Star.
London, England, 1822-12-05 00:00:00

Y.
••'

OLD 13

Yesterday Jesepk
at St. J.lsres, HAckne,

George Thurlow.
The prosecutor stated
'cart to the prisoner
turned.. :About three weeks afterwards he saw the
prisoner at Enfield with the cart. He acknowledged
its being witness's cart. Witness told him he was
determined to have the cart back.which the prisoner
promised should be the case. About a fortnight
afterwards witness went to a Wigistrate, who imme-
diately granted a win rant against the prisoner, and
he then returned the cart.
Thomas Newman. saw the prisoner in the cart,ind '
heard the conversation alluded to.
Mr. Justice BATLiT charged the Jury, and said
that there was no evidence that the prisoner stole the
cart. In order to make out the case, it must be shewn
that the prisoner hired the cart ai a pretence, in order
to cover his stealing it, which had not been done.
The Jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.
trillium Tucker stood indicted for maliciously dis-
charging a gnn at William Beckett,with an intent.to
kill him. Another count charged the prisoner with,
firing the gun with an intent todo the said William
Beckett some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. LAW said that this was an indictment framed
under the statute of the 43d Geo. 111. which inflicts
punishment of death for the offence charged in the
indictment. The statute also provided, that if the,
offence was committed trader circumstances, that WI
death had ensued, the prisoner could not be consi-
dered guilty of murder—then the accused party could
not be found guilty under that Act.
William Beckett, a little boy of about eight years
of age.—l live at Heston. I was in company with
the prisoner' at Windmill-bridge. The prisoner had
a gun. He wanted me to let him shoot at my hat.
I would not let him. He then took my hat off my
head, and threw it up in the air; he fired, and shot'
two holes in it. He then went on the other side of
the road, and picked up some pebbles, and, with an
oath, said he would have a shot at my —; I said,
" Oh, ah I" He replied, "Do you think I shall hit
you from here?" He then put his gun up to his shoul- ,
der, and fired it off ; I saw the flash ; the shot came
veer my hands, arms, legs, and face ; one came in
my eye, which I have lost the sight of in consequence.
I had not had any quarrel with him, nor had I ever
seen him before; he went up to-a Mr. Coleman, who
was near the spot, and told him his gun had gone off,
and he had shot a boy in the face. Coleman told him
to take me to the Canal side and wash my faCe,which
he did, and then rubbed it with brown paper ; he then
put me part of the way home, and there left me.
Cross-examined by Mr. BOLLAND.•-4 had been in
company with the prisoner about half an hour. The
prisoner was placed there to keep the birds from the
barley. When I saw a Mr. Sibley, I did not say that
I had been at play with a boy, and that his gun
had gone off.
By Mr. Baron GARROW.—The prisoner had not
fired off the gun, as I know of, before he fired at my
hat; after firing at the hat, he got the powder from
his pocket to load the gun, to fire at me: When- I
said " Oh, ah r I was in fun, and thought that he
was only jesting.
Press Bell.—l saw the boy at about halftpast ten
o'clock on the night of the accident; he was living
under my care at the time. He was in a dreadful
state. I applied to a Magistrate en the following day.
Cross-examined by Mr. HOLLANDI once said,
that if the prisoner would pay the expenses, I would
not think any more of it.
Frozley, a surgeon.-1 saw the boy on the
morning following the accident; he was in a bad
state ; I expected he would have lost the use of both
-eyes. The pebbles fired were about the size of a pea.
By Mr. Baron GARROW.—The pebbles were of a
sufficient size to have caused death.
The prisoner in his defence stated, that the gun
went off by accident.
The following witnesses were called on his behalf:
Trumper stated, that the prisoner was in his
service; he had entrusted the gun to his care; it was
an old gun, and when half-cocked was very steady,
but when on full-cock was very weak- The witness
had known the prisoner ten years; he was the most
humane boy witness ever knew, and was always par-
ticularly fond of children.
William Coleman, jun. was in a boat on the canal,
within fifteen yards of the parties at the time of the
accident, heard the gun go off, and the boy cry out,
but could not give any particular account of what
had subsequently occurred.
Thomas Coleman was on the tow-path of the canal,
within about fifty feet of the boy Beckett; heard the
gun go off, and the prisoner brought little Beckett to
witness, and shewed him his face ; witness desired
him to wash it, as it was all blood and dirt; he did
so; he appeared very kind to the boy, and sorry for
what had happened.
The Rev. Mr. Whitfield is Minister of the Parish,
and resides constantly there ; the prisoner had lived
with witness three years and a half. Witness never
perceived any disposition to cruelty, malice, or re-
venge, hi the prisoner, nor did be ever know him
addicted to any vice whatever. The witness gave a
particular account of the prisoner's life for many years,
and spoke highly in favour of his general conduct.
Mr. Stow a farmer, knew the prisoner, he was a
good honest steady boy, and of an excellent disposi-
tion, he considered him to be one of the best of tempers.
Mr. Baron GARROW, in charging the Jury, said,
the law of the case had been stated by the Learned
Comte el for the prosecution with great candour and
propriety; probably if the clause alluded to by the
Learned Counsel had not been inserted in the Act, a
very different construction must necessarily have been
put upon it, by those whose duty it was to construe
the law ; but, fortunately, the distinguished framer
of that Statute had not left the subject in doubt. In
the present case it appeared clear that the hoy had
received an injury which would reirderhimles
than
able,
for the remainder of his life, to gain a living,
he would otherwise have been. But the question
was, suppose the boy had been killed, would the Jury
be justified in returning a verdict of "Wilful
der" against the prisoner? If they could not, then.
the Statute had expressly provided that they could
not find the prisoner guilty under the present indict-
ment. If an individual did an act which was not
strictly right, nevertheless, not apprehending any
serious consequence would be the result of it, he

.

sides by prisoner
if there was a doubt in their minds, they would of
course give the prisoner thebenefit of it..
The Jury found the prisoner Not
John Harris stood indicted For stealing, on the 30th
October last, in a dwelling-house, a diamond ring,
value 501. one 100/. note, one 501. ditto, ten 101.
ditto, and a number of -sovereigns, the property of
Colonel De Berg.
Colonel .De• Berg deposed that he was Colonel of
the Queon's Regiment of Dragoons ; the prisoner was
a private in that regiment, and was his bat man,—
When witness went nut, on the morning of the 30th
October, he left the key of his secretaire at home, by
mistake; the secretair e contaihed one 1001. note, one
501. ten 101. some other notes, several sovereigns,
and a diamond ring. Upon his return home the
articles were all gone, sod the prisoner gone also.—
He afterwards saw the diamond ring, in the hands
of a police officer.—(The constable bele produced
the ring).—Witness proved the ring, and a purse
also produced, to be his.
William Richardson is captain of the watch at
Leeds, the prisoner was in my custody on the 11th
November last, I found upon him the ring produced
and a £lO note,
.the purse produced and a green
purse and 355. in silver.
Samuel Harding, a jeweller, in Oxford-street, aid
the prisoner came to witness's shop on the 30th of
October, and bought a silver watch and a gold key ;
he paid £5. 13s. for them, and had change for a EIO
note. The name he gave was John Harris, 23, Cha
pel-street. The note was here produced, No. 68*, ,
dated 27th September, 1822.
The Colonel proved the note produced to be one
of those stolen from him.
James Ingham was deputy constable of Leeds, he
got 93 sovereigns and one half one, from the shop pf
a man named Halliday, in Leeds, where the prisoner
lodged. Witness went there in consequence of seeing
a hand-bill, describing the prisoner. He only knows
from what he had heard that the money found was
the prisoner's money ; he also found the watch
bought by the prisoner of Mr. Harding.
'The prisoner declined saying anything in his de-
fence, and called no witnesses.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY charged the
,Jury that the
stealing in a dwelling-house above the amount of
40s. was a capital offence. . There could be no doubt
that the property stolen was of considerably more
than that value. The prisoner was also charged with
stealing this property in the capacity of a servant.
The fact of a servant robbing the master was made
a particular offence by a recent Statute, but that
perhaps would not come in question in the present
case, as the value of the property stolen would Ten-
der that inquiry unnecessary. The Learned Judge
went through the whole of the evidence ; he remarked
that the fact of the prisoner giving his real name and
place of abode, on paying the £lO note to Mr. Hard-
ing, was a circumstance something in his favour.
The Jury instantly found the prisoner—Guilty—
Death." The prisoner is 21. years of age.
The Colonel remarked upon his heavy loss, and
asked for the delivery up of the sovereigns found
upon the prisoner, which the Learned Judge directed
to be done.
George William Henry, aged 18, was indicted for
burglariously entering the dwelling-house of John
Kennedy, in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields,
on the 7th November last, and stealing sundry articles
of linen therefrom, the property of Ann Gough.
The prosecutris was a widow woman, and fol-
lowed the occupation of a laundress. She retired to
rest about one o'clock in the morning, and upon
rising, found the window-sash about half way open,
and sundry articles missing. The prisoner was stopped
on the same morning by two of the St. Giles's patrol,
with the stolen articles upon him, as well as several
instruments of house-breaking. The prisoner said
nothing in his defence. Guilty—Death.
Martin Bell, aged 20, and William Peiiins, aged
19, were capitally indicted for breaking and enter-
ing the dwelling-house of William Parry, Esq. and
stealing therein a great coat, value £5. his property,
and three great coats, the property of Robt. Wasson.
Mr. Parry resides in Gloucester-place, Portman-
squat e, and Wasson was his coachman. On the even-
ing of the day named in the indictment, the pri-
soners were discovered to have broken into the back
part of the house, by Wasson, and an alarm being
given they were secured. The articles mentioned
were found strewed about the stable.
The charge was fully brought home to the pri-
soners, and the Jury found them Guilty—Death, but
strongly recommended Bell to mercy, he having re-
ceived an excellent charactet from several witnesses.
Anne Wood and Sophia Trayer were indicted for
stealing 30 sovereigns, the property of Robert Seggs,
from his person.
The prosecutor said he was a carrier, and one even-
ing he met the prisoner Wood in Whitechapel, and
accompanied her home. The other prisoner shortly
after came in, and demanded money from him, which
he refused to give. .The two prisoners then assaulted
him, and took away his money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Law.—He lost 27 sove-
, reigns, 10s. in silver, and a check for £l5. 19s. 2d.—
, The property was not his own, but entrusted to his
care. Ile was not above five minutes in the room,
but had never seen the priscsners before. He saw
Wood about half an hour after the robbery, and
Troyer the following morning.
Brown, an officer, said, that the prosecutor told
him he had torn Wood's gown, but he found her
gown was not torn.
The prisoners declared they Were innocent.
Mr. Baron GARROW summed up the evidence, and
'the Jury found the prisoners Not Guilty.

A fellow was charged at a Police Office in Dublin,
a few days ago, by an individual, with " running
away with his hand." On inquiry it was found that
the parties had a scuffle, and that the false hand of
the man fell off in the street, and was afterwards kit
at a public-house, near the place where the parties
quarrelled. The man.was discharged, the Magistrate
observing to the complainant, that "he had made
poor hand of the busweas."

•

ROLLS COURT, DECRMIVR s.

4 GOO Li ' •
,apisoo4.thefteu.s continues in a very
A?0,..i1i0 Honour had four Physicians
upon his case, which is said to
'Ofintith 'difficulty.
Mr. Modki GIitAMIN, assisted :by tvio Mute r% in
Clumeeryc again took thin sear utt. • • •
• lantittant. vp,Lawii.. • •
Mr. WI NOil v,4) stated the facts Of this ease. Trig
plaintiff, I)etty Lithem,- had been married to James
Lathani,.who, soon *fever 'Marriage, deserted her,
leaving her pregnant, and-withont anyrothanntestra
of than those which-she derived from her
own exertions and the assistanceof her ri iends. Etvc
husband having been absent seven years, during
which time shelled never heard from him, and a Tti
port having been received that be had enlisted in a
foot regiment, and had beefs .killed in Spain, 1110
married one Jones, of Liverpool,* bookbinder, with
whom she had ever since lived as his wife. la the
year 1817, a Mr. Gilhody left to the plaintiff, by th:,
description of " his cousin, Betty Jones," a legacy or
£2OOO, for hev sole use and benefit. Her first hus-
band, Mr. James Latham, however little attractiprs
his wite's person might possess for him, had no 4r-_,;
sion to the legacy, and then it had been discneerei
that he was not dead. In opposition to any claim
which he might set up, this bill had been filed, 2-,1
the Court had decided frequently, recently (in cas.es
which the Counsel cited), that the mortis of the %rill
gave her a separate estate in the legacy, free From
her husband's
.controul.
Mr. WiLBRAIIAI4, for the husband, the defendant,
denied all the circumstances of deserting his
He had never enlisted in any regiment, nor had ever
been out of England. He submitted the construction
of the will to the consideration of the Court. Ele
could not, in the face of recent decisions, contecd
that the word " sole," had not the same force
" separate," but he hoped the Court would protect
such interest as he might be found to have.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM saw no need of cases to puree
that these two words had the !ante signification. It
would he hard, indeed, to prove any difference. lit
decreed the payment of the legacy to the plaintiff's
separate use; and as the hnsband.had been brotigil
before the Court, he should be allowed his costs.

MARRIED.

Nov. 25, at Kier-street, the Rev. James Mitchell, to Jessie.
youngest daughter of the late Mr. William Kinnaird, chentist,
Edinburgh.
Nov. 25, at Arbroath, David Louson, Esq. of Springfield,
Town Clerk of Arbroath, to Ann Forbes, youngest daughter of
the Rev. George Gleig, Minister of the Gespel there.
Nov. 29, Charles Berwick Curtis, Esq. sun of Sir W. Curtis,
Bart. to Henrietta, daughter of the late Rev. J. I'. Pearson, of
Crozall, Derhithire.
Tuesday, at Whippingham, Lieut. J. May, of Chichester, to
Miss Butler, of Krick-kiln.
Saturday, at St. James's, Richard Stonier Gomm, Esq. As-
sistant-Commissary-General, to Marianna, eldest daughter of
the late John Fox, EA+ of Pailiament.street.
Nov. 28, R. 11. Wigston, Esq. late Lieut.-Colonel in the ral
Guards, to Mary AmelLi, daughter of the late Acton Chaplir,
Esq. of Aylesbury.
Tuesday, at Mary-la-bonne, John Brockman, Esq. son of !be
Rev. Julius Brockman, of Chetiton, Kent. to Elizabeth Mary
Anne, daughter of the late General Stevenson.

,
BAILEY SES#ONS.
nould not bi paq 4400,14ev.. Aittothower's Mt. RO,
• Mane coaddct,- trftWUta•istatVettdi---thiiillacelleitt } *l'4i, t:44
illtalift %Vat ii. 40,0 for stealing, aicc,ount.given of him brOiritre, Clergyman of tie ! 0.1114
tweti4
ney, a chaise-cart, the property of firiAi, were of !Mai' impitiiiielittlis 4 •fnk criticUl situ:
two questions for the Jury were, Mt; 4i34464511r in cotratai
;toted that his servant let the chaise -by accident ? if so,there was an•enti CINWA P
ri set "if be ..ene*.,e6.re
ron hire, but the Cart was ne re. it did not go off by accident, then they orditr4Ort. m 'mod
..... weeks afterwards he saw the sider by what motive the prisoner wit ittatittek and Chancoryoi