The Sun.
London, England, 1822-08-02 00:00:00

DOGGETT'S COAT AND BADGE.

Yesterday being the lstof August, the Annual Prize was con.
tested by six young watermen, who were just out of theittime.
The combatants started at six o'clock, from the Old Swartstairs,
London-bridge, to, row up the River, 'against tide, so the Swan
at Battersea.—This was one of the best contested:matches we
have witnessed for a series of yesrs. The greatest skill
was displayed above Waterloo-bridge where the Greenwich
man took the lead, and kept it till he had passed Hunger-
tbrd ; he then ran foul of some boats, which gave the boat
on his stern the advantage—this was the Wandsworth man,
who shot through Westminster Bridge. The third boat was the
man from Lambeth. In this order they proceeded to Chelsea-
reach, when Noulton (the Lambeth man), by an uncommon
stroke, became second boat ; and by one of those- lucky occur-
rences which often happen, he won the prize—the second man
getting entangled in a cluster of boats. The day being fine,
the, river was covered with pleasure-boats. The Funny Club
displayed several elegant new cutters. Among the yacht were
those belonging to many men of fashion. From below bridge
there were several built in Sir Robert Wigram's yard. The
wherries were innumerable. The banks of the river and the
bridges were lined with well-dressed spectators.—The match
was decided a few minutes after seven.

LAW.—In Easter Term last it was determined
by the Court of King's Bench, that 64 a Sheriff
has no right, under a ji fa., to seize fixtures,
where the house in which they are situated is the
freehold of the person against whom the execu-
tion issues." It has also lately been determined
by the same Court, that where the master of a
workhouse, appointed by, and receiving orders
from, the guardian of the poor,•bought provisions
from one of such guardians, such, guardian was
liable to a penalty of 1001., imposed by 55 Geo.
c. 1377 sec. G.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

DREADFUL ACCIDENT.

GUILDHALL.—On Wednesday afternoon, about 4 o'clock,
as a carpenter, of the nanie of Bilborough, residing in Huish's-
court, Water-lane, was crossing Ludgate-hill, he was knocked
down by the pole of a hackney-chariot, the wheels of which
passed over his body. The coachman, who was evidently
drunk, appeared to take no notice whatever of the accident, but
continued to drive on furiously down the hill. He was, how-
ever, however, stopped by a gentleman on horseback, and
given in custody to Snow, the beadle of St. Martin's, Ludgate.
The unfortunate sulkier, who appeared dangerously hurt, was
recognized by some of the neighbours, and conveyed, covered
with blood, to his house ; and the driver, who gave his name
George Ewings, was brought up yesterday at this office, before
Mr. Alderman Cox, the sitting Magistrate, to answer for his
conduct.—Mr. Hayes, a stockbroker in Throgotorton-street,
stated that he was coming down Ludgate-hill with a friend,
when he saw the prisoner driving his chariot down the hill.—
He was so drunk as to be scarcely able to sit upon his box,
which occasioned him (Mr. Hayes) to observe that he feared
some accident would occur ; and he had no sooner made the
observation, than he saw a man knocked down, and the cha-
riot pass over him. He and his friend immediately ran to the
spot, and assisted in raising the man up. He appeared much
hurt, and one of his hands was dreadfully lacerated. He was,
however, able to state where he lived, and, by the assistance
of some passengers, was conveyed home. He applied to Mr.
Box, the surgeon on Ludgate-hill, and succeeded in procuring
his attendance.—A. certificate was read from Mr. Box, which
stated that the unfortunate man was considerably injured, so
that his life could not be pronounced to be out of danger. it
was also understood that one of his hands were so much injured
that it would probably be necessary to amputate it.—The pri-
soner seemed fully sensible of his situation, and expressed his
sorrow and contrition for the accident, but had nothing to offer
in extenuation of his conduct, aild was remanded for further ex-
amination until the fate of the unfortunate sufferer should be
ascertained.
THE CASE OF FORGERY.—THE KING V. BROOKES.
BOW-ST REE T.—This novel and important case came on for
a second hearing yesterday, before Sir RICHARD BIRNIE
and THOMAS HALLS, Esq., and judging from the great
crowd of respectable.looking persons in the office, the matter
appeared to have excited an uncommon degree of interest.—
The office was nearly filled before the Magistrates had taken
their seats.
Brookes, the prisoner, was brought in in the custody of
Cornick, the gaoler, and placed at the bar. Mr. ALLEY At-
tended for the prosecution, and Mr. HONE appeared on behalf
of the prisoner.
Mr. ALLEY, addressing the Magistrates, said he understood
that it was supposed some legal difficulties, not easily to be sur-
mounted, would arise in the present case, but in his opinion
there would be none, and he would explain the grounds upon
which he had formed that opinion, and which he thought would
be unanswerable. It was stated in one part of the evidence,
that the prisoner, when before Mr. Justice Best at Chambers,
declared he had been advised to destroy the check, and that he
had destroyed .it. If he really had received such advice, he
(Mr. Alley) would only say, what he understood was said by
that Learned Judge at the time, that he had not received ho-
nourable advice ; and he must observe that he thought no Gen-
tleman at the Bar could have advised any man to destroy that
which was necessary for the ends of justice' even though it were
to save his client's neck. But that very declaration on the part
of the prisoner had supplied a piece of evidence without which
(as he should by and by show) the case could not stand. The
crime of which he had to accuse the prisoner was, not the forg-
ing of a check, but a receipt, acquittance, or discharge for
money. It had been (he understood) objected that the forged
receipt not being written on a stamp, it could not be made the
subject of a-criminal prosecution ; but in a case which occurred
20 years ago, and which he had the honour of arguing before
the Judges, it was held that the stamp duties, being part of the
revenue laws, could have no reference to a criminal prosecu-
tion ; and that although a man writifig a receipt upon unstamped
paper was liable to be sued for a penalty under the Stamp Act,
he was not at all the less liable to be prosecuted for forgery, if
he should forge the name of any person in such receipt with a
fraudulent intent. The next and the main question was, whe-
ther in the absence of the document itself which was said to be
forged, a copy of it, properly authenticated, could be received
in evidence so as to fix the crime. He maintained that it could.
In 1809, in the celebrated case " the King v. Scott," tried be-
fore Lord Ellenborough, at the Old Bailey, it appeared that
the defendant had uttered a bill, alleged to be forged, to a
tradesman in the Strand, in payment of some goods. The uncle
of the prisoner went to the tradesman, and under the pretence
that he also had been defrauded by a similar trick, got posses-
sion of the bill, and destroyed it by putting it in the fire. The
prisoner, however, was committed, and on his trial the Learned
Lord on the Bench held, that even in a prosecution for forgery
the destruction of the instrument vas no bar to the pro-
ceeding ; for he recollected a case before Justice Buller,
in . which a man . accused of forging a Bank Note - had
swallowed it, and that Learned Judge held that he might
be convicted notwithstanding the nonproduction of the note.—
The case went to the Jury, who acquitted the prisoner, but it
was because the fraudulent intent was not. made out to their
satisfaction. The doctrine held in that case by Mr. Justice
Buller was approved by the whole profession. But (the Learned
Lord continued) before parole evidence could be received, it
must be proved that the original document had been destroyed,
and that, too, with the privity of the accused. Before, there-
fore, the .Jury could convict in the case then before them (the
King v. Scott), they must be satisfied that the instrument was
destroyed by the uncle by desire or with the privity of the pri-
soner, because the latter might say that it was no forgery, and
that if it was produced he could prove it to be a genuine instru-
ment ; and the destruction of it might be the act of the uncle
without the consent of any other person. It was absolutely ne-
cessary that the destruction of the original document should be
traced to the instrumentality of the accused before secondary
evidence could be received. Scott was acquitted. In the pre-
sent case, however, (Mr. Alley proceeded,) they had the de-
claration of the accused himself, that he had destroyed the ori-
ginal document ; and if that declaration was false, he had
chosen to make it, and he must abide the consequences. That
declaration was already in evidence, and he would now produce
the copy of the document in question, written by Turner, clerk
to Mr, Isaacson, the attorney for the defendant, and he should
call Mr. Turner to examine this copy, and say whether it was
his writing or not. He would, however, warn Mr. Turner,
who, on the first examination, said he did not know whether

the copy was his hand-writing or not, that persons were present
who would prove it was, and ha had better avoid a prosecution
for perjury.
James Turner was then called for, but did not answer ; and

to a message sent to Mr. Isaacson's office, it was answered that
he had-been out all day.
Mr. Isaacson was then examined, and having been called
upon to describe the original document, he looked at the copy
furnished by order of Mr. Justice Best, and declared it to be
Turner's hand-writing. This copy was read before. the Judge,
and he did not recollect that l3rookes denied that it was a true
copy of the original document. He had no recollection of
Brookes having acknowledged that it was so.

Cross-examined.—Witness did not know whether it was a
true copy or not.
Mr. HILL, the attorney for the prosecution, was called, and
said the copy produced was left at his office in the usual way
of business, two, days after the order of the Judge. Brookes
did acknowledge before Mr. Justice Best at the second hearing
that it was a true copy, in answer to a question from the
Learned Judge himself.
This Brookes firmly denied, and Sir R. BIRNIE said he
must do the prisoner the justice to observe that he had from the
first denied having said that he had destroyed the original
document.

Mr. ALLEY-21'1mi we must subpoena the Learned Judge
to prove that he .did say so.
Mr. Isaacson said he had no recollection of any such state-
' ment by Brookes.
Mr. tIONE, for the prisoner, said, that in a case of so much
importance to the prisoner, and to the public, he was sure the
Magistrates would not act precipitately ; and as it was a novel
question, and there was such a paucity of cases in favour of Mr.
Alley's proposition to be found in the books, he had Rio doubt
they would give time for a more 'attentive search, and more
mature deliberation, befOre they sent the case to a Jury. He
prayed for a re-examination on a future day, when (having
only got his instructions that morning) he should be fully pre-
pared to combat the arguments of his Learned Friend.
Sir R. BIRNIE said, he regarded the case as one of vast im-
portance, and both he and his Worthy Colleague would be
willing to give ample time to the Learned Advocate for the pri-
soner.' He remembered the case of the King v. Scott well, and
there was this striking difference between that and the present
—that in that case there was no authenticated copy of the ori-
ginal instrument : here there was.

Mr. ALLEY said, it was extremely fit the public should
know that the destruction of a forged document would not pre-
vent a prosecution.
Mr. HONE said it was also proper they should know that
the question had never yet been properly decided whether it was
or not. All that had been urged was mere dictunz.
After some conversation as to the time the prisoner should be
committed for, he was ordered to be sent back to the House of
Correction for a fortnight.
CHARGE, OF BURGLARY.—Yesterday Robert Hartley, ivith
about seven or eight aliq,ses, and though apparently only about
22 or 23 years of age, one of the most desperate characters
m that his beeat the office for some time past, having, confessed
that he has committed 80 burglaries within the last two years,'

was charged before Sir RICITARD BIRNIE, with having broke;
open the house of Count Byland, on Blackheath, on Fr t%
se'nnight ; when he proved himself such .a completef
in housebreaking that he was a considerable time 1",,A
Count's bed-room, and stole all the dot`les that the Count 70,
worn the day before, and a great variety of articles dituit
perty ; he remained in the house regaling himself with 3 ""d
pie, and spirits and water, and no doubt would have contioiee
there much longer, but one of the family being awoke by
tjie
noise which it is supposed he heard, induced him to leave the
house.—When the parties were about to be bound over,
Count wished to decline prosecuting, but Sir RICHARD 131°
IE
insisted on binding him over.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Darin
Wm. Reeding was re-examined on the charge of entering
house of Mr. Westwood, jeweller, of Princes-street, SQllc),,,
It further appeared, that on the prisoner being apprehendedeipi
Gook on suspicion of being concerned in the robbery, °llls to
taken to the watchhouse he was observed to have some s"ak..
his watch-chain, which were afterwards missed; and on In_ver
ing inquiry what had become of them, the prisoner denied ;
' having any. On searching him six sovereigns were fburitt
be
him, and two of them were proved by Mr. Westwood, totbe
part of those he had deposited in his till on the night of.
robbery, and which were stolen, which, together with the P,„
soner having been seen about the house on the night of
the
robbery, confirms the suspicion that he was concerned in
robbery.—He was remanded. John Sexton, well known to
i
officers, was also charged on suspicion of being concerned
the affair, and was also remanded. —Yestertitie
HATTON-GARDEN.— Cruelty to Animals.—Yesterday Joh°
Anted, a cow-keeper, residing in Cromer-street, Branlnd.
square, was charged by Mr. Blake, a respectab'e h°°'
sll
shoemaker, in Gray's Inn-lane, with cruelly and barbarnt„lte
beating a small horse, his own property, on Monday last.
Magistrate told the defendant that he was happy that at lets
a law was made to punish such unfeeling monsters, but 45lee
was the first case of the kind that had come before him
ah/
the passing of the Act, he would only convict him inthe Pen
r--
of 20s.

MARY LEBONE OFFICE.—The Riot in Calmell-ki—Oftisci,
Yesterday Patrick Hanagan, Timothy Hanagan, James otti,
lahan, Patrick Sullivan, Philip Gregory, John Fit4er
Lawrence Nagle, and Michael Singleton, were brought
underwent a final examination, before JOUN Itaymiltlets
Esq., the Sifting Magistrate, for creating the late distal'iop
and riot in Cahnell-buildings, Orchard-street, Portman-110f
—Mr. LLOYD, a solicitor, attended on behalf of the pa "de,
Marylebone, to conduct the prosecution.—Several witnesseseOO
posed to the acts of violence committed by the prisoners 4;ho
two men, named Herbert, and another named Connot,otsber,
were dreadfully beaten. During the examination themod
of the Hanagans was recognized in Court, as one ifn:fters
abetted the rioters, and she was taken into custody•—'4l. tad
long examination, Mr. RAWLINSON asked the priseliersi tbst
had any thing to say in their defence ? They all stateded oa
they had witnesses, but who they were told might be called
their trial.—A certificate was read, signed by the inhabitl7o
York-court, saying the prisoners always came there artne.'l4, the
sticks, and made a great noise.—All the prisoners
mother of the Hanagans) were fully committed for °line
Patrick Hanagan then asked the Magistrate whether they es'
be admitted to bail ? who informed him they all (with "'ITO
ception of Callihan) might, themselves in 501., and two
in 251. each, by giving 24 hours notice of bail. jolie
UNION-HALL. A Castle-building Apprentice. jAce,
Chandler, a glass-ornament cutter, residing in Graohq:), re•
Lambeth, was summoned before L. B. ALLEY, Escl• jog to
fusing to instruct his apprentice, William Call, accrinetv
the stipulations of his indenture. The apprentice urgeu!, boss
ber of frivolous charges against his master, whom he thougilf
with above 6 years, and assured the Magistrate, that - net of
he had but 11 months of his time to serve, he was, for pacti
proper instruction, incapable of performing the °Mos
branch of the trade. The master produced some rted,
the complainant's workmanship upon glass, which nezl"--,.,iner.-'
evidently with' truth, were performed in a maawlytnw-7,„„ clue
He then entered into a statement of his apprentices '";"!eketi,
since he had visited a fortune-teller, of the name of he
living in Westminster, who had assured him that if oge he left
out his time, he would be in poverty all his life, spa
his master, he would soon have a sign over his own au'd se
would certainly come to great riches. This prediction his fu'
strongly impressed the apprentice's mind with ideas Of A be'.
ture grandeur, that he entirely neglected his business, a'rbigo;
came dissatisfied with every thing and every one sbl de,
and, instead of attending to his trade as he had "'the air'
he appeared to be solely employed in building castles Pr_3, by the
This statement of the master's was very faintly denied
boy, who did not say that he had not visited the fortonienotet'S
but said his neglect of his business was owing to his, art!
not instructing him in the most valuable branches of the the
The Magistrate expressed hisoadmimtion of the belief, ;3 the
specimens of the complainant's, workmanship produce°„,c,lo'
master, which he said, fully proved how well he had
rrie-y to-
structed, and admonisheu rum on the great folly and 010
priety of his conduct, in allowing the ridiculous pretence fuse
impostor to make him neglect his business, and unjustg
a master who, it was evident, had instructed him ni .444'
lent effect while he was disposed to receive instruction 7004/'
missed the complaint.—The Magistrate also advised boa
ler, if he could produce evidence of the fortune-tellers
t,-..t
instigated the apprentice to violate his duty, to tiPs-1 fora av•
rant to have him apprehended, and he would certaiio be
with as he deserved.

-- -
A HARD CIIOICE.—In the seventeenth
upon tn*.o
the greater part of the property lying
river Etrick belonged to SCOTT of Harden, Os
principally resided at Oakwood T"'enr'oua
border house of strength, still remaining 170,
that river. William Scott, (afterwards Sir
Liam) son of the head of this family, undertnu,,
.00).1
an expedition against the Murrays of Ell ge
whose property lay at a few miles distant. red,
found his enemy upon their guard, wa§raefehich
and made prisoner in driving off the cattle w ono
he had collected for that purpose. Sir Gilnener
the chief of the Murrays, conducted his Pr'sw-tir
to the castle, where his lady received hinj„ifit4
centurp
congratulations upon his victory, and illq*a
concerning the fate to which he destined
prisoner. " The gallows," answered Sir 11,1 flout
"to the gallows with- the marauder." -te °a'
na, Sir Gideon," answered the considerate oa
tron, in her vernacular idiom, " wIrlA :rdeo7
".
hang the winsome young Laird of ""ro. to
when ye have three ill-favoured daughte .00
marry ?" " Right," answered the Bar°7l our
caught at the idea, " he shall either
daughter, mickle-mouthed Meg, or straP f°,l. Di Fri'
'When this alternative was proposed to).l;et to
soner, he at first stoutly preferred the gl the
" mickle-mouthed Meg," for such wroatoe
nickname of the young lady, whose .rea iss AC'
was Agnes. But at length, when he lot 00
,
tually led forth to execution, and 5-ne
other chance of escape, he retracted hi 100°,„
5e
lant resolution, and preferred the tyPicapa 171
of matrimony to the cord of hemp. 'Pit 10fgn.
necessary to add, that " mickle-mouthed
and her husband were a very happy an d ach °
pair, and had a very large family,- toi'es-to.tes2
whom Sir William Scott bequeathed go°"'
besides reserving a large one for the elae„'
MARRIED. a, y
At the British Consulate,_ Genoa, on the 17,15, °riot,
Rev. Martin Stow, A.M. Caplain to, the Ez3gt,,s":h itugAt.
Edward Le Mesurier, Esq. of Genoa, to Amr^".'",..gtkrue'
youngest daughter of the late S. Wright, Esq. 6.1,1

On Wednesday evening last, the 31st July,
ness, Maria, wife of John Beardmore, Esq.
Piccadilly, deeply-lamented by her family and friesi;iol t
eldest daughter of John Esq.Parks,of llean-stre'" -- er P-e
At Ghent, on the 24th ult. the i.ev. Edmund Dwiltfelloia
v , 0
of Stanmore, Middlesex), A.M. and Senior Fell° ' Ire
broke College, Oxford, sincerely ed• Ile -
regrett
Christian, and and an admirable scholar. WO' 'he
Lately, at Calcot Pail:, near Reading, the Rev.,,. to I-
ville, M.A. rector of Enford, Somersetshire
.chaPFee es C 0,1; .!
Duke of Manchester, and formerly Fellow of LSt'ketorf is I' '
lege, Cambridge, B.A. 1778, M.A. 1781. rue,Th• ty.
the patronage of the Mas er and Fellows of dial '"--e
ip
:11P,oerlato5s:trtslItj

~e
Sir,.

Printed and Published for the PnoratET9l"' at'
Office, No. 112, trand, by J ti; CAR-4'041"-r'

Le"

----_
~..

11/

Reside
40 Mill
, pt,
Loritto!

!4g LI/
ing
uer,ll,
lilr"°ont
Poi

Riges—
iraiir
PH/
and w

rti