Star.
London, England, 1824-11-02 00:00:00

tai) h AILEY-THIS DAt.

NEW COURT.
FAUNTLEROir. ,
This morning it was notified to the Fiacoit Dia, by the
Counsel for Mr. Fauntleroy, that they intended, on his
being brought up to receive sentence, to move an arrest
of judgment. Messengers were therefore dispatched
to inform the Judges of the circumstance, their labours
having terminated with the trials last evening, as it is
absolutely necessary that they should be present to de-
cide upon the points of law raised in Mr. Fauntleroy's
favour.—At eleven o'clock, the RECORDER gave notice
to the officers of the Ohl Bailey that he should, con-
trary to the usual custom, pass the sentence on the con-
victs in the New Court, which; is much more capa-
cious than the old one. After the trials wet e over in
the old Court, it continued to be thronged, as few per-
sons were let into the secret, and we noticed many re-
spectable persons anxiously waiting with the hope of
seeing Mr. Fauntleroy. At twelve o'clock, the New
Court was crowded to exces, and the bench and bar
were filled with persons of tank and character. The
greatest anxiety was manifested for the arrival of
the Judges, who had not entered the Court when our
Paper went to press.
William Enews stood indicted for wilful and corrupt
rerjury, in swearing a false affidavit in the Vicar-Gene-
ral's Office, Doctors' Commons, on the 16th of August,
fur the purpose of obtaining a license cf marriage with
Johanna Cooper, spinster, aged 16 years.
The indictment was preferred by the Guardians (the
mother and tam) of the young Lady.
Mr. ADOLPHUS stated the case to the Jury. The of-
fence was the same as that tried last night, in which a
person named Mullny was defendant. He called tl-e a:-
tention of the Jury to the 2d and sth counts of the indict.
ment, charging the defendant w ith the abduction of the
young Lady, by inveigling her from the protection of
her guardians, and marrying her without their vansent;
and with swearing that the young Lady was of the age
of 21, and that they had resided for 15 days last past
in the palish of St. Andrew's, Holborn. The Learned
Counsel then detailed the circumstances under which
the elopement took place ; which were precisely the
same as stated by the Learned Counsel on the former
trial. The parties met. at Stow market Fair in July last,
and again, on August 15th, at Ilanleton Church, from
whence they set off in a post-chaise for London, where
they arrived, on Augost 16th, and on the following
day they were married at St. Andrew's Church, Hol-
born. Evidence of the swearing of the affidavit, by
the defendant, and the issue of the license, was given.
The Sexton of the parish of Sr. Andrew's, Holborn,
proved that the defendant was the person who married
Miss Johanna Cooper, spinster, on the 17th August
last, by license, which he produced. -1
Cross•exaniined.--Miss Cooper appeared to be about
'twenty years of age ; he would not swear she did not
appear to be twenty-one years of age.
Evidence was then called, proving that the young
Lady was only fifteen years of age last March, and
that the defendant had sworn falsely, when he made
affidavit that he resided 15 days in St. Andrew's, Holborn.
The guardians were called, and deposed they did not
give consent to the marriage. One of the guardians,
named Hanson, on cross-examination said, that he was
also an Attorney.
Mr. PRENDERGAST said, that this proceeding was
'equally hoimurable to him in either character.
Other evidence was given, proving that the defendant'
was a grocer at Ipswich, and that he bore an excellent
character. Mr. ALLEY addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and inveighed in forcible language against the
spit it that had manifested itself on the part of the pro-
secutors. He denied that the defendant was aware the
young Lady would be entitled to property, on that she'
was not of the age of 21 years. Witnesses were called
to 'character. The Jury fund the defendant Guilty.

OLD COURT, NOV. i.

Catherine Emanuel, an extremely interesting young
female, was indicted for stealing a gold watch, two
gold seals, a gold ring, and a gold key, the property
of Jacob Fletcher. _ _ _

Mr. Fletcher, an eminent manufacturer at Manches-
ter, stated in substance, that on Thursday last he had
been dining with some ft iends, and that at half-past 12
on that night he accompanied the prisoner to a house
in Shire-lane, where he missed his watch and seals, and
charged the prisoner with stealing them. .She denied
her guilt, but said that another girl had stolen it, and
she would try to get it again. The prosecutor let her
p for that purpose, and in a few hours she brought
him the duplicate of it. The prosecutor applied to the
pawnbroker, and fottnd that he had the watch. And
the only thing at all tending to criminate the prisoner
was, that the pgusecutor stated that he had locked the
room.dodr beide he missed his watch; and after it was
lost, he found the door unlocked and bolted on the in-
side, he having been asleep in the meantime. The pro-
secutor admitted that he had been drinking, but was
nc t drunk.

Stanley Crowder, an apprentice to Mr. Wassel, pawn-
broker, in Picket t-street,Ternple-bar, produced the watch,
lie stated that it had been paned by a man, who said
that his name was Parker. _ _

The prisoner; in her defence, said that the other girl
had taken the watch, and that she got it back again.
Mr. Justice PARE observed, that this robbery took
place in one of those houses in Shire-lane, which, to his
great surprise, the Magistrates suffered to go on in the
way in which they had done; but his Lordship left it to
the Jury to say whethet they did not think that the pro.
secutor, who appeared to be a highly respectable per-
son, was not in such a state of intoxication when he
Went into such a place as Shire-lane, as not to be ter-
taw as to the locking of the room door ?—Not
Mr. CARRINGTON applied to the Learned Mge to
have the watch restored to the prosecutor.
The pawnbroker's apprentice wished to get the mo-
ney they had lent on it ; but the Learned Judge decided
that the prosecutor was entitled to his watch, and that
the pawnbroker must lose his money.
John Mulloy, an extremely respectablelooking young
man, was indicted for perjury.
The perjury charged was, that the defendant swore
in an affidavit made before Dr. Daubeny, Surrogate of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of ob-
taining a license to marry Catherine Cooper, that he
had resided fifteen days in the parish of St. Andrew,
Holborn; whereas he had in fact only resided there
part of three days; and that he further swore, that he
knew of no lawful impediment to his marriage with
Catherine Cooper, whereas in fact she was only sixteen
years of age, and lie knew that her guardians disap-
proved of the match.
Miss Cooper was in Court, her appearance was gen-
teel, but completely that of a child. It appeared that
t. .e defendant bad been apprenticed to a builder, and

twat just out of his apptenticeship, and that Miss Cooper
was entitled to the rum of 5001. on her marriage, and
i,sdol. more on the death of her father. All the parties
resided at Ipswich, and the defendant became acquainted
with her at a fair ; a shower of rain overtook them on
their way home, and the defendant procured a past-
chaise, took Miss Cooper to London, and married her
under the license obtained on the affidavit in question.
It was proved that he swore this affidavit before Dr.Dau-
beny, and that it was false in the particulars above stated.
The Colimok SERJKANT, in charging the Jury, threw
out the counts which alleged " enticing and inveigling"
the young Lady, because, in the first place, this was too
loose for the legal definition of an offence against the
Statute; and, moreover, those counts incorporated a
charge of " well-knowing" that she was entitled to
1,5001. portion, of which knowledge there was no evi-
dence before the Jury. There was only one count which
was stated with sufficient accuracy, and supported at
the same time by evidence, to ground a charge of per-
jury upon ; and the fifth count alleged false swearing,
which, strange to say, might not be perjury in law.—
Upon these two counts only, had the Jury to decide.
The Jury retired at fifteen minutes past ten o'clock,
and returned at five minutes past eleven o'clock. They
pronounced the defendant Guilty of perjury/ on one
count of the four which alleged it ; Not Guilty on the
other three; and Guilty of false swearing on the fifth.
The defendant, who had hitherto been at large, now
took a sorrowful leave of his friends and relations who
were about him, and gave himself up to the custody
of the jailer.