The Sun.
London, England, 1823-09-12 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.

ROBBERY AT COLONEL MERRICK'S.
Yesterday Jams Clark, aged 26, and Gilbert Down, aged 29
(both soldiers), were indicted—Clark with stealing in the dwell-
ing-house of William Henry Merrick, Esq. two watches, a
diamond and emerald necklace, and various other articles,
value 1,0091. and upwards, his property ; and Down stood
charged with aiding and abetting in the committing of the said
robbery.
Clark was respectably attired in a plain dress, and Down ap-
peared in a regimental drill dress.

Mr. 131.avi stated the case for the prosecution at consider-
able length. With respect to the case of Clark, the robbery
would be clearly proved; as it respected Down, to whom the
box was conveyed, the question was, did he receive it with a
guilty knowledge, or whether he was an accessary before and
after the fact ?

Colonel Merrick examined by Mr. Law.—Witness is
Colonel in the 3d regiment of Foot Guards ; the prisoner Clark
he took out of the ranks and made him his livery servant. iVit-
ness discharged him on the 12th August, and he was to go
away the next day. Had lived with him for twelve months.
In his house he had a kingwood box, which contained the arti-
cles mentioned in the indictment, except two watches and
seals. The value of the jewellery, &c. was worth from 1,2001.
to 1,400!. Witness lives in Berkeley-square; missed the box
on the 14th of August from his Lady's dressing-room, where
he used to take breakfast occasionally ; hence Clark often
had access to the room. Whenever witness travelled he took
the box with him ; did not sec the prisoner Clark after the
13th till the 10th ; witness put an advertisement into the
papers in the interim, and in consequence of which he re-
ceived a letter, purporting to come from White and Dobson ;
from this communication witness was induced to go towards
Portsmouth, in company with Westcott, an officer. They
overtook Clark, in company with another man when he held a
conversation with him, but held out neither promise or threat
to induce him to confess what had become of the remainder of
the property ; he said he had broken the box open in a cop-
pice about two miles beyond Dartford, where he had left it,
be had disposed of two watches, one gold and one silver, in
Chatham ; by the account he gave, witness discovered them
next morning ; went afterwards to the plantation to look for the
box ; a turnpike-man informed him where he would find it ; it
had been taken away by another person. Found the gold watch
in the possession of Slormin, a Jew, and saw the silver one ex-
posed in a shop window—part of the articles were sent in a
sealed parcel to the witness from the office, and the other part
were found in the secret drawer in the box ; a few trifling things
were picked up near Dartford on the grass; every individual
article had been recovered through information given by the
prisoner Clark.
Mr. Baron GRALIAM asked the prisoner Clark, if he would
put any questions to Colonel Merick ? To which the prisoner
replied, that he wished to plead guilty.
Mr. Law stated, that as all the property had been recovered
Colonel M. did not wish to proceed thriller ; therefore, if his
Lordship would receive the plea of guilty, the prosecutor would
recommend the prisoner to mercy.
F. Worger, a constable of Brighton, went to Portsmouth in
consequence of information ; found part of the stolen property
on his person, and another part concealed in a box in the room ;
witness took him into custody and conveyed him to London ;
met Colonel Merrick on the way; he gave witness every in-
formation as to the disposal of the property.
Westcott deposed that he accompanied the Colonel.—
His evidence went to corroborate that of Colonel Merrick, as
to the disclosure made by Clark.
Joseph Cook, groom to the prosecutor, stated that Clark
left his master's service; about two hours before he left he sent
witness to the prisoner Down, who was waiting at the Hole-in.
the-wall, Berkeley-mews, and told him to continue there till
Clark came; some conversation passed as to the time Clark
might be expected to arrive.
John Fisher, the landlord of the Hole-in-the-Wall, proved
that the prisoners were at his house on the 13th of August,
about four in the afternoon—Clark went over to the Colonel's
house, and Down went away—saw Clark again in about ten
minutes, with something. under his arm, like a box wrapped in
cloth—he went to the Bricklayers' Arms in the same mews".
The prisoner Down cross-examined the witness, but elicited
nothing material to his defence.
Ishmael Reeve, the landlord of the Bricklayers' Arms, saw
the prisoner- Downb at his house on the day of the robbery;
Clark called Down out ; he had a box with him ; they went
away together in the direction of Little Grosvenor-stret ;
Down conveyed the box.
Jane Dry deposed that she was the wife of a musician, and
lived in Gee '
s-court, Oxford-street saw the prisoners on the
13th of August,. Clark brought a box to her room ; the same
now before the Court; he inquired for her husband, observing
he had something for him ; he was not at home, and they went
away directly ; Down carried die box—they left the cloth be-
hind them.
Ann Dry corroborated the testimony of the last witness, but
would not swear to the identity of Down.
Colonel Merrick identified die property produced as his own.
Several other witnesses were examined, whose testimony
went to prove that Clark had possession of the box on the day
in question.
The prisoners were called on for their defence, when Clark
pleaded guilty, to the charge alleged against him ; Down called
several witnesses, principally Serjeants in the Guards, who
gave the prisoner a good character for honesty, sobriety, and
soldier-like conduct.

Mr. Baron 011AIIANI summed up the evidence relative to
Down ; his Lordship observed that the charges were distinct
against the two prisoners—Clark with stealing in the dwelling-
house property to a large amount ; Down with counselling and
abetting in the said robbery, and also with receiving the pro-
perty so taken, knowing it to have been stolen. He begged to
call the attention of, the Jury to the case of Down, more
especially as it appeared to involve difficulties which did not
exist as it regarded Clark, who bad confessed the robbery
aforetime, and even pleaded guilty on the present occasion.
As it respected Down, it was for the Jury to say whether he
was an accessary before the fact of robbery, or afterwards,
by taking possession of the property knowing it to have been
stolen.

The Jury retired for about twenty minutes, and returned
a verdict of Guilty—Death against Clark; and Down—Not
Gaily.
The Jury recommended Clark to mercy, on the ground of
his making a disclosure of the property.
his LORI:Nall said it should be forwarded to the proper
quarter.

THAMES POLICE...-MURDER OF Mn. SMITH OF LEWIS.
,Ot.—John Timothy, the man who was apprehended on Sun.
day last, in Chapel-street, East Smithfield, by Mitchell, an
officer of this police, was yesterday examined before the Magis.
testes of Greenwich. Similar evidence to that already adduced
against his brother and others, was brought forward against
him. About noon yesterday 111 r. Simmons, the chief clerk of
this office, received a note from the officer, giving infor.
mation that he was going on to Maidstone gaol with the
prisoner, who must consequently be fully committed for
trial at the next Assizes. At the, time the prisoner was
taken into custody, the officer said, I want you ;" he re.
plied, " For what ?" The officer said, " Again on a charge
of murder." Prisoner—" Oh, is that all ?" His coat and
waistcoat was then called for, which he put on, and was taken
away. On Monday, when placed at the bar of this office, the
Magistrate, after hearing Mitchell's statement, asked the pri.
soner what he had to say for himself—observing at the same
time,'he would caution him as to what he did say, lest it should
tend to his future injury. The prisoner audaciously observed—
" I need no caution : I know nothing of the matter !" This
pertinacity put an end to any further observation, and the pri.
soner was taken away from the bar, and consigned to the discre-
tion of the Greenwich Magistrates.

FIRE AT BuirroL.— Between eleven and
twelve o'clock on Monday night, the inhabitants of SL Mary
Reddiff parish were suddenly alarmed by a are, discovered by
a watchman on the ground-floor of the house of Mr. R. Wil-
mot, grocer, at No. 51, Redcliff-hill. flow it happened is not
known. Mr. Wilmot and his family had retired to rest not
more than half an hour, and escaped the destruction that befel
the whole house, stock, and furniture,. with. barely apparel
sufficient to cover them. The interior of the building was
old, consisting chiefly of wood. The adjoining houses of Mr.
William fluxtable, surgeon, and Mr. Edward Peters, gro-
cer, were saved only by solidity of their more modern party-
walls ; both of the roofs were frequently on fire, but the wind
being calm, an extension of the flames was providentially pre-
vented. From the want of subordination, however, among the
crowd of persons who pressed their assistance with an importu.
nity not to be controlled, much injury was done to their furni-
ture, and the opportunity for some pilfering was not neglected.
Mr. Watson, landlord of the Hope anti Anchor Inn, was
unwearied in his neighbourly exertions' until the progress
of danger' was subdued ; and perhaps this would not have
been so great, but for an unaccountable contest, in the corn.
meneement, between two men in the command of the engines,
who, instead of directing the water upon the flames, amused them-
selves by endeavouring to cool thezeal of each other. These heroes
are committed to Bridewell. Intoxication, and consequent
imbecility, .among the rest of these anarchical crews seems to have
prevailed in. a shameful degree: Had the whole of the men
employed by the eight Fire-office Establishments directed their
attention to three, at most, of the engines, sonic good Might
havß been effected but they stood in each other's way ; and
more water was wasted upon the ground than conveyed to the
engines, through the contest fo: an exclusive supply.—( Bristol
03sfrv:r. )

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

THE NEW VAGRANT ACT.

Yesterday Tirifif,l2lFilla' r appeared against a conviction be-
fore MATTHEW WYATT, Esq. by whom he had been sen-
tenced to three months hard labour as a rogue and vagabond.
Mr. LAW, in support of the conviction, stated, that it was
founded on the Act of the 3d of George IV., generally known
by the title of the New Vagrant Act, which declared that any
person who should be found in any dwelling-house, coach-
house, stable, out-house, garden, or enclosed place, who could
not " give a good account of himself," should be deemed a
rogue and vagabond, and might be sentenced by any one Magi-
strate to hard labour for three months. The appellant Millar
was found in the inclosed burying ground of the London Hos-
pital, in company with another person, at one o'clock on the
morning of the 23d of August, having with them a shovel and
a sack. In short Millar was what is vulgarly called a body-
snatcher, who was detected in the above situation and convicted
under the Vagrant Act.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, Counsel for the appellant, admitted that
his client was in the burying ground, which was an inclosed
place; but unless the Act was intended to do away with the
trial by Jury, it could not be made to apply to the present
case. The Act did not say that a person found in an inclosed
place should give a good account of the cause of his bring
there, but that he should give a good account of himself,-
otherwise a Justice might on his own authority punish
any man in the land who was found in an inclosed place be-
longing to another, without allowing him to have the benefit or
a trial by Jury. Suppose a man of 500/. a year found in an
inclosed place belonging to the house of a splenetic Justice who
desires him to give an account of his being there :—he says.
" I'll confess the truth, I came here to kiss your wife's maid."
The Justice might say that was not a good account, and in..
stead of indicting him as a trespasser, might of his own audio-.
rity convict him as a rogue and vagabond. The intent of the
Act clearly was, that persons found in inclosed places, and not
being able to give a good account of themselves, should bet
deemed rogues and vagabonds ; but lie would prove that the
present appellant lived in a house that he had purchased, paid
scot and lot, and could at any time be found to answer for any
offence ha had committed: the question was, whether such, a
man should be deprived of the benefit of a trial by jury ?
Mr. LAW replied—He could not, he said, admit that a man
might not be convicted as a rogue and vagabond, because he
had property ; if a man was found in an enclosed place, for
the purpose of committing a burglary, or the misdemeanour
of raising dead bodies, his being possessed of property
could not be a justification. The circumstances were to
determine whether he was not tilers for an illegal purpose ;
his having property only proved that he had thriven by his
iniquity :—the good account of himself required by the Act,
must mean, that he was there for a lawful purpose. If he were
found behind a man's bed-chamber door at midnight, with
a pistol in his hand, it would not be giving a good account of
himself to say, I have purchased the lease of a house, and live
comfortably on the robberies I have committed :—if he were
found with picklock-keys in his possession, it was not giving a
good account of himself, to tell how much money he had made
by the trade ; and when the appellant and his companion had
scaled the wall of a burying-ground at midnight, it was not
giving a good account of himself, to say, he was a man of pro-
perty ;—but let him account for his being found there with his
spade, and shovel, and sack, sitting on the new-made grave;
--let him account for it in any other manlier than having come
there to make a market of the carcase. Was his escaping. over
a ten-foot wall, when he was discovered, giving a good ac-
count of himself ?

Mr. ADOLPHUS said, the speech of his Learned Friend
would be an excellent speech to address to a Jury, but the
question at present was, whether the appellant was to be con-
victed and punished without a trial by jury? If such were the
construction to be put on the Act, there was not a Nobleman
in the land that might not be convicted under it by a Justice of
Peace. Even the Duke of Wellington, as he was known some-
times to play at hazard, might be committed as a rogue and a
vagabond. Ile would prove how the appellant lived.
Law—lle lives by others dying, and by selling their
bodies.

Mr. ADOLPH us denied that the conviction before the Ma-
gistrates stated more than that the appellant had been in an in-
closed place.
Mr. Law said he would prove the intent, which he did, and
which is not, we believe, doubted.

Mr. AHOLPHUS called two witnesses, one of whom proved.
that the appellant lived in a house in Gregory's Rents, for the
interest of which he paid 1201. and the other proved that his
house was rated at 25!. a year in the parish books.
The CHAIRMAN, after some consultation with the Bench,
which was unusually full, said it was their unanimous opinion
that the conviction should be confirmed.
The Appellant was immediately taken off to the House of
Correctidn, under a strong escort of constables, who found
great difficulty in protecting him from the fury of the mob.

CLERKENWELL sEssroNs.
Yesterday the Court was occupied during the whole of the
day in hearing appeals.

ST. GEORGE THE MARTYR tt. ST. ANDREW'S.
This was an appeal to remove i pauper, John Baptist, from
St. George's to St. Andrew's. It appeared in the evidence that
the pauper, in consequence of his being in the rules of the
King's Bench, engaged a house in Cook-street, at the rate of
six shillings a week,- and that after his discharge in the Insol-
vent Court, which took place in May, 1819, he lived in it to
the commencement of the January following, at which period
he was discharged from the Marshal's custody. The question
that arose was whether he was to be considered after the deci-
sion in May, in the light of a prisoner, in whiCh case the pau-
per would have gained no settlement •in the parish : and the
Court decided that the fact of his not being discharged from
the Marshal prevented his having any claim on the parish of
St. George's, and the appeal was therefore allowed.
The appeal ofTwickenharn v. Cheshunt was of the same na-
ture; and in the evidence it appeared that William Quarl had
been born in the parish of Cheshunt, but had subsequently te-
nanted a small house of 15/. a year, in the parish of Twicken-
ham, of a Mr. Holmes. Part of this house he had let to a Miss
Hunt ; and it was agreed between him and his landlord, that
Miss Hunt should pay 51. per ann. of the rent. He lived here
for a year and a quarter, paying the taxes and rates, and the sum
of 12/. Ws. to Mr. Holmes, which, with Miss Hunt's 51. would
have completed the rent:---this 51., however, was not paid till
Quad's wife had applied to the parish for relief, when it was
offered to Mr. Holmes, but he refused then to receive it, with-
out die consent of the Vestry, as it would make them charge.
able on the parish : and the Court ruled that the whole rent for
one year not having been paid, no matter where the. fault lay,
prevented the pauper being entitled to a settlement in that
parish.

Another question then arose, as to his having paid taxes to
the amount of 101. which compelled the parish to relieve him ;
and as there was some dispute among Counsel, how the Court
of King's Bench had settled this, it was finally determined, that
if that (;curt had determined that the payment of taxes to the
amount of 10/. gave a settlement, this appeal was to be quashed.

SWINDLING.-Mr. 13ipsicAn, hosier, Holborn,
was yesterday defrauded of goods and cash to
the amount of five pounds, in the following man-
ner :—A gentleman in appearance came into his
shop, and looked out articles to the amount of
Us. and desired them, with change for a 51.
note to be sent to his chambers, in Lincoln's lon,
directly. A lad accordingly was sent with them,
who, on getting to the door, met the party, who
took the parcel from him and asked for the
change, which the lad gave him, who was then.
desired to go and fetch some trifling article. It
is scarcely necessary to add, that in the mean.
time the party had decamped.

BIB'IS.
On Wednesday, the 3d inst., at Milton, in Northampton-
shire, the Right Hon. Lady Milton, of a son.
On Sunday, the 7th inst., Mrs. John Newton, of Montpelier,
South Lambeth, of a son.

MARRIED.
On the 11th inst., Mark' Beauchamp Peacock, Esq., of Col-
-1 e.hlll, to Antonina Eliza, daughter of Anthony Parkin, Esq.,
of Great James-street, Bedford-row.
lington, Mr. Charles
4222zOlse.:tottith.auFeicelrlitectiii.uorcitn.;_st.1,trei ateot
eSaotnr.dgl:l,cartisysp'qsh.,a;
Evans, of Honduras, to Miss Kay, of Dalby-terrace.
On the 10th inst., at St. Mary's, Lambeth, Mr. Isaac Phil-

On Tuesday, the 9th inst., DIEDat Suth-Vine,
.
road, Sarah, relict of the late Samuel Godfrey, Esq., of the
Stock Exchange.
On the 9th inst., William Ward, 2, Fish.street-hill.
On 'Monday, the Bth inst., at Canterbury, Christopher Pot.
Linger, Esq.
On IVednesday, the lOtirinst Mr. William Carter, of Peck-
ham, Surrey, aged 72.
On the 82d ot March last, at dalcutts, John Clihnore, Esq.,
in his 80th year.
M':llldsworth-

Printed sad Publishod for the Piwpittvrous, :it the Su's-
Orrict:. 112, Stratid, by J. B. CARSTAPRS.

r'