The Sun.
London, England, 1826-09-13 00:00:00

LONDON SESSIONS.—(Tuts DAY.)

These Sessions commenced before the Loan MAYOR,
the SHERIFF, the RECORDER, and the City Officers.
The RECORDER in making his charge to the Grand
Jury, observed, that there was a very unusual increase in
the number of prisoner's, which circumstance, he could
not attribute to the interval between this and the last
Sessions, though it had been longer than usual. He
amid not, therefore, congratulate them on the hope
of their attendance being dispensed with, as twice the
usual number of prisoners were committed. He should
leave it to their own good sense, which he considered
would be sufficient to direct them in the dis Charge of
their duty, without any especial remarks from the Bench.
There was one case however, on which he thought it
necessary to make a few observations. This was a charge
of rape, a most abominable crime, which, if proved,
certainly deserved a severe punishment. As such
charges were sometimes made for the purpose of extorting
money, he would advise them to pay particular attention
to the manner, in which the prosecutrix gave her evidence.
With these remarks he left them to their duty.
Spratt, John Dennett, John Parker, and William
Hunt, were indicted for causing a riot and assaulting Mi-
chael Lynch, in St. Dunstan's-court, Fleet-street, on 13th
June last, It appeared by the evidence that there was a
general row between the parties. Dennett was accused of
striking Lynch, and Pratt with aiding and assisting by
crying out " go it " to Dennett ; Parker was likewise very
busy in the affair, but Hunt was merely a spectator, and was
acquitted at the direction of the Recorder, and admitted
as witness for the defendants. The three others were all
found Guilty, and recommended to make some compensa-
tion to the prosecutor.
Ann Ateries was indicted for assaulting Sarah Johnson
at No. 7, Willow-walk, on the 30th of bust May.
The prosecutrix stated, that she had taken a chandler's
shop of the defendant, for which she had paid 16/. though
hardly worth as many pence. The defendant had fre-
quently called for goods,&c.and to see a lodger named Rymer;
but on some disagreement she had forbid the defendant coming
to her house, and on her entering the shop on the above
day, complainant shut the door in her face. The de-
fendant then commenced the most violent language, and
insisted on coming in to see Mrs. Rymer. She unt open
the door, and was turned out by witness; she then forced
open the back door, and at last succeeded m -getting in at

a parlour window; shc then took up a knife, and threat-
ened to stab her, and struck both witness and her sister
several times.

Mr. PRILLIPs for the defendants, called two witnesses,
who proved, that the prosecutrix and her sister were the
offenders, and the defendant was found !' Not Guilty,"
without hesitation.

Charles Pratt was charged with assaulting Joseph
Matthews, a constable' in the execution of his duty, in
Princes-street, near the Bank, on the 28th of May lest.
Matthews stated, that on the day in question, he was in
the narrow part of the above street, when he saw a stage
coach coming in at one end, and the defendant in a gig
entering at the other, in a part of the street where there was
only room for one carriage to pass. Witness interfered,
and desired the defendant to back his gig. He, however,
told him that he would not do so for him, or even for the
King. Witness took hold of the defendant's horse, and
endeavoured to back him, upon which the defendant struck
both the horse and witness. He called two witnesses to
prove the assault.
Mr. ADOLPHUS for the defendant, contended, that he
was the only person injured by the abuse of the complain-
ant, and that the assault had not been proved, or even if
it had, was of such a slight nature, that none but a person
of most vindictive feelings could bring it forward. He then
called a Gentleman who was with the defendant in the gig
at the time, who proved that the constable had behaved
improperly ; the defendant had got farther in the street
than the other, and had not struck at the constable.
The Recorder was summing up when we went to press.

THE MURDER ON SAFFRON-HILL.

ADLITIONAL PARTICULARS.

It would appear that jealousy had actuated Ambrose to
murder his wife; *id it would also seem that he has, for
.some time pastimiremeditated her destruction, as, only a
day or two befia the murder, while at work, he said,
" I'll finish this job, and I'll finish you afterwards." This
he said in consequence of n quarrel respecting some money
which the poor wife had earned at the army work, and
which she did not feel inclined to account to Ambrose for.
A blacksmith named Bradbury, a brother of the deceased,
residing at No. 12, Saffron-street, says that Ambrose ex-
pectedhe would, one day or other be her death, as he
had repeatedly told him that nothing would give him
greater pleasure than to be hanged for her.--Bradbury said
it was quite evident, that Ambrose entertained suspicions
of his sister's incontinence, but he knew well they were un-
founded.

On the Sunday after the murder, in the morning, Ambrose
went into the rooms under his, and asked the lodger if any,
water came through the ceiling out of his room, as he had
spilt some ? The lodger answered in the negative, so that
it would appear by this that the wretched nil] entertained
a fear that his wicked deed would he brought to light
from his victim's blood finding its way through the joists
in the floor.