Star.
London, England, 1801-12-03 00:00:00

OLD I'AILEY.

Yeil:raas the Setlions commenced at the Old.l
Batley, before the Right Hon. Sir Joust EAMER,
LORD MAYOR, Mr. Jußice GROSS, Mr. jllftiCe
GRAHAM, Mr. RECORDER, &c. when ten prifoners
Were tried, fcvcn of whom were convicted of fe-
lony, viz.
game: Dru:firg, for Realing 35 yards of kerfcy-
mere, the property of Wm. Sutton.
11%m. irgbire, for Realing 6 oz. weight of tea,
the property of the ErA-rndia Company.
jubc Arnillo,:, f. r fr:aling ?Abs. w:ight of Spa-
flint wool, the property of JohnMaitland,and ethers.
Vona.; Dr!,7; for healing 31b. weight of taw
fugar, the property of George Jacob, and others.
john Gann and ,:gclqi Norwood, two fuldiers,
were ilislikried for a highway robbery. They
were charged with taking a bundle from Mary
Dyer, in St. James's l'ar!:, on the 27th of (Jabber
laft, containing four th:llings in money, a gown, a
thift, a petticoat, two ;Turns, a pair of ftockings,
three caps, and two nandkerchieL-
The Jury returned a rcrdi.R, Gthlty of Stealing,
but not putting the profecutrix in perfonal fear ;
in confequenet: of this, And their having fcrved
with cacdit on the continent, the Court only ad-
judged them to perform hard labour in the Houfe
of Corralion, for az months. _ . -

Elizabeth fifth's, for healing five pieces of rib- I
bon, the property of Lois Wickens.
And three were acquitted, viz. jaw: Hal.
yobs I:ii?,:tsn was tried on two. india-
ments, for forging, and tittering as knowing to he
counterftit, two bills of exchange, dated at Bir-
mingham, purporting to be acceptances of the
honfe of Sir Jame; Efdaile and Co.
The first witnefi was William Molloy, a flue.
maker, in KO: flreet, St. Giles's, from whole
evidence it appeared, that the priimer, accompa-
nied by a pvrfon of the name of Nabb, whom he
knew, cam: to his (hop on the 3 t II of Anvil laff,
for the porpore of piti.lialin7 three dozen pairs of
&nes, for a relation, a Captain Williams, who
was going to Africa. This was the first time the
witncfs Lad ever ken the prifoner. The (hoes
came to 91. 6s. and the prifoner prefented a hill
f..r 231. co the Houle of Efdaile and Co. Molloy
took the bill to Mr. Lce, a leather-cutter and cur.'
rice, that lived in the neighbourhood, who dif-
counted it : 1-c then returned to his (hop, and gave
the balance to the iliner, who had been wait-
ing. On the Ica,' ..plettiber the prifoner came
to the (hop of Molloy again, and wanted duce
doyen more !pair of thoes, of the fame defcrip-
tion as the others ; when they were looked out, he
laid they omit he fent io the Dundee Arms in
Wapping, anil mull be there by twelve o'clock.—
He then prefvnted a hill sor t cl. accepted as be-
fore ; but, t.n being.rrld that the witneft could not
give him change, he laid he would not trouble
him, hut would go to a Telatinn%,.get it changed. I,
and pay him in cant. 1:e rttarved to Molloy%
about five in the afternoon. hid he had been dif-
appointed. and Aced him if he could not make up
the difference : Molloy could not then do it ; the
pi done?, the' dime, went away and returned again
about feven,_ when the wirnefs, not yet having the
ca, laid. if he would leave tie bill with him
till the mornirg, he would get it changed —The
ptifianer Galled at eight on the following morn.

:rev, ‘;;ttte Molloy requefled him to come aga:n at
.tine :. he again went away, and did not rein: a
:di ten, when the witncfs was out. 4\t halt pall
tat came home, having die-covered that
he Bill was a bad one. At eleven the priftiner
;gain called ; and, on being taxed with the bad-
itefs of the bill, appeared greatly furprifed, laid it
could not he, lie Was certain it was good, lie had
takett it as good, and would make it good to the
xiinefs. The prifoner then wrote a note to a
friend of his, a Mr. Poftlewhite, at a publican's
of the name of Beaumont, in Rofemary lane.—
This perfon was not to be found, and the wieners
then fent for an Officer, and had him taken to
Bow al rect.
Finding the latter bill to be a bad one, Molloy
fufpetted the former ; obtained it from Mr. Lee's
banker, and found it to be equally bad.
John Homey, the accepting clerk at the bottle
of Efdaile and Cu. who had attended the exami-
nations at BovAreet, came forward, and gave
evidence as to the acceptance being fictitious.
The prifoner, who appeared to be a very decent
young man, [hated, by way of defence, that he
had received the bills in queftion from a perfon of
the name of Carter, a carpenter and joiner, who
had owed him money when with his father at Bit.
mingham, ever fines November, toe, to the
amount of nearly Sol. that he had advanced eight
guineas to the raid Carter, by way of balance, on
receipt of the bills ; that Williams was a distant
relation of his, a mate, and not a captain of a
fitip ; that Williams had told him he wanted re-
reral articles, but should not receive money to
procure them until he got to the Downs ; that ha.
then offered to advance the money he wanted ;
that he procured the (hoes, and ordered fome flops
which he never received ; and that, when he found
the bills were had, he had returned the (lines.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM fummed up the evidence
very ably ; and the Jury, befieving the Prifoner's
account of the manner in which he got poffefEon
of the Bills, acquitted him of the charge.
There was a fecond indiCtment, charging him
with uttering the Isl. Bill, knowing it to be forg-
ed ; but, without entering into any recapitulation
of the evidence, the Jury likewife acquitted him
on this indiFtment.
/Pi/Lim Tekfle/d was nett put to the bar on a
charge of forging, and uttering as knowing to be
forged, a Bill of Exchange for 241. los. purport.
ing to be drawn by Jonathan Lees, of Manchef-
ter, and accepted by Mr. John Ruggles, army
agent, Downing-greet. The profecutor was James
Coe, partner to Mr. Brown, linen-draper, in Ox-
ford-ftreet.
Mr. Coe Rated, that the prifoner came to his
fhop on the loth of May !aft, and faid, that he
wanted to purchafe fome articles of linen-drapery,
and would deal with him, provided he would take
a bill drawn on a refpetable perfon. To this the
profecutor affented ; and, having fatisfied hirnfelf
as to the defcription of Mr. Ruggles, goods were
looked out to the amount of 271. when the
prifoner paid the furplus in eafh, and the goods
were carried home to his lodgings in Titch.
field-ftreet. The Bill was dated Mat chefter, May
7th, and becawe payable on the loth of July-
-After ket.jsing it about a month, Mr. Coe
paid it awey to Brown and Cal's, wholesale linen-
drapers in the Poultry : when prefentcd fur
payment, Mr. Ruggles could not be found ; and,
cia going to the pt ifoner's lodgings, Mr. Coe found
that he alto had removed about a week or a fort-
night before. About a fortnight after this, Mr.
Cod, in company with a Mr. Hadden, met the
priebner in Great Rittfedttrcet, when he told
him that his Bill was :turned, and that bad
only pref.:need it to him for the purpofc of
defrauding him. They followed the Fail-rter
round St. Giles's, when Mr. Hadden, at his
friend's requelt, wen: for an officer. Mr. Coe
followed through the city, round St. Paul's.,
and various other places, when the prifoner went
to the water fide, took a boat at ClLleen Hythe
and eluded father putfuit. At the expiration of
another fortnight, Mr. Coe met him again in Ruf-
fel-ftreet, ne;qly on the fpot where he met him be•
fore, when he procured an Officer, and had him
taken to Bow-facet, whence he was font to Fat.
ton-garden, and from Hatton-garden m prifor..
When the profecutor first met the pr;foiner, he raid
he did not know but that the bill was paid, as he
bad taken it of his friend Lecs, and believed it to
be a good bill ; but that, as it was, he could not
then pay it. The profecutor told him Wile would
take him to the hotife of any ielpeaable
who would lay that he was an honeft man, he
would not t. ouble him, and he should pay it at his
leifure.
Miticiiin was nest called. He laid he
had lived as potter with Mr. Ruggles, and he
knew that the prifoner came backwards and for-
wards to Downing-iiieet, he believed for mon:.l
that his mailer owed him ; that hr had heard Mr
Ruggles objeEt to accept the bill in qactlion, f ty-
ing he had no correfpondent in Maneheitcr ; lie:
on the prifoner'; prefling it, and fay ill:: it was on
a very good refponfible man, lie at length agreed
to accept it. The Wieners did not Ice him ac-
cept it ; but he had frequently Peen him write,
and he firmly believed the acceptance to be
his handwriting. The ss tenets raid, that Mr.
Ruggles called himfelf an army agent ; that his
office was in Downing-14w, but that he had
lodgings at South Lambeth. He alt.() laid that he
had accepted and kilted a number of hills ; and
that when they began to be due, he kept away
from the office himfelf, and fent a Fe: foss of the
name of Kelly, to ail for him.
Mr. Jonathan Lees, a refiscaable manuraftur^r
at Mancheller, was next called, who puft;:cely
(wore that the Bill was not drawn by him ; that
he had never ken or heard of any of the parties
concerned in this tranfaEtion, until appiic ttiun lad
been made to him on the fubjeft ; that there vs.ts
no other pet fon of retpon:ibilh v, of the name of
Jonathan Lees, in Mancheiter ; that :here was .t
perfon of that name, who ha I lived within a spur-
ter of a mile where lie had been In ou,?,i-t up; but
that he was only a journeyman hatter, and not GZ
the Leal retponfibility whatever.
Charles Hynes, a ferjesint at mace, was next
calla He laid that he knew a Jonathan Lee;,

who, for a eonilderable 1-nc,fth of time, till within
thefe fix years, had been hi; -follower ; that he al-
ways undcrliood, and believed him to be a Man-
chetter man ; that he lodged at his houfe, the
Pitt's Head, in the Old Bal, about two years
ago ; that he was then in the leather butinels, in
the fancy dying line ; that he alto law him about
three or four months ago, in George-firm, Black-
friars-road ; that he treated him r. ith fomething to
drink, he appearing to he very poor, and having
a bundle of leather under his arm ; that he was
by trade a hatter himfelf, but that he never knew
nor believed the laid Jonathan Lees to be a hatter;
that he had never fern the prifoner till lail fawns;
that he never knew of any acquaintance between
the prifoner and the laid Jonathan Lees; but that
he believed, from a thorough acquaintance with
his hand-writing, and manner of figning his name,
which he had done in filling many bail bonds for
him ; that the drawing and figning the Bill in
elitellicm was the hand-writing of the laid Jona-
than Lees.
_ . .

Mr. plaice GROSE, in fumming np the evidence,
obferved, that the prifoner could not be convkled
of a forgery, unlefs it appeared to the Jury that he
had himfelf drawn this bill, and made ufe of the
narne of Jonathan Lees. If the bill was figned by
this Jonathan Lees, although he was not a per-
fon of refponfibility, as the prifoner had hated,
he was only gailty of a fraud.
The Jury returned a verdiEt of Not Guilty of
Forgery. It being, however, their opinion, that
the prifoner was guilty of a grofs and atrocious
fraud, it was recommended by the Court, that
the profccutors fhunld prefer a new indk'hnent ac-
cordingly.—The prifoner was remanded.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 30.

WALKER V THOMAS.

The Plaintiff is an aullioneer, and has an auc-
tion-room in Dean.firtct, Soho, the bufinefs of
which is aprarently carried on tinder the name of,
who fells for the Plaintiff.
A Gentleman of the name of Simpfon, having
bought goods at the Plaintiff's anetion room, to
the amount of 1061. 14s. paid down a depofit of
201. and gave a draft for the remainder on the
Defendant, who is the mailer of George's Coffee-1
houfe, which was regularly paid.
It was alledged, on the part of the Plaintiff, that
in the payment of this draft, a bank note for 301.
had been given by the Defendant, which proved
to be forged, and that, therefore, the Defendant li
not tracing it to any other perfon, was liable for
the amount of the note.

The note was traced and refpedively (worn to
from the hands of Chriflopher Chriftie, who re-
ceived it from the Defendant, and paid it at the
infiance of Mrs. Walker, in the ahfence of her
huffitutd, the Plaintiff, to a publican in the neigh-
bourhood, of the name of Clarke, by whom it was
paid to Mr. Arhouin, a brandy merchant, in Min-
cmg-lane, who fent it to Meas. Lees, and Co.
Bankers,'by whom it was. aid to the Bank, where
it was dir-overed to be a fr.rgery.
Mr. one of the Infpedors of the Bank,
proved the note to be forged, and that it was one
amongC many which came from Hamburgh, but
raid it was Icarcely poffible for any one except the
Infpeetors of the Bank to be aware of the differ-
ence. He alfo laid that the Bank had formerly
kept all notes Which were found to be forged, but
that within fix months paft, they had stamped
them as forged and tent them back.
Chriltopher Chrillie, the fon of the perfon who
rues for the Plaintiff, and who ads as the porter
of the latter, (wore to receiving the note on the
sth of May tali from the Defendant, and paying
it on the fame day to Mr. Clarke. The latter
made a memorandum at the time be received it,
of the number and the ruin, and alfo the pet ion
from whom he received it, and the thy when,
which was the yth of May. He was its doubt,
however, whether he had fet down the day cor-
redly, and was inclined to think it was either the
6th or 7th of May that he had reccircd it.
The Defence fet up was, that the draft of Mr.
Bimpfonmpon the Defendant, was not paid till the
6th of May, and that, therefore, the note in quer-
tion, which was (worn by Chriftopher Chriftie, to
have been received on the gth May, could not
have been received at the Defendant's houfe. It
was (worn by Mr. Simplon, that 'he was acciden-
tally prefent at the Defendant's honfe, when hi:
own draft was prefented for payment, and that it
was on the 6th of May.
Lord Aevani.av having fummed up the evi-
dence, obferved, it was clear there had not been
two payments at the Defendant's houfe upon the
draft of Mr Simpfon ; the only difficulty that had
arifen was from the difference of date's. The Jury
were to determine whether the evidence of Chrif-
topher Chriftie was entitled to credit, letting afide
the miftake as to the teal date, and whether the
note in queftitni was actually received by him frt,rn
the Defendant —Verdid for Plaintiff for 3o'. be-
ing the amount of the note.