The Sun.
London, England, 1810-12-10 00:00:00

MIDDLESi.:X SESSIONS.

Ford was indiCted for an Assault on Mary
M'Ardle, a child under seven years. of age, with
an intent to violate her person. This was . a ,case
attended with aggravating cirenuastances. The de-
fendant (a sturdy beggar,- 55 years of age) and the
child were both inmates of Hesden parish workhouse,,
near Hounslow, and front' the, testimony of the
Child, which wa.i given in
.a-clear and cf stinCt man-
ner, •it appeared that this hoary miscreant enticed
tier into afield -at a distance from the house, and
there attempted to accomplish his purpose, and af-
terwards threatened the.child, that it site dared to
tell *my one what he had done, he would smother
her. On the following - day, however, she' told an
old man named Eden, also a paper in the hnuse,•
how the prisoner had treated heriand -Eden inform-
ed the matron. .Upon which the defendant was
taken before a Magistrate, when he.confesSed the
truth of the charge.
In his defence he said, the,cliild had behaved in
an indecent manner in his presence ; be had no-
thing else to say, but left it to the Court to do as
they pleased with hiM.
The Chairman observed, that to admonish a sin-
ner so hardened in guilt as he appeared to be,:
would be labour thrown away; punishment would
probably have a better effect. The Court therefore
sentenced him to be imprisoned in Newgate - for
twelve calendar months.

Patrick and Eleanor M'Coy, Michael Martin,
Owen Bradley, Michael Moran, Michael Fitzgerald,
Mary Cunningham, and Slaughter, were
charged With a riot and assault upon Win. Roberts,
and three other watchmen, on the 11th of No-
vember last.

H Mr. GURNEY stated, that the defendants were
eight out of 'sixteen persons against whom a bill had
been found, for a most serious riot ; the other eight
did not appear to take their -trials this Sessions.--
The defendants resided in a court, ctlled Lascelles-
court, St. Giles's. `On the'night mentioned in the
indidment, a-chritening had taken place at one of
the houses, and the company did not separate till
twelve o'clock. Some of them determtned to visit
a friend -who lodged in the court, at the house of a
woman named Murphy. M'Coy and Slaughter ac-•
cordingly stopt, and kneckedat her window, in-
quiring for her lodger. Mrs. Murphy asked what
they wanted at that late hour; when one of them
made a coarse reply; and Mrs. Murphy threw a
wet cloth in M'Coy's face, who in return broke her
windows, 'and some of the glass flying in ,her face,
cut her in a dreadful manner. Mrs. Murphy cal-
led the watch, and Roberts, and the other three,
came to her assistance, she having pointed -out
M'Coy as the person who had assaulted her, they
were proceeding to take him into custody, when
several` who stood round, amongsr whom were the
defendants, drawing out large
.bkidgeons, which.
they had concealed under their coats, attacked
the--
watchmen, who spri%ing their rattles for further
assistance, a dreadful riot ensued, which lasted near
an hour, during 'which W illiaut Oram, one of the
patrole, received • a cut in the arm, and another on
the head; Roberts, 'the watch-house-keeper, was
shut into a room in one of the houses, where he
was beaten in a most dreadful manner about 'the
head and body,. and his nose was nearly severed
from his face with a blow from a fire-shovel. The
women took an alive part in beating him when on
the floor. He was ultimately left for • dead, and in
that situation discovered by his friends after the
riot 'was-quelled.
The fats were proved, and the Jury found all the
defendants guilty, except` 0 well' Bradley.

. Mr. PAT NE, Banker, of Bath, has obtained a pa-
tent for a new•m&shod of ascertaining, with accu-
racy and expedition', the numbers, dates, and sums,
in Bank Bills, tic. and to prevent forgeries, defacing,
and altering. •

LONDON : Printed by RICHARD HARRI i, or No. 4, Martlett.court, Bow-street ; and Pcb
,ttie SuNsOmcir, No. jl2, Strand, %tete Averasements, Orders for I

LAIL RAPORT.

, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 6.

SETTINGS BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MANSFILD.

G. BIBBY V. SIR THOMAS TURTON, BART. I. A. BAN-

NERMAN, 'AND JOHN GREEN, ESQRS.

•
The plaintiff, a silvetsmith, sought to recover
17001. of the Atlas Insurance Company, for the loss
of his stock in trade by a fire, which happened on his
premises, N 0.34, Norton &hole, Shordiich, at three
o'clock in the morning on the 14th of July, 1809.
The plaintiff insured with the defendants fig- 17001.
and there was a proviso in the policy, that he should
not have two insurances.—The plaintiff, hoWever,
notwithstauding such agreement, afterwards insured
at the Eagle Insurance Office for seven hundred
pounds, Making the whole of his. insurance amount
to 2401.—1 t did not appear that the Company had
any desire to take advantage of this circumstance,
but they met the-plaintiff's claim on its merits. The
fire was supposed by the plaintiff to,have happened
by a spark falling from a candle held by a servant
.maid among some loose shavings placed under the
shop counter. A watchman near the house first ob-
served a light at the corner of the window,shutter.
He then gave arhalarm with his rattle. The plain-
tiff soon alto- looked out of a two-pair of stairs win-
dow. The watchman caked out—" This house is
on fire." The plaintiff said—" What shall I do; is
there any ladder ? I cannot coon: doWn." The
watchman told him to make the best of his way out
of the garret winaow, 'and_ the plaintiff, with his
wife, child, and a servant, escaped, by following the
wa:chtuan's advik e. The fire appeared to have taken,
place two feat from the ship door, 'in a corner be-
hind the counter. The keeper of the engine made
his appearance soon atter the alarm, and the conSta7 -
hie of the night also came, whit three or tour of the
neighbours. It Was not ten minutes before the-en-
gine cauie. There were then eight or nine persons
present, all oaspeatable neighbours. They surround-
ed th'e house, so as to prevent people from breaking
into the premises, and it was not more than. hail-an
hour before the fire was extinguished. No person got
.n the ,house after the fire was extinguished, but one
or two persons had thrown buckets of water in at the -
door. In order to extinguish the-fire, a pannel was
broken in the door, and the engine began to play.
The shutter was next broken, and a variety of small
articles fell into the street, w Mali were taken by the
constable of the night to the watch-house. It was
proved that there was no fire at the back Fart of -the
house. The.plaiutitf represented, under -t hese, cir-
cumstances, that his loss in gold rings, jewellery,
plate, seals, watches, chains, and other valuables;
was considerable. Part of the articles had been
melted, some injured' by fusion, some,stolen by.de-
predators, and, its short„-that he had sustained a loss
to the amount of-'his insurance. Two witnesses,
proved that he had stock on his premises of the va-
lue of between one and two thousand pounds before
the fire, and it' was staled, that invoices had been
seen of the, goods, but none were produced at the
trial. After the fire, the defendants offered the pro-;.,
perty saved to the plaintiW, but he refused to accept
it, and sent a letter to the defendants in the .follow-
ing terms.—" It is my determination not to take
possession of the property w hich you may have taken,
you will, therefore, give orders to your men to. take
care of it." It—Was alleged as the ground of the
plaintiff's objection to take the property preserved,
that it was in a damagedstate, and of little value:
Mr. Serjeant LENS, in defence of the aation, con-
tended that it was impossible the plaintiff could
carry his claim up to the amount. stated. If the
rings, gold, and plate had been melted, some vestige
would have been discovered. It was atrue that, by
breaking the shutter, several things fell into the,.
street, but they were all carefully preserved in the
watchhouse. The conduct of the plaintiff did not al-
low them to give him credit for the loss he had stated.
The Learned Serjeant did. not wish the Jury .to carry
their suspicious fOrther than the fair construction of
the circumstance would allow. They would say
whether this loss was likely to take place in the
small shop of the plaintiff, and whether-the plaintiff
was not called upon to make out, by lair. esidence,
that he had a claim for 24001. when it was proved
by his own witnesses that his stock only amounted
to 2,0001.
The Learned Serjeant then called a number of
witnesses, who had been present at the fire. Several of
them stated that it was not probable or possible any of
the property could have been stolen. The tii.emen
also stated, that they found the goods, consisting of
trinkets and plated goods, in the show glasses, in
the same state as they were the bight . before the
fire. Asilversmith, who had been employed to value
the plated and silver goods found on the premises,
valued the whole, allowing for weight of silver and
the retail price for- the plated goods at 451. A
Jeweller,. who bad seen the articles of jewellery,
stated thai they were of no value. He had not been
able to put any value on them. They appeared to
have been damaged, but when ,new they were worth
more than 1301. or 1001.
Serjeant SHEPHERD, in his reply to the Jury,
maintained, that the loss on the part of the plaintiff
was made out, if not to the full amount of his in-
surance, to a considerable portion of it. He-said an
attempt had been made to-, charge the defendant
with 'setting fire to his house, for the purpose of
prattising a fraud on the Insurance Offica,, but-there
could not be any reasonable ground for such a be-
'lief. The situation of the plaintiff, with his wife
and child, at the two pair of stairs window, with the
fire below, entirely 'did away the imputation. Their
lives were in danger, and if the plaintiff bad set fire
to his house, the shop below was the last place he
would have chosen to execute his purpose. _ On the
whole, he contended that the insinuation was with-
out the least probability.
Chief Justice MANSFIELD in an able and compre-
hensive charge to the Jury observed, that the cir-
cumstances of this case were of a most extraordi-
nary description. The plaintiff bad effeCted two
policies for 24001. on stock; and 4001. more
for furniture, without giving due notice 'to each
office, -according to the conditions whereby the pa--
licies were void, and his demand on the Atlas Com-