The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-09 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

These Sessions commenced yesterday, at the Session.liouse,
Clerkenwell, before FItANCIB CONST, Esq. and a full Bench
of Magistrates.

THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF SAMUEL PLANK,
JOHN WHALE, GEO. JEFFERIES, WM. )lEDBURY, AND

DANIEL LACK, TY: WILLIAM EDWARDS.
This was an indictment against the defendant for perjury,
alleged to have been committed in a trial in the Court
of King's Bench, before the Lord Chief Justice, in which
the present Prosecutors were Defendants, and the Defend-
ant's mother Plaintiff, arising out of the following circum-
stances :—On the 3d of November, 1321, the prosecutors
Plank and Whale, officers belonging to Marlborough-street
Police-office, proceeded, under a search warrant granted to
Daniel Lack, to. the house of Catherine Edwards, who keeps a
marine shop in Shepherd's-market, for the purpose of searching
for some iron bolts, timber, &c., suspected to have been conceal-
ed there, the property of Mr., ood, a master-bilder. During
the execution of the warrant a'scuffie took place, in consequence
of the violent resistance of Mrs. Edwards, in preventing the of
examining a small box, which was afterwards found to con-
tain a quantity of fire-works, and Plank found it necessary to
call in Medbury, a constable, to take her into custody, and.in-
dicted her at the Westminster Sessions for an assault, when she
was convicted, and sent to Tothilfields Prison. Some time after-
wards she brought an action in the Court of King's Bench against
the present prosecutors, and received a verdict of 40s. and costs,
the Lord Chief Justice having decided that the officers had no
right to seize upon the box of fire-works. The defendant, Wm.
Edwards, on that occasion, was one of the principal witnesses,
and swore that Plank had struck his mother, Catharine Ed-
wards, a violent blow, and threatened to cut her arm off with a
chopper, which he held in his hand, and that he otherwise
abused and assaulted her; he also swore that Whale had like-
wise assaulted anti ill-used her.
Mr. ADOLPIIUS conducted the case for the prosecution, and
Mr. CURWOOD for site defence. _ _

Henry Wingfield was present at the trial which took place at
the Court of King's Bench, and took notes on the occasion ; was
positive that the defendant then swore that Plank had struck
Mrs. Edwards and otherwise abused her, by pushing her down
some steps, and making use of very insulting language.
Samuel Plank, on the 3d of November, 1821, went in com-
pany with Whale under a search-warrant to the house of Mrs.
Edwards ; she seemed at the time to be melting pewter
pots on a frying-pan ; suspected something Was concealed in
a small box which lay in the room, and was proceeding to exa-
mine it, but met with great 'resistance and abuse from Mrs.
Edwards : did not on that occasion strike or threaten to strike
her, nor make use of any improper or insulting language ; was
forced, in consequence of being assaulted by Mrs. E., to call in
a constable and give her in,custody ; did not ptish her down the
steps, but helped to put her shawl over her shoulders ; was quite
calm on the occasion ; took up the chopper for the purpose of
breaking open the box, but not fig any other motive.
Whale the oflicer, corroborated the testimony of this witness.
DanieeLack, foreman to Mr. Wood, went on the day in ques-
tion with Plank and Whale ; was positive that no blow or ill-
treatment was offered to Mrs. Edwards by them, but, on the
contrary they treated her kindly.
Medbury, a constable, was called in by Plank ; saw
Mrs. Edwards collar Plank•and push him against some bottles,
upon which he took her into custody.
Mr. DYER, the Magistrate, proved that when Mrs. Edwards
was brought before him for the assault on Plank, there was no
mention whatever made of any ill-treatinent being offered to her,
nor did he perceive any mark of violence whatever on her person.
The case here closed for the prosecution.
Catherine Edwards, for the defence, recollected the 3d of
November, 1821 ; Plank, in company with the other prose-
cutors, was at her house on that day and commenced a search,
and on refusing to let him take the box, he struck her on the
back, and threatened to cut her arm off with a chopper ; and on
asking him if he had a warrant, he said yes, I have, and to
murder you, if I please, you old b—(a laugh ;) did not strike
any of the officers; on going down the steps of my house,
Plank gave her a blow, and said, I will dress you--you b—.
Several other witnesses were examined for the defence.
A great number of persons were called to speak to the good
character of the prisoner, after which the Chairman summed
up the evidence ' the Foreman of the Jury wished to know from
the Court if Air. Dyer mii.;ht be permttted to speak to the
character of the prosecutors. The Court permitted it, as the
Counsel made no objection, though it was not the usual practice.
The worthy Magistrate then said, that no men could be more
correct in tilling the situations in which they were placed than
the prosecutors. Verdict—. Guilty.

SPRING ASSIZES.

KINGSTON, AVRIL 4.
SCARSON V. CARTER.

This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment, on a
charge of felony.
The case for the plaintiff was . this :—The plaintiff; a widow
woman, worked for the defendant, a stay-manufacturer in,
Blackfriar's-road. In the spring of last year, the plaintiff had
sold three pair of stays to a retail dealer named Stone, of Fleet-
market. Shorly afterwards the defendant called upon Mr.
Stone for orders, the latter being in the habit of dealing
with the defendant, but Mr. Stone declined giving any fur-
ther orders, alleging, as a reason, that ha could purchase
goods at a much cheaper rate from other persons than from
him. This intimation caused an inquiry into the foundation
for the statement, and Mr. Stone produced ;three pairs of
stays which he had purchased of the plaintiff. These the de-
fendant named as his property, and alleged they were made
of his own materials. The plaintiff' was sent for • she came
to theahop ; Mr. Stone said she was the person of whom he
had bought the stays; the defendant taxed her with robbing
him ; she denied it, and the defendant detained her in cus-
tody while Mr. Stone and Miss Pyne, the defendant's jour.
neywoman, went to search her lodgings; but nothing was
found to excite suspicion. Nevertheless, she was delivered into.
custody of a constable, and carried to a watch-house. Whilst
_in-Custody, she delivered up her keys, and the defendant, in
company with the watchhouse-keeper, went to the plaintiff's
lodgings to make further search. In the plaintiff's drawers
96 pair of stays were found, which the defendant claimed as his
property. Ile then caused her to be taken before a Magistrate,
and having sworn positively to the three pairs of stays above-
mentioned, the Magistrate committed her for trial at the ses-
sions. The plaintiff remained in llorsemonger-lane gaol for 6
weeks, until the sessions, when the Grand Jury ignored the bill
of indictment which was then preferred. by the defendant. In
consequence of this proceeding, the plaintiff commenced the
present action. Two of the plaintiff's daughters swore posi-
tively that the plaintiff ad beBn-a woman who had seen better
days ; that from her earnings she had saved money and manu-
factured stays, with an intention of setting up business. for her.
self in the country ; and that the stays sold to Mr. Stone, as
well as those found in the plaintiff's drawers, were manufactur-
ed by herself, from materials purchased with her own money.
,It was proved byone of the daughters, that on the day the
Grand Jury threw out the bill of indictment preferred by the
defendant, the latter said-he would give 100 guineas ifhe could
go on with the prosecution. These were the facts upon which
the plaintiff's case rested.
On the part ,of the defendant it was suggested that the de-
fendant had forborne, from motives of huthanity, to adduce
evidence - in his possession, which would have established. the
plaintfff"a guilt on the prosecution above-mentioned. Allusion
was particularly made to the evidence of Miss Pyne;' who could
have sworn positively to the stays which had been sold by the
ftiaintiff to Mr. Stone, as the property of the defendant. h was
now proposed to call witnesses to show—first, that all the stays
above-mentioned were the property of the defendant; and se.
cond, that the plaintiff had. confessed to the defendant that the
stayS sold by hoc to Mr. Stone were the property of the de-
fendant, and had been detained by her in consequence of Miss
Pyne's omitting to set them down . in a book containing entries
of work delivered to her sons employed out of doors. Miss
Pyne and two other workwomen employed by the defendant
were called to prove these facts. The confession made was po.
sitively sworn to by Miss Pyne ; but as to the identity of the
stays found in the prisonei's lodgings, there was considerable
doubt, and some contradiction between the witnesses.

The Jury found their verdict for the, laintilf—Damages 50

CROWN SIDE.

Jane Parrot was indicted for receiving, at Lambeth, the sth
of February, banknotes to the amount of 351., the property of
Henry Paul lemp, knowing them to have been stolen.
It will be recollected that at the last Old Bailey Sessions, an
unfortunate young woman, named Mary Ann Slote,,ivas cap
tally convicted of stealing the notes in question from Mr. Kemp,
her uncle, of Harp.lane, Tower-street. • On that occasion strong
suspicions were _entertained that the ;present prisoner, in whose
house, 0, Hooper-street, Lambeth, the unfortunate young woman
lived in a state of prostitution, had instigated the robbery.,,lt was
now distinctly proved that the prisoner had received the notes in
question with knowledge of the manner in which Mary-Ann
Slote had possessed herself of the money. The prisoner was
proved to be a woman of abandoned character, keeping a bro-
thel' at the place above-mentioned. The Jury found her
Guilty, and she was sentenced to 14 years' transportation.
The awftd sentence of death was then passed upon 17 convicts.
CIVIL SIDE, APRIL 8:
liowAnn V. CLARE, CLERK.
This was an action on the case against the defendant for
keeping :t vicious dog, the declaration alleging that the dog hid
chased and injured the plaintiff's ghee p. The plaintiff is. a
farther, living in the neighbourhood `of Walton OAS, in this
county ; and the defendant is a benefiCed clergymen, residing
at the latter place. •
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction, found for
the plaintiff—Damages M.—The Assizes ended.