Star.
London, England, 1830-06-01 00:00:00

John King was indicted for stealing in the dwelling-
house of John Kingston, a brooch, a gold ring, and
several articles of wearing apparel, the property of Mary
Ann Kingston.
Mrs. Mary Ann Kingston stated that she is a widow,
and that her husband kept the Cock public-house at Hol-
loway. The prisoner slept at her house on the night of
the 17th of May, and, taking a bundle away with him
the next morning, her suspicions became aroused, and
she insisted on examining its contents. The prisoner for
some time objected to this, but finding that she would not
suffer him to leave on any other condition, he at length
reluctantly consented, and in the bundle she found the
various articles mentioned in the indictment, which had
been taken from the drawers in her bed room, to which
the prisoner had gained access, by means of skeleton
keys. He was then given into custody, and on him
were found forty-six skeleton-keys, of all sixes and de-
scriptions.—The prisoner made no defence, and was
found Guilty.
Charles Callent, aged 27, and Ann Callent, his wife,
were capitally indicted for having traitorously and felo-
niously coined and counterfeited 12 sixpences, to re-
semble the current coin of the realm.

Mr. SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. ELLIS) stated
the case on behalf of the Mint. He observed that the
crime with which the prisoners stood charged was one of
a most serious nature, and one which, contrary to the rule
applicable in ordinary cases of felony, rendered a married
woman liable to all the pains and penalties annexed to
such an offence, notwithstanding she might have
acted under the direction of her husband. In the
reign of one of our earlier kings, this offence was made
high treason, and consequently punished with death ;
but it would be going too far to say that the rigour of the
law would be put in force in the present instance.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, on behalf of the prisoners, said he
must object to this line of observation on the part of his
Learned Friend. His Learned Friend had no right what-
ever to refer to what might or might not be the punishment
inflicted in'the present case. The prisoners were charged
with a capital offence, for which many convicts had been
dragged on a hurdle to expiate their guilt on the gallows.
The punishment which the law annexed to the crime was
death, and counsel, therefore, had no right to comment
on what his Majesty might, or might not, in his moat
gracious mercy, do in the case of these prisoners.
Mr. Justice Li TTLED ALE admitted the propriety of
Mr. Phillips's interposition, and declared that the counsel
for the prosecution ought to have left the question of
punishment out of view entirely.
Mr. SCARLETT observed that he was bound to submit
to the decision of the Learned Judge. After detailing
the facts of the case, the Learned Counsel proceeded to
comment upon the probable fine of defence which might
be set up on the part of the prisoners.
Mr. C. PIIILLIPB again interposed—Counsel for the
prosecution ought to confine himself to stating the facts,
without hazarding comments upon the defence of the
prisoners.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALz—Mr. Scarlett, you have
no right whatever to anticipate the defence of the
prisoners. You may argue on the law as long as you
please, but that is all you have a right to do.
Mr. SCARLETT then proceeded to observe upon the
statute of William 111. and, in doing so, introduced
some comments upon the part taken in the transaction
by the male prisoner, against whom the evidence was
not complete without inferring his participation in the
offence from his connection with the female.

Mr. C. PIIILLIPS—My Lord I must again object to
these observations. I should have done so long before,
but I wished to chew my Learned Friend every possible
courtesy.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, who had consulted with
Mr. Baron Vaughan, said that Mr. Scarlett had, all
through his opening, mistaken the line of conduct which
should have been adopted by Counsel for the prosecution.
Such a course could not possibly be permitted.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS—I must say that I never heard
such an opening in a Court of Justice in my life : and
if this line of observation be persisted in I shall certainly
throw up my brief, and leave the prisoners in the hands
of the Court, unless, indeed, I be allowed a reply.
Mr. Justice L!TTLED.%LE—Tbe Court cannot permit