The Sun.
London, England, 1827-01-15 00:00:00

f--------, /
• /11, . #.:. -• . . 7.4,. -•-•_: ...,.... Ati ,17 ~.....„ .
.:!..., :
~, ..-
...,.- - - ,;•XJ +. :
4'
, ......./

5, 18'27.

PRICE ID.

Glass Company for sale; he represented that he had offered them
for sale to Mitchell at a premium of Sl. per share, the then mar-
ket price ; Mitchell was not able to purchase with his own money,
and .he wished to know if I or 'My friends would' purchase for
Mitchell. He said he understood I and some of my friends
were speculating in those shares-, and as the premium was then
high, unless I would purchase he would throw them into the
market and depress it. I requested time for the purpose of con-
sulting my friends, but he refused, and desired that the contract
might be completed that day. • I saw Mott a second time that day,
before we went to Stainsby. In order to induce my friends to
make the purchase, he said, he would introduce me to Stainsby,
who would repeat his pledge not to part with his shares under 25
per cent; premium. I went with him accordingly to Stainsby,
when Mott said he had brought me to hear his declaration of hav-
ing the shares in his poss:•asion, and his determination not to part
with-them. Stainsby said, he had those shares in his possession,
and would not part with them ; nothing more transpired then but
inerecivility. The first time I saw Mott, on the 21st of April,
was'between 10 and 11 O'clock in the forenoon; when I saw him
\again it was about two o'clock. I had consulted my friends to
know if they would become purchasers, and I told him I must
take the shares; the purchase was made that day; an agreement
• for the purchase in writing was entered into and given to Mott :
this was on the 21st." - A subsequent bargain was made on' the
22d ; I wrote out the contract, and Mott saw what I was writing,
and had that paper.
Notice was now given to Mr. Mott to produce it.
Examination continued—l paid no money on the 21st. On
the 22d, I saw Mott again ; he stated to me, that as he was not
to be paid till the 29th, which would not suit his convenience,
he had determined to allow Mitchell a considerable reduction in

the price, on condition of having the money down, and he finally
agreed to take 2,0001 instead of the original price, 2,300/., and
a fresh contract was made to that effect. (The witness identified
the agreement here produced.) 1,0001. was to be paid on the
23d, and the other 10001. on the 26th of April. The cheques
were both given on that day by Mr. Clark to Mott's attorney.—
The shares continued at the same price, or a variation from 71. to
91. premium, for several days, but on the 29th went down to
; after that fall, I saw Stainsby again, at the banking-house;
he came also to my office. After I called on him, I told him it
was quite evident there must have been some mistake, as from the
manner the market had fallen he must have parted with his
shares. He said the fact was, 300 or 400 of them belonged
to clerks and others in the b?nking-house, over whom he had
no controul.

Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY—I was the defendant in a
prosecution for libel by Mr. Timperon ; I have not kept a print-
ing-press of my own ; I never professed to keep one either in
public or private ; I never said I kept one to print my own let-
ters. I never told Staineby that I would print placards about
him if he did not give me some money. One reason of this pro-
secution is not because money was not given to me ; I (lid not
tell Staineby that if he or Messrs. Bosanquet did not give me
money,.l would placard them all over London, and indict them,
or bring an action against them. In purchasing the 238 shares
fur Mitchell, I acted for him and myself; he was to haVe a fo►+rth
part of 138 of the shares ; and what money could not be made
up by the others, I was to advance. I trafficked a good deal in
the shares of joint stock companies. I purchased for my princi-
pals as I received their orders. I don't know what Mitchell was.
I understood he was secretary to the company. I had a placard
printed ; and very likely I did threaten Stainshy that I would
placard London. I did not do that to compel him to pay me
money, but to induce him to clear me with my principals, who
had engageA to make good to me the purchase. I decline answer-
ing whether I ever made any thing relative to this business public
in the newspapers.

Cross-examined by Mr. HOLT—I Lad no knowledge of Mott

till the 21st of April ; he was introduced to me by Mitchell ; he
had the 238 shares with him at the time, and produced them when
I agreed to purchase them. I took them from him immediately,
and put them into my iron-safe. I did not propose to Mott,to
join me in a speculation on these shares, and engage to guarantee
to him a profit of 211. premium.

Re-examined by the CONDIGN SERGEANT—I was indicted
here for a libel before last Michaelmas Term, and have never been
brought up for judgment.
Mr. Robert Lewis was clerk in the banking-house of Messrs.
Lubbock and Co. and on the 23d of April had paid the cheque
drawn by Clark on that day, for 1,000/. In reply to a question
from Mr. Gurney, he stated that he had known Stainsby for many
years, and always considered him a respectable man.
Mr. Hyam, another clerk of Messrs. Lubbock and Co., proved
the payment of the other cheque drawn by Clarke for 1,000/.,
on the 25th of April. This witness also stated that he believed
Stainaby, who had been a clerk in Lubbock's house for many
years, to be a respectable young man.
Mr. Allspice, a clerk in the bauking-house of 13osanquet and
Co., was then examined by Mr. Denman, and a book was shown
him belonging to that house, which contained the entries of pay-
ments on account of deposits on shares in this company, which
entries he deposed to be in Stainsby's hand-writing.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE here observed to the prosecutor's
Counsel, that they had not made out a most material allegation in
the indictment, which charged the defendants with conspiring to
sell fabricated shares to the prosecutor, whereas the evidence
they had adduced went to show that the shares sold to the prose-
cutor must have been part of the original 2,000 shares. After a
short argument, Mr. Denman consented to give up all the counts
of the indictment which alleged a sale of fabricated shares to the
prosecutor, and begged to draw his Lordship's attention to the
24th, which was also the last count, which charged the defend-
ants generally with conspiring to fabricate shares for the purpose
of defrauding the public. Upon which his Lordship suffered the
case to proceed, and the last witness (Mr. Allspice), in reply to
questions from the respective Counsel, stated that he believed Ire-
land to be a most respectable man, and wholly incapable of prac-
tising the fraud which had been imputed to him ; that Stainaby
had been a fellow clerk of his at 13osanquet's for a great many
. .

years ; that he looked upon him as a respectable man, and that 11
he were not considered so, he would not be permitted to retain
situation in that house.

John Goslet, a carver and gilder, had been one of the direc-
tors of this company. When the circumstance of the over-issue
of shares was discovered, a committee was formed to investigate
respecting it. Witness was appointed a member of this coni-
mittee, but only attended once, when Ireland was asked how it
happened that 238 shares had been over-issued, and he replied he
could-not tell.
George Langley had been a director of the company, and a
member of the commitee of investigation; was present when
Ireland was questioned about the additional shares. Witness
asked:lreland how he came to write the letter to the bankers, au-
thorizing them to issue scrip-receipts on tenders signed only by
Mott, after Mott had reported that all the shares had been dis-
posed of; Ireland replied, that he could not account for it how
it had happened.
The case on the part of the prosecution was here closed, and
Mr. SCA RLETT rose to address the jury on behalf of Ireland. The
learned counsel said, not one tittle of evidence had been adduced
to show that any conspiracy at all had ever existed. It did not
appear that Ireland had any previous acquaintance whatsoever with
Mott until this transaction. It was not shown that Ireland had
ever made any representation to Clark, that he had ever had any
communication with him, or indeed that he had ever seen him.
Ireland was not proved tosihave been a trafficker in these shares ;
the whole number which he was shown ever to have possessed,
were the original 25 which had been allotted to him as a Director.
There was only one circumstance in the whole case which afforded
the slightest pretence for even suspecting that Mr. Ireland had been
at all to blame in this business, and that was his having written
the letter to Ilosanquet and Co., directing them to receive deposits
on tenders signed by Mott alone. How .Ireland came to do this,
he was ready to admit had not been explained, nor did lie pretend
to be able to give any sat:sfactory explanation of this circum-
stance ; but still Ireland's motive for doing this was a mere matter
of conjecture. He was astonished how Mr. Clark could ever
have been induced to venture to include Mr. Ireland in this indict-
ment. If Ireland was guilty, Walker was equally so. The
learned counsel concluded his address by remarking, that even the
witnesses who had been called by the prosecution against Ireland
gave him an extremely good charaeter.
Mr. GURNEY then addressed the jury as Counsel for Mr.
Stainsby, who had been proved to be a most respectable young
man, and to have been a clerk in the banking-house of llosan-
quet and Co. for 14 years. He did not, like his Learned Friend,
feel surprised that Clark should have thought proper to indict
him, because he believed Clark would indict any man whom he

thought he could

Common-Sergeant.

counts •in this you. (111,
anchor to hold him for aAngment ; and in support of this charge
against Stainsby, 'the prosecutor (Clark) would have the jinn'
believe that he himself was so silly as to purchase 363 shal;

in this compauy, when he was told that a mere banker's clerk
held 1,200 out of the 2,000 shares, which were all that were
issued.

Mr. Holz then addressed the jury on behalf of Mr. Mott. He
observed, that one man alone could not be convicted of a conspi-
racy : if, therefore, they should be of opinion that no case had been
made out either against Mr. Ireland or Mr. Stainsby, they must
necessarily also acquit his client. There was no proof that the
shares which Mott sold to 'Clark were not a part of the original
2,000 ; indeed, it appeared from the evidence, that they must ne-
cessarily have been so-, as at that time only 1,265 shares had been
shown to have been in the market; neither did Mott sell these
shares- at a higher price than they then bore in the market, and
the prosecutor might instantly have resold them for more money
than he gave for them ; besides, if Mott had contemplated a fraud,
would he not instantly have got the cash for the prosecutor's 1,0001.
cheque, and walked off with the money ? whereas, it appeared from
the evidence, that so far from having acted as if he had intended
to cheat Clark, he acted as if he was afraid of Clark's cheating
him.

The Loan Clime JUSTICE then observed, that, the law bad
been correctly stated to them by Mr. Holt, that one individual
alone could not be convicted of a conspiracy, and as the present
evidence did not affect any other than these defendants, if they
should be of opinion that the charge had not been made out against
any two of them, it would be their duty to acquit the third.—
According to the prospectus, the company was to consist of only
2,000 shares. The indictment was divided into two parts; the
first of which charged the defendants with conspiring to sell Clark
fabricated shares. • He had already delivered his opinion that there
was no evidence to establish this part of the charge. The other
part of the indictment was this—that the defendants, after having
caused it to be notified and helielied that no more than 2,000
Shares would be issued in this company, conspired together to fa-
bricate a greater. number of shares, and send them into the
market for the purpose of defrauding the public. It would
be for, the jury to determine whether or not such charge had
in this case been established against any two of these defendants.
The testimony against Stainshy was very trifling, and only amoun-
ted to this,—that he was a clerk of the company's bankers, and
that he received deposits on shares, which it' added to deposits
which had also been received on shares at another banking-house,
amounted to more than 2,000 shares proposed to be issued by the
company; but there was no evidence to show that he ever knew
deposits were received at any other banking-house. His Lord-
ship told the jury that they must also bear in mind that the pro•
secutor's witnesses had given both Ireland and Stainsby-most ex-
cellent characters, and concluded by stating that if they should be
of qpinion that a case had not been made out against either of
these two defendants, they must also acquit Mott, whatever the)
might think of his conduct.
The Jury consulted about five minutes, and then acquitted all
the defendants.

SHERIFF'S COURT.-RED LION SQUARE.
INDIAN SHAWLS.
DAVIES V. THE It AM. OF FIFE.

In this cause, which would have excited some interest had the
particulars been gone into in the superior Court, judgment was
allowed to go by default, and the damages were assessed on Satur-
day, before the Under Sheriff of Middlesex.
Mr. RICHARDS appeared for the plaintiff, and stated it to be
an action brought against the Noble defendant for India shawls,
furnished to him by the plaintiff, a tradesman in New Bond-
street, to the amount of 585/. 91. so far back as the year 1821.
G. Dolman, who had been in the employment of the plaintiff
at the period in question, proved the delivery of the shawls, and
their value.

A professional Gentleman attended on the part of the Noble
Earl, but took no part in the proceedings.
The Jury assessed the damages to the amount claimed.

OLD BAILEY.-JAN. 13.

Catharine Anne Joyce was capitally indicted for stealing is
the dwelling-house of Mr. John Henry Davy, in Parker-street,
St. Giles's, a silver cruet and stand, value
Mr. ANDREWS said that his client was a gentleman, who had
the misfortune, about ten years ago, to form a close intimacy with
the prisoner ; and upon the present occasion, as the charge af-
fected her life, he was a very unwilling witness against her. He.
had been subject to repeated annoyances from her for years, and a
sense of public duty had deterinined him to prosecute her.
The prisoner here shrieked, and fell senseless in the dock ; in
the fall she received considerable injury on the back of her head,
and was carried senseless into the interior of Newgate; and in
about two hours afterwards she was so far recovered as to be able
to take a seat at the bar.

A woman, named Foreman, said she was servant to the prose-•
cutor, and on the ith of January instant, the prisoner entered the
house when the door was ajar, and took a seat in the parlour, near
a cupboard. She told her to go up to her master and tell him
she wanted some money. to support a child which she had had by_
him when she was fifteen years of age—witness went up stairs,
and saw her master; he sent no money, and on her returning
from the drawing-room she found the prisoner gone, and the
cruet-stand was also missing.
Foreman, an officer of St. Giles's, said, that he apprehended
the prisoner, and asked her to return the cruet-stand which Ile
had taken from the prosecutor; she replied that she would do so
when he returned that innocence which l►e had robbed her of ten
• years ago.

Cross-examined by Mr. CL A RIC SON. —The child of the prisour
was not kept by the parish ; the parish did not keep an infant
above seven years when the mother was living. The pri-,oner had
repeatedly demanded money from the prosecutor to support her
child, and had broken his windows, and been, taken before a
Magistrate.

Mrs. Davy, the wife of the prosecutor, a lady-like, and very
handsome woman, said, that the house of her husband was in St.
Giles's.

Cross-examined—She had been married to Mr. Davy four years.
The prisoner, in her defence, begged fora merciful considera-
tion of her case, as she expected none from Mr. Davy.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH summed up the case with much feel-
ing and humanity. The Jury would consider whether she took
the property feloniously, or merely for the purpose of compelling
the prosecutor to make some allowance for her infant.
The Jury consulted for about a minute, and returned a verdict
of Not Guilty.

Mr. Justice BURROUGH cautioned the prisoner against amsop
ing the prosecutor again.

She replied, " My Lord, I am sensible of the humanity which
has been shown me, and my gratitude will only cease with my
life ; I never will go near Mr. Davy again, and may God blesB
you, Gentlemen."
(Before the RECORDER and a London Jury.)
John Haywood was indicted for stealing a quantity of brass
mounting, the property of Richard Curiae, bookseller, Fleet-street.
Richard Carlile was called in.
RECORDER—Have you been sworn ? I have.
RECORDER—Were you sworn on the Gospels? I was sworn
in the usual way.

R;„,DER—Do you believe in the Gospels ? I believe in them
as detached portions of history.
RECOADEII-.-Do you believe in them—yes or no ? I consider
myself bound to speak the truth after swearing on them. In a
general way I do believe them.

RECORDER Do you believe in the Gospel on
which you have been sworn ? If you do not,, your oath cannot
be taken, for it is not worth one farthing.—As a whole I do not
believe in it. I repeat it is nothing more than a matter of history.
RECORDER—Then you do not believe in the Bible ?—I do not.
RECORDER—Then I cannot believe you on your oath if you die•
believe its contents.--I have examined it very carefully.
RECORDER (with increased emphasis)—Dp you believe in a
God? It is a simple question.—l do not think it is a simple
question.
RECORDER—I must insist on an answer. Do you believe there
is a God ?—I do not understand the term.
RECORDER—There is not a person in Court but does except
yourself.—l do not understand the meaning of the question, nor
what is intended.
_REcoanza-1 will hare an answer.--I cannot understand

_ .
what is meant by God. There may be such a being. ,
REcoßnEx---I again call upon you if you believe there is a'
God ?--I have already answered that question. 1 have already
said that I believe in parts of the history in which that name is
mentioned.
IlEcoanEß—Then you do not believe in the Gospel on which
you have sworn ? Stand down. I will not allow any one to be,
accused by one who dares stand 'here and revile his Maker—whol
dares publicly avow his disbelief of the Scriptures.—l make no
accusation.
RECORDER-Stand down, and ,Hake way for the next witness.
The
was found—charge auilty.
was fully proved by other witnesses, and the pri-
soner
----

sstA
r,14 • t 4
gget- Friend (the
t) (MV.Wto-y ti tart oribe twenty-four
olumiweruicptiaetiC 1311/1 he could find an

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Jiw. 13.

Henry Fuller, the surgeon, who was found guilty on Tuesday
of 'presenting a loaded pistol at Taylor, an officer'Of the Mar.
shalsea.Coort, by whom he had been arrested, was brought up
for Judgment.
Mr. ALLEY, who had been Counsel for the defendant, ad-
dressed the Court, and said, he was happy to inform them that
Mr. Fuller.had settled the matter with the prosecutor.
The prosecutor's Attorney declared that he was satisfied.
The CHAIRMAN said he was very glad the matter was settled,
and sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of one shilling.
Mr. Fuller paid the fine, and was discharged.
Six persons, men and women of the lowest description, were
prosecuted by the Mint for uttering counterfeit half-crowns and
shillings. They were all severally convicted, and sentenced to
six months' imprisonment in the House of Correction.
Mr. Field, Inspector of the Mint, who proved the coin to be
counterfeit, stated, that in all the cases it was made from the
dies lately seized on the apprehension of the gang of coiners.