Star.
London, England, 1826-10-23 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS, OCT. 21.

IRELAND V. SWEENEY.
This was an appeal from an order of affiliation made
some time Since before Sir Richard Birnie and Mr. Halls,
at the instance of Elizabeth Ireland, onMajor Sweeney;
but, to thei great disappointment of both parties, an
informality was discerned in the notice of appeal, which
rendered it invalid ; and Mr. Alley contended that, by
the 49th Geo. 111. no decision of the Court could be
binding unless that notice was valid, and served at the
specified time.
Mr. Anotruus, for the appellant—l am sorry the case cannot be
entered into, as it is one of the most infamous that ever came before
a Court..
Mr. Auer—Now really this is not to be endured. The order;
was made by two most respectable Magistrates.
Mr. ADOLPHUS—Yes, upon exparte evidence. Here
an unfortunate Gentleman is hampered with a child, in
whose creation, he says, he had no more to do than a
stringer ; and I trust the Court will interfere so far as
to reduce the weekly allowance. The appellant is one
of those meritorious men, who, after the service of their
best years in the defence of their country, are provided
with no very liberal compensation under the name of
half pay; and in addition to the expense of a Inge
family, out of 10s. per day, he has had this child fixe4
on him at 6s. per week, which I hope the Court will
reduce to 4s. _ _

Mr. A Luis, —I am willing to consent to its redaction to Ss. on
an understanding that no farther proceedings be instituted. •
The sum was ultimately Sited at 4.. 6d. a week, Mr. Anotrzus
remarking that they had had a true Betty Ireland to-day.
71sonsas Retail% Ras indicted (or an indecent assault
on Bridget Anne Colloughley.
The prosecutrix stated that the prisoner was _her
cousin by marriage, and had frequently visited her
husband. On the day in question be bad done so, and
went 'out with him. After watching him to the shop
where he worked, the prisoner returned, and after ask-
ing her to fetch some gin, remarked that her husband
would not be home that day, and began to ill use her.
She resisted; but he forced her from the chair on the
door, and held her down so forcibly; that she was nearly
overcome. She bit his cheek and tore his Bair, and by
that means got away from him; during the struggle,
however, be took liberties with her. He tore her gown
nearly from her person, and bruised her arm and neck.,
She told him she would telpher husband when became '
home, which she did directly she saw him. She cried
out, but there was nobody on that floor to bear her.
A female witness proved the state of alarm in which she found her
lying, on the bed, half an hour (by her account) aftey the occurrence.
The prisoner stated, in defence, that he had known
the prosecutrix, and had seduced her in Ireland, and
had been invited to visit her; he then indulged in roali
cious reflections on her character, not a word of which
was to the purpose.—A year's imprisonment.
William Davies, a military-looking man, with a
wooden leg, was placed at the bar on three separate
indictments for obtaining money under false pretences.
The firkt prosecutrix was Mrs. Frances Smith, widow,
who deposed that he came into her shop, and taking
her hand, said, that she little knew how nearly she was
related to him; he was in fact her husband's brother,
ex pressed great joy at seeing her well, told her he had 20s.
a day pension, and would be a great friend to her and
her family. He told her that be called to know how they
were situated, and took down a portrait of her husband,
and asked her if she did not see a likeness in it to him. This
he told her with such apparent candour, that she verily
believed he was her husband's brother. In describing
his own family, he said that his wife was very ill, and
that he wanted a few shillings to get some medicine;
he would repay it when his agent returned to town,And
would then provide for herself and family. ,She bad
never seen her husband's brother, and had been told that
be left the country 22 years ago. She lent him a sove-
reign, and informed her brother of what had happened.
This latter suspected and apprehended him.
- The brother deposed that the last witness had in-
formed him of the fact, and hearing the report that a
wooden leg. was in the neighbourhood, he gave chase
and took him.
The prisoner read a very eloquent address, in which
he did not attempt to justify, but to excuse, on the score
of extreme poverty, his conduit to the widow.
Mr. bIARRYAT. the Chairman, commented severely
on the enormity of robbing the widow and the father-
less. He was found guilty on this indictment, and
pleaded guilty to the ether two.—Seven years' trans-
portation.