The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-18 00:00:00

were convicted atiherlast Asskres for Kent, on art information
charging them with a riot at Dover.
It appeared fromihe report of the trial, that a:person limbed
Sharp had been arrested.Ml a warrant for as offence against the
excise laws, and the (Aters were conveying him to prison, when
a great mob, to the number of 600, in which there were man
women and boys, attacked the officers, and made a riot which
continued for five hours.
Mr. Justice BAYLjY passed the sentence of the Court, that
•Older should be imprisoned in the jail at Maidstone, and kept.
to hard labour, for 10 calendar months, and find security for
good behaviour for three years, himself in 501. and two sureties
in 101. each; and that Mary Greenwood should be imprisoned
in the House of Correction of St. Augustin's, near Canterbury,
for '$ calendar months, and find two sureties for her good be-
haviour for 3 years.
The woman held a child in her arms during the proceedings,
and was carried fainting out of Court after the sentence.
TUE RING v. T. STUNT.
This defendant also appeared to receive; judgment; haying
been found guilty of a violent and brutal assault on one of the
Officers of Excise, who went to the house of his father, a far-
mer, in Sussex, in search of smuggled liquor. Some difficulty
had occurred in proving the identity of the defendant, which
Mr. PLATT this day made the ground of a motion for a new
trial.

The application was refused by the Court. •
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. GURNEY were heard
in support of the prosecution, and in aggravation.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY passing judgment observed, that the
offence was committed in 1821, prior to a recent Act of Par-
liament which enabled the Judges to inflict hard labour. The
Learned Judge made the remark, because where violence was
committed on officers in the discharge of their duty persons
must expect hard labour to be inflicted in their punishment.—.
The Court, taking into consideration some circumstances in
behalf of the defendant, sentenced him to three months' im-
prisonment in Horsham Gaol. He was also required to find
security for his good behaviour for three years, himself in 1001.,
and two others in 801. each.
THE XING V. NEVIL.
The SOLICITOR-GUNERAt moved•for the judgment of the
Court on the detendant, who suffered judgment to pass against
him by default on two informations—one charging him with
attempting to bribe a seaman to connive at the landing of
smuggled spirits ; the other alleging that he made a signal to
communicate with a smuggling vessel at sea.
On the part of the defendant, affidavits were put in to chew
that the first overtures for the bribery came, not from him, but
from the seaman.
The Cott RT, adverting to the circumstances thus disclosed,
sentenced the defendant on the first information to two months,
and on the second to one month's imprisonment in Maidstone
gaol.

THE SING V./STOCKS AND ANOTHER.

Mr. SCATMETi moved for a rule to show cause why a cri-
minal information should not be exhibited against Mr. Stocks,
a collier, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and another gen-
tleman, a Magistrate of that division. A man named Ker-
shaw and his son and apprentice, who was under age, were
working for Mr. Stocks, and his father became indebted to
him in between 30/. and 40/. As he left the service, Mr.
Stocks took him before the Magistrate, who committed
not only him, but his son for three months to prison. While
they were in cofinement, the turnkey brought them a paper to
sign, offering them their liberation if they would sign it, and
representing it as a mete agreement to return to their work.
They accordingly signed it, were set at liberty, and returned to
the service of Mr. Stocks, where the father reduced the debt to
5/., and then gave notice of his intention to pay that sum and
to leave his master. On receiving this notice, Mr. Stocks sum-
moned them again before the Magistrate, when he asserted that
they had agreed to continue in his service for a term, by a writ-
ten agreement which he declined to produce. The Magistrate,
without requiring to look at the agreement, committed both
father and son for two months, although the latter, being under
age, was incapable of binding himself by a contract, and though
the Magistrate was warned to: that effect by an attorney.' Such
conduct the Learned Counsel submitted, raised a strong pre-
sumption of corrupt motive.—The Court granted a rule to show
cause.