The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-01 00:00:00

. -
dOtirt with Briscoe's family, and the witness Smith,
who generally went by the natrie of Royston, but
had never known or heard of this murder, or that
these parties .were accused' of it, 'till the Thurs.
day following, when Sinitksent his sister for him,
and in his lather's..garden informed him that-ii w,s
he who stabbed the man., On his cross examina,-
tion lie could assign no reason for this gratuirous.
disclosure, and swore that he was not attuated liv
the temptation of any reward. ffe,never men-
tioned the:circumstance, he ;:aid, 'till he heard that
Smith, who was the guilty man, had turned againat
the otheri.

'Henry Cresswell, a keeper of the Counter prison,
proved that Denham had voluntarily come to him
to surrender. Not knowing him, he refused at
first to admit him, hut-allowed hint to be detained,
when he insisted on remaining.
&mimell said; he ivas .prisoner confined in a
cell, in the New Prison, when Smith was a prisoner
there, and. that the latter old him he fan out with
the others from the public house on hearing the cry
of Jem ! and that he was quite safe, for, though it
was he who struck the mati, he experaed to be ad.
mitted as evidence.

On being cross examined, he admitted that the
conversation took place through the bars of a grat-
ing, that Smith was a
no
to him, and that at
the time h
e could see more of hitu than his face,
and the red hankerchief he wore.
A number of Witnes,es were then called to the
charaaer of the Prisoners, particularly to that of
Briscoe; the accounts given were in general fa-
vourable.

Mr. Baron THomp,oN then entered upon lfii
charge to the jury, which, necessarily, was ofcon!
siderable length.—After which the Jury retired rot
about a quarter of an hour, when, they pronounced
the following Verdia Briscoe Guilty of Max.-
:laughter ; Denham, di?t6.; Baker, Nit
Which 'appeared to give general satisfaaion to one
of the most crowded 'iludiences we have ever seers
in that Court. The trial lasted near nine hours.

The trial of Francisco, the Tyrolese, for mailer-
.nusly 'hooting at IV.fr. Maryan, of Lombard-street,
&c. which stood for.this evening, was postponed tilt
Monday.
Edward Martin -was .ind4qed for feloniously
stealing, on the- Bth of. Odober, twelve ounces
weight of feathers, value zs. the property of Messrs.
T_hOi. and Geo. Seddon. • t

_ _ ..... _
Thy Prosecutors, it appearedi are eminent UP-
holsterers in Aldersgate-street ; the Prisoner work
ed in theirekbploy. Sufipicion.being ,entertained of
him, an investigation tools place on the- evening of
Bth of Qaober :. immediately after he had left off
work, and was just outside: the premises, he was
called back, taken' into the CoMpting-house
searched, =When the 'property laid in the indictment
was foundin his rossession.
Mr. Seddon, who attended, observed, it wrts
impossible to swear to the identity of feathers,
though he had no doubt of those produced being
his -property. None of 'the Witnesses could swear
that any feathers were missed from the premises.
The• Prisoner left' his defence to his Counsel.--
No Witnesses appeared in his behalf. •
The jury after a very short conference Acquitted
the Prisoner.

Martin was tried. on a second indtdmenr, for
stea;ing, on the someday, •seven knives, v;4liie. 55.
and seven forks value.‘3s. 6(i. the property of Mr.
Thomas, aeddon.

The charge, it appeared, rose 'out of the fat, that
while the Prisoner was in custody on the first charge,
apartments, said to be his,,tvere searched, and tts
them were found. the knives and rorki laid 'in the
Indi&Ment, .which were:dtily identified as the pro•
per-ty of the Prosecutor:.
The-=Witness who searched the apartments wl5
asked, by the --Pris'onees- Counsel--how lie kilo',
they were the Prisoner's lodgings. A. His wife
told me so. Q. Flow do you know she was hi 3
wife ? A.' The woman said she was.

This not being held sufficient evidence by the
Court, the other Witnesses were questioned respeet-
ing the lodgings, not one of whom could swear their
were the Pti4oner's.

The RECORDER observed, That thc•ugh in this
case the property may be clearly the Prosecutor'4
vet, as the mode of fixing the charge upon the Pri-
soner, was by . the intervention; of lodgings, it was
necessary those lodgings should be proved to be the
Prisoner's, which not being the case, the chat-0
could not be brought home.-
Verdi& t •
The RECORDER admonished the Prisoner to be
careful in future—he had tw very narrow escapes-
The Prisoner promised he- should never be seel'
there again: