The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-10 00:00:00

The prisoners pleaded not guilty.
William Ellis, the person who was originally com-
mitted on a charge of high treason, and whu is in
appearance much above the class of the other priso-
ners, on being arraigned, exclaimed in a loud voice,
" I am not guilty."_
_ _

Mr. ALLEN applied that the prisoner Ellis might be
allowed to sever on his trial, in order that he might
procure the attendance of witnesses to meet the charge.
The CHIEF Jus-ncE said it was impossible he could
obtain a copy of the depositions, as none existed, and
he could not now separate a prisoner who had already
pleaded to a joint indictment to sever on his trial.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Waddington con-
ducted the prosecution ; and Mr. Lee, Mr. Meteyard,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Yardley, Mr. Male, and Mr Huddle-
ston appeared for several of the prisoners ; many of
them were undefended.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the case. Mr.
Aitken was for several years incumbent of the parish
of Shelton, and it would appear that the mob originally
assembled at Crown-bank on the Monday. They
then proceeded to the house of the Rev. Mr. Aitken,
in the town of Hanley, who, having been apprised of
the coming of the mob, left his home. His son and
servants remained in the house, but on the approach
of the mob they retired, and the work of destruction
was proceeded with and speedily consummated.
It must be shown to constitute the offence that the
parties had destroyed or had commenced to destroy
the building; and that, he thought, the evidence
would sufficiently establish. He would show that
some of the mob were armed, and two or three of
them with swords. He would show them the part
that had been taken by.the prisoner William Ellis,
hecauss the prisoners were divided into two classes,
those who were actively engaged in the work of
destruction, and those who were present countenancing
and encouraging the others. Among the latter
was William Ellis, who would be proved to have
accompanied the mob, and would be shown to have
been standing within the court in front of the
house between one and two o'clock in the morn-
ing, while the mob was there, and at that time his
face was blackened. He would .not be able to show
that he took any active part in the destruction of the
pi-operty by fire ; but to judge from his expressions
and conduct on previous occasions during the day,
they would be able to judge whether he was there
with an innocent or laudable purpoie, or from idle cu-
riosity, or as a leader and encourager of the mob, aid-
ing them in their attack upon the house. They would
find that, after the previous outrages, Ellis had spoken
of them, not in terms of condemnation, but of praise
and approval. That he spoke of the people resisting
the soldiers, and at the end there was a shout, " Now
for Burslem." He would show that Ellis was at Burs-
lem with the mob, and that he was one of the persons
who was dispersed by the soldiers—that he formed
a constituent part of the mob. He would show that
in the morning, before they went off to Burslem, Ellis
was heard to say that some said that their motto was,
" a fair day's wages for a fair day's work ;" but he
would say their motto was, " the obtaining of the
Charter, and equal political rights." In allusion to
carriedbaneindicateo,
equally
gt ur
Nottingham
agc
obt
yuarmgatwithouthguaeei
n ttdyhfiwaewrthme
est
oth—hb tethrh nonah fires—that thereßristol—and
the fires, he said that the Reform Bill had not been
t these
ed r
ebme been k
sfi fires u
ladt
unhappy
oa,p standing
phyem
enmusttherewbhe
ots
taken
kht
eoanna
hands
dos
set fire to the building.
Evidence to this effect was given at considerable
length, and the trial was proceeding when the train left.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
Thomas Kelsol, Thomas Tooth, John W. Farrin..-
ton, Susannah Yates, Charles Simpson, John Parkes,
Thomas Thomas Banks, and Joseph Barrett, were indicted for
a felony committed in the parish of Stoke-upon-
Trent, by breaking into the shop of Mr. George Fen-
ton, in the said parish, and stealing therefrom, on the
16th of August, a variety of wearing apparel.
Witnesses were then called who identified the par-
ties on the occasion.

The prisoner Tooth was acquitted, as the evidence
did not implicate him.

Mr. SPOONER addressed the Jury on the part of
Kelsol and Susannah Yates.

Mr. NEIL addressed the Court on behalf of Barrett.
The trial had not concluded when our express left.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
Joseph Broster was indicted for demanding, with
menaces, on the 17th of August, from Thomas Hughes,
at Woolstanton, 43. 6d., with intent to steal the same.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD and the Hon. Mr. TALBOT
conducted the prosecution. It appeared that the pri-
soner was one of those workmen who infested the
neighbourhood to the terror of the inhabitants.
The prisoner was found Guilty.

CHESTER SPECIAL COMMISSION.

(Before Lord ABINGER.)
The first bills returned were against William Moor-
house, Robert Wild, James Wild, Stephen Shirt,
John Fairhurst, and Samuel Lees, for a conspiracy
and riot. There was subsequently added James
Wild, one of the Hollingworth rioters, who asked to
be tried along with the other conspirators. After the
examination of the witnesses, and Lord Abinger had
delivered his charge,
The Jury expressed a wish to retire with reference
to one prisoner. They did so at half•past three, and,
after an absence of half an hour, returned into Court
with a verdict of Guilty on all the counts against the
whole of the prisoners, with the exception of Shirt,