Star.
London, England, 1824-09-14 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS-THIS DAY.

OUTRAGE. • . .
,rAn Assn litson, was put to the bar, charged with a wanto
;s•awk on Miss Julia Harrieon, on the 17th of July last, In the City-
Tbe facts of this case were.as follow :—The young Lady,
w;:h her brothers and sister, were passing along the City-road, on,
their return.home, when the defendant, either purposely or froth
accident, pushed against her. The prosecutrix did not at first take
any notice of his rule behaviour, but wafted oh some distance,
hen the defendant again aime up to her, and committed the assault
complained of.
The charge wis fully brought home by the respective witnesses,
and the Jury found him Guilty.
DARING STREET ROBBERY.
Ilenry Thomas Jones was put to the bar on an indictment ebark
in him with stealing from the person of a Gentleman named
ilmot, a pocket-book, a silk handkerchief, and a pair of gloves,
his property, on 16th of August. The prisoner and his cons-
p3tilons were seen to follow, the prosecutor for a considerable dis-
tance up Holborn, until he tensed towards lied Lion-square, where
they effected the robbery, and ail got away, with the exception of
the prisoner.—The charge was fully proved, and he was found
Guiky.—The Conti: intimated that in consequence of his former
character, he must expect to leave this country.

Yesterday, G. Hicks, a solicitor, the Hon. and Rev. E.
Finch, and another, were indicted for obtaining 6,0001.
of Joseph Wilfred Parkins, under false pretences. The
charge arose out of an annuity transaction. The in-
dictment consisted of several counts, charging the
offence in various ways; but the counts upon which it
appeared the principal reliance was placed were those
which charged the defendants with failing to remove
certain incumbrances on the property in question, and
orr the, promise of removing which it was alleged the
money had been obtained from Mr. Parkins.
Mr. Hicks was the only defendant who appeared ; the
others, it was said, have never been in this country for
some time previous to or since the finding of the in-
dictment. Mr. Hicks was under bail, and gave notice to
the prosecutor of his intention to appear and take his trial.
Mr. ALLEY stated the case on the part of the prose-
cution. The defendant, together with the Honourable
E. M. Finch,_and another person not present, proposed
to Mr. Wilfred Parkins to advance 6,0001. on a certain
'vicarage and rectory in Warwiekshire, which were
alleged to be burthened with *slight incumbrance, but
which, in reality, never bad existence. Mr. Parkins was
ultimately induced to advance 6,0001. in Bank of Eng-
land notes. On these grounds the prisoner at the bar
Was charged with a conspiracy to defraud. Mr. Alley
went into a minute detail of the circumstances preced-
ing and attending . the commission of the offence ; the
principal persons charged with the conspiracy were the
prisoner Hicks, an attorney, Woollaston, and the Hon.
Edward M. l'inch, brother to a Nobleman. The two
latter were not in custody. Having explained the nature
of the principal charge to the Jury, Mr. Alley proceeded
to call witnesses to support his allegations.
Mr. Joseph Wilfred Parkins having beets sworn, was
asked whether he knew thedefendant Hicks? He said
I e had the misfortune to be acquainted with defendant.
Mr. Gomm—Pray, Mr. Parkins, abstain from epithets.
Mr. Aootrnus—Mr. Puking, I advised you before you went
into the box, not to answer more titan li asked.
Mr. Parkins—l will endeavour, Sr, but Ido not want to be its•
terrupted (to Mr. Gurney).
Mr..GURNEY—You will be interrupted, Sir; when it U proper.
Mr. Parkins resumed—
The witness stated that he was introduced to the pri-
soner by a Mr. Woollastou, in,the Park. The prisoner
informed witness that Woollaston was an eminent soli-
citor.' After some cursory conversation the parties
separated.. Witness met Hicks and Woollaston several
times afterwards, particalarlY at Hicks's house at dinner.
Sir Henry Tempest and several others were of the party.
At one of their social meetings, Sir Henry Tempest
urged the witness to adopt the business of lending
money on annuities—said that he himself bad disposed
of his money that way. The witness declared his dis-
inclination to follow the advice. Two or three days
after that period,.the prisoner and Woollaston called on
witness, and told him that the Honourable Mr. Finch
had inctimbered some Church livings and two lay
estates besides, by several annuities, and wished to ex-
change those several annuities for one large one. The
sum of the collective incumbrances amounted to 6,0001.
—They added, that if witness would advance the 6,0001.
to the Honourable Mr. Finch, to clear off these annui-
ties, he would receive a charge on the property of 6001.
per annum. Hicks took him to the Enrolment Office,
Chancery-lane, and having examined the books, stated
to witness there were no more incumbrances on the
property than those previously alleged
.by him. Wit-
ness having confidence in Hicks, gave him a cheque for
6,000/. on his bankers, .to ,be applied So the clearing of
the incumbrances. The cheque contained a direction
to the bankers not to pay the sum of the cheque until
the title deeds of the livings arid-estates should be de-
posited with them. Witness then left town, and on his
return having met Hicks and Woollaston, was informed
by them that the bankers refused to advance the sum of
the cheque; they suggested at the same time that the
motive of the bankers' refusal was a wish to retain in
their hands the 6,0001. for the use of which Mr. Parkins
required no interest. Witness, to convince them tbat he
had no doubt of their honour, gave them another cheque
for the same sum, 6,oool.—the cheque was sent to the
bankers'; the sum was sent back to.witness, who de-
livered it (six notes of 1,0001. each) to the prisoner
Hicks, Woollaston, and Finch. Certain papers were
then produced, which were alleged to be the title-deeds
of the livings and estates ; they were executed and sub-
scribed by Mr. Finch, in his presence, and retained by
Mr. Hicks, witness's solicitor, who declared that every
thing was correct. Part of the annuity was paid :
2,0001. or 90001. are now due to witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. Otinuay...—The annuity has
been paid up to December last ; these payments were
n,ade from the estate of Mr. Henry Finch, who was
surety for his brother, Mr. Edward Finch ; the cheques,
t,ll;ch he gave on the bankers are destroyed ; never had
tiy occasion to transact any business in the way of
auruities for Church Livings.—(Mr. Gurney here
handed a paper to the witness.)—Witness: The signa-
ture to that paper is w itness'shandwriting—(after some
consideration)—it was not his handwriting; the signa-
ture is his; he never saw it before; does not know how
his name happened to be attached to it ; he never sent
tbi) cheque to his bankers—(on consideration)—he did
send that cheque; remembers that in the beginning of
t!.e cross-examination. he swore that the cheques were
destroyed ; now he sees that this is one of them; swears
....at his bankers did not pay the slim of 6,0001. on the
presentation of this cheque; can swear that he was in
',own % hen the money was paid; thinks he was; to
the best of his recollection he was ; cannot positively
swear as to a particular date.
Cross-examination continued.—l paid it myself in
Hicks's office. I felt a repugnance to entering into the
business, because it was an annuity transaction. I had
bou4ht annuities before—( A laugh). It was in June
that I indicted Mr. Hicks. I had him taken up on a
Saturday. Bail was offered. There was another in-