Star.
London, England, 1802-02-23 00:00:00

athoufaml ways, filch as the alifenee of a mate.
is 11 witnefi.--perjury in thofe who Might be era-
mined—clefeCt in the record, and fo to an mullet's
variety, by which a prifoner might he acquitted,,
and might be entitled by the rules of law, to be
acquitted, and yet there might nut, morally
fpeaking, remain a particle of doubt of his guilt,
even by thole who were called upon by the rules
of law to pronounce him not guilty was
In clear and plain, that the contrary had newer
hcen afferted ; it had never becn alledgeJ, that be-
cattle a man is acquitted, it mull be taken, for
all moral purpofes, as well as legal rules, that he
is innocent, until Conic late State Trials, *hen thofe
who were brought as (inners and traitors from
their cells, to the BAT of a Court of Jußice, were
carried away from it as Saints and Patriots.—
" That every man is morally innocent, becaule
he is found Not Guilty," was a propofition, whieb
thole who aiferted it, repented of their audacity
afi er they were anfwered. It was indeed alledged
afterwards in another place, where its afferters
met no better fate, and to which he *ould not al-
lude anylorther. He could only fay it was a
propofition that was not to be found in any book
that ever was written upon the Law of England,
nor ever, until the time he mentioned, maintained
by the molt wild and extravagant airerter of un-
founded fentiments. It was a propofition for
which there was no fcintilla of reafon. He then
jultified the conduct of the mint on thefe profecu-
tioni, without which he faid thefe cafes could never
be brought to light, and maintained that the 1)e.
fendants ought to be found guilty.
Mr. Jake GROSE Rated the nature of this in.
diement to the Jury, which he faid was of great
importance to the public. Whether a witnelr. was
tampered with to prevent his going before a Judge
and Jury upon trial, or before a Gratid Jury upon
a bill of indidment, or before a Magiftrate upon
an accufation, the offence was highly dangerous,
and ought to be fuppreffid. This cafe was, there-
fore, important in that view. It was very im
portant in another view, as it related to the if-
fuing of bare coin. We all knew what fort of
coin we were continually fubjed to take. He bad
had Come reafon to be particular in this cafe.—
lie had feen men tried for this offence at the
Old Bailey. He had afterwards feen the fame per-
Cons tried for the fame offence in the Weft of Eng-
land, and part of the fame gang again in the Mid-
land Counties.—He knew that one perfon, who
liras le fee of many turnpike-gates, was concerned
in this infamous traffic, and by whore aid much
bafe coin had got into circulation, for which rea-
fon profecutions of this kind were certainly im-
portant. As to the practice of the Mint, he
thought it was made necerary, from the very ex:
traordinary circumftances of the traffic, kilt as
the Officers of Bow-greet had been made to go
out in a poft-chafe, to be robbed, for the purpofe
of apprehending fonts extraordinary highwaymen.
The Learned Judge then went through the whole
of the evidence, and left the cafe to the Jury, who
were to judge for themfelves.
The jury found all the defendants Guilty.
The Learned Judge faid, he was perfectly fa.
tisfied with their verdict. He then direlted that
the caafes which Rood in the Paper for to-mor-
row, thould come on as they Rand, and the re-
mainder of this day, to Rand over until Wednef.
day, and on Thurfday to go to Guildhall.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. ss.

effavos en ItOOPS.

This was an a&ion for goods fold and delivered
to the amount of xo4l. los. Koops, the defendan:,
is one of the oftenfible partners in the Neckinger
Mill Company, and in that capacity had dealings
with one Evans, who was both a flationer and a
Tog-merchants. The Neckinger Company had, pre-
vious to this tranfadtion, fupplied Evans with paper
to the amount of r6ol. on the receipt of which he
requefted they would take from him a quantity of
aUum, and (malts (a fpecies of blue) ; this, the
Neckinger Company agreed to do, up to that
amount for which the a6ion was brought. In the.
Mean time, the prefent plaintiff took from Evans
his whole flock in trade the allum and (malts
were delivered at different times at the houfe of
that Company, of which the defendant was a part-
ter; but when a general biU of parcels was given
of them in the name of the prefcnt plaintiff, the
vents of that company exprefred the utmoft fur-
prife, and declared that they knew nothing of the
plaintiff; that their agreement to take the allum
and fmalts was with Evans, who owed them i6ol.
for paper. and that they knew nothing at all of
Cheyne. in whole name this bill of parcels was
fent. The witneffes fur the plaintiff proved the Pale
and delivery of the goods; but confeffed that a
gentleman at the houfe of the Neckinger Com-
pany, expreffed his furprife at the bill of parcels
appearing in the name of Cheyne. the prefent
plaintiff
On the part of the defendant, it was [lron*
contended, that there was a manifeft collulion be-
tween plaintiff and Evans to defraud the Neckinger
Company; that that Company had agreed with
Evans to take thole goods from him, becaufe he
had taken paper from them to the amount of ifiol.
which they considered a part payment for the al-
him and funks, and that they conlidered they had
a right to let off this i6ol. againa the debt. tin
the defendant's producing a wands of the name
of Carpenter, to fuppoit his cafe, the witnefc was
Aced whether he was not a partner in the Neckin-
ger Company? he coafeffed he was, although in-
terefled in a very fmall degree, having but three
hares oat of two hundred. Upon this a confider.
able argument arofe refpeding his competency to
be a witnefs. Upon his part. he offered to releafe
that Company from any profit he might otherwife
have on this tranfailion • while, on the other hand,
the defendant undertook to releafe and indemnify ,
Lim from any lofs. It was contended by the plain-
tiff's Counfel, and ruled by the Court, that the
defendant's releafe could not completely defray
his intereft in this caufe, inafmuch as fhoirld the
verdid be againft the defendant, and defendant
was to become infolvent. the plaintiff would have
a remedy in equity again ft the Company, of which
the witsefs was a partner, and to the expence of
Viola lit vault contribute i and that a aloes in.