The Sun.
London, England, 1815-01-12 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JAN. 11.

CONSPIRACY.—Pat. Leeson and Richard Gardner
were both indicted for conspiring together to de-
fraud, and with defrauding, Mr. Christopher
Hawc, a publican, in Swallow-street, Piccadilly,
of the sum of 601. It appeared that Leeson had
signified that he had a sum of money to lodge
with some person who would take care of it, and
that he laid down on the table a sum of money,
and the defendant Gardner counted out one hun-
dred and twenty-six pounds to all appearance. The
prosecutor immediately took it up in a bundle, and
put it in his pocket. He never counted the notes
himself, and gave the defendant Leeson a receipt
for the sum. In some days after, when he had
occasion to go to his bureau to take out some
money, he took the above-mentioned parcel for
for that purpose, but to his astonishment found
that it contained instead of 1261. only 661. and
when Leeson next called he acquainted tint
therewith : Leeson, however, persisted in de-
claring that the sum was 126/.. and that he ex-
pected Mr. HaVve would be accountable to him
for it. Mr. Hawe resisted: the claim, _ and
had Leeson .and Gardner apprehended upon a
charge of conspiracy, and ordered to find bail for
•that offence, which they forthwith did, and were
discharged. Leeson then brought an action for
his money, which was tried at the -Sittings after
the last Term, and obtained a verdict against Mr.
Hawe for the amount of his claim, together with.
costs:. On this occasion the Jury _expressed them-
selves perfectly satisfied that there was no founda-
tion for the charge against the defendants, and
brought in a verdict of Not Guilty.
PERJURY.—Louisa Stanton.was indicted for wit.
fill and corrupt perjury, in exhibiting articles of
the peace against her husband, falsely accusing
him of maltreating her.

Mr. ALLEY, for the prosecution, admitted that
he could not maintain this indictment, as the only
evidence he had to produce was that of the hus-
band, which he allowed was not legal evidence.—
The defendant was therefore acquitted.
The plaintiff then stated to the Court he would
again indict and bring actions in the Court of
Common Pleas agaiust certain branches of the

POLIC IN'FELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday morning as Nichols was passing
through Charing-cross, he observed a man with
something bulky tied up in a dirty cloth; and
having a suspicion that he had something stolen,
followed him into Coekspur-street ; from thence
he returned, a'nd entered the• Park by Spring
Gardens, where he asked him wlit he. had got
in his bundle? m which he replied, nothing.—
Nichols insisted on searching the cloth, where he
found a very handsome plate coach-glass, sup-
posed to hare been stohm from a Nobleman or
Gentleman's coach.. He was brought to thd Of-
fice, and underwent an examination, when he
said, the glass had been given him early yesterday
morning, by a man, four miles on this side. of
Croydon,
.to- make a shilling or
,two.—lle was
committed for further examination. .
Mr. Bird, of Gray's Inn-lane; was convicted
for night soil haying been shot from his- cart ear-
ly in the wruing of the 9th December, in Park-

ne.—A similar offence wasvonimitted at the same
time, in Grosvenor-square.

QUEEN-SQUARE.

Yesterdait a Mr. B. residing in the neighbour-
hood of Chelsea, appeared before W. FIELDING,
Esq. pursuant to a charge exhibited against him
by the driver and owner of the hackney-coach,
No. 85.5, for detaining a numbered plate belong-
ing to the coach: It appeared, that the defen-
dant and five other young Gentlemen, sprigs of
fashion,' after having sacrificed liberally at the.
shrine of the Jolly God, went to the Theatre,
from which they ordered the coach to Chelsea.—
Determined upon what is vulgarly called a lark,,
they proceeded to take off' the plated num-
bers ; and upon their arrival at the place of des-
tination, the coachman. 4tuonstrated with them
on the impropriety of their conduct. They were,
however, deaf to his fagumentatire elocution, and
agreed not to disclose their names. The coach-
man.demanded Its. for his fare, and remuneratiou
for the loss of his number : the latter demand they.
refused to comply with, and to satisfy the. for-
mer, gave the coachman 7s. Gd. as his fare,- be-
ing 45. Gd. under the reghlar fare. Alter consi-
derable inquiry, the coach Man succeeded in ob-
taining the nainci of two of the party, who ap-
peffed. Air. FIELDING though/I, that as it was
an act committed in frolic and high blood, they
had better satisfy the coachman, which they' in-
stantly did, and were (Itscharged.