The Sun.
London, England, 1828-09-12 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY, SEPT. 11.

Peter Fenn, described as a schoolmaster, was in-
dicted for uttering a forged bill of exchange for 301.
to one Thomas Pratt, well knowing the same to be
forged.
Mr. BRODRICK and Mr. BARRY conducted the
case for the prosecution. Mr. ALLEY and Mr.
ADOLPHUS appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. B►toDßich stated the case very briefly. The
prisoner at the bar was a person representing himself
as the Rev. Peter Fenn, who had some time since
been engaged as a teacher in a respectable academy
kept by a Mr. Kirkman, at Islington, and having
conducted himself well in that situation, had gained
the respect of a great number of persons. After he
left Islington, he opened an academy on his own
account, in Hyde-street, Bloomsbury, and was
shortly afterwards introduced to Mr. Thomas Pratt,
a respectable army agent; and having engaged in
certain money-transactions, he induced Mr. Pratt to
discount several bills, amongst which was the bill in
question, which was dated the 21st of February
last, and purported to be drawn by a Mr. Phillips
upon one James Powell, of Colchester, and to be
accepted by that individual, payable four montks
after date, at Messrs. Hankey's bank, in London.
—The bill, which became due on the 24th of June
last, was discounted by Mr. Pratt, and the prisoner
shortly afterwards left this country for the Continent.
Upon inquiry being made on the part of Mr. Pratt,
it was discovered that the bill was a forgery, and the
prisoner being pursued, was found at Calais by Mr.
Vincent, Mr. P.'s an orneyorho had an interview with
him. The prisoner was brought to England by Mr.
V., and, in the course of an interview which Mr.
Pratt had with him, he (the prisoner) made a dis-
tinct confession of the forgery. Under these circum-
stances, the jury would have little or no difficulty
in coming to a decision in this ease. The indict-
ment contained two counts, in the first of which

the ptiloner was charged with forging the bill of ex-
change, and in the other he was charged with uttcr-
ing it, well knowing it to be forged. He (Mr.
Brodrick) had no doubt of being able to prove the
fact of the forgery by the prisoner ; but as there was
a technical difficulty, namely, his being unable to
show in what country the forgery was committed,
which might prevent his sustaining the first count,
he would confine the evidence principally to the
count for uttering the bill with a knowledge of its
being a forgery. Both counts constituted the same
species of offence, namely, a capital felony.
Mr. Thomas Pratt, an army agent, Parliament-
street, had known the prisoner about 14 months
prior to his absconding. He first became acquainted
with him at the house of a person of the name of
Cooke, in Holborn. Witness discounted the bill in
question for the prisoner in February last, at his
house in Hyde-street, Bloomsbury, where be had
sent for witness to pay him some money which he
owed him. He assured witness that the acceptor
was a very respectable person, residing in the neigh-
bourhood of Colchester, and said he kept his ac-
count at liankey's. Witness had no suspicion of
the bill being a bad one until the prisoner absconded.
After he had been brought from Calais by Mr. Vin-
cent, witness had an interview with him at a lock-
up house in Chancery-lane. At that interview the
bill now produced was spoken of, and the prisoner
declared to Almighty God that witness had not got
a bad bill; he added, that if any thing could give
satisfaction to a man in his unfortunate situation, it
was witness's liberal conduct to him during their ac-
quaintance. The next day but one witness had
another interview with the prisoner at the same
place. At that interview the 3W. bill was spoken
of. Witness having, since the former interview,
made some inquiry respecting the bill, told the pri-
soner that he was fearful, from the result of those in-
quirks, that he (the prisoner) had deceived him
with regard to the bills : he then, without any re-
serve, said, " I am sorry to say they are forgeries."

Cross-examined by Mr. ALLEY.—No person was
present at this last interview. Witness took the bill
solely on the prisoner's credit.
Mr. George Vincent, an attorney, in Clifford's
Inn, wrs employed by Mr. Platt to go after the pri-
soner to France. Witness \vent in March last to
Paris in pursuit of the prisoner; but finding he had
left that place, he proceeded, accompanied by a per.
son named Cook, to Calais, where he discovered
the prisoner at an hotel. On seeing witness he ap-
peared like a frantic man ; he said he was ruined,
and mentioned who had ruined him. Witness the
same evening made a memorandum of what passed.
The prioner said, " I will go quietly to New-gate=
only don't put me in irons. I'll plead guilty. I
shall then have about six weeks after I am con-
demned. I'll se no one-I'n do as Fauntleroy
and it will be over in a moment. I was coming to
England to deliver myself up to justice." Witness
requested him • to compose himself, and after some
further conversation the prisoner, clasping his hands
together said, " Melton is the man who ruined- me,
he has gained by me 7,0001. within the last two
years." The prisoner mentioned other names also,
and told witness that he must not leave him or he
should cut his throat. Witness brought him over
to England. He made no resistance to coming ;
and he could make none, as he was passing in a
false name. Witness knows the prisoner's hand-
writing, and believes the acceptance (the signature
" J. Powell") ,upon the bill in question, to have
been written by him.
Cross-examined--I never told the prisoner that if
he would make up the money of which he was de-
ficient, I would ptotect him, nor did I ever tell Mr.
Cooke to say so to him. I never offered any induce..
meat to prisoner to confess in the presence of Han-
bury or of any one else. 1 did not send any account
of this case to the newspapers. Several persons
called on me for particulars. I don't know who they
were, but I believe they were people connected with
the newspaper offices. I looked over a statement
which was brought to me, and I said I believed it
to be true. I made an alteration in it, suppressing
the names of some persons who were mentioned in
it as connected with the prisoner, and I signed the
paper thus—" 1 know the above to be true in sub-
stance and fact—J. Vincent, solicitor, Clifford's-inn."-
This paper did not contain an account of the pri-
soner's examination before the Magistrate, but of
transactions which led to that examination : I was
called upon to do what 1 did.
Mr. ALLEv—What ! to publish a narrative of a
transaction affecting a man's life, and that before he
was tried, or before even an examination at the
police-office ?
In answer to some further questions by Mr.
ADeLPIIUS, the witness stated that the statement in
the newspapers was copied, under his directions, by
his brother (svho was a clerk of his), from a rough
draught sent to him by some of the newspaper
people. The article, which was headed " The Rev.
In consequence of Peter Fenn," began thus--"
cer-
tain rumours, we have made inquiry into the con-
duct of this person, and in the whole annals of guilt
we scarcely find an equal in atrocity." I thought I
was justified 114 sanctioning such a statement as this,

when I found there were twenty or more bilk lik
these.
Mr. Apowit;s-•—lf you had been acting as iudg
and jury, you would have gone beyond your duty t
have made such a statement.
Other evidence for the prosecution was then ad
duced, after which _ .

The prisoner being called upon for his dcfene!
read from a written paper a very elaborate thong
not a very ingenious address to the jury.
The paragi'aph published in the Newspnpets it
April last reipccting the prisoner was then read.
John Hanbury was with the prisoner at Calais
March last. Mr. Vincent and Mr. Cooke had /‘
interview with the prisoner in witness's presence, an
both held out inducements to him to make a cos
fession. 'Vincent in particular pressed the prisons
to confess, but he made no confession in witness
presence. They said they wished to speak to
prisoner in private, and requested witness to relic
Witness at first refused, as he was the prisoner
friend, but after some persuasion he did retire for
short time. He was absent not so long as half 3
hour. On witness's return he Paw them searcher
the prisoner's trunk (which had been brought bar
to the bed-chamber), and there were notes, and so
~
vereigns, and papers on the table. Witness asi`e
them if they had any writ to authorise them in de
Wining the prisoner, and they said they had not, bu
stated that they were his friends, and that he Ica
quite safe in their hands. Witness was sent by Dot
Vincent, with a Mr. Richard Thompson, to PI
pose terms to the prisoner, and to threaten him wit
a forfeiture of his life if he did not inform them wheil-
his money was hid.
Mr. Vincent was here called by the counsel fc
the prosecution, and contradicted the witness's stat‘

meat.
\lr. Justice GASELEE, in surrim'ng up, 019sefve
that the conduct of Vincent in sanctioning the P"'
lications in the present ease was most abominable
It was also a gross violation of the duty of conductor
of newspapers to give publicity to such stateinet
for, however useful correct reports of trials Wl'ic
took place in our courts of justice might be, it "4
stepping far beyond the duty of the public press t'
publish ex-parte statements of transactions atrectini
the life of fin individual. His Lordship then tooltl
review of the n•hole of the evidence.

The Jury retired to consider their verdict, al
after an abience of a quarter of an hour, prorotint
the prisoner " Guilty."

AUDACIOUA ATTACK UPON A WlTNrss 17.4; 017
COURT.—John Webb, aged 39, a dustman, a fe
low of a most determined appearance, was indict[
for stealintr four pewter pots, value Bs. the pro Perl
of John Waldener.

Elizabeth Huntingford, a delicate-looking
servant to the prosecutor, who keeps the RI",
Sun, in Piccadilly, afforded sufficient evidence I
prove the theft.
Benjamin Webb, an officer, on the day in (1t;
tion, met the prisoner about 100 yards from Ai
street. He was carrying something heavy conceoloj
under his smock-frock; witness suspected 0,4
Neatened him, and at length saw him offer so'
pots for sale.

The witness, Elizabeth Huntingford, at this
meat approached to within about five yards of (ill
dock where the prisoner was standing, wheiloo
suddenly stooped. down and took off one of his sho
which weighed about two pounds, and was alit io
studded with large nails, and threw it at her witb,to
greatest violence. It struck her on then shoe'se
with such force, that had not a person who- was Iv
ing by caught her in his arms, she would have Poe
to the ground. The prisoner exclaimed at the
time," your eyes, take that for false liweerint;t
In an instant the Court was thrown into the o'9e
confusion. The prisoner stooped down for the Prly
pose of taking off his other shoe, and had 11:01,
done so, when two of the gaolers sprung upon ta'-ipc
and, after a desperate resistance succeeded in ta" •
it from him. • o'l
Mr. Sheriff Spottiewoode went to the Dock
give directions to have the prisoner properly sectircd,
and had the victim of the fellow's brutal ontOr,,
( who was crying excesiively from the pain caused I/1
the blow) carried out of Court. d
The CoMMON SERGEANT, addressing the usjef
keeper of New-gate, Mr. Barrett, said, " 'Whate%r
may be the result of this trial, whether the pri'ejjr,
is found guilty or acquitted, let him be kept 11' ifig,
tary confinement for a fortnight for this most
rse I
wicked, and abominable outrage." id do
Prisoner—l just served herright, and I wou
,o to any body that came to swear against .me• diet
The Jury, without hesitation, returned aver
of " Guilty."•
The Coantos SERGEANT ordered him to --
mediately called up for judgment, and, in Pt' en
sentence, told the prisoner that, to mark its 6ellsbiel/
the outrageous and abominable behaviour of 'es' the
he had that day been guilty, the sentence 01 Il itt
Court was, that he be confined in a solitary ref f
his Majesty's gaol of Newgate for the space e or
months, for his contempt of Court, and be firtho
wards t
transported for the term of seven years, 6"
felony of which he had been con?icted.
The prisoner was then removed from the b 0•,

ri
.1.

On thi