Star.
London, England, 1827-07-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, )131.1' 17.
WOHTI6/411 AND WEST.
The LORD Camsceu.on had signified his intention
of giving his judgment in this case, and oncoming into
Court said he was prepared to do so, but that some
doubts had arisen in his mind respecting the terms of
the testator's will. Ti.. point on which these doubts
arose, had not been called to his attention by the Coun-
sel on either side; and it was, that the bequest was
made "to every other child of the said Elizabeth
Davis now born, or which may be born within nine
calendar months after my decease." These words
would apply to illegitimate as well as to legitimate
children, and might be considered as the children of
Elizabeth Davis by any person. The reason why no
mention was made of the father of the children was
obvious: it was in order to effect that indirectly, which
could not be done directly. This point, which, as he
had said before, was hitherto not adverted to by the
Counsel, might, when cl:cided, tender nugatory the
decision of the other parts r f the case. It entirely
changed the vestion. Beta een this day and Fti.►ay
he would turn the matter in hi, mind, and oo the latter
day he would give his judgment.

- .
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S onus.
Sir C. Warureett. pre:en•ed a petition praying for
an increas: of the cle.lcs in the (Ace of the Account-
ant General, the present number not being sufficient
to discha►ge properly the du ies of the office.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that as the power Of
making the alteration suggested by the petition rested
aids him, he should not scruple to e:e►cise it, because
he was con•ineed that some of the business in the Ac-
countatst-Geneiaes office had been, he would not say
neglected, hut altogether omitted, owing to the small
number of hands in that establishment.

NEROT V. BURNAM.
Counsel were heard in argument on this appeal dur-
ing the remainder of the sitting of the Court.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jus.r IT.
HICHICIIS V. HINDI.

This case arose out of certain transactions relating to
the Arigna Mining Company.
The plaintiff, together with four other persons, all cf
them shareholders in the Arigna Mining Company,
filed a bill for the purpose of compelling the defend,nt
Hii,de and another person, named Beautian, to refund,
Ice the benefit of the Company, two several sums of
1.004. each, which they had received as agents to Sir
WM. Congrevr. To this bill the defendants demurred,
on the grounds of want of parties, and absence of know-
ledge on their parts of the fraudulent manner in which
the m .ney had been obtained and applied.
. The case now came on upon the demurrer.
Mr. litiwa (with whom were Mr. Hostads Twos
and Mr. Lowest:ma) appeared to support the demurrer.
He contended that these five persons could not be al-
lowed to file a bill of this description against o her
shareholders, who had an equal interest with themselves
in the affairs of the Company. The shares of the Com-
pany had been sold to others who were not original
subscribers, and—there was no evidence to shew that'
those others were not participants in the guilty know.
ledge of the fraud. Such persons must be bound by
the knowledge of the parties from a horn they purcha,ed.
Admitting, however, that a fraud had taken place, and
that three plaintiffs weta entitled to file a bill, still the
defendants were not the proper parties. There was no
eyidence" before the Court that the defendaots, as agents
of the Directors of the Company, did more than merely
receive the money tor the benefit of their principits. It
was for his Learned Friends on the other side to shew
that the defendants had committed themselves in any
other way, before the plaintiffs could look for any re-
medy against them.
Mr. SUODKN began to address the Court in :ippon
of the bill, when

The VICIrCHANCRLLOR said, that it might save both
time and trouble if he. gave it as his opinion lit once,
that the objection on the ground of want of parties had
long since been overruled. In the case of is Adair v.
tie New River Company," and in other cases where the
crews of privateers sought relief in equity for a division
of their prize money, the question had been completely
set at rest. His principal difficulty was the objection
to make these defendants give an account in a Court of
Equity of monies which they appeared to have received
merely as agents, for the use of others. In plain lan-
guage, the question was, whether the hand which passed
the money to others was to be made responsible for its
application when it came into its possession for the sole
purpose of passing it, and for no other ?
Mr. SUODEM thought he could satisfy his Honour
that the dekiidants were not only the agents of the Di-
rectors, but also the officers and servants if the CM.
par,y, participating, as well as the Directors themselves,
in the advantages derived 'from the fraud. It was quite
clear that they knew that instead of 25,0001. only
10,0001. had been paid, and that they were privy to the
sharing of the 15,0001. among certain persons connected
with the Company. The Learned Counsel here read a
variety of letters from Sir W. Congreve to Mr. Hob oyd,
agent to Messrs. Clarke, through whose means the
Company was formed; and contended, that upon the
face of them the defendants had cognizance of the whole
transaction, from the moment it was projected until its
consummation.

After a few words in reply from Mr. H. Twigs, •
The Vice CHANCELLOR said, that although it was,,
very doubtful whether the plaintiffs could ultimately
succeed, yet he felt that he was bound to over rule the
demurrer. The case could not be perfectly understood
before the defendants put in their answer. What ulti-
mate success would attend the plaintiffs depended upon
a variety of circumstances, some of which were not yet
before the Court, and some of which would be the sub-
ject of future consideration, when the case itself came
before him for judgment. For the present, he should
dismiss the demurrer.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. JULY 17.

SROBIEIRLD AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES OF SCOTT AND

CO. AOAINbT TODD.

This was an action of trover against the defendant, a
wharfinger, to recover the value of twenty-five firkins
of butter, shipped by James Reid, of Newcastle•upon-
Tyne, on board the Swift,Captain White, and consigned
to the bankrupts, Scott and Bright,who were provrsion•
n4rchants and commission-agents, in Walbrook, in the
city of London.
Mr. COMYN opened the pleadings, and the Comics/4
SIBOZAMT stated the case. The goods were shipped at
Newcastle on the 14th of January, 1826, and on the
same day Reid wrote to the bankrupts that he had
shipped to them for sale twenty-five firkins of butter, aid
had drawn a bill for 501. at two months' date, to which
he begged their usual kindness. The bill was duly ae-
eptcd by the bankrupts. It was payable to the order

of the drawer a for value recelv:d• in goods per the
Swift as advised." Tbkgools arrived it th;detends
ant's wharf in the river, on the 11 h of February ; but
Scott and Bright suspended their payments on thes9th,
and were denied to their creditors on thie 50th of
January, and a commission of bankrupt was issued
against them on the 4th of February, under which th-
plaintiffs were chosen assignee., and the assignment was
executed to them on the 26 h of. March. The iniroice
was received on the Ist of JAnuary, and on that day the
bankrupts wrote to the defendant, .1 that they had re-
ceived an invoice of goods from Mr. Reid, which, in
their present situation, they did not feel justified in
holding." Reid, on the 6th of February, as soon as lie
heard of the bankruptcy, wrote to the defendant not t
deliver the goods to the bankrupts; and the derendaiit
afterwards delivered dila) to Reid's order, without the
plaintiff's consent.
The bill which the bankrupt bad accepted was pro-
duced by Mr. Coleman, who received it from a house
at Newcastle.

The ATlroaNsit-Gnalut., for the defendant, con.
tended that the consignor Reid had a right to stop the
goods is transibt as soon is he became acquainted with
ihe bankruptcy of the consignees; and that the de-
fendant was therefore justiSed in deliveting the goods
,:o Reid's order.

The Cosmos SZIAGEASIT and Mr. COMYN insisted,
that after 4Leid had made the bilLais own by endorsing
and payini it away, his tight of stoppage in transitti
was gone.
Gird TENTUDEN, however, held otherwise. T e
whole law of stoppage is traxsign was against the phi
tiff; cave. If Reid rec, iced rn-mey to which he w s
not entitle) wider the bill, the assignee, could recover t
of bina.—The plaint:ifs were accordingly noosuited.

FLORA:-Cit AGAINST GOLD;4I/0
This was an acti. a brought fur the iecorery of a bill
of cuss which the plaintiff, who is an attorney, claimed
for business done for Mr. Alegandet Goldsmid.
Mr. Ba uowa stated the ease. The defendant, wl o
.rasa Director of the Metropolitan Alderney Dairy Corn.
pany, suspecting that a Mr. Parker, who vas in the
employ of the Company, had broken open a desk and
taken money rot of a till to pay himself the arrears
which he claimed from the Company, gave Mr. Parker
in charge cf a Bow-street Officer, in consequence of
which Mr. Parker brought an action against him ill the
Court of Common Pleas for defamation, •nd indicted
him at the Sessions for an assault. The defeudant em•
played the plaintiff as his attorney both in the acti, a
and in the indictment, and for the balance of his bill of
costs, amounting to 631.4'. 101 Of which 251. had been
paid, the action was brought.
John Tucker, clerk to the plaintiff, proved a delivery
of the bill of costs, and that the business specified is the
items of the bill had been done.

Cross-raamined by Mr. PozzoCK—The plaintiff svas
solicitor to the Dairy Company, and the defendant was
a Director of at. The bill of costs aas horn business
arising out of a charge the defendant had brought
against Parker fcr embezzling money.
Mr. PoLzocit said that he had the plaintiff's receipt
for 1251. in full of all demands upon the Company, and
there was no proof that the defendant was the personal
employer of the plaintiff on his own behalf, without re.
Ihence to the Company. There was. nothing mo,e pro-
bable than that the defendant, who was a arectori
should have taken Park:r into custody immediately
that he suspected him of embezzlemeat, and there was
nothing more just than that the Directors should protect
and defend the defendant, and employ the plaintiff,
their solicitor, to conduct his defence. When the plain.
tiff was paid the 1P.51. he expressly said that be did not
claim any thing from the defendint, and there was a
special charge in the account of V... 51. for actions and it:.
dictsuents. against Mr. Goldsmtd, The plaintiff was
employed, and considered himself employed, by the
Company only, and not by the defendant t and his pre.
sent attempt td charge the defendant. after his receipt
in lull of all demands'of the Company, wat entitely an
after-thought.
The recept was put in. It war• d..ted the 11th f
May. 1826:

0 -Received of Sir John Petting and Alexander Doirismids UFO
the Chairman and Deputy Chairman or the blenopolinu3 Alderney
Dairy Company, 125 i. in full of all demands upon the Company."
Charles Kemp, chief clerk of the Company, prove 4
that the plaintiff applied for money on' account of the
defence of proceedings instituted by Pallet', to the
defendant, and Mr. Samuel Israel,' at the Bank. He
applied (or 201. which witness %as ai.rcted to give him.
Witness afterwards gave him 251. understinding it %At
on account of the Company. Witness also proved the
receipt of the 11th of May, and that the plaintiff re.
ceived the 1254 and that he told the defendant, who
asked him the question, that he bad no separate chow
against him. The plaintiff was the secretary and soli-
citor to the Company.
Cross-examined—Witness was a shareholder. The
Conapany was at aeend.
Samuel Israel—Was present at the Bank when the'
defendant applied for 201. for the purpose of carrying
on the defence of Parker's proceedings. The D rectors
took up the business for the defendant. He was also
present when the 1251. was paid. The plait tiff had
1001. a year as secretary and solicitor t' the Company,
The 1001. was given him in lien of his bill of costs,
which amounted to 1151. and 251. was given to him as
a quarter's salary. The Company was al that time going
to decay.
Mr. Benue'/Au, in reply, said that the defendant bad
,called only one of the Directors, to prove a fact tibia
be would shew to be impossible; and to prove which
the defendant might, and should have called many of
the other Directors, unless, indeed, they had gone the
way of all flesh, as the C.mpany had gpne the *ay of
all Companies. No item in the account for which the
1251. was paid related to the defence of the action, or
of the prosecution instituted by Parker. They reared
to business done by the plaintiff, chiefly for preparing
conveyances of the different station; purchased by the
Company, none of which were, as he (Mr. B r.ugnain)
was happy to observe, in the neighbourhor 0 of pt.tops,
so well had the Company regarded the good of their
customers in taking every precaution to keep their milk
unadulterated. There was no reason why the plaintiff
shot 14 make a present to the defendant, a very rich
man, of all tl e attendances at the Court of Cemmon
Pleas and at the Sessions. The receipt on which the
defendant relies has on it the words 0. on account," and
the plaintiff is willing to allow him the 251 the Com-
pany paid. Why should they have paid the defendant's
exp7nies ? He (Mr. Brougham) belonged to many
Companies, but he felt tl at if a prosecution for an
assault, and an action for defamation, were brought
against him for what he bad doer in his over-seal toy
one of th,se Companies, it would not be cunt r pi of et;
or decent for him to ask them to be at the e.

defending him: It was the defendant's own

.1 I ,
,
'

ours's I

beadedness. and his ignorance of the proceedings in this
most Christian country, that led him into the conduct
that produced these litigations and expenses.
Lord TINTERDSN said, the question the Jury had to
deeide •as, whether the business had been done by the '
plaintiff for the Company, or for the defendant ? If it
was done for the defendant, the plaintiff would have a
right to recover ; but if done for the Company, his re-
ceipt in full of all dethands precluded him.
The Jury, after a little deliberation, found a verdict
for the defendatii. r
COURT OF COUgON RLEAS, Jut's' 17.
SOOLTER O. MASON.
In this action the plaintiff sought to recover a sum
of money which he had lost, in consequence of the
negligence of the defendant, whom he had employed
as a surveyor. The circumstances of the case appeared
to be these:—ln 1825. an application was made to the
plaintiff by a third party, for a loan of 4001. for the
security of which certain freehold property, situate in
Grub-street and the adjoining neighbourhood, was pro-
posed as security. Previous to advancing this sum, the
plaintiff employed the defendaht to survey the premises,
in order to ascertain their value, and to know whether
they would be good security for the loan. The defend-
ant‘reported favourably of them, and the money was
advanced oo the strength of his opinion. The plaintiff,
however, had subsequently discovered that the premises
were not of sufficient value to secure the money be had
advanced, which had never been paid ; and he therefore
brought' this action against the defendant, to recover
.the sum he had lost, in consequence of his negligence
-sr want of skill. In support of this ease, several sur-
.voyors and auctioneers were called, who stated, that the
property was so much our of repair, and let to such
miserable tenants, that after deducting all expenses,
401. per annum would be the utmost it would produce.
The defendant contended, that the property was an
ample security, as he could prove by the most respect-
able and experienced Witnesses.
Mr. Winstanley was then called, and stated, that he
should consider the property good security, as in 1825
he had estimated their value at upwards 4.5001. Mr.
Musgrove calculated that their net produce would be
691. per annum ; but admitted, in cross-examination,
that had he been consulted be should not have advised

an advance of 4001.
The Loan CRUET &MICR said, that where there was
such conflicting testimony, the Jury must decide on
which they thought most probable. The question in
the present case tor thPir consideration was, whether the
defendant had exerted a sufficient degree of skill and
attention, or whether he bad not been negligent in per-
forming the duty he had undertaken? It they thought
he had not been sufficiently attentive, they would give
their verdict for the plaintiff, teaching those Gentlemen
(auctioneers and surveyors) that they had sornethieg to'
do besides receiving their fees. If, however, they
thought he had properly discharged his duty, they
would find for the defendant. Should they decide in
favour of the plaintiff, they would give him such -an
amount as would cover the differencebetween the WOOL
and the actual valise of the premises, which they would•
estimate from the evidence they had heard.
After a short deliberation, she Jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 2001.
MCI e. }MLITT.
Mr. Sergeant ANDRIM stated that this was an action
of trespass, assault, battery, and false imprisonment,
committed upon the plaintiff, who was carpenter on
beard the Georgiana, commanded by the defendant.
The circumstances of the case were thesez—The plain-
tiff was taken on board the Georgiana as carpenter, at
Calcutta, in the month of Jnly last, the ship being then
about to leave India on her homeward voyage. She
arrived at the Cape of Good Hope just at the con-
clusion of the year, and sailed from that port on
the Ist of January; and it was upon the following day
that the assault complained of was committed. It hap.
pened that about three o'clock in the afternoon of that
day (the 2cl of January. the plaintiff was below, and,
fatigued with the work he had undergone, had retired
to his cabin; an order at this time was sent from the
Captain by the boatswain, desiring his immediate at.
tendance on deck. This order, however, the carpenter
refused to obey, and the Learned Sergeant admitted
that he certainly returned an improper answer—viz•
that if the Captain wanted him in such a hurry, he might
come after him himself: This message was taken to the
Captain, and three of the mates of the vessel were sent
down to bring him on deck. These Gentlemen weal
into his cabin, seized hold of him by the neck, threw
him down, bound his legs with a rope, and finally
dragged him up, heels foremost, upon deck, where he
was ordered to be put into irons, and kept in confine-
menu This order was immediately executed, and the'
unfortunate man was kept in confinement and in irons
final that time until the ship arrived at Woolwich on
the 12th of March, when he was liberated, and told he
might go about his business. These were the facts of
the case, as would be proved by witnesses. The Learned
Sergevis would then leave the case in the hands of the
Jury to give such damages as they should think would
compensate the plaintiff for the very severe injury he
bad sustained.
Three witnesses were then called, who stated that the
plaintiff was kept on bread and water for some days
previous to the ship's arriving at St. Helena, where a
fresh carpenter was taken on board. From that place
until his arrival in England, he had the same allowance
as the other seamen, with the exception of grog. They
also all stated, that from the kindness of the officers
under whose charge he was placed, he was allowed to
be on deck, out of irons, from ten o'clock in the morning
until sunset, when a single iron was placed on his leg.
In cross-examination, they said that when the Captain
sent to him, the topmast was down ; and in consequence
of his refusal to work, the first mate and one of the pas-
sengers were compelled to repair it previous to its being
replaced.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. lie admitted that as the defendant had pleaded
no justification, a verdict must be given for the plaintiff,
but he thought the Jury had already seen sufficient
of the case to sec that it was one that did not call
for very heavy damages. He would, however, call
the other Officers of the ship who were now in England,
who would prove that the plaintiff's conduct had
been most shameful, and that he had been insolent, not
to say mutinous, in the language he had used when he
refused to obey the orders of the Captain. This the
Learned Sergeant would prove by indisputable evidence,
and he trusted, before the Jury returned their vet diet,
they Would consider how strict an obedience to the
Captain's order-was necessary to the good management
and safety of a ship.
Mr. Johnston, the first mate, was then called, and
stated, that at the time the carpenter refused to come on
deck the ship was in distress, ha topmast being struck,

and, had a gale sprung up, stould have been placed in
considerable danger. He then describedlhe manner in
which Rice bad conducted himself, and the wens
adopted to get him on deck, which were such as bad
been described by the witnesses for the plaintiff; but it
was entirely in consequence of his obstineey and imper-
tinence. When the order was given him to go on deck,
he said, " lithe Captain wants me, let him come: I will
not go to him, see him d—d first.* His conduct
was so violent, that they were compelled to fasten his legs
with a rope to carry into execution the Captain's,order
to bring him on deck. It was the Captain's intention
to have put him on board a man of war, in case they
should meet with one, but that not being the c sse, they
brought him home. A Court of Inquiry was held among
the Officers, on board the ship, when it was decided, in
consequence of certain expressions that had fallen from
the plaintiff, that it was necessary he should be kept in
irons during the night., He was at liberty during the
day-time, from eight o'clock till sun-set.
Mr. Lewis, the second mate, and Mr. M'Donald, a
passenger, gave evidence to the same effect.
The LORD Csusr Justice summed up, leaving it to
the Jury to say what damages they should think the
plaintiff was entitled to recover, after the evidence they
bad heard.
The Jury, after retiring for some time, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages SOL

OLD BAILEY, Jury 17.
Ames Shaw, a workman, was convicted of having
stolen spectacles and mathematical instruments, the
properly of William Elliot, his master. The Jury va-
lued the articles under 40s. Sentence—transportation
for fourteen years.
John Whittal was tried for having stolen a quantity
of lead from certain premises at Poplar. He had bee
seen carrying a bundle, containing the stolen property,
which he threw away when pursued. Notwithstanding
a very good character for previous honesty,he was found
guilty, and sentenced to-seven years transportation. •
James Smith was put on his trial for uttering false
coin, knowing it to be counterfeit. The prisoner
pleaded guilty, and could not be persuaded by the Re-
corder to withdraw his plea. He was sentenced to one
.year's imprisonment and hard labour in the House of
Correction; to be further imprisoned until he should
Ainiatallfetila for his good behaviour for two years.
Borah Smith and Elizabetb Buckley were found guilty
of having base coin in their possession, with intent to
utter the same, and were sentenced to twelve months
confinensent anel hard labour in the House of Correction.
Charles Jones was tried for wilful and corrupt per-
jury, alleged to have been committed by him on giving
his evidence on the trial of one George Williams, at a
former Sessions of this Court for burglary, with a view
to shield Williams from conviction. Williams had been
convicted on that occasion.
• The present prisoner (Jones) was proved to have
sworn, on the trial of Williams, and for the defence
Williams, that, on the night, and at the moment that
Williams was pursued, and seized for the burglary, be
Jones) saw another man run through the public house
an which Williams was taken prisoner, and that be
mentioned the circumstance at the time to the persons
who seized Williams; those persons deposed, this day,
that no person ran through the house, and that the pri-
soner (Jones) did not mention the circumstance to them,
at the time.
The prisoner stated, in his defence, that he gave his
testimony truly and sincerely on the trial of Williams,
and that if it was not satisfactory, it must have resulted
from the confusion and embarrassment of his feelings
while he was giving it. He had never been tried for
any offence before the present, and disclaimed all idea
of misleading the Court, or of shielding Williams, by
the testimony he gave on Williams's trial.
Several persons gave the prisoner a good character
for honesty and veracity. Verdict—Not Guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Alumni, to the prisoner—Now, young
Mao, let the be a warning to you. You certainly came
forward oa that trial to defeat the ends of public justice!
This case concluded the list of trials. Thirteen males
land font teen females (prisoners) were discharged from
custody, no bills having been found against them by
the Grand Jury.
The Recommit then proceeded to the New Court,
pronounce sentence on the several prisoners who had
been convicted in the course of the Session.
NRW COURT.
T. Harris and G. Churchman were convicted of steal-
ing nearly five cwt. of lead.
Susannah Smith, aged 17 years, was convicted of
stealing a Leghorn bonnet, the property of Elizabeth
Stewart. From the evidence of the prosecuirix and
other witnesses, it appeared, that about ten o'clock in
the evening of the 9th Jnne last, the prosecutrix was
crossing London-bridge, when the prisoner snatched
from her head her bonnet, and being pursued, threw it
I over the bridge.
The aunt of the prisoner appeared on her behalf, and
said, she had been left an orphan et the early age of
nine months. She bad been at service in Hertfordshire,
and had (to the best of the witness's knowledge) main-
tained an excellent character. The witness had bad no
idea that the prisoner was in town until she received a
letter from her, stating that she was in confinement.
The witness, in answer to a question from the Court,
declared her willingness, and, indeed anxiety, to receive
the pr slner into her house, and to take care of her.
T.ie prisoner was convicted, but the Jury recom-
mended her to mercy, believing this to have been her
first offence.
The DEPUTY Rem:ranee said be should attend to the
recommendation of the Jury ; and, thinking the best
course would be to give her a chance of being reclaimed,
sentenced her to a fine of one shilling, and ordered her
to be given up to her aunt. This humane sentence ap-
peared to give satisfaction to the entire Court.
Three Jcw boy s;of the names of Isaacs, Barnard, and
Moses, were convicted of stealing from the person of a
yr uth, AI: red Bt namin Elkin (also an Israelite), a pocket.
book, his property.
In passing sentence on the prisoners, the DE puTi
RECORDER declared it to be the determination of the
Court to protect the public against such offenders, by
transporting every person that shall be convicted Of
picking pockets; and concluded by sentencing the pti-1
soners severally to be transported for 14 years.
Coleman Jacobs stood indicted for stealing several
cards of gilt bracelets and ear-rings, the property of
George Bowers and Sons.
W. Woodroffe examined—l am a clerk of Bowers
and Sons, of Thaives Inn, Holborn. At about half-past
nine o clock on Friday morning last the prisoner came
to our shop, and asked to see some goods. Another
clerk shewed him some ear-rings. I saw the prisoner
put his hat near the ear-rings, place his handker chiel

- - • .•
(over them, put them into his hat, sod .534 it 'efts hid
head. The saute operation was repeated with respect'
to some bracelets. I told my employer what I had ob-
served. He would hardly believe it, the prisoner having
for a considerable time had extensive dealings with
my employers. He was called into the back ware-
house, and there Mr. Bowers said—" Jacobs, you have
got some goods that are not booked 7' He denied it.
I asked him where were the bracelets he had put into
his hat? He said he had no such things; but the ear-
rings and bracelets sere, notwithstanding, found in hie
hat with his handkerchief.
On his cross-examination by Mr. Fnint.t.res, the wit.:
ness dented that he had ever said that he entertained o
pique against the prisoner. I never had a quarrel.wri
words of disagreement with him. The prisoner has had
large dealings with my employers, and was considered
a very honest man by them.
Benjamin Davis examined—l am also a clerk of the
prosecutors. The prisoner came to our house on Friday
morning, and asked to see some bracelets. I sheaved
him some. He asked had we any thing else? I said
we had—neck-chains—which he looked at. but imme-
diately asked to see some gilt esr-rings. These I also
'hewed him, and a.ted would he then settle a small
account we had against him? He said, "Yes." I went
into the 'compting-house to make it out, and in the ime•
rim the transact ion deposed to by Woodroffe took place.
George Bowers, jun. examined—l am a partner in
the house of George Bowers and Sons. The witness
corrobotated the testimony of the other witnesses, and
declared, bad he not seen the bracelets and ear-rings
taken out of his hat, he could not have believed that
the prisoner was capable of such an act. The prisoner,
on the discovery, begged forgiveness. It is impossible
that these things could have adhered by accident to his
handkerchief, or remained in his hat without his know-
ledge. The prisoner is, I believe, rather an eccentric
man. He has had extensive dealings with our house
for many years. I always considered him an honest man.,
The prisoner (who is a Polish Jew), on being called,'
upon for his defence, entered into a long statement,'
which was rendered perfectly unintelligible by his de
fective pronunciation. A written defence was subse.
quently put in and read, in which he said the articles
found in his bat had been there without his knowledge.
Four persons of great respectability, with some of
whom the prisoner had had dealings in trade, gave hips
a most excellent character, some of them deposing to
his habit of placing his hat and handkerchief down in
the manner described by the witnesses for the prosecu-
tion.—The Jury, after consulting for an hour, returned
a verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to
mercy, on the ground of his previous good character, in*
which the prosecutor joined. •
The DRPUTT RECORDER said, the prisoner should not
be sent out of the country, and that he should receive
tie most lenient sentence possible.
The Sessions being over, the Recoansa proceeded
to pass sentence urea the prisoners convicted.
The felowkw ogee aeogopeol so traesporostioe for seem years:
JlMthroo,ims. ei Melte, W OA: toerromee
Jobe Cleffehmes, Elslord Hatch. "Om IMANni, Jams =OM
Pahl& Mims Yes,7l:eame Malle.lbsous
Jobe )bddlit, and Chris Ilisoiy Casepbell, Join Pored,
Oeorp She. Moms Illolds,'Closies Holm, Maey
Was Mises.Joise Alms, Ileeseei armee, hies Drowse. Mary
Grabavaiesepi Cooper. Moose Moore Wain: Mack, IZsa
limnat•nomaa LowlO,Maerko sawillitoo.PraocbMit-
sioU.MartlnCtarke.WlMemllllllms, Reuben Cutleader, John Cal-
laghan, Maria Fraser. J. Peithi. I. P Hannah ke; Jam
Brett, John Rebett, Wes: CaMitleritcher, Mary Id'Auley,Bur William
Broekling; Thomas Tlions. Wane: Jones, Frederick SpiDens
H. Daly, A. Mowers. ?raids Cumin, and Mary Itevan.—To
trampersittion Sir kitten years—Joha L.:renew*, Jos. Beekeet,
Arse MANsees.Theneo Bradford, John Brown, and Rd. Bowers.
ono re traamporation Ow life. Seventy-eight were sentenced to
various loos or and to be kept to bard labour (two
of whom to be orb
.; silt to be privately whipped and dls.
charged ; and apes eight (furitteng Solomobs and Lyons) judg-
ment was spited.
Upon the Mowing unhappy persons, sentence of death was thee
pronounced, vier James Taylor, Samuel Rogers, James Bras,
William Harris, Frederick Beale, Edward Griffiths, and Jaws
Hawse, for stealing in a dwelling-house; Wet. Citifilth, for horse
ovallag ; John Wyford Smith, John Wrght, and Joseph Wells, foe
=; Thomas Wilton, John Haggerty, John Williams. RIM.
and Thomas Norton. for robbery on the Ring's highway;
and Peter Johnson Hamilton, for uttering counterfeit coin, be bee.
liag been' before convicted, and received judgment, as a camases
utterer of forged coin.'
'r he Sessions were then adjourned to Thursday; the
10th.of September next.
to •