Star.
London, England, 1812-11-03 00:00:00

e probability-of bts knowing it to be stolen, or only
smuggled.
Winter's witnesses were then called :
George- Wilson stated, that be lived at Vauxhall :
had known the prisoner 20 years, and had always
heard him spoken of respectably.
Thomas Ingleton had known Winter 14 years: his
character was always very respectable.,.
Taylor's witnesses were then called :
Joseph Forrester, wine-merchant, Savage-gardens,
had known Taylor ten years, and said he was a very
honest man.
Thomas Rogers had known him eight years, and
said he was a steady, industrious character.
Allen's witnesses caret next :
William Hamilton. William Wilson, James Brown,
William Matway, and Andrew Anderson, gave him
character for honesty and industry.
Knox's witnesses followed :
Thomas Rounce, John Sedger, John Thout, Henry
Sampson, William Noddy, Thomas Ingleton, Ro-
bert Somers, and Henry Waistcoat, gave .Knox a
very high character for honesty and sobriety.
Cooper's witnesses were then called :
Mr. James Tatlock had been 30 or 40 years in the
silk line ; knows raw Valencia silk; said it was im-
possible to distinguish between different parcels of
such silk ; a great quantity of such silk had been
smuggled lately.—Cross examined by Mr. GURNEY—
said that he was Farrow's uncle.
Mr. Jones, of Aidgate, said, that he had known
Cooper fur some time, and had been employed by
liimin his business in the linen trade. He knew him
to have been a dealer in silk, as he had shewn him
samples in the month of May last, of raw silk, vthich
he wished him to dispose of.. He was a good cus-
tomer to him, but he was not able to give any de-
cided opinion respecting his character. This witness
on-his cross•examination, said, that this silk was of-
fered to him for sale by Cooper, but that on account
of the band-bills that mentioned a quantity Of silk
having been stolen, he refused to purchase any of it,
although he had no reason to doubt but that Mr.
Cooper was a respectable man.
The next witnesses who were produced for Cooper
were a person from the Custom-house, and the Soli-
citor of the Excise, who proved that Cooper had
often been prosecuted for violating the laws relative
to the Custom-house and Excise.
[The object of this evidence appeared to be, by
proving that he was connected in smuggling transac-
tion, to raise an inference that he did not know this
property to have been stolen.]
Mr. ADOLPHUS then, on the part of Harris, brought
forward several witnesses to character.
A person of the name of Fridelburgh, who des-
cribed himself as an occasional agent and accountant,
knew Mr. Harris to have been for a long time en-
gaged in the sale of silk. He had been engaged in
transactions of that sort with a person whose accounts
be had been employed to settle, and for whom he
. bad often translated, Mr. Sampson Pivana, of Arun-
del-street, in the Strand. Mr. Harris had a house in
• White Lion-street, where he transacted mercantile
business, before he became clerk to his brother, the
attorney. On his cross-examination, he allowed that
these transactions were about the time when Mr.
Pina'va was advertised as absconding from his cre-

ditors.
Mr, Dulakey, a surgeon and dentist ; Mr. Dowell,
a factor, and several other persons, gave him a good
character generally.
The defence was here closed.
The Jury having applied for permission to with-
draw, to take some refreshment, it was allowed them,
but the Judge intimated his wish that they should re-
tire but for a very short time.
CHAttHE.
The Learned Judge then, in a charge nhich occu-
pied :wee than four hours in the delivery, recapi-
tulated the vt hCle of the evidence. He began by ob-
serving, that this indictment had occupied their at-
tention for an unusual length of t;me, but for no
longer time than justice absolutely required. He
was happy to see that in the consciousness that they
were discharging an important duty to their coun-
try, they had cheerfully ,submitted to great priva.
tiens. The case now came before them for their de-
termination. .The indictment charged three of the
prisoners, Winter, Allen, and Taylor, with the capi-
tal felony of stealing those goods upon a navigable
river, the Thames. It charged two more of the pri-
soners, Ivey and Knox, as accessaries before the
act ; that is, of feloniously contriving and procuring
the prepetration of the acv to which they were thus
aiding and abetting. It charged the other two pri-
soners, Cooper and Harris, as accessaries after the
fact. They would observe, that the charge against
those accessaries, whether before or after the fact,
was not of that capital nature as the charge against
the other three for stealing the goods. This case had
disclosed as great a scene of iniquity as ever had pre-
sented itself to a Court of Justice. The story told by
the accomplices was a dismal tale of predetermined
guilt, of great contrivance in the execution of it, and
of tht most obstinate perseverance- in the guilty pur-
pose, until its full accomplishment, in spite of all
dangers or difficulties that lay in the way. The
charge against the prisoners must rest principally
upon the credit paid to the story of accomplices,
of which, indeed, there appeared, in the present
ease, to be a great number. The story told by ac-
complices always required Confirmation. It was
riot necessary, however, that there should be cir-
cumstances confirming every single fact related by'
them ; it was sufficient that important parts of their
story should be corroborated so far by circumstances,
as to make the Jury credit their story. Neither was it
necessary that circumstances should be fuund to core
roborate what they stated with respect to every indi-1
eidual party. Their story must be generally cone
finned by circumstances in order to give it sufficient
weight with the Jury. It Was absolutely, necessary,
to admit the testimony of accomplices to prevent the
total failure of justice. Crimes of this nature wire'
only contrived and perpetrated by bad men, and it
was therefore from them that the greatest light was
to be obtained upon those transactions. They were
not, however, to be believed, unless their testimony
was so far to be confirmed by circumstances as to •
snake their story believed. The Learned Judge then
recapitelated with great distinctness the whole of the
evidence on the part of the prosecution, and particu-
larly dwelt, in corroboration of the testimony of the
accomplices, on the evidence of Sayers, who was no