Star.
London, England, 1802-09-15 00:00:00

CLERKEN WE LL SESSIONS.

- lit( as's HA ot...;—Yeiterday Jana Valiance, a
Cullom Houle officer, was indifted upon two in-
dielments, for having, on the 24th of June
allaulted George Cowan and Robert Warwick,
both of them Officers of the Police of the River
Thames.

Mr. Pooctr, nn the part of the profecution,
Rated, that it originated not from the refentment
of the ind;viduals who had been afraulted, but from
a fcnfe of duty on the part of the Magillrates of
the Thames Police, who conceived themfelveg

bound to proteCt their officers from violence and
affaults, whatever quarter they might come from.
The Learned Counfel then explained the nature
of the Police Ettablithment of the River Thames
(which was inaituted principally for the proteCtion
of the property of thrmerchaths againit plunder)
and Hated, that on the night of the z.i.th of June
laft, as their officers, Cowen and Warwick, were in
their boat, in the regular execution of their duty,
. the defendant, wtho now appears to be a Cullom-
.houfe officer, came up in his boat, and infitted on
rummaging their boat; when afked by Mt.
Cowen who he was, or what authority he had, he
_would give no other anfwer than " I am your mat-
ter, and will examine you whenever I like."—
The Police officers then refilled him admitlion in-
to their boat, and the defendant attempted to force
in, and (truck Warwick a violent blow in the face, I
which knocked him down. Seeing him fall, he
then attempted to get away, but was fecured at.
ter a contiderable refiftance, and having puthed
Mr. Cowen nearly into the water.
Mr. Cowen confirmed the ftatement of the
Learned Counfel ; he faid that he Wpeatedly
ed the defendant, " Who are you ?—What is your
'bufinefs ?" The defendant would never make any
other reply than, " I am your mailer; I will come
on board you whenever 1 like ;" nor would he
produce any authority except holding up the cafe
in which was the paper appointing him a Cuftom-
houfe officer.,The Police officers thee, with Tome
difficulty, fecund him, but not until he had alfo
violently affaulted Mr. Cowen.
Rbbert Warwick confirmed the evidence of Mr.'
.Cowen in every point.
Mr. Trevallion faid, that he came up in his
boat, while the Police officers had the defendant
in caftody ; he heard Mr. Cowen fay feveral
times, in the pretence of the defendant, that he
had ofied his name, and who he was, and that he
would not tell him; the defendant neither eon-
tradifted him, nor told his name in his pretence.
Mr. HeowLis, ou the part of.the defendant, re-
prefented this as a very trilling and trumpery pro-
fecution, as a difpute between Cnltomboufe obi-
.
,fficer•

cers and Police of irs, both( of them aging pro•
bably according ,to-what they conceived to be their
duty, and neither of them, perhaps, undernanding
unaly their jurifdiaion or their powers. Thede-
fendant, who was a Cu(tom•houfe officer, had a

right to examine any boat that he conceives might
hate ftnogglcd fug,: as board ; and if when main
• legally, he thould be refined by. force, he had a
right alto to ufe force ; the queftion he thought
the Jury thould principally attend to, was, Whe-
ther, when the Police officers taw the defendant
come up in a Cuaom-houfe boat, and as with the
authority of a Cullom-hoofe officer, even although
be did not produce his authority, he thould be
oppofed ? The Learned Counfel then undertook
to prove that the defendant had exprefsly declared
bitufelf to be a Cuftorn-houfe officer before the

fcuffie began.
Jonathan Wife, a Cullom-houfe officer, Ration.
'ad in a chip within hearing, declared, that the de-
fendant did fay that he was a Revenue Officer;
before the riot took place.
Mr. Young, who was the Cullom Houfe Sur.
•eyor of that diftrid, declared that the defendant
was a well concluded man, and as perfedly fober
at that time.

The Chairman (Mr. MAIKWARING) Paid that.,
this profecution by no means appeared to him a
trifling or a trumpery profecution, as the defen-
dant's Counfel had termed it ' • the principle of it
involved eve: y perfon then in Court, and it was a
tatter of public interell to afcertain, whether every
Inkjet% has not a right to refill any rode andviolent
attempt, to exatnine • his perfon or his bottle by
any fellow pretending to be an Ercife or Cullom-
houfe °Seer, bat declining to tell his name, or
produce his authority when called upon ? It ap-
peared to him to be a queflion ofgreat importance
to the liberty and fecurity of the rubjeet. The
Chaitnun then recapitulated the evidence, to the
jtiry, who, after a short deliberation, found the
defendant—Guilty.
Mary Smith alias Thaler, was indicted fur per-
jury, in having fworn before a. Magiftrate, that
the faw, at Uxbridge on the 7th of September, eight
pallingers on the roof of the coach from Worcef-
.
tcr to-London.

. Mr. SYLVISTER (the Common Serjeant) !Fated
the cafe on the part of the profecution. From the
particular circumaances in which this coach left
Worcefler, he could moil pofitively coati:Z(2 the
Defendant in point of fait, by more than two wit-
:titres. The coach had been taken that day by the
Gaoler of Vtrorcefter, for the conveyance of Con-
Prifotters up to town; the Prifoners were dif-
tiibuted in die following manner:—four in the
body of the coach, accompanied by the Gaoler;
tour on the roof, accompanied by a perfon to
.)verfee them ; and four men in the bafket ; they
were all chained, and cor.fequently unable to quit
the places they were put in. •
The fir* piece of evidence that was produced,
was the cenvittion of the coachman upon the evi-
dence of the Defendant.
The information upon which tl)e fail convic-
tion was obtained, was alfo produced, but not
being proved,
At.l.ar, on the part of the Vifendant,,ob-.
jetted that, in point of law, it was Aforately ne-4,
cdrary tblitirre the information en. Which the
conlnallintrunorobalsoi, as welt aj tiMstittion
tliht itfelf; 'as itit tbotdd• there
svantairdhlitrirregulary titit3o2±lible Ihe

This objedion produced an argumeht which
lafled nearly two hours; but was at length over-
ruled by the Magiftrates.
A Clerk of the Police Office then proved the
fignature of the Defendant to her examinations,
Which were then read, to contradid which,
William Davis, Gaoler of Woreefter, faid, that
he bad taken die carriage that day, and bad Peen
the Prifoners placed in it; that l!-_fat in the infide
of the carriage, but kept a conftant look out, and
never faw -eight perfous on the roof, as Hated by
the Defendant.
Mr. Wilkinfon, an Under-Gaoler, fat on the
roof, to look after the prifoners there and in the
baiket, and did not recoiled any other perfon to
come on the roof excepting himfelf-and the four
I:trifoners under Lis care. Upon his crofs-exami-
nation he admitted, that another perfon might
have come upon the box, but he could not fay
•
pofitively-v:bether it was lb or not.
Laucafter, the coachman, faid pofitively that
no perfon did come upon the roof of the coach
from Worcefler to London, except the Under-
Gaoler an.' his four prifoners, and that only one
perfon came upon the box.
Mr. Geary, the gentleman who came upon the
box two miles this fide of Uxbridge, declared
that excepting the four prifoners and gaoler, no
other person had been on the outfide of the car-
riage from the time he got up on the box.
Mr. ALLEY male a very animated and eloquent
Speech to the Jury on the part of the Defendant,
in which he requeiled the • Jury to confider the
neceffity of protecting even common informers,
who come forward to flipport a law fo neceffary
for the prefervation of travellers; and if they
could believe that it was a miftake in the Defen-
dant, and not wilful and corrupt perjury, they
would have charity enough to cnnftrue it as fa-
vourably as the evidence would allow them ' • he
then animadverted on the evidence, which he faid
was rather of the negative kind, and not that poll-
' live ccatradietion which was neceffary in order to
fubfiantiate a charge of perjury.
The CHAIRMAN recapitulated. the evidence to
the Jury, who, after fome confideration, found
the Defendant—Guilty.
A Mr. Booth was alto indided for Perjury, at
the profecution of Mr. Batter, of Kenfington, a
Gentleman of confiderable fortune. This profe-
cution was defeated in intim by the informality of
not having fereed a Subpeena on a neceffary Wit-
nets.