Star.
London, England, 1818-03-27 00:00:00

:d,
person,
Id

•
.. .
. '
.
ASSIZES. 1
' At the Assizes for Lancashire, which commenced
on Saturday last, at the Castle in Lancaster, there
\ were one hundred sand twenty-eight prisoners for trial,
twenty-thiee bf whom are for forgery and uttering
forged Bank notes, six for murder, 254 for burglar'',
1 '2l for highway robberies, and two for maliciously
wounding.
MAIDSTONE, KENT.
CROWN sip&
i Walter Watcharst and George Dunk were indicted
for having, at Gillingham, on the 4th of February,
feloniously uttered forged £l. Bank (Votes, knowing
the same to be counterfeited, with intentto defraud
the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.
The facts was fully proved, and the Jury found a ver-
dict—Guilty. Sentence of death was immediately
I passed upon the criminals.
William Holysran.was indicted for having feloni-
ously personated the name of one Hugh Campbell, a
i petty officer on board the brig Maria, who was enti-
-1 tled to certain prize-money for his services on board
' that ship, and with having falsely forged and cows-
,
1 terfeited a certain certificate of service of the said
Hugh Campbell, and uttered the same as true, with
intent to defraud the Commissioners and Governors
I of the Hospital for seamen at Greenwich.
i 4 It was proved by Mr. Richard Smith, clerk of the
Cheque Office at Greenwich Hospital, that on the
II 13th August last, the prisoner came to the office, and
stating his name to be Hugh Campbell, born in Scot-
land, demanded a sum for prize-money, but did not
name the amount. The prisoner had called on the
i
i i - • 9th of August, four days previous to the present ap-
plication, and had on that occasion presented a cer-
tificate to a junior clerk in the office. Witness told
,
the prisoner that he had reason to think that his name
was not Hugh Campbell :the prisoner still persisted
•t 1 1 that it was, hut was ultimately taken into custody by
one of the constables belonging to the establishment.
The prisoner, seeing that the deceit was detected,
confessed that his name was not Hugh Campbell,
I and that he was instigated to do the act by a man of
the name of Shipley, who had stated himself to be
1 ! ' the brother of Hugh Campbell, and that he was au-
thorised to receive the money for him. The prisoner
.4 I also stated, that Shipley had offered to give him 21.
upon the receipt of the money.
It was subsequently proved, that the prize taken
,
1 : was the " El !)or de Mayo," by the Maria, on the
' 1 6th Novem'oer, 1812 ; Hugh Campbell being at that
, t time on hoard the ship. The certificate was also
•
proved to be a forgery in every respect. The prisoner being called upon for his defence, re-
peated that he had been instigated to do the act by
1114 I Shipley, who was now indicted at these Assizes for a
simi'ar offence, under the name of William Shipley
4 Creswell.—The Jury found a verdict Guilty, but the
prisoner was recommended to mercy by the prosecu-
. tor, believing his defence to be true.
t 1 ' William Shipley Creswell, the person alluded to as
ere instigator of I lolyman, was then put to the bar
. under an indictment charging him with having felo-
niously personated and falsely assumed the name and
character of one Joseph Walker, late seaman of his
' Majesty's gun-brig Swinger, in order to obtain tlw
payment of prize-money, with intent to defraud the
•Commissioners and Governors of the Royal Hospital
for Seamen at Greenwich.
i It was proved by the witnesses called on the part
of the prosecution, that, on the 12th July, in the last
year, the prisoner called at the Prize Office at Green-
wich Hospital, and declared himself to be Joseph
Walker, an able-bodied seaman, having served on
board the Swinger gun-brig, and claimed prize-
money on account of the vessel ; the prisoner at the
• same time gave two certificates :he was informed
t that the money due to Joseph Walker had been paid
to Mother Betty, as administratrix of Joseph Walker.
The pi ironer persisted that the money had not been
/ paid. Oa the 20th of the same month the prisoner
called again, and reproduced the certificates which
had lie,•n returned to him, and was again informed
that the money had been paid. The certificates
were sent up to the Navy Office, and they were
. I
found to be forged instruments. The prisoner was
immediately apprehended. It appeared that Cres-
, I well had been a Captain's Clerk on board the Swin-
t ger, while Joseph Walker was a seaman onboard the
same ship, and that the latter had since died.
The July found a verdict—Guilty.
William Bright and Jeremiah !fill were indicted
• . for stealing a pony, value 401. the property of John
1 Bicknell, Esq.
1 The horse in question, together with a bay horse
belonging to Mr. Young, of Greenwich, were taken
out of a field belonging to that gentleman on the
night of the 12th November, and on the next day
they were seen at the fair at Epping. The pi isoners
there offered the horse for sale, and asked 12/. fUr
the pony, and 131. for the bay horse. It appeared
that Bright was the acting manager of the whole,
and had employed IEII to commit the robbery. On
• the apprehension of llill at Greenwich, on the 15th
•
of November, he stated to the constable, that on the
12th he met Bright, whom lie knew before, and by
whom he was asked to go to Epping with a couple
of horses, which he had to take out of a field. To
. this he consented, having nothing to do, and at night
they wo.n:t to the field. Upon finding the gate locked,
Bright said—" Good GOD! this is strange; the ser-
vant knows lam coming." The gate was taken off
4
the hinges, the horses caught, and taken to Epping Fair.
Mr. Baron WOOD stated to the Jury, that there
I was little doubt as to the guilt of Bright, and the
! .
only question was, as tow hether Hill had a know-
ledge that he was doing a felonious act?
The Jury acquitted Hill, and found Bright Guilty.
) CIVIL SIDE.—BECEINGTON v. BODLE AND OTHERS.
This was an action of assault and false imprison
‘ smut against the Overseer of the parish of Plumsted,
. the constable of the same parish, and another person,
for taking a young woman before a Magistrate, and
compelling her to leave the parish.
Thil father and mother of the plaintiff were exa-
mlnedrwho stated that their daughter lived with
, them, and gained her living by honest industry, and
that neither she nor any of the .family had been
chargeable to the parish. Notwithstanding this, one
morning in July last, as she was going out early to
work, the defendants lay in wait for her, and seising
her, said she must go with them. She said she had
done no wrong, that she had neither robbed nor mur-
-,t,
. • :11 .
)1 .
~, ~ .
. . •