Star.
London, England, 1822-09-20 00:00:00

r,
i r.

OLD DAILEY gialilant
wasamwsweb ; .
Yesterday Thom* Reeds stood eltigywith
ing a promissory note for 151. the p of Alm.;
ander Walker. •;
Ann Walker swore that she was the wife of Alex-
ander Walker, a warrant officer in his Majesty's set..
vice. She was a tenant of the prisoner's: On the
27th of last December 'she sent to him to receive his
quarter's rent; but he refused to deduct the land-tax.
He then brought a broker: she told her daughter to
get the receipt, and the latter- put down the promis-
sory note by mistake. Howls snatched it up and
carried it off, and she never got it back. She had
not indicted him sooner, because she expected him to
give up the note.
From her cross-examination, it appeared that she
had been indicted by the prisoner for an assault upon
that occasion.

Catherine Johnson stated, that she was present
when the prisoner took the note.
Cross-examined.—Her name is now Johnson ; she
had been married ten years. Her name had formerly
been Tibbatts; she was parted from her husband, but
would not tell Counsel whether it was by being tied
to a postin Smithfield with a halter round her neck.
She saw prisoner exhibit the note to another man in
a public-house, and heard him declare he would never

give it up.
Ann Walker, the prosecutrix's daughter, corrobo-
rated the first viitness's testimony. If her mother
had the note, she had no doubt but it would be paid.
Mark Parrington also swore he saw the prisoner
snatch_ the note. He repeatedly asked him to give
it up, but he replied, that he would see Mrs. Walker
d—d first.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he never saw
the note; and. he had plenty of witnesses to prove
that all those for the prosecution were perjured.
Mr. ANDREWS, for the prisoner, commies! that the
capital part of the charge could not be sustained, as
the note had not been taken from a dwelling-house
where it'was deposited for security. He cited a case
to support this position; and
Mr. Justice BEST, upon the authority of that case,
yielded to the objection. The Learned Judge re-
commended the Jury to acquit the prisoner, as this
was a stale prosecution, and it appeared that there
had been cross indictments.—Verdict, Not Guilty.
The COURT then advised the prisoner to give up,
the note if he had it.
The prisoner—" So help me GOD, I never saw it!"
Thomas King, a respectable looking man, was in-
dicted for stealing a siver spoon, value ten shillings,
the property of James Taylor, Esq.
The case was fully proved.—Guilty,
i but recom-
mended to mercy. He lived formerly n the house-
hold of the Duke of York.

James Moore and Nicholas Moore, father and son,
were indicted for burglariously entering the house of
William Henry Southwell, at Islington, and stealing
therefrom divers articles.
The evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge
of burglary. The Jury found them guilty of stealing,
but not in a dwelling-house. •
The elder prisoner was tried on a second indict-
ment, for stealing in the dwelling-house of Mr. Na-
pier, at Islington.
It appearing that the burglary could not be sus-
tained, ard that no more of the stolen property could
be identified than amounted to seventeen shillings,
the Jury, under the direction of the Judge, found the
prisoner guilty of stealing only.
Mr. Justice BEST said that the elder Moore should

certainly be sent out of the country. As it was evi-
dent that the boy was led into the commission of the
crime by the example and suggestions pf the father,
a more lenient course should be taken with him. His
Lordship expressed a with that employment might
be provided for him in some way by which he could
earn a livelihood.

Mr. Sheriff VENABLES said he would undertake to
provide for the prisoner.
The Judge then pronounced a nominal sentence on
the younger prisoner.
Thomas Gordon was indicted for assaulting, on the
King's highway, Mr. Clarke, and taking from his
person a watch, chain, seal) and key, his property.
The prosecutor stated that the prisoner dashed up
against him on the night of the 22d of August, and
pulled his chain and seals ; the chain broke; the seals
and key were dropped and found near the spot where
the prosecutor was stopped.
The prosecutor was examined very closely as to
the degree of violence used by the prisoner ; but his
evidence went fully to support the charge of rub-
bery.-..Guilty—Death.
William Milton was charged with assaulting Wm.
Davis, a boy, eleven years of age, and taking from
him a bundle, containing several valuable articles.
• Mary Davis, the mother of the boy, said they were
passing through Queen-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, at
nine o clock on the night of the 156 of August. The
boy was knocked down, and the bundle taken from
him. So determined was the prisoner in effecting
the robbery, that he dragged Davis some distance on
the ground, he having resisted as well as he could.
The prisoner was taken in a Mews near the place,
with the property in his possession.—Guilty—Denth.
The prisoner received an excellent character from
several persons with whom be had lived.--The Jury
recommended him to mercy.
Mr. Justice BUT asked each of the witnesses did
they not know that the prisoner was in Newate before?
They all replied positively in the negative.
Mr. Wontner, the Keeper of Newgate, said he was
recognized by his fellow prisoners, as well as by
the turnkey.
The turnkey, however, on bfz;nif examined, could
not say that he was sure of the identity of the prisoner.
The prisoner, crying, declared he never was in
`Newgate before.
The witnesses to his character also repeatedly af-
firmed that he was not.
The Junoz ordered that the matter should be
strictly inquired into. These street robberies, he said,
must be put down.
&ortly after, the Assistant to the Surgeon of New-
Igate was called in and examined. He said he saw the
prisoner in Newgate before ; but hether it was in
custody, or, as the prisoner stated, he came to see his
brother, sir -witness was not able to say.
Mr Justice Bawr.--Then it is very natural for the
mistake to be made. Gentlemen of the Jury, we bad
better take the presumption the mos; favourable to