Star.
London, England, 1822-08-12 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

Villin Co4ton came up to be heard on his Petition
to be discharged, and was opposed by a creditor
named Sinith.
Mr. Smith, who is a piano-forte maker, stated, that
in April last, the Insolvent came to him and said he-
was commissioned by Mr. Ginger, or College-street,
to purchase a piano-forte.for a lady, who was at his
house on a visit; for which he (Mr. Ginger) would pay
as soon as iccould be delivered at the lady's residence,
and approved a,
.wikiol might be in a month. Mr.
Smith, on this repretentation, gave, the Insolvent. a
piano, and called at his house for payment in about
five weeks after; when he learnt the Insolvent was not
to be found, and some time after that he was in the
king's Bench. .
The Insolvent admitted that he sold' the piano the
day after he.obtained it fromigr.•Smitlf. • •
Mr. Ginger stated, 414. he once employed the in-
solvent to purchase a .piane alady.who was at
his house, but that was long berme April-last. •He
never employed him th purchase-a
Mr. HEATH, for thelnyilvent,ccintenZled,-, that the
credit given was a pet-Sonar
deli[ ~q.theJltssosiioiutiim-
self, and. not at all :in consequence-ofany mention he
made of Mr. Ginger, as was evident, he said, from
Mr. Smith having given him ugdit .wiehout making
any inquiry. of that Getitlemin:'
The COURT said, the.insolvent had evidently made
the representation of having an order from: Mr. Gin-
ger for a piano, for the purpose of Obtaining credit,
which would not probably have been given. to hifn
had not his stor-y been believed; he had therefore ob-
tained the credit by misrepresentation,. and the judg-
ment of the Court was, that he should be remanded
fur eight months from the date of his Petition.
KENT ASSIZES. •

CROWN SIDE,-ARSON.
John Wraith was indicted for setting•fire to the house,
barns, &c. ofWilliam Minter.
It appeared that the prisoner was the son of a
wealthy mercer at Canterbury. The prosecutor was
the prisoner's first cousin, rind occupied a farm at
Ickham, five miles from Canterbury. The prisoner
was on very good terms with the prosecutor. In the
afternoon of the 25th of June, he was detected in the
act of setting fire to the prosecutor's ricks. The flames
speedily commuricated with the dwelling and 'out-
houses, and in a short time the whole premises were
consumed.. The prisoner had left Canterbury for the
purpose of taking a walk, and had gone to his
cousin's house when the offence was perpetrated. It
was admitted on the part of the prisoner, that he had
been guilty of the rash act complained of; hut his
Counsel proposed to shew that the prisoner was at the
time, and considerably before, an undoubted lunatic.
Mile witnesses, amongst whom *is the prisortit's

father, were then called to prove, that for six months
before the period in question, the.prisoner was flighty
in his conduct. His uncle had died mad, and his
cousin had died in Bethlen]. It • did not appear that
the prisoner had ever had any medical advice, and •no
medical man eras examined. All the witnesses, how-
ever, concurred in stating a variety of circumstances,
clearly indicating that the prisoner was non comps
mentis.—The evidence was summed up by the Learned
Judge, who left it to the Jury to say whether the pri-
soner, at the time the offence was committed, was
capable of discerning right frdm wrong.
The Jury found the prisoner Not Guilty, on the
ground of insanity ; and he was ordered to remain in
custody. .
JVilliam Colegate and William W9thaar were in-
dicted for a conspiracy, with other persons, to affright
and alarm John Stoneham and Joseph Sampson,
Overseers of the Poor' f the-Parish of Stone, in the
Isle of Oxney, in this county, on the.loth of April
last, and, in pursuance of such conspiracy, shooting
off loaded guns into the beds of the prosecutors.
The case was this :—The prisoners were paupers in
the parish of Stone, and being dissatisfied with the
parish' allowance, expressel their determination of
attacking the Overseers, as was stated by a man
named Honeyset, an accomplice, and of firing at
them when occasion suited. The prosecutors were
respectively the incoming and outgoing Overseers of
the parish last Easter. It was proved.that on'the
night mentioned in the indictment the house of each
of the prosecutors was attacked, and a gun fired into
each whilst they were in their respective beds; but
no fatal consequences ensued, thOugh the shots, which
were large, lodged within a foot or two of their heads.
From the evidence of the accomplice, it appeared
that both prisoners had repeatedly expressed the most
violent threats against the prosecutors, and that they
would do for them, but inasmuch as it did not appear
that they had any joint common purpose annexed to
the presence of both.
Messrs. ANDREWS and MARSHAU submitted that
the indictment as for a conspiracy must fail.
Mr. Justice PARK acqeiesced in the objection, and
reluctantly told the Ju.y they must acquit the pri-
soners, however unlawful their individual conduct,
from the evidence, appeared to have been.
The Jury, therefore, found the prisoners Not Guilty.
The Assizes are not expected to finish before the
middle of next week.

••••••1•••.• are. ••••••m.
THE KING V. CRUTCHEIVIUId ANOTHER.
This was an indictment against the defendants,
Thomas Crutcher and James Brown, for a conspi-
racy and riot on the 7th of February, in the parish of
St. Paul's,Deptford, inorder to compel a person named
Clay to leave his employment ai stage-coach driver;
and in pursuance of such conspiracy carrying an
effigy of him, and causing a riot on divers days men-
tioned in the indictment.
The case proved in evidence was this—The prose-
cutor had been in the employment bf a coachmaster
named Brown, owning coaches from Blackheath to.
London. In the course of his employment he was
(hiving his master's coach through the Borough, on
the $d of February last, when the defendant Brown,
the servant of a coachmaster named aiver, plying
from Greenwich to London, drove his coach against
that which the prosecutor was driving, and nearly
upset it. The paSsengers were so much alarmed by
the shock, that they insisted upon the prosecutor
summoning l'n.nwn before the Magistrates at Union,
Flail, for furiously and improperly driving ; and ac-
.cordingly -Brown was summoned, and, upon healing
.of.the case, the Magistrates adjudged him to .pay a
;penally 01E5 ; one half to the poor of the parish,
and the other to the informer. The offender paid
the penalty, and it was distributed as the law directs.
As scan as the case was disposed of, Clay sent for
.Briewn out of the Justice-roorn, and tendered him his
share of the penalty, saying, that he did not wish to
take the monev,.as he had only done his duty in obe-
dience to'his instructions, and was very sorry for what
had happeaed. Inste.td of taking the money, Brown
began tarevile and abuse him as a common informer;
and said that, if he.had him under the wheels of his
coach, he would ;rush him and the money. The ad-
iiidicalion of the penalty took place on the 7th of
jFebruary. When the prosecut.l was returning with
his coach in the evening, he stopped at the Centurion
public-house, at Deptford, as ustial, and there found
the defendants, Crutcher 'and Brown, who began to
abuse him as an. htformer, and incited a crowd of
that class ofpersons who usually attend stage-coaches,
called cadsoy Millers; to join in the abuse. lie was
hustled and Buffeted about, and was at last obliged
to drive off with his coach as fast as he could. In
the evening, after he had retired to rest, his house
was beset by several of same persbns, who went
down to Blackheath in a coach, and 'commenced a
riot before his house, and renewed their abuse of
him. Both the defendants were of. this party. On'
.the nett and the two following dayi,' every time he
passed the Centurion .public-house, in his way to
a'id from. Lontion,he was subjected.to the same sort
of offensive visitation. He was assailed with hoot-
jugs and groans, and reviled as a common Informer.
—On bquie of these occasions the. defendants threw
down money to the mob; and encouraged them to
annoy him in every war they-could. One of the de-
fendants threatened that he would stick to him until
he was driven off the road,: and that he should never
drive a coach from London to Blackheath, Three
several effigies wereenade of him, dressed as a coach-
man, with a whip under his arm, and with labels,
designating him as a common informer. In order to
point out who was intended by the effigies, pieces of
clay were stuck on each side, and •on different parts
of the figures. The effect of these proceedings was
to prevent passengers from going by his coach ; and'
at length his master was obliged to dismiss hint his
service. Under these circumstances, he was advised:
to indict the defendants, together - with eight other
persons; for a conspiracy, in order to protect himself
from further molestation. In consequence of the
treatment the unfortunate man received, some of the
inhabitants of Blackheath • entered into a subscription
to purchase two coaches and two sets of hones, and
set him up as a coachmaster on his own account, in
testimonial of their good opinion of his general cha-
racter and conduct. After the indictment was found,
he consented to stay proceedings, if the defendants
would undertake not to molest him any farther, and
pay the Attorney's bill of costs. To these terms the
defendants consented, and the bill of costs being paid,
the proceedings Were suspended ; but the defendants
.having afterwards mewed Ouir systett.of annoy-

r r

ance, they were now brought to trial. The other'
persons named in the indictment having forborne to
repeat their misconduct, they were not served with
process. This was an outline of the case. The prose-
cutoy's testimony was corroborated by two witnesses.
After some discussion between the Counsel orkboth
sides, it was agreed that a verdict of guilty for a riot
should be recorded, the prosecutor undertajcing not
to bring the defendants up for judgment, -upon their
entering.into recognizance: to be of good behaviour,
and, paying the expenses of the prosecution..

RONALDA AND OTHERS V. SCOONI AND OTHERS.
This was an action by wholesale provision mer-
chants and cheesemongers of Thames-street, against
the. defendants, as proprietors of the Star Inn, Maid-
stone, upon their common law liability is innkeepers,
to recover the value of a parcel of Bank notes stolen
from the plaintiffs traveller, while he was a guest in
their house.
In October last, the plaintiffs' traveller had been
attending Maidstone Fair, 'and had collected on his
masters account about 251. in country bank notes,
and some checks, from different customers of the
house, in Maidstone and its neighbourhood. He so-
journed to the Star Inn to dine. He went out about
nine o'clock to spend the evening, leaving his tra-
velling case, containing his money, in the travellers'
room. About one o'clock he returned to the inn to
sleep, and went to bed. Early in the morning he
was roused by an inquiry whether lie had been rob-
bed ? He got up, and missed his money. His tra-
velling case had been found broken open on a wharf
by the side of the river Medway, and, its contents
gone; but in consequence of some scattered papers,
the finder was led to the inn, and discovered the
owner of the case. It was proved thattlnee strange'
looking men had called at the inn in the evening to
look for beds, and it was supposed that one of them
had entered the travellers' room, and carried off the
case in question.
The CHIEF BARON charged the Jury, that, under
the circumstances stated, there was no doubt of the
defendants' liability ; and the Jury, under his Lord-
ship's directions, found their verdict fur the plain-
tiffs—Damages, Twenty-five Pounds, being the
amount of the Bank notes lost, the plaintiffs waiving
any claim in respect of the Banker's cheques, which
had also been stolen.