Star.
London, England, 1822-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.'

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 34.
SLEE V. FAGG.•

This was an action tried before the CHIEF Joarica,
at Guildhall, and was brought by the plaintiff, a
banker, at Christchurch, to recover from the defend-
ant, the proprietor of the Pool Mail, the value of a
parcel containing bank-notes of the plaintiff's bank,
amounting to £1,305, which had been sent from Lon.
don by Messrs. Rogers, bankers, to the plaintiff, on
the Ist of December, 1819, by defendant's coach, and
lost on the passage. By the evidence at the trial 'it
appeared, that it had been the custom for the plain-
tiffs to have parcels of notes sent from their corres-
pondents in London to Christchurch, by the defend-
ant's coach. The parcel in question was sent on the
above day, addressed, as usual, to R. Angier, Esq.
Christchurch ; and on the parcel was written, " By
the Pool Mail* On the following day, early in the
mining, a vast number of the plaintiff's notes were,
presented at Messrs. Rogers's, and paid ; and it was
soon after discovered that they were the notes which
had been sent to defendant's office the night before,
to be forwarded to Christchurch, but which had never
reached its destination, having been purloined either
before or soon after it left town. This discovery led
to an inquiry at the defendant's office, when, on era-
mining the books and way-bill, it was found that
no such parcel had been sent by the Pool Mail ; but,
on further inquiry, it was found to have been booked
for the Southampton light coach, of which the de-
fendant was also proprietor. Upon this discovery
the present •action was brought, on the ground that
the defendant had been guilty of a breach of con-
tract, by sending the parcel by the Southampton light
coach, instead of the Pool Mail, as directed, and had
therefore rendered himself liable.,-The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £1,050, the amount
of the stolenp notes presented at, and paid by, Messrs.
Rogers, the bankers.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on a former day, ob-
tained a Rule to shew cause why this verdict should
not be set aside, on the grounds that there was a
notice in the defendant's office, and on the tickets
which they issued, that they would not be answer-
able for any parcel of greater value than ES ; and
that it was a fraud on the defendant to send such a
parcel of Bank-notes as a common parcel; and fur-
ther, that there was gross negligence on the part of
the plaintiff's agents, Rogers and Co. in paying
notes to the amount of £1,050 immediately after
having sent a parcel of notes to the plaintiff, and the
sum being so much larger in amount than they had
ever paid on account of the plaintiff in one day before.
Me4cTS. SCARLET?, MARRYATT, and POLLOCK,
HOW chewed cause against the Rule, and in support.
of the verdict, on the ground that it was supported
by the fact of the defendant having broken his special
contract, which was, to send the parcel by the Pool
snail. Mr.J. PARK was now heard further in support
of the Rule.

The COURT, however, were of opinion, there were
nogrounds for a new trial, and the rule was discharged.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS:

Yesterday, the following prisonets were convicted
of capital offences, viz.—lf ilium Jones, aged fifteen,
for a burglary, and stealing eleven table-cloths, &c.
•alue 40s, the property of James Green; and 1.41-
tia Williams, aged 62, for stealing a watch, &c. va-
lue E 6, in the dwelling. house of Margaret Wylie.
William Lyon was indicted for stealing, on the 6th
ult. in the house of Arabella Watson, a quantity of
silver spoons, forks, and other plate.
Mr. Baker, a pawnbroker, in George-street, Port-
man-square, stated, that the prisoner offered to pledge
two dessert forks for 12s. at his shop, and when asked
his address, he at first said No. 9, and afterwards No.
6, Brown-street. This prevarication induced the
witness to suspect him, and he sent his assistant to
make enquiries. While he was gone, the prisoner ran
out of the shop, and witness pursued and brought
him back. He was given over to a constable, who
found in his pockets the duplicates of the other ar-
ticles named in the indictment, which had been
pledged the same day in other shops.
Miss Watson deposed, that the prisoner had lived
with her, as footman, about three weeks prior to the
robbery. She identified the articles produced. She
was out of town when they were stolen.
The Couston SERJEANT complimented Mr. Baker
on his conduct, and charged the Jury that there was
no proof of property to the amount of 40s. having been
taken at any one time.

The Jut y found the prisoner Guilty of stealing to
the value of 395, and the COMMON SZRJIANT sen-
tenced Mini to seven years' transportation.
John Croker, aged nineteen, was capitally indicted
for stealing apparel, &c. value four pounds, in the
house of Joseph Solomons.
Solomons is a furrier in Whitechapel, and the pri-
soner was bis apprentice. He had repeatedly missed
articles, and turned away several servants ou sus-
picion. On the fd inst. while with his wife at the
house of a friend, a younger apprentice informed him
that the prisoner had robbed the house and run away.
He went-hcre and found that a new hat, trowsers,
&c. which he had left in his sitting-room, were stolen.
The prisoner was soon taken with the property in
his possession, and it was discovered that he was the
thief on the former occasions.
The prisoner, in his detente, said, his master and
persuasion, and had a
"ould not work on a
mg under the
to be trans-

.147:\A •

Foley. aged MS. for •5t......-11°'•11111711itafgalklreleideared t*l
be transported for seveipNirs); *oged 53, for
IZT(Ike was sent moot en he I 144 snotsths in the i
Convetims); Charles Ftedslish Setts, tired Is, for
Stealing a book (he was sentenced to be Melanadicharged) ;
William Bentley. aged 48, for stealing elis spoons, etc. (he was
sentenced to be transported for seven years); John Glew, aged
IS, fir stealing a watch, &e. George Williams, aged is, for
stealing a watch; John Sweeney, aged It,• for stealing a coat ;
Susannah Leake' aged IT, for stealing two sheets ; and Eliza
Barton, aged 44, for stealing three sovereigns.
When the London Jury entered their box, the two
shopmen of Carlile, who pleaded not guilty on Sa-
turday night, were placed at the bar, and said they
wished to retract their traverse, and to take their
trials that evening.
The COSMOS Saltiest/v.—You have traversed already; the
Court will not be played with. What is the ease?
Mr. ADOLSIIOS.It Is for selling a blasphemous libel.
Defendants—May we be permitted to bail?
The Common Szazzawr.—Yes ,• yourselves in £lOO and two
sureties in £5O each; and it will be requisite for you to give 48
hours notice to sir. Murray.
The two persons were then removed from the bar.

Holmes, and the unknown man, were then
put to the bar, when the unknown said, he wished to
have the indictment read, which was done; when the
Clerk of the Arraigns said, are you Guilty or Not
Guilty ?—Man unknown—How does it apply to me;
there is no name.
COMMON SER./ EA NT.—Are you Guilty Or Not
Guilty ? If you think the concealing your name will
be of service to you, you are much deceived, The
charge applies to you. Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?
The man made no reply. The Coramox &Riga NT I
then said, the Court will give you till after the next
vial to consider. If you do not then plead, you must
take the consequences, of which I•thall not tell you
now. Holmes, have you chosen to take your trial
now, or travere it till next Session ?—Holtnes. I must
consult with my Attorney.
The COMMON StRJEANT.•—•YOU must not think to
jest with the Court; will you take. your trial now or
next Session?
The prisoner wished to see Mr. Harmer; and that
Gentleman's clerk consulted with him some minutes,
when Holmes, addressing the Court, said, I wish to
traverse till next Session.—Both the prisoners were
then removed from the bar.

At nine o'clock, while the Jury were absent, consi-
dering their verdict in a case of perjury, Mr. ADOL-
PHUS applied to the Court to again call up the un-
known. ' The Court consented. When he appeared,
and was asked if he would plead ? he wished to give
his reasons why he had not pleaded before ; but the
Court would not hear him; and, after some argu-
ment, he was remanded. A motion was afterwards
made by Mr. PRENDERGAST, that Holmes might
retract his traverse, and be allowed trial this Session.
The Court refused the application, and thus the case
at present stands.

mistress. were of the Jewish persuasion, and ha
1 ' spite agaiti'st him,because he would not work a
Sunday. He was found Guilty of stealing under
value Of 40s. and immediately sentenced .to be tr:
Do , ted for seven years.
• Ths feypwins wore also convicted of felony, vis.—Ji
•
•