Star.
London, England, 1829-07-23 00:00:00

citor General, for the time being, and some of the leading
parties in the parish.
Two witnesses were also produced—one aged ninety-
three, and the other seventy-six. The former had been
a member of the select vestry fifty-five years, and the
latter forty. They proved that the churchwardens were
elected by the parishioners at large, on Easter Sunday in
every year, and that they, as well as the rector for the
time being, were considered as members of " the select
body" of thirty-six, making thirty-nine members in all ;
that the repairs of the church were paid for out of the
money collected from the parishioners, and that the poor
rates at present amounted to 38,0001. per annum.
Mr. Campbell then rose, and addressed the jury in re-
ply. He commented upon the evidence produced by the
Attorney-General in support of the defendant's case, and
contended that no proof had been offered of custom upon
which the select vestry in the parish of St. Giles was said
to be established.

_
Mr. Justice Parke, in summing up the evidence, said,
the declaration complained that an assault had been com-
mitted by the defendant on the plaintiff, at the time the
plaintiff was giving his vote in a parish vestry, where he
had a right to be present. There were several pleas:
one denied the right of the plaintiff to be present; ano-
ther was, that there had existed, time immemorial, a
' custom by which a select vestry was held, and that the
plaintiff had no right to be there. Another plea stated,
that the said vestry was made legal by the 14th of Geo.
111. The question which arose on the record was, whe-
ther the plaintiff had a right to go to the vestry without
leave ? I will tell you, gentlemen, said the learned
judge, that provided the vestrymen then assembled were
elected as the vestrymen were in 1774, they were lawfully
assembled, and the defendant is entitled to your verdict.
I will state the ground on which I come to that conclu-
sion, that the parties may apply for the opinion ofthe Court.
The ground on which it appears to me there is a good
defence, is this :—By the 14th of George HI. special
power is given to the select vestries of parishes. By the
3d of George 11. which makes provision in case of the
separation 6f the two parishes, there is an enactment by
which the rates for the support of the poor are to be
made by both parishes. The Act says nothing about
vestrymen, but the poor are to be provided for by the
joint parishes. The 14th of George 111. provides, that
which was before done by overseers shall now be done
by vestrymen of the parish. They are to meet in June
every year, and make rates for relief of the poor. They
are also obliged to appoint collectors and measurers, and
make rules and regulations for the poor. It appears that
on the present occasion these vestrymen were assembled
and making arrangements for an apothecary to take care
of the poor. Now, if they were the vestry protected by
the Act of Parliament, they had power to do what they
were doing. I think, looking at the Act of Parliament,
that these vestrymen could not be considered the vestry,
of the parish at large. They are directed to be part of
the inhabitants, and it is clear they are persons exer-
cising. the office of select vestrymen. Provided you are
satisfied, that the persons who compose this vestry are
the same description of persons contemplated by the
Act of Parliament, it seems to me the defendant is en-
titled to your verdict, on the pleas which deny the
plaintiff's right to be present at the vestry. If you
are satisfied on that point, find your verdict for the
defendant. Then comes the question whether they are a
select vestry within the provisions of the Act, meeting for
purposes directed by the Act? You are to say whether
this vestry has existed from time immemorial in the pa-
rish of St. Giles. Gentlemen, you must dismiss from
your minds all popular statements, and confine yourselves
to matters of fact ; with respect to the law, you will hear
from me as the judge ; you are to say whether there has
existed from time immemorial a vestry for doing the whole
business of the parish, or whether there has existed, time
immemorial, a vestry for doing part of the business of
the parish ? You will also say, whether this select vestry
has not generally attended to all the business of the pa-
rish ? You have been told that this select vestry cannot
exist without an Act of Parliament, unless it has existed
since the time of Richard the First, and in order to satisfy
you that it has existed so long, evidence has been
given of the existence of this select vestry for a long
period back. Now I must tell you, that when we find a
think has existed a number of years, we presume it has
continued longer. On that principle many valuable
rights depend. You are from long usage to presume
immemorial usage, unless proof is shown to the con-
trary. Unless the Jury are satisfied there was a
period of time between legal memory and modern
memory, when this alleged custom did not exist, you
must find for the custom. Upon the general princi-
ple on which juries act, you will have to say whether
this custom has existence time immemorial, or whether
this select vestry is a modern usurpation. If we were
sitting hero to consider which would be the best mode of
settling the affairs of a populous parish, I believe it would
be decided, that it would be better to have a select vestry
appointed by the parish at large. But the question now
is, whether this body has existed beyond legal memory ?
The learned judge then stated the evidence on both sides,
and observed that it appeared to him quite clear that this
select vestry had existed since 1623, indeed there was no
doubt it was in existence in 1618. If they thought that
vestry had exercised the privileges since that period, they
ought to find for the defendant, for they had no right to
appear among them. It was not to be supposed the legis-
lature would have given these rights to a body of men if
they had not been established by custom. If, however,
they should think the evidence offered by the plaintiff
negatived the existence of this custom, they ought to
find for the plaintiff.
Mr. Evans, at the conclusion of the judge's charge,
stated, that he should take the opinion of the Court upon
special objections to the summing up. He could not
agree that a custom was good that was uncertain. He
could not admit that custom was to he presumed.
Mr. Justice Parke said it might be better to take the
special verdict, which would atiOrd an opportunity of
bringing the points before the Court.
That coarse Mr. Evans was- ready to adopt.
The jury retired, and having been out an hour returned
with a general verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.
Judge—Gentlemen, you find there is no select vestry
by ancient usage ?
Foreman—None, from time immemorial, my Lord.
Judge—Then you find for the plaintiff upon the fourth
and sixth pleas. You find that certain. persons acted as
select vestrymen in 1774, who were not supported by
custom ?

Foreman—Our opinion is, that they were self-elected
in 1774.

The verdict for the plaintiff was then recorded.
The cause was not decided before seven o'clock. The
interest excited was strong ; most of the influential men
in the parish of St. Giles were in Court. The verdict
was considered a great triumph to the party who support
Mr. Rogers.

Tuesday morning Mr. Wm. Rutherford, the Tragedian
of New York; and letterly.t4 the West London 'Theatre, was
found dead In his bed at the Gun and Apple-tree public bogie, id
Drury-lane.

LONDON SESSIONS.

Yesterday the adjourned Sessions were held at Guild-
hall, before Aldermen Scholey, Atkins, 'Venables, &c.

INDICTMENT AGAINST DAVID LATOCCIIE, ESQ.
David Latouche, Esq. a member of a most respectable
and wealthy family in Dublin, was brought up by Habeas
Coipus from th 4 Fleet prison, to be tried upon an indict-
ment charging 'him with having assaulted Mm. Jane
Phillips, the wife of a person who is also a prisoner in the
Fleet, with intent to commit a rape.
Mr. C. Phillips was counsel for the defendant.
Mm. Jane Phillips deposed as follows :—She was
told by 'Mrs. Sharp, who was in the service of. Mr.
Latouche, to call at his rooms in the Fleet prison, and
receive an order for a straw hat. She did so, but upon
her knocking at the door she heard a voice say that
Mr. Latouche was engaged with his attorney, and that
Mrs. Phillips must call again. She said she would
come when sent for. Next day, while she was at dinner
with her husband, Mrs. Sharp called, and accompanied
her to the door of Mr. Latouche's room, but left her as
soon as the door opened. Mr. Latouche, the moment
witness was inside, locked the door, and shut down the
window. " I," said the witness, " remonstrated with
him, and said it was a very hot day for closing the win-
dow, and he said it was not. I told him I was the person
who was recommended to make a straw hat for him, and
asked for the description. He gave it me; but as I was
leaving the room he seized me round the waist, dragged,
ine to the bed, held my hands, threw me down upon it,
and detained me about three minutes. I screamed aloud
for assistance, told him I was in the family way, and
begged he would not hurt me. He said he would not
have the least compassion on me, hut would do just as he
pleased. He loosened one of his bands from under me,
I suppose with intent to disorder my dress, but I forced
myself away, and threw him against a table filled with
glasses and bottles. I then flew to the door, upon which
he seized a glass decanter, and said he would injure me
more with that than with what ho intended to do. He
put his back against the door, and squeezed my hand by
1 jamming it. There are two doors, and he jammed me
between them. My hand was black for some days. He
told me he would not let me go till he had done what he
pleased with me ; and I said that I would rather die than
submit to his wishes. I then flew to the window, opened
it, and screamed as loud as I could, but no one was
walking on the ground at the time. He then said he
would let me go if I would promise not to expose him ;
and he let me out. I never saw hint before, and he and
my husband were never acquainted. I went to Guildhall,
and was advised by the Magistrate to indict."
Cross-examined by Mr. Phillips—l swear I screamed
as loud as I could.

Mr: Phillips—How far is the window of the room
from the warden's house ?

Mrs. Phillips- -1 cannot tell.
Mr. Phillips—You can't tell ! You can form some
judgment, surely ?
Mrs.Phillips—The Warden is not always in his house.
Besides, the Warden's windows are not always open.
Mr. Phillips pressed the question as to the distance, and
Mrs. Phillips at length said, that the distance from the
Warden's house might be half or the whole length of that
Court (6 or 12 yards). The hour at which this violence
was offered to her was half-past two o'clock, and still
there was not a creature in the great court.
Mr. Phillips—Pray don't people live below and on each
side of Mr. Latouche

Mrs. Phillips—No one can be heard along the passages,
screaming.
Mr. Phillips—You have answered my questions most
ingeniously, by drawing inferences for the adoption of
the jury.
The learned counsel then addressed the jury, and called
Mr. Samuel W. Dart, solicitor, of Red Lion-square,
who deposed that he was in the habit of visiting Mr.
Latouche professionally, who was in a very shattered state
of health for many months, and whom the surgeon of the
prison attended. On the 4th of June he was with Mr.
Latouche, when Mrs. Phillips knocked, to take measure
for a straw hat. Mr. Latouche desired her to walk in,
but she said she saw he was engaged, and she would call
again. His impression was that nobody said Mr. Latouche
was engaged with his attorney and that she must call
again. Mr. Latouche was lying on the bed at the time,
from decided debility. The window of the room looked
into the front court-yard, and the door opened upon a
corridor common to all the rooms. There was a line of
rooms opposite, all of which were inhabited. All the
rooms below were also inhabited. Witness never passed
through the yard in his life without seeing persons there.
Mrs. Sharp was then called by the Court and ques-
tioned. She heard Mr. Latouche express a wish for a
straw hat, and she told Mrs. Phillips to go to him, with-
out receiving an order from Mr. Latouche. Mrs. Phil-
lips afterwards told her that Mr. Latouche had put his
hand upon her waist and praised her, and that she pushed
him against the table and broke glasses and decanters.
Mr. Latouche never had a decanter in his room. He kept
his wine in long French bottles. Mrs. Phillips never
showed witness a bruise on her hand ; but she said she
was frightened.
Mr. Dart swore that he never saw a decanter in the
room in his life.

Mrs. Phillips—lt might have been a bottle he took up
in his hand fur what I know.

The Recorder summed up, and the jury immediately
found the defendant—Not Guittz.
Colonel Rowan and Mr. Mayne, the Commissioners
under the new Police Act, wereengaged on Tuesday for a consider-
able time at the Home Office. The Commissioners were engaged
also at their office in examining about Cony candidates for the situ-
ation of police officers.
The late Old Bailey Sessions was the shortest ever
known, the whole of the business having been completed In little
more than three days.
Mr. Thomas, the constable of St. Paul, Covent-garden,
has been appointed, by the Home Secretary, one of the " District
Odeers of Police," under the sew system which it shortly to be
introduced.

An accident occurred yesterday, in the vicinity of Fins-
bury-square, which proved fatal to a poor boy, named
Ensley, who came to his death under the following cir-
cumstances :—lt appears that a gentleman, a merchant in
the city (Fenchurch-street), was driving his chaise, ac-
companied by his servant, along Crown-street, Bishops-
gate-street, when, suddenly, the animal took fright at a
painted (red) ladder, which was attached to a house, and
darted, full speed, along the street, knocking down stalls
and every thing else which came in contact with him,
until he came near Clifton-street, when he ran on the
pavement, threw out the gentleman and his servant, and
the wheel coming in contact against the head of the toy
fractured his skull. The home gallopped on down Chi-
ton-street until he came to King-street, leading to the
market, the end of which is barricadoed by iron pallisades,
the chaise coining in contactivith them, as also the horse,
broke dowmat least eight feet of the railing, and shattered
the chaise to atoms ! The poor unfortunate boy wait taken,
bleeding, to Mr. Robert's, a surgeon, in Wilson.-street,
who, finding him dangerously wounded, recosumeo.ded
that he .ahuuld be .tjkcn to St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
lehich was done, but when he got as far as Grnb-itreet
Ihe expired. The deceased now lies in the hospit9J.