Star.
London, England, 1822-12-03 00:00:00

IDDLESEX SESSIONS,

THE MG e. awn's.
This was an indictment against the defendant,
charging him with embezzling certain parish monies,
While filling the public office of Overseer of the Parish
of Poplar from March, 1821, to March, 1822. The .
indictment was of great length, and contained agreat
variety of counts. •
The defendant had filled the office of Overseer far
the Parish of Poplar on a year previous to 1.821, and
had received the thanks of the Vestry for his condo&
—He had in consequeoce•been a second time Shown
for the office, and it was not until the second e/ectieri
that any suspicions attached tbliim. The principal
witness, and the first examined on the part of the
prosecution, was Mr. Horne, the Vestry Clerk of the
Parish of Poplar. He proved that he had examined
the books of the defendant, and,the account delivered'
in by him, and had found that, in the fist quarter,
the sum of 2541. was swelled to an amount exceeding
6001. Inquiries were Made, and strong suspicion fell
upon the defendant in consequence, that he had em-
bezzled the public money. In his cross-examination
the witness admitted that he had • once burrowed of
Mr. Richie, while Overseer, the sum of 501. and was
three or four times applied to for the money before
he returned it.

The other witnesses called for the prosecution (with
the exception of William Smith, the parish beadle)
were paupers, fathom the defendant, in his accounts,
had said he had relieved. The indictment contained
a list of 224 paupers, whom th• defendant had stated
he had relieved, but only eight of these were called.
Some of them proved that they had received no parish
relief from the defendant, anti others, that the mancy
they had received was much below what the defend-
ant had stated he had given. It appeared, however,
that some had received relief from the Parish Hall,
although not peisonally from the defendant. 'lsivii
of the witnesses were very vehement in their man-
ner of giving evidence; and another (John Dris-
coll) being asked how many childrente had, said he
could not tell: He had only one to support himself.
.Mr. ADOLPHUS spoke at great length for the de-
fendant, and commented upon the very weak -evi-
dence which had been produced on the part of the
prosecution. In the parish of Poplar there were be-
tween 3000 and 4000 paupers annually to be relieved,
and it was impossible for the defendant now to be
prepared with an answer to the eight cases out of 224
which had been proved by, the prosecutors. Fre-
quently 30 or 4.0 paupe, s, and sometimes 100, sir-
rounded the defendant's door at once, and he was
compelled on the instant to satisfy the demands of
all. The defendant, besides other disadvantages, had
been deprived of his books, and thus all power of
replying to the foul charges brought against him was
entirely taken away.
Many respectable witnesses gave the defendant a
good character : Verdict—Not Guilty.

SURREY SESSIONS, DECEMBER 2.

Two toll collectors of Vauxhall Bridge, named
Menzies and Bennet, and a Bow-street pat: 01, named
Turner, wete charged with having committed an
outrageous assault upon Mr. Phillips, a coal-mer-
chant,ppotielearredw
ittrmiolessetsh,etehvaitdeonncesoufnNdlary.
,Pthhiel l ilp4st
hanodf
residing in Seale-street.
thrleeta
July last, he was going at between nine and ten at
night along Vauxhall Bridge, with his wife, two
children, and his friend Mr. Lyons. It was proved
clearly that the toll was paid for all the party, but
ADMIRALTY SESSIONS, DEC. 2. the defendant seized Mr. Phillips's son, who is a
ANCIENT PRIVILEGES. cripple, roughly, and threw him from the gate, say-
When the names of the Gentlemen summoned to ing that he had not paid the toll. Mr. Phillips re-
serve on the Petty Jury were about to be called over, monstrated against the brutal conduct of Menzies,
Mr. HOLLAND rose to address the Court, and said, and requested that the child might be allowed to pass,
he appeared on behalf of the inhabitants of the Pte- as his toll was paid. Menzies replied, in the most in-
ciuctsolent manner, " IC: a lie, and he shan't pass." Mr.
of Whitefriars (several of whom, to the number
of sixteen, had been summoned to serve as Jurors Phillips paid twice, but requested to know Menzies
under this Commission), for the purpose of claiming name, but it was not bung up on the.outside of the
exemption from such service. As their Lordships toll-hottse, as required, and the defendant insisted
well knew, that Precinct, up to the time of the alis- uporthaving that of Mr. Phillips before he gave his.
solution of the Monasteries, in the reign of Henry Mr. Phillips gave his card,'but the defendant, in
VIIL was inhabited exclusively by religious persons the most insulting manner, threw it in the road..-
,of the order of White Friars, who, of course, were ex- Mr. Phillips then endeavoured to get into the toll-
'empted from any service Of this kind. When .the house to obtain the name; but the other collector,
dissolution of Monasteries took place,the Precinct was Bennet, came out, and both seized him, shook, and
occupied by Lay inhabitants, to whom, is a Charter struck him against the Jails: Whilst they held him,
subsequently granted to the City of London, several they called out " Constable, constable, take this fel-
exclusive privileges were awarded—such as exemption
low into custody;" when the defendant Turner made
from serving as Constables, and in other parochial his appearance in asuman', and, without making
i
offices. In the seventh year of the reign of William inquiry into the merits of the case, at once struck
111. a cause was tried in which were two issues,- viz. Mr. Phillips a dreadful blow on the head with his
whether the Precincts of Blackfriars and Whitefriars staff of office, which made him bleed profusely. Mr.
were in St. Dunstan 's Parish, and whether they were Lyons interfered for the protection of his friend, but
in the City of London; and the finding was, that they met with the same treatment. Both were hurried to
were neither in St. Dunstan's nor in London, but were the watch house, where they were Charged with hay-
assaulted and obstructed the toll-collectors in the
distinct and separate Precincts. The Learned Gen- ing
eleman added, that the persons summoned were in execution of their duty. The guardian of the night
refused to take any charge against his friends, Ilse
attendance, and prepated to serve; but they had felt
it their duty first to make this application to the Court defendants, and Mr. Lyons and Mr. Phillips were
in support of an important privilege. compelled to leave thiir watches as security for their
Lord StsViettitsked Mr. Shelton, if there would appearance before the Magistrates. • At the Police
be Juror: sufficiegt without the Geadensea sum- U e the defendants swore strongly to the asseq)t,
mama from Whitefriars? anti WaMitateßated in the and the prosecutors were obliged to find bail. A bill
affirmatives Ilia Lordship) having.cansehed with the was preieired against them before die Gland Ju?y,
other Judges, said—" e will not call upon these 11111 it was with the greatest ditfi elb
cuhy that they :
Gentlemen to serve now, but this mist not be tonal- -tabatti their proper situation as prosecutors. .
dertd as an allowance of tht4f thrift of exemption. Alm Jury found the defendants .all Guilty of the
We do not decide upon the questionsow;" .-,i ... assault von Alr. Phillips and afterwards convicted
The Grand ineveaans ins Gout 'w upp.bust tilicres.and Bennet of an it'aliAllil lIA)01,1 Mr. Lyons.

Mr. Serjeant HULLoCK, for the defendant May,
shortly addressed the Jury. There was not, he sub-
mitted, a tittle of evidence to affect his client. Even
supposing the other defendant to have acted illegally,
still there was no ground of charge against May,
unless it [could be proved that he sanctioned and
concurred in it.

Mr. Justice P.tax summed up the evidence, and
the Jury, after having retired from Court for three
quarters of an hour, gave a verdict for the defendants.

II

rWa l.!Minr. "t• ••••••1 • •