Star.
London, England, 1823-09-12 00:00:00

Mr. ALL': replied, that it was enough to state an
offence undir the Act.

Mr. ADOLPIIVS--44 An offence!—Goa bless the'
makers of such Acts!".
Mr. ALLST—" I lament them as much as youf
Mr. AnoLireu*-0 Every man of feeling must err
press his indignation at such odious Acts."
The witnesrthen stated, on her cross-examination,
that her sister was' a washerwoman.; and that having
, been at work until twilre o'clock at night, she went
in by. herself to the public-house in question, and, at
her earnest solicitation, she was served with a pint of
'beer.—Mr. ALLEY here closed his case.
Mr. Anocruus submitted, that as_the conviction

stated this to be a second offense, his Learned Friend
was bound to rove the asst; and he nottaving done
so, the conviction must be quashed.
Mr. AziLwr contended it was sufficient that the first
offence was, recorded in. the Magistrates' conviction.
Mr. ADotrtiva said, that would be an equally sul

Saint Magni for waving evidence of all the other eir.
eusastances of the case, ps the second offence WAS also
'recorded in the ,Magistrates conviction.
The Comm: held that it was necessary to prove the
' first 'offesice; and that not having been done, they
'ordeied the conviction to be quashed.
Mr. ADOLPH US cautioned the defendant to be on
his guard, as this was intended as the second step to,
wards his ruin; and a third conviction would be
lowed by a penalty of 1001. and the forfeiture of his,
license, which was aimed at by some persons.

TIRE KING R. WM. MILLARD.
This was an appeal from a conviction before Mr.
Wyatt, under the new Vagrant Act.
Mr. LAW opened the case in support of the con-
♦iction, which took place, he said, in consequence of
the appellant having been taken at one o'clock in
Morning, in company with another man in the burial
ground of the London Hospital, having a shovel and
sack ►n their possession,and not being able to give a
satisfactory reason for their being these. It was nos
a pleasant sight for the patients of the Hospital,
whose lamps of life were burning fast, to witness
gentlemen of this description hovering about, for the
purpose of snatching them away to the dissecting_
house as soon as they should have ceased to breathe.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the defendant.—The patients
could not see them at one o'clock in the morning.
Mr. LAw continued.—So far from his Learned
Friend's observation being correct, the patients did
see them, and one of them it was who actually se-
cured the defendant's companion, in spite of the vio-
lent use he made of the shovel iu resisting. The
Learned Gentleman then called

Samuel Hicks, who stated that he was house-por-
ter at the London Hospital. A body was interred in
the burial-ground on the Wednesdoy morning, and
on that night, the night of Thursday, and on Friday
night, the defendant was seen lurking about the place..
The witness was proceeding to detail the way in
4hich the appellant was taken, when
Mr. A.neLPFFU9 said he would admit the facts to
•be as stated by Mr. Law. He then proceeded to
argue that the words in the ACt of Parliament, " if
he shall not be,able to- give a good account of him. '
self," kc. must be taken strictly to mean a good ac-
count of himself generally, and not a good account of
tsh,y lie is Mere ? The Act was, in any sense, a most
oppressive one ; but it would be still more so if it
were to receive the construction' necessary to sup•
port this conviction. Suppose that he (Mr. Adolphus),
were to live in the neighbourhood of a Magistrate,
and to be a man of property, and known as such to
the Magistrate. Suppose he were found by this Ma-
gistrate in his yard at night, and asked by him what
brought him there ? He might say, " Really, to tell
you the truth, Sir, I am hereto kiss your wife's maid."
Upon which the Magistrate, although he knew him
to be a respectable man, and a man of property,
might, if he pleased, reply," That, Sir, is not a good
account of yourself, under the meaning of this Act of
Parliament, and I will send you as a vagrant to the
tread-mill." Such would be the effect of his Learned
Friend's construction : he would leave every man in
the community at the mercy of a Magistrate, what..
ever might be his caprice-, his malice, or his erroneous
sense of:justice, abstracted from the influence of these
feelings ; and completely destroy the protection af-
forded by trial by Jury. He granted that his client
could not give a good account of why he was in this
enclosure os the night in question.; but the Actoaly
required that .he should give " a good account of
himself," and that he was able to do ; for he could
thew that he was the proprietor of a good house,
paying scot
.and . lot, and well known in his parish,
and therefore amenable to the law if he committed
any trespass, and that must be taken to be all the Act
contemplated. The Learned Gentleman was then
about to call witnesses to chew that the defendant was
a householder, am. when
Mr. LAW said that he would admit all that. He
then went on to reply to Mr. Adolphus's argument. He'
contended that it never could be construed to be the
meaning of the Act, that when a person was detected
in an enclosure at .night, under suspicious circum.
stances, if be could shewhe was a householder, that
was to be considered sufficient explanation. Ira man
was detected, for instance, in an enclosed yard, with
picklock keys and other instruments for *housebreak.
ing in his possession, was it enough to say that he was
owner of a good house ?: It was of the suspicious cit.
Futustalwas under which be. was found there that the
Act required. an explanation. The defendant was
detected in an enclosed burial-ground under circum-
stances pointing .at an intention to commit an indict-
able misdemeanour; and be was therefore called upon
to give a good account of himself. It was no an-
:wee .on his_part to sey be had a good house; that he
had sold his aubjetts well; that he bad datives. by his.
iniquity. He was called upon to account for his
being there in an enclosedkurial-gtound at midnight;
to account for having scaled a ten feet wall; to wins
count for the shovel, for the sack, for lis being feneid9
like one ofthose animals that feed on carrion, "WA;
new made.grave. This was what he was selseeenit
by the Act-to account for; and not being able tolusi
so, be was convicted of vagrancy, which conviction'•
he humbly subititted the Court would confirm.
Some misunderstanding prevailing as to the facts
which had been admitted, witnesses were called who
proved the statements made by Counsel on bath
sides: one of these for the appellant adding, that be
(the appellant) was employed in the leoture,room nes
der SirA.Cooper, bathe could not say in what manner.
The COURT confirmed the judgment of the Magi*•
trate, sentencing the defendant to three months' Par
finement and hard labour.
Mr. Anosraus—Well ; it is time to leaveEnglanl.
Mr. LAW—Recollect, I haw:cooly defended the con.
victims under the Act; I bayonet been compliment.
ing the Act itselE
Ifir.Anosenue—No; nor would any man of comp
Von sense in the world. or
The prisoner, when taken away bylthe officers, was
assailed by the mob, who saluted him with dirt and •
saw-dust in great abundance; and it was even with
some difficulty that the officers could protect him
from more violent manifestations of their indignation.
Several convictions against bakers, for selling light.
Thread, were confirmed. •