The Sun.
London, England, 1812-06-04 00:00:00

'POLICE.

130V7-.STREIT.--Yesterday came on to be heard
before Mr. READ and Mr. NAMES, two Infornia-
flolls aillSt Mr. Stockilale, the. bookseller, jii
Pall agat the prosecution of the Commis
sioDers of the Stamp-011ice, charp,-b-Ig him with
publishing two pamphlets, without paying the
'duty, or registering them at'the Starip-Oflice, ac-
,corang to the directions of the Act of Parliament.

Mr. France, the Solicitor to the StampOaice,
attended to conduct the prosecution. The first
charge brought -forward by him against 'the de-
fendant was for publishing, a pamphlet on the 4th
of May-last, entitled." A Review of the Conduct
of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent and the
Opposition,"---being larger than one'sheet, And
not exceeding, six, 'without)fraving :paid the duty
of seven shillings, and,registered the same at the
Stamp Office,, as the Act directs.---The defendant
pleaded—Not'Guilty:
-John peeks =proved hi 3 purchasing the above
.pamphlet at the 'defendant's shop in Pall Mall, on
the 4th of May last, and paid 2s.
(3d. for it.
The defendairt asked him who he :ptirchased it
for ? He replied bNT direction of the Solicitor to
the Stamp Office.
Charles Stalker, the Registrar of- Pamphlets at
the Stamp Office, proved that the Pamphlet was
not registered, or paid the duty. That it conr-
tained. three sheets and a half, and .that it was
within the Act of Parliament, it being Less than
size sheets.

The defendant questioned him as to whether he
did not send a number of pamphlets to pay the
duty and to be registered, on the 13th of May, to
the Stamp Mice, and that some of them were re-
turned withoirt registration or the dilt.37 being
taken :—one of them was subject to 'duty he was
certain.

The lteg:sirar repl;.ed,- he recollected reck;ving
a nniuber of.pamphiets from the d..qendant On the
day he stated., and .that he returned some; but
that Was not an uncomnion caw, as booksellers.
frequently .nt painThlets - that were not neces-
s,ary.to be_ registered, or-to pay duty; and he of
course returned them without either. He was
positive that the paint hiet. in question was not one
of them.

The.,defendantinsisted that a pantialet of only
twa-sheets held been returned on the above day;
without being registered or the duty taken. • "
The defendant, in his•defence, called his shop.
man to prove his taking a number'ol-pardpbletsAo
the 'Stamp Office on the nth. of May; and with
,a view to prove that it was his` master's direction
,--to take the pamphlet in question, and if he did
not, it 'was his mistake ; however in this he
failed. y„,

Mr, Stock:dale addressed the -I\lagistrates) and
said he cae.to the "
m Office without the assistance
of an Attorney or a Counsellor, therefore he was
not prepared to take advantage of any legal quib-,
ble :that might be in his favour,: and
.1-;e had 0131 y a.
plain tale. to tell. He was afraid the letter cif' the
Act of Pavliainent was against bitn,-yetlie" Con-
tended that frequently Acts • of Parliament ''were
put aide for cOnvenience • sake, and: the - custoin
with booksellers and-the Stamp Office Was quite at
variance with the ACt: -.They did not s:-id every
single pamphlet within six days of publication,
but delayed it till.they bail-several, and the duty
Amounted to 2 or 31-7; and this was-satisfactory at
the Stamp Office. i n this case it could not pos-
sibly be supposed he wished to defraud the re--
Venue; 'as the publicitT of the title of the pamphlet
rendered that impoSsible, it having been -repeated-
ly advertised in 25. different newspapers. On the
28th Of May he sent the pamphlet in question to
the Stamp Office to
,be regiStered,' and to pay the
duty, but which was refused; aud he received for
answer, that an information had been laid for it,
althoUgh he_was not served With any 'process till
late on "Monday He considered' this a via-
.
licious prosecution.

Mr. France, the. Solicitor, in reply, toldiC.,tted
that the defendant had sent the pamphlet to be
registered and pay the duty, but at that time
he must have known that the information was laid,
as. the process was served Stockdale,'sen.
the day previous, by mistake. He denied that
thiS was a malicious prosecution, and was about
to •enter into an explanation, but the Magistrates
declined hearing it.
The.defendant was convicted in the penalty of
201. but Mitigated to 51. and.2l. costs.
The other information was of a similar descrip-
tion, for a plmphlet entitled “, An Account of the
Island -of Java from Angeriein the Strait of Scuda
to Batavia." The defendant said, his defence to
this was exactly the same as the other, and there-
fore he would -not give the Magistrates :any
.trouble... fie w4s'convicted on this charge In 51.
and 11. costs. s-

CH zr..r) STEAlrtqc.----Twoivretched .looking wo-•
`men, Mary Adam.g and. Elizabeth Seers, were charg-
ed with stealing two children, with their cloaths,
belonging to a poor labouring man in Union-
court, opposite §f. Andrew's Church, Holborn,
on :Sunday morning last. "

John'Lee said, that as he passed. along Holborn,
Hill_ at the tithe stated, he observed ihose
dren, whom he knew= ,the one a little boy, about
four -ycars old, -the other - an- infant, - under 18
months—Fitting on the edge_of a curbl;-stone,With
an older boy, their brother. .He saw the two
prisoners come, Bp and observe the .ebildren.—
Adaths' said that the yOungest- child was a -fine
boy, an that she had lately:just such another, but
it died:" They then sat down,— one on each sitie
of the children, and began to speak to them ; • and
inn-a little time one of theth took. the yohngest boy
in her arms, the- other took the elder by the hand,
and both walked away with.them. , The -Witness
followed, and interrogated the woinen as to their
knowing those children ? They acknowledged
they did not, and he took them into. his own
charge, and conyeyedthein to their parents, --and
afterwards, accompanied by the father, he pur
sued the prisoners, and took them into custody, in
Holborn.
Both the women were. committed for trial on
the\ charge of stealing the children's cloaths.