The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-10 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CROYDON, Auc. 9

(Trial of Samuel Wilson, alias Stanley de Convey
Ireland, concluded from our paper of yesterday.)
The prisoner's Counsel, upon this evidence, sub-
mitted that there was no case to go to the Jury, in-
asmuch as there was no proof that the prisoner had
counterfeited the shilling found in his possession ;
for to that charge must the case be confined.
Mr. Justice GASELEF. thought the case was cer-
tainly very slight, and put it to the Counsel for the
Crown whether they would press the indictment for
coining.
Mr. Serjeant ONsLow, yielding to the intimation
from the Court, said :le certainly should not press
the case.

The Jury, therefore, under the directions of the
Learned Judge, returned a verdict of Not Guilty,
without calling upon the prisoner for his defence.
The prisoner had been arraigned upon a second
indictment, charging. him with a capital offence, in
having in his possession implements of coining. To
this indictment he had pleaded not guilty ; but now,
after communicating with his Counsel, who had
spoken with the Counsel for the Crown, he desired
permission to retract that plea, and plead guilty,
upon a distinct understanding, that the extremity of
the law would not be carried into effect. The
Learned Judge yielded to his application, and he
pleaded Guilty.
Sentence of Death was passed upon him in the
form prescribed by law; but he was given to under-
stand that he must expect to be transported for the
remainder of his life.

CEASAR V. STEVENS AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by a shoemaker, re-
sident in the parish of East Moulsey, against the
parish officers, for an assault and false imprisonment.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. ADOLPHUS,
who conducted the plaintiff's case, that the plaintiff
was a person in indigent circumstances, and that in
January last, his wife being pregnant and near the
period of her confinement, the parish officers got a
notion that he was about to abscond, and applied to
him to make provision, to prevent his wife from
becoming chargeable on the parish; the plaintiff
having neglected, or being unable to comply with
this application, the officers, accompanied by a
constable, proceeded to the plaintiff's house in the
evening of the 30th of January, and having taken
him into custody, were about to convey him to the
cage. The plaintiff, dreading the disgrace of being
placed in the cage, attempted to escape from the
officers when he was pursued by the constable and
being overtaken, was violently assaulted and thrown
upon the ground, where he received seve-
ral kicks and blows of a most violent de-
scription. The plaintiff was then taken to
the cage, where he remained during the entire
night, having been refused the accommodation of a
blanket, and the next morning having been hand-
cuffed, he was taken before Admiral Lambert, a
Magistrate of the county of Surrey, who directed
that the plaintiff should be liberated, his father un-
dertaking to indemnify the parish for any expense
incurred by the confinement of plaintiff's wife.
Witnesses having been examined to prove these
circumstances,
Mr. MARRIOT addressed the Jury for the de-
fendants. He said that the facts of the case were,
that the plaintiff having been married about a year
and a half, found it convenient to quarrel with his
wife, shortly previous to her confinement, and
threatened to leave her. The plaintiff being about
to carry his threat into execution by removing his
furniture, the wife applied to the defendant, Stevens,