is an aberration of mind. I have no controul over myself
when I am affected, and I regret it when it is too late.
The LORD MAYOR—You seem now to be perfect master
of yourself, and can you account for this fit at all ? De-
fendant—l am now master of myself, but I cannot give any
explanation other than that I was not myself.
The LORD MAYOR--Then you must be taken care of.
I cannot, however I may compassionate your condition, let
you loose upon the public.
The defendant was acquainted with several gentlemen of
the City, and was himself a mercantile man. He believed
himself that it would be advisable to keep him at intervals
under restraint.

The defendant was then ordered to be taken care of in
the Giltspur-street Compter ; and soon afterwards
Two gentlemen waited upon the Lord Mayor, and in-
formed his Lordship that the unfortunate man was fre-
quently devoid of reasoning power, and performed actions
which proved beyond all doubt that he must be restrained.
They believed that commercial adversity was the cause.
The LORD MAYOR—W hen I am satisfied that his
family will take care that the public shall be safe from his
attacks, I will give him up to them, but not till then.