Star.
London, England, 1805-09-17 00:00:00

THE t*NbON SESSIONI

Commenced yeflerday at Guildhall before the Lord
Mayor, the Recorder, and a full Bench ofAldermen.
Mr. Benjamin Hay, an eminent Indigo Merchant,
was indicted for a nuifance.

Mr. Reavr, for the profecution, Rated, that Mrs.
Peppin, the profecutrix in this cafe, had purchafed a
houfe in Suffolk.lane, Thames-flreet, three years ago.
In May lalt the Defendant took a houfe adjoining,
when he brought with him the nuifance in quettion,
viz. the conftrudi .n of a mill for pounding ilidigo
and other drugs. The pumices were formerly occu-
pied by a fpirit merchant, who only kept a counting-
houfe there ; but after the Defendant had taken poll
fefiion, he made fky-light in the room %%here the
materials were working, which was kept open, by
which the neighbours were eonflantly annnyed by
t'te dregs. It would be for the Bench to Ms.•rmint
whether the nuifance in queflion was a public one,
Inch as to annoy paffengers ; or whether, in point of
fad, it applied to individuals.
Elizabeth Peppin was called, who Rated, that (ince
the Defendant had occupied the premifes in queition,
her bottle was eonftantly filled with the dregs from
the mill. Hcr pantry, which was dole to the mill in
queflion, was covered, fo that every thing the read
kept there was fpoiled, and the produced a napkin
which had covered her food, to fuhilantiate this faa.
The water in her ciilern was turned black, and every
part of her ironic exhibited the fame appearance as
the pantry. Two other gentlemen, who reticle on the',
fpot, proved that the noife of the mill ditturbed them
conflantly, and the goods in their hooks were in the
fame date as defcribcd by the preceding witnefs.
One of them, Mr. Lively, at No. z 6, Ruth-lane,
never could open his windows, n•rtwithßanding
which the dregs were equally offenfive, for his furni-
ture was covered with filth. It was, however, pros,.
ed by another witnefs, that the nuifance in quettion
did not extend fo ;:s to mold& paffengers ; and confe-
quently, the Bench were of opinion, that the india-
ment in its prefent thape mull be qtafired, although
there was a remedy for the individuals who were in•
...piled, by an anion at law.

CLERKEN WELL SESSIONS.

I I
3 2

Yefterday, there SelEnns commenced, before a
very numerous Bench of Magiftrates, and Mr. MAIN..
WARING, the Chairman.
Richard Mlles, a barrack-ferjeant, was indicted for
a fraud, at Common La.v. It appeared that the
Defendant had been employed to make fmall dif-
burfements for the Barrack Board, and that he had
paid the film of 205. to a man of the name of Brown
and obtained from him a receipt for 21. res. 6d.
which he attempted to pats in his account with the
Barrack Matter.
The CHAIRMAN was of opinion, that the india-
silent did not lie, in its prefent fotm, and that the
Defendant thould either have been indiEted for a con-
fpiracy with Brown, to defraud the Barrack Matter,
or that a civil adion fhould have been brought
againft hint, he having been employed to make
many other payments. On account of this opinion
delivered by the Chairman, it was agreed between
the parties, that a Juror timid be withdrawn,
which was done accordingly.
Batjamin and Mary Lipsey, brother and filter, neither
of them exceeding fourteen years of age, were in•
dolled for affaulting Chrittopher Mafon. It appeared
from the evidence of the Profecutor, that he was a
tradefman, living in Pleafallt-place, Hatton-garden,
and that the Defendants were continually annoying
him, calling him the molt opprobious names.
On the 7th of June, the day laid in the indictment,
they came to his houfe, ancthaving called him feveral
vile names, began to throw (tones againft his dour
and windows. lie then came out to drive them away,
but they continued throwing (tones ; one of which,
thrown by the boy, flruck him on the back, in con-
fequence off which he went before a hlagiftrate,
and preferred this indictment. A man of the name
of Slater, who lived next door to the Profecutor,'
gave evidence to the fame effect.
On the part of the Defendants, tome Witnefres
were called, bt t their evidence not being latisfadory,
the Jury found the Defendants—Guilty. They were
fentenced by the Court, Mary Lipley to be fined one
(hitting, and difiltergel; and Benjamin Lipley, to
be imprifoned fix days.
Walter Naycraft was indicted for an affault on
William Sydenham, in Gray's Inn lane, on the even-
ing of the 22(1 of June.
It appeared that the profecutor, in company with
two others, was going down Gray's Inn-lane, and
the Defendant walking behind them, exclaimed with
an oath," I will fight the heft of you," and without
another word knocked down the Profecutor, who
had laid nothing to him. The Defendant contended
in his own defence, that he had been knocked down
by fomebody in the (beet, and that be thought the
Profecutor was the perfon who had done fo. This
would not do ; the Defendant was taken before the
Magiftrate, when the cafe being heard, the Profecn-
tor offered to make it up for two guineas, which fum
was afterwards reduced to one, and his expences, but
the Defendant Paid, " he had rather be whipt at the
cart's tail than make up this castle."
Mr. ALLEY, his Counfel, laid, he was ill advifed
when he made that anfwer, and that he ought to
anent to the fame terms now. It was true that he
had been knocked down by fomebody, but not by
the -Profecutor of this indictment, and therefore he
could not be junified in what he did ; he ought to
thank the Profecutor for what he offered, and ac-
cept the terms.
A Gentleman at the Bar obferved, that the De-
fendant had conceived himfelf to be a perfon of con-
fiderable importance in life, and of high authority as
a lawyer, for that he had been appointed Attorney
General to the Mayer of Garrett !
The Defen;ant paying to the Profecutor one gui-
nea, and to his attorney a guinea and a half, the pro-
fecution was dropt : the form of doing which was
that of wi,hdrawing a Juror.
The Chairman informed the Defendant, that if
the vital had been proceeded in, he mutt have been
convicted, and the Court would have dealt with him
much more feverely than on the terms on which he
was now let off.
William Gales, R. Arthur, and Sarah Ketyl, were in-
dided for an atfault on John Keefe, at the public.

hnute called the Cart and 1-tortes, in Si. tviattieslanc,
which is kept by Sarah Keys.
The Rory related by the Profecntor was incredible
with refpeft to the two men whom he faid had af-
fruited him, and on which, he faid, he loft a feven
&Bing piece in the kale ; but as to Sarah Keys,
it appeared, that the only part the took was to dciire
them all to walk out, for that the withed to have no
difturbancein her bottle ; and the was made a De-
fendant in the indiament, to prevent Igi being a
witnef,, and give evidence of what happened t it was
therefore propofed that a verdia of Nut Guilty fhould
he entered as to her, that flue might give evidence for
the other two Defendants, which the Jury made un-
neceffary, by acquitting all three.
The Chairman obferved, that this was the firli
time he had obferved a publican indifted for endea-
vouring to preferve the peace, and to keep an orderly
hole.
James Matthews for affaulting Jacob Reed.
lire Defendant is a carpenter, the Profecutor is of
the fame trade. They were employed in repairing
tome houfes—owed each other a grudge—a boy, in
company with the Profecutor, made ufe of an ez-
preftl-n which no tongue ever uttered without de-
ferving a bitter, and charged the Defendant with it.
The Defendant threw a piece of timber in a rage,
and Lit the Profecutor, fur which he was indifted, as
for an affault.
Mr. Gots° properly reprobated the ufe of this
odious epithet, which was, by the Law of Engtanes
declared to be unfit to be ufed among Chriftian..—
There was a time when even the loweft people in
this country would have been athamed to ufe it. He
withed to fee that fenfe of decency return. Here
was no proof at whom the piece of wood was thrown,
and therefore the Defendant ought not to be convic-
ted.—Not Guilty.
William Goddard, a coachman, in the fervice of
Mr. Field, a Gentleman of fortune, refuting to
Canonbury, Illington, was indifted for affaoking
Mr. Margray, jun. a very refpeaable gentleman,
and his friend Mr. Jollitia Palmer, on Sunday the
26th of May laft.
Mr. GURNEY, as Counfel for the Profecution,
Rated, that this was one of thufe cafes in which per
lons had been placed in the greatelt danger by the
malice and brutality of coachmen. The l'rofecutor
on the 26th of May, was driving in his gig, accom-
panied by his worthy friend, Mr. Jofhila Palmer,
down Fleet-ftrect. When they got to Fetter-lane,
the Defendant's carriage was between Peale's Coffee-
bottle and the Coact Stand, and there appeared
abundant morn for 'lr. Margray to pats—he conic-
quently endeavoured to do fo ; but the coachman
prevented him by whipping his near horfe, and pull-
ing the off rein, In that the hind wheel of the car-
riage came in contaa with the gig ; the latter was
dragged a conlicierable diftance, and the bode thrown
down. The coachman, after the mifchicf, continued
to drive on, notwithftanding the cry of Mr. Margray
to him to flop; the carriage was, however, Teen.
nized by a friend of Mr. Margray's to belong to
Mr. Field, otherwife the Profecutor would not have
known by whom the injury he had fatained was
committed. The circumftance cf not Hopping when
called to, was defcribed by the Learned Counfel to
be an aggravation of the offence, and he expreffed a
belief that the Jury would not by their verdid lane-
don conduit fo detrimental to the pubic. Several
witnefTes in fupport of the prcfecution proved the
above ltatement. In behalf of the Defendant, Mr.
Field was called, who depofed that, cn the day men-
tioned in the indiament, he had been to, attend di-
'vine fervice at the Effex-fireet Chapel. Mrs. Field,
who is an elderly lady, Mils Julia Field, and ano-
ther Lady, were in the Yardage, and as they had to
return to Canonbury to dinner, the horfes went at a
fharp rate, about five miles an hour. After they
paffed St. Dunftan's Church an altercation was no-
ticed between feveral peifons (landing by the car-
riage, bet witnefs was ignorant at that time that any
injury had been done, and when the carriage drove
on, he thought no more of the tranfaaion. The
Defendant had ever b.haved himfelf in a Ready man-
ner while he had been in Mr. Field's fervice, and the
latter expreffed an opinion that he had nut committed
any injury intentionally. The fervant behind the
carriage imputed the whole blame of the tranfattion
to the Gentleman in the gig, and faid, there was
not room for them to pall, when the attempt was
made for that purpofe.
The RECORDER, in fumming up the evidence, in-
timated an opinion, that the coachman had not been
urged by any malicious motive to drive againft the
chaife ; he, however, left it with the Jury to decide
upon the credit given to the evidence. The Jury ac-
cordingly withdrew for half an hour, and on their
return, pronounced the Defendant—Not Guilty.
Thomas Bird was indifted for an affault on Sarah
his wife. Mrs. Bird depofed, that her hatband was
a tradefraan, and that ho lived in Barker's court,
Drury-lane. He had, the faid, always treated her
with the greateft brutality; and, on the 2d of June
lan, without the ilighteft provocation, had given her
a molt violent bearing. On crofs•examination, the
contradifted herfelf in feveral trifling circumftancy;
and the Defendant having Rated, that he had quar-
relled with her, becaufe the kept improper perfons in
the houfe, the jury gave a verdid of—acquittal.
John Phillips was indieed by James Fever, a pub-
lican, in Bell-court, Holborn, for an ;Sault com-
mitted on him in July laft.
The Profecutor depofed, that the Defendant owed
him a (mall funs of money fur beer, and that he went
to his room to demand payment. hen he went up
[fairs, the prifoner called him fcandalous names, and
endeavoured to put him out of the room ; but, fail-
ing in the attempt, the prifoner's two funs, who were
very young boys, entangled themfelves with the Pro-
fecutor, fo as to prevent his defending himfelf. The
Defendant, at this time gave him two blows in the
face, and blackened both his eyes. In this ituation
be got out of the room, but recolleaing that he had
left his hat and candle behind him, he returned back
again in company with another man, and having
knocked at the door, demanded his property. The
Defendant opened the door, and rave him, without
any previous converfation, a violent blow in the
month, which knocked out one of his teeth.
On the part of the Defendant, one of his Cons, a boy
of lateen, was examined. He contradifted the Pro-
fecutor and his Witnefs, in alnioll every particular.
The boy underwent a long crofs-examination, but,
having feveral times contradifted himfelf, the Jury
found the Defendant—Guilty.