Star.
London, England, 1812-01-14 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SES-SIONS, JAY. 13.

The Sessions commenced this day at Hicks's-hall, I
Clerkenwell-grsen, before W. MAINWARING, Esq.
and a Bench of Magistrates.
Robert Years was indicted for A fraud, in having
procured a certain sum of money under false pile-
' tences.
The defendant, on being arraigned, said, " 1 am
extremely sorry f,,r what I have done; and will not
add to my clime by pleading Not Guilty, and taking
up the time of the Court. I acknoul:dge my guilt,
and implore the mercy of the Court."
. On being apprised of the consequences which must
. follow his confession of the crime, he expressed him-
vlf fully aware of them, but still persisted in pleading
Guilty.
Mr. Asisorri who appeared on the part of the pro-
ilecution, the% Ibbserved, that it was necessary the
Court should be put in possession of the circumstan-
ces of the case. The present prosecution was insti-
tuted by the Postmaster-General, from a sense of
public duty. The defendant, who was, at one time,
a man of wry good character, had been employed in
the Post-office ; that situation lie had resigned, and
had gone into a different employment. On the Bth
of October last, however, he had appeared in differ-
ent parts of Westminster, in the character of a letter-
carrier, bearing a bundle of letters in his hand, and had
actually presented at several houses, what, en first view
appeared to be two-penny post letters, exhibiting an 1
imitation of the regular post-mark, for which, on de-,
livery, he demanded the sum of two-pence, which
was paid in several instances. On opening the sup-
pcsed letters, however, they were found to contain
nothing concerning the parties to whom they were
directed, as, they were all to the same effect, and
signed with the same fictitious name. The defen-
dant was suspected of having fabricated them, and
he was, in consequence, apprehended.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, thanked his learn-
ed Friend, for the moderate manner in which he had
stated the case. The inability cf the defendant to
raise a sum of money, for which he was pressed, oc-
casioned his having recourse to an unjustifiable me-
thod. The defendant had •never before been guilty
of a criminal act, and, in the present instance, all that
was alledged against him took place in the course of
an hour. He could not, therefore, be considered in
so bad a light, as if he had regularly and systemati-
cally pursued then system of fraud. Sentence deferred.
James Fletcher, and Ruth, his wife, were indicted
for an assault on Mary Thompson, on the Ist of,
October.
The prosecutrix, a poor old woman, who had seen
better days, resided with her hush-4nd in the house of
the defendants, where, by the profits arising from a
mangle, she supported her husband, who, being up-
wards of eighty years of age, was incapable of exer-
tion, and two grand children. She rented her apart-
ments quarterly ; and, two or three days before the
11Iichaelmas quarter became due, Mr. Fletcher in-
formed hew that he had agreed with another lodger
for that part of the house occupied by her, and he
wished her to quit by the first of October. The per-
son whom he thus preferred, was also the proprietor
of a mangle, and proffered £4 per annum more than
the presecutr!x. The latter, however, refused to go
out on so short a notice, and requested Mr. Fletcher
to accompany her to Mr. Johnson, her attorney, and
ask his advice. Mr. Johnson endeavoured to dis
suade the male defendant from driving the prosecie,
trix out of his house, which, legally, he had no right
to do. He, however, swore he cared neither for law-
yers, attornies, or justices, and out he would have her.
On the following morning he proceeded to put his
threats into execution, and, by a summary process,
to eject the prosecunix. Having rushed into her
room, he threw her forcibly against the mangle, tore
the grate from its setting, threw the tongs at her head,
and struck her violently with his fist. His wife, in
. the mean time, fearing that the poor old woman
would faint, supplied her husband with several pails
of water, which he good naturedly flung over her.—
In consequence of this ill-treatment, the prosecutrix
had been seized with a spitting of blood, which had
continued at intervals ever since, The defendants had
preferred a Bill against the prosecutrix, but she was
acquitted. She also had indicted them, but in con-
seuence of a misnomer, they had escaped. The facts
being clearly proved, in the present instance, the de-
fendants were both found Guilty.
Michael Bryant was indicted for assaulting Thomas
James.—The prosecutor, in telling his story, began
a formal harangue with " Mr. Chairman, and Gen-
tlemen of the Jury," and then detailed a long narra-
tive of the defendant and others attempting to assas-
einate him. It however turned out, that the prose-
cutor was a barber, who, with some other gent/meal
barbers and journeymen mechanics, had subdued
their reason by Meux's entire; proceeding home to-
gether in this state down Coram-street; the prosecutor
said they should hear a specimen of hi:, abilities equal
to Mr. Kemble's, and he began with " My name is
Norval, on the Grampian hells ;" upon which an-
other seized with the In of playi2 Glenalvon, pushed
Norval in the mud, who, enrag thereat, began vo-;
ciferating " murder and assassination !" But it was
positively btated,that all the damage done was by mud-
dying his dress and spoiling his speech. The Jury on
'this evidence found the defendant Not Guilt)-.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS, JAN. 13.