The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-02 00:00:00

LONDON SESSIONS.

Yesterday Horatio Orton was put on his trial, on an indict-
ment, foi assaulting Joseph Wilfred Parkins, on the 18th of
May last.
Mr. CHARLES PHILLIP§ briefly stated the case for tne pro-
secution. The traverser, he said, was indicted for having com-
mitted an assault on Mr. Parkins on the 18th of May last.
Who Mr. Parkins was they all knew, as he had lately the ho-
nour of serving the office of the Sheriff of the City of London.
The defendant he' knew nothing of, but that he was 'clerk to
the Constitutional Association, of whom he should not say any
thing, as he had no wish to mix politics with the case _they
were to try. The Learned Gentleman then stated the prin-
cipal facts of the case as they were afterwards proved in evi-
dence.
Joseph Wilfred Parkins examined.—Witness saw the de-
fendant at the door of his office, in the house No. 10, Bridge-
street, Blackfriars, on the 18th of May, about eleven o'clock
in the morning. A person of the name of Gill, who- was
in his employment, had just then left his office, and re-
turned and told him Mr. Orton wanted to speak to him.—
He immediately went to the door; where he saw the de-
fendant, who said to him, " How dare you, Sir, go into my
room and take my papers ?" And without,giving him time to
make any reply, instantly struck him in the face with a stick
he took from under his coat. There was a man standing be-
tween them, whom he (the witness) pushed away and got into
the passage, which was rather dark. He was instantly seized
by two dogs; one of them caught him by the calf of the leg,
the other by the hamstrings. The pain was excruciating, and
he cried out, " For Gon's sake, take the dogs off my legs !"
The defendant continued all the time beating him with the
stick,as fiercely as he could. Witness extricated himself from
the dogs by kicking them with the other foot, and wrenched
the stick from the defendant, who then struck him several
times with his fists. In the conflict the defendant went down.
Witness lifted him up, and, while he was, in the, act of doing
so, the defendant scratched his face desperately. He had
eleven bleeding wounds on his face given by the defendant,
nine wounds on his thigh given by one of the dogs, and two on
the calf of his leg given by the other. Mr. Wray, a surgeon,
was sent for, and dressed his wounds, which confined him
more than, a week, and prevented him sleeping a wink the
first night, they were so painful : one of the wounds on his leg
Was not healed. He had not given the defendant the least
provocation, nbr spoken to him when he was assaulted by
Cross-examined by Mr. ADoLnius—lle knew the Consti-
tutional Association had an office in the house, No. 6, Bridge-
street, but did not know they had, an office in No. 10. He once
got from a waiter in No. 10, where his office was, a paper which
lay on a table in the passage ; it appeared to be a circular, but
was not addressed to any particular person : it was ragged and
torn. The witness being pressed by Mr. Adolphus respecting
the manner in which he came by the paper, repeatedliiS answer,
and said he hoped Mr. Adolphus would do his duty like a gen-
tleman, if possible.'
The RECORDER told Mr. Parkins that was not the way to
answer the questions of Counsel : if the Counsel put any im-
proper question to him, he might object to it.
Mr. ADOLPHUS made some observation in 'rather a pas-
sionate manner, which we did not distinctly hear, and added,
that an advertisement had been put in the newspapers that
morning to collect a mob at the trial. This assertion was an-
swered by loud hisses from the auditory.
The examination was continued. , The paper the witness got
from the waiter contained nothing about the Constitutional Asso-
ciation. By seeing on it the name of Mr. Atkins, and of Charles
Murray, honorary secretary, he supposed it belongul,to them.
He never sent it to The Times, nor any other newspaper
forpublication, nor did he know who had sent it. He believed
his clerk took a copy of the paper at his desire, but had not seen
the copy. He took so little notice of the paper, that he could
not say how long it was after he had seen it that the defendant
called on him. He did not push the defendant before he was
struck by him. The stick with which the defendanfassaulted
him was twice as large as one he (the defendant) had then with
him in Court. He struck the defendant as often and as hard
as he could. He had seen the two dogs since ; one of them had
a short time before the assault belonged to the house No. 6, the
other was kept in the stable of No. 10.
Ite-examined.r-When lie came to the door of his office he
saw the two dogs in the passage with the defendant ; neither
of them bit the defendant. _ _ _

.•••-•••• .•••••
By the Couwr.—He went out the day after the assault was
committed on a gentle horse but was obliged to return in a
coach. Be also went out three or four times in the course of
the next week on urgent business, but with great difficulty and
pain.'
Septimus Wray, of Fleet-street, surgeon, examined.—Wit-
ness was sent. for-by Mr. Parkins on the .16th of. May last, and
found several scratches bleeding on his face, principally about
the integunients of his eyes ; and several lacerations on his legs
and thighs. The wounds were rather severe, but not exten-
sive. Ile attended Mr. Parkins a:fortnight or three weeks.
The wounds were so far inflamed that they might confine a
persona day or two. He advised Mr. Parkins to lie by.
Joseph Gill 4 the person who delivered the message *um the
defendant to Mr. Parkins, corroborated the evidence of the as-
sault in every particular. Mr. Parkins used no violence of any
kind before he was struck. _ _

On his cross-examination, the witness said he was married
to Mr. Parkins' sister. Mr. Parkins paid his rent, and sup-
ported his family, and also allowed him a pound a week. He
never made any affidavit about the assault, nor ever heard that
an affidavit in his name was published in the newspapers. It
was the fact, that Mr. Parkins knocked the defendant down,
and then lifted him up and beat him, butt he (the witness) never
made an affidavit of it. , _

Wain Walker stated, that he was proprietor of the house,
Bridge-street, in which Mr. Parkins had a room entirely ap-
propriated to .himself. He (the. witness) saw the defendant a
day or two after he haconimitted the Assaillt on Mi. Parkins,
and accused him of haring broken the peace in • his house.—
The defendant said,. if he (witness) did not take care of hirn-
self, he'd serve him, the same; sauce he had Parkins; he was
glad of what he had done to Parkins, and wished it had been
more.
Cross-examined—The Constitutional Association had had a
room in his house, No. 6,- Bridge-street, and about ten days
before the assault took plate he had given them a room in his
house, No. 10. The paper belonged to the Association. He
saw it it in their room, and afterwards on a table in the passage,
and believed most of the servants saw it. One of the dogi be-
longed to him ; the other to some person frequenting his
house.

The case for the prosecution closed here.
Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury fot the defendani, but
called no witnesses. He attribtited the prosecution entirely to
the prosecutor's love of notoriety, and desire to glitter in news=
papers.
The RECORDER recapitulated the evidence to the Jury; who
instantly found the defendant Guilty.
After some consultation on the bench, the Ittc ipwrity. ad-
dressed the defendant ; he had been found guiltyon the clearest
evidence of having committed an unprovoked assault, and his
declaration that he was glad of what he had done was an ag-
gravation of hii offence. The sentence of the Court was, that
be shoUld be imprisoned two months in the Giltspur-street
Compter.—( Morning Paper.)

LONDON MARKETS.