Star.
London, England, 1822-09-16 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY SEISTON!.

Saturday, Richard Milford, a yank man of dash-
ing appearance, was indicted for forging an indorse-
ment to a Bank post-bill, 'with intent to,defraad the
Governor and Compaq Of the Bank of England, or
J. D. Rogerson. - •
J. D. Rogerson is clerk to Mr. Osborn, a horse-
dealer, in the King's Mbsys, Bedford-row. In April
he became acquainted with Milford, and he called on
witness in consequence of a letter that witness had ad-
dressed to No. 9, Manchester-buildings. He wrote
this on seeing an advertisement in the papers that
situation might be obtained. Prisoner said that he
had not interest himself, but could procure him a
situation through a friend. They had several inter-
views, and the prisoner asked witness fur-some sort
of security to shew that he was sincere in wishing for
the situation. Prisoner suggested a Bank post-bill,'
and to deposit a sum ormoney in the Bank for that
purpose. This was to be payable to witness's own
order, and prisoner said it would be most satisfactory
and secure, as it could nut get into circulation with-
out witness's endorseMent. In the event of his not
getting the situation, the Bank post-bill was to be
returned. He accordingly got a £5O bill, which he
gave to the prisoner, but not till he•objected to let it
out of his possession, because in the event of his not
getting the situation he might have some difficulty
in getting it back again. Prisoner said there could
be no difficulty in that, Os it was of no use'to him be-
cause'he had not endorsed it. Prisoner said he wonld
call on the witness in -a few days, but he never did,
an 4 witness could not find him at No. 9, Manchester-
hifildings. Witness stopped the bill at the Bank on
the 7th of May. The post-bill was shewn him, and
he swore that the endorsement was not written by
him or by his authority.
Cross-examined.—Prisoner told him that it was not
through the influence of Bloomfield that the situation
was to be procured-. In the course •of conversation,
he said that Bloomfield was sporting his figure about
town, and that he understood he was a nephew of
Sir Benjamin's. The bill was not given as a part 'of
the consideration for the place.
Mr. J. Twiss, a clerk in the Bank Post-bill Office,
proved the issuing of the bill to the last witness.
Thomas Debenham, clerk to a pawnbroker in
Prince's-street, knew the prisoner, who used to pay
annual interest on the things pledged by prisoner's
father. He came in May, and paid 201. for things
pledged. The bill had the endorsement purporting
to be that of Rogerson on it, when the prisoner paid
it for the 201. for the things pledged. Witness knew
him by the name of Captain Tracy.
Eliza Rogerson, the wife of the first witness, re-
membered the prisoner coming to her house several
times about a situation. In August last she went to
a house opposite No. 1, Quebec-street, and saw him
come out of the house, on which she followed, and
accosted him. He said he had not the pleasure of
knowing her. She said that was odd, and reminded
him who she was; and asked him why he did not
come to Mr. Rogerson according to his premise?—
Prisoner said he had done that which made him afraid
to come, and he would not come, unless she promised
him protection, and then he would pay part of the
money. He promised to come on the Saturday.
Elizabeth Hammond proved that the prisoner
lodged in her house, No. 9, Manchester-buildings,
from April until May, and left it on pretence of
having a relation ill in the city.
- J. Jarman proved that the prisoner took of him, at
2001. a-year, the house No. 1, in Quebec-street, for
a year, in the name of Tracy.
J. Carstairs, a writing•master, knew the prisoner as
having been his pupil. When shewn the endorse.
ment on the bill, he said he did not believe that it
was absolutely the hand-writing of the prisoner.
The prisoner, in his defence, said, he wrote none
of the letters or the endorsement. He was merely an
agent, and received the bill back from his employer
with the endorsement to it. He called

James Lander, who said he was servant to the pri-
soner in May last. He was sent by him to Mr.
Bloomfield, to a shoe-shop in Clare-market, and
brought it back from him to the prisoner, with J. L.
Rogerson written on the back of it.
Cross-examined.—Prisoner kept a groom, a black
servant, and a cook and house-maid. He went by
the name of John George Charles Tracy. Witness
saw a man endorse the bill at a public-house in
Lamb's Conduit-street; Bloomfield sent him to the
mal. He was to ask the man's name, and he said
Rogerson. The reason why the prisoner altered his
name from Tracy to Mitford, was, because he was
afraid of being arrested. Witness was not connected
with the prisoner in any way. He had a daughter,
but she did not live with or visit the prisoner to his
knowledge. He had been a gardener, and became
servant to Mr. Mitford in Leicestershire.

Mr. Justice BEST summed up the evidence, sad j
the Jury, after a short consultation, found the
soner Guilty-.. Death.
Elizabeth Jones and James Morrison were tried,
on the Coroner's inquisition, for the wilful murder of
a new born illegitimate child.
The facts of the case were stated in our report of
the Coroner's Inquest.'
Mr. Justice RICHARDSON charged the Jury, that
there was no evidence whatever to support the charge
of murder against the prisoners; but left it to them
to say whether the female prisoner was guilty of con-
cealing.her pregnancy ; intimating, at the same time,
an opinion that they would hardly be warranted, upon
the evidence, in finding her guilty of that charge.
The Jury immediately found both the prisoners—
Net Gilty.
John Lewes was indicted for stealing a silk hand-
_
lief -

kerchief from the person of Mr. Thomas Barratt, of
Mark-lane.

The RECORDER said it was necessary that Gentle-
men who attended on 'Change and other public places
of business, should be protected from the depreda-
tions of persons of the prisoner's description. The
sentence of the. Court therefore was, that he should
be transported for life.
William Atkins was indicted for feloniously and
maliciously stabbing William Edwards with a pitch.
fork, at Enfield, on the Sd of August, with intent to
kill and murder him. Other counts laid the intent
to maim or do him some grievous bodily harm.
It appeared from the 'unanimous testimony of se-
veral witnesses, diet the prisoner and the prosecutor,
who were labouring men, lodged in neighbouring

doetav, at Enfield. Between ten and eleven o'clock
at night, en the Sd of Augusto the prosecutor heard
the prisoner; and a woman with whom he lodged,
quarrelling. Upon hearing the cry of 44 Murder!"
he went out, and found the -female on the ground, the
prisoner ill-using and beating her. He interposed,
remonstrated with the prisoner upon his improper
conduct in treating the woman in that manner, rind
laid his hand upon his shoulder and pushed him away,
from her. The prisoner, irritated at this interference,
immediately ran into his mother's cottage, and
brought out a pitchfork, swore he would stab the
prosecutor's eyes out, and with both hands- ran at the
prosecutor with all his force, and one of the prongs
entered his head under the right eye, and pierced him
to the brain. He then drew out the fork and ran into
his cottage. The prosecutor, who Was knocked against
some palings, recovered for a moment, ran after the
,prisoner, and attempted to strike him, but becoming
senseless he fell, and was carried to his own cottage,
where he remained insensible for above three weeks,
his life being despaired of. He now swore that he
had completely lost the use of his right eye, and was
unable to work in consequence of the effects of the
wound upon his head. He denied that he had had
any quarrel with the prisoner. •
The prisoner, in his defence, stated, that he had
been working late at harvest, for a Gentleman named
Boyce, who gave him some strong ale, which took
an effect upon him. On his return home he drank
some more ale, in company with the prosecutor and
two other young men. They had some trqsunder-
standing, and the prosecutor knocked him down, and
blooded his nose; that in the irritation of the moment
he ran and seized the pitchfork, supposing it to be a
stick, and struck the prosecutor.
The woman with whom he lived, and his mother,
proved that there hall been some quarrelling between
the prisoner and the prosecutor, and that the latter
knocked the former down, and blooded his nose.
The prosecutor and the woman with whom he
lodged were called up again, and they positively de-
nied that there had been any previous quarrelling;
and said that the prosecutor did no more than attempt
to strike the prisoner after his eye had been pierced.
The case went to the Jury, under the directions of
the Learned Judge (Mr. Baron GRAHAM), and they
found the prisoner Guilty—Leath; but recommended
him to mercy, conceiving it possible that there had
been some previous provocation, the truth of which
they could not ascertain. •
The Learned Junco said, he should certainly at-
tend to their recommendation ; but said that-it was a
most outrageous case, under any circumstances of
provocation.
Thomas Lewis, aged 52, was tried for stealing a
handkerchief, and found guilty ; John Fordhani, aged
17, charged with stealing a coat, was also found guilty.