The Sun.
London, England, 1833-09-11 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

Marcus Winer was indicted for receiving some
property, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. DOANE, who appeared for the defence, ob-
jected that it was not stated in the indictment to
whom the property belonged.
Mr. Serjeant ARABIN thought there was nothing
in the objection.
Mr. DOANE said that, for aught that appeared,
the property might have belonged to the prisoner
himself; and he might, under this form of indict-
ment, be tried for receiving his own stolen property.
The question was submitted to the Judges, and
Mr. Serjeant ARABIN, on their opinion, directed an
acquittal.
John Pinks Holloway was indicted for forgery,
and for uttering, knowing to be forged, a certain bill
of exchange, with intent to defraud Thomas Dring.
The evidence of the crime was rather strong in the
first instance, but on the cross-examination of the
witnesses by Mr. Clarkson, it appeared very doubt-
ful where the matter deserved to be considered in
so strong a light; and this at least was evident, that
much negociation had taken place on the subject of
arranging the affair between the parties.
The Jury, under these circumstances, stated that
they could have no reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutor. They acquitted the prisoner, and re-
commended the Court not to allow his expenses
to the prosecutor. The expenses were accordingly
refused.

William Searle was indicted on three separate
charges of forging receipts, with intent to defraud
his roasters, Josiah and William Smith. It ap-
peared that he was in their employment as clerk—
that he had been sent to the Leith and two other
wharfs with packages, to be sent off by ship—that
receipts for the payment of the shipping money had
been given for ls. 6d., is. 10d., and Is. 2d., and
that in each case these receipts had been altered so
as to appear 2s. 6d., 2s. 10d., and 2s. 2d.
Mr. Josiah Smith, who was the chief witness, was
a very self-complacent gentleman. He told Mr.
Phillips, with a smile, that he was witness, counsel
and prosecutor.
Mr. PHILLIPS, who conducted the defence, at first
gravely cautioned him against being a Counsel in a
case in which he was witness, and then laughingly
reminded him of the proverb that described the sort
of client a man had who was his own Counsel. The
sort of prophecy contained in this warning was ve-
rified by the result of the casea, for in each instance
the prosecutor broke down through the absence of
proof, that the prisoner had been the person who
had altered the receipts.
The prisoner was, therefore, aqui qed.
THE AIISTAKE.—Mr. Wontner applied to the
Court for authority to detain a woman who had
been tried and convicted, and sentenced to seven
year-s' transportation, and w ho having been impro-
perly tried, had been againindicted, when the jury
threw out the bill. lie had, he said, been applied

P.OUIJIL's '_.i?
to in order to discharge her, but be objected to do
so, as she had been committed to his custody in exe-
cution. At the same time he did not know that
without the authority he had power to detain her.
Mr. Sergeant ARABIN at once ordered her to be
detained, and said, that as there had been a convic-
tion, and a warrant to commit her in execution, on
that conviction an application must be made to the
Crown for a pardon. He said that Mr. Wontner
might apply to the Judges, but
Mr. Wontner answered, that he thought his
Lordship's authority sufficient.
The prisoner, therefore, remained in custody.