The Sun.
London, England, 1821-09-11 00:00:00

LONDON SESSIONS.

Yesterday these Sessions were opened by the
Loan MAYOR, the Sheriffs, Aldermen T. Smith,
Garratt, Atkins, Cox, and Venables.
FREQUENT AND ALARMING HIGHWAY ROB-
BERIES.
The COMMON SERGEANT, in charging the Grand
Jury for the City of London, said that on look-
ing over the calendar he was glad to perceive
that the list of prisoners for trial for offences
committed in the city of London was light, com-
pared with the list of prisoners for trial for of-
fences committed in the county of Middlesex.
But although the list of prisoners for trial on the
London side was light in point of number, yet
be was sorry to find that,' notwithstanding the
vigilance of the Magistrates, and the prompt ac-
tivity of the police, the number of prisoners on
charges of highway robberies had increased to a
most alarming and unprecedented extent. It
was a most intolerable grievance, that persons
could not walk the streets after dusk without
having their property, and even their lives, ea-
dangered by the daring outrages of organized
gangs of robbers ; and to check this evil some
extraordinary measures must undoubtedly be re-
sorted to. The Learned Common Sergeant pro-
ceeded to state, that at the last Sessions a young
man was tried before him on a charge.of highway
robbery. In that case, the person of the prose-
cutor was seriously injured by the violence of the
gang of robbers by whom he was attacked. The
persons who w cut to his assistance were also
personally injured. On the present calendar,
he found that there was a charge preferred
against a man for having committed a highway
robbery on the very same spot, and perhaps with
the very same gang. In investigating these
charges, the Jury, he did not doubt, would meet
with no legal difficulties ; and he presented these
cases to their notice, that the Jury and the pub-
lic might be aware, that if any of the cases were
clearly proved, the Conrt would feel it their
duty to visit upon the convicted the full sentence
of the law.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, MoNDAr, SErr.lo.

CONSPIRACY.

John Ravenscroft, Hannah Ravenscroft (the wife), Hannah
Ravenscroft (the daughter), Daniel Ravenscroft, Nancy Wood-
ctick, and Thomas Hopley, were all indicted for wilfully and
wickedly conspiring together to injure Jons ROBY in his pro-
fession of surgeon and -apothecary, by spreading various fitlse,
wicked, and malicious reports that he•was an impostor, and ig-
nort,nt of his profession.
The first five defendants are all of one family, and Thos. '
Hopley is an attorney. Mr. ALLEY opened the case on the
part of the prosecution, and afterwards substantiated the facts
by evidence. It appeared that the prosecutor; Mr. Roby, was
a Gentleman practising as a surgeon and apothecary in Old-
street, St. Luke's, and it seemed had formed an acquaintance
with Hannah Ravenscroft, the younger, one of the defendants,
of a very.tender nature. It, however, unfortunately happened
that the connexion was afterwards broken, and the prosecutor
married another Lady. The six defendants then entered into a
conspiracy to ruin the prosecutor in his business, and com-
inence&it by spreading various rumours of the incapacity and
ignorance of Mr. Roby- in his profession. In August, 1015, a
very salutary - Act of Parliament passed, which directed that,
excepting those apothecaries then practising their business, no
apothecary would be qualified to practise his profession unless
he had taken a prnper degree, and- ha 'undergone a regular
course of examination before proper authorities. Upon this in-
strument the defendants had throughout acted, and had pub-
lished placards in great abundance, headed " Caution," and
then reciting a portion of the Act.. These had been distributed
in all parts where the prosecutor actually did, or was likely to,
practise.
On the examination of the prosecutor, it appeared, that he
had lived in Old-street for about A year and a half. Before
• that, he had been in business at Chatham, and had afterwards
lived at Plaistow with a Gentleman of the name of Greatorex,
in the character of a companion,- and had . attended to his busi-
ness. He had now many patients Whom he attended, and their.
families. Amon !y; the numbpr were, the families of Mr. Col-
lins Mr. Davis, and Mr. Vicars.
Can the cross-examination of the witness, he stated., that he
served his time at Kenilworth, and was arliciedhf 1810. He
was now 23 years of age. He went to Chatham in the early
part of the year 1815. He there practised for himself, although
only 17 years of age, but took no shop. Ile had never been be-
fore the Court of Examiners at Apothecaries'-hall.
Many very respectable witnesses were then tailed, to prove
the skill of the prosecutor, and his knowledge of the profession
which he followed.. Among the witnesses were, Mr. Charles
Greatorex, Mr. Rind, and'Dr. Forbes.
Witnesses were then called to prove the conspiracy. Cather-
ine Collins proved that she lived in St. Luke's parish,. that she
had been during her confinement attended by 51r. Roby, and
considered him to be a very clever young man. Two of the
defendants, Hannah Ravenscroft, and Nancy. Woodcock, had
afterwards called at her house, and told her that Nr. Roby was
neither an apothecary nor a •surgoon; and the rave defendants
added, that a printed paper. would be sent from'Aprithecaries%
hall, showing that he was not qualified. It was further proved
by the husband of Mrs. Collins, that the der'endants, Daniel
Ravenscroft and Thomas HOpley, had afterwards called at his
house, in the absence Of his wife. They advised him not to
pay the prosecutor's bill, and added, " If he oppresses you, you

have nothing to do but to go into the Maishalsea Court, and
,one cause will decide all." This was said by the attorney.
Elizabeth Davis stated, that she also had been attended pro-
fessionally by Mr. Roby, and had been called on by Hannah
Ravenscroft and Nancy Woodcock. They told her that Mr.
Roby was a great scoundrel and a good-for-nothing fellow ;
that he was just come from the country, and had never gone
through any degrees. Two gentlemen afterwards called at her
house, who stated they came from .Apothecaries'-hall. One of
those gentlemen was Mr. Ravenscroft ; she did not recollect the
other. They told her, that if Mr. Ruby urged for the payment
of his bill, she was not to pay him, for by an Act of Parliament
passed in 1815, he was not entitled to it, not being qualified for
the brsiness he professed.
Other witnesses subsequently called, proved that Aannah
Ravenscroft said, that when they (the family) returned from
the Isle of Wight, they were determined to ruin Mr. Roby.—
Nancy Woodcock also said, that nothing of this kind would
have happened if Mr. Roby had not got married.
The case for the prosecution here closed, and Mr. ADOL-
s addressed the -Jury at some length for the defendants.—
Ile contended that nothing had been proved to warrant the Jury
in finding a verdict of guilty against the defendants. It was,
he admitted, shown that some words had dropped from the de-
fendants, in the heat of temper, which ought not to have been
used ; but the Whole family hadi been drawn up to the bar of
the Court by deliberate:malice (and he could call it nothing else)
more as victims than as defendants. It had been .declared by
the defendants, that Mr. Roby was not qualified to practice,
and that by the act he was not entitled- to the payment of his
bill. All this was perfectly and strictly true. The prosecutor
had himself been compelled to admit that he was not practising
before the passing Of the act, for no Jury on earth would believe
that a boy of seventeen (and the prosecutor was in 1815 no older)
was capable of practising in his profession. He might
,perhaps
have quacked half a dozen sailors at Chatham, but that made
him no more an apothecary than picking up a few rusty nails in
the street made a man an ironmonger. He therefore contended
that so far frOm being guilty of a 'conspiracy, the defendants had
done no more than their duty to the public in acquainting the
patients of this young man, of his incapacity to follow his pro-
fession. He would call no witnesses, but would leave the case

in the hands of the Jury.
The CHAIRMAN, in summing up to the Jury, told them that
they must lay the act wholly out of their consideration, as it had
nothing to do with the question. - The whole point was whether
the defendants had actually conspired to injure the prosecutor
in his business. If the prosecutor were not qualified, they had
at least pursued the wrong course.
The Jury, after a short consideration, found all the defend-
ants GUILTY.
One of the defendants, Nancy Woodcock, was very far ad-
vanced in pregnancy, and cried very much when the verdict
was pronounced. Hannah Ravenscroft, the daughter, nearly
fainted.
The Court, on account of the importance of the case, deferred
its judgment until to-morrow. The male defendants were or-
dered into,custody ; the female defendants were allowed.to be
at large, on entering proper recognizances.