Star.
London, England, 1828-10-21 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, OCT. 20.

John Donnelly was charged with assaulting Mary
Donnelly, his wife, on the 20th of last June.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner and
the prosecutor were living separate; on the night of the
above day the prisoner's daughter called on him, and
said she could not gain admission into her mother's
house, where she resided ; the prisoner went to the
house with her, and the door was opened by the prose-
cutriz, who was in her chemise. At the same moment
the prisoner observed a man, nearly in a state of nudity,
hide himself under the bed. Incensed at the circom-
stance, he pushed the prosecutria from bins, and het
head coming in contact with the wall, it was very much
cut. This was the substance of the charge.
The prisoner was found Uoi/iy of assault, but recom-
mended to mercy by the Jury, on the ground of pro-
vocation.—The prisoner was allowed to depart upon
his own recognizance.
Mr. DUNN moved the Court to put off the trial of
Mr. Northhouse, who was indicted for a conspiracy to
obtain a subscription of 501. from Mr. Baldwin, towards
a capital for carrying on a newspaper, called the Lon•
don Free Press, by representing that Mr. Hume, M.P.
was a subscriber for 500/. The motion was grounded
on an affidavit that Mr. Hume was out of town, and
could not be served with notice to attend the trial ; and
that he was a material witness.

Mr. ALLEY, who was Counsel for another defendant,
requested that the trial might go on, as his client did
not require Mr. flume's evidence.
Mr. Haonatea and Mr.Pur LLIPS, for the prosecution,
joined in the application for the postonement, and pro-
Arced an affidavit of their not being able to serve Mr.
Hume with notice, in consequence of not knowing where
he was; and stated, that they could rot prove the case
for the prosecution without his evidence.
The Claiaa(AN expressed his surprise, if that were
the case, that one of the defendants should be so anxious
for Mr. flume's evidence.

Mr. DUNN said his client was confident of an acquit-
tal, whether Mr. Hume were present or absent; but he
wished to be acquitted after the fullest investigatian of
the charge made against him.
The Coca?, on the affidavits, put off the trial till
next Sessions.

Josiah Hicks and his wife were indicted for assault•
ing George Peace.
Mr. BARRY stated the case for the prosecution.
Mr. ALUM said he had an answer to the charge—the
case had bern already decided by two Magistrates un-
der Mr: Peers new Act, who decided that the assault
had been committed by the prosecutor, and convicted
him in a penahy of 15s. and costs, the record of which
ciarviction he now produced in answer to the present
charge, according to that Act. He considered it an Act
to deprive the subject of his dearest birthright—the
Trial by Jury; but while it was suffered to exist, be
must plead it for the benefit of his clients.
It appeared that the assault was cotnalitted at Hamp-
stead on the 26th of August, and the prosecutor made
his complaint at Bow-street the next day, and bad the
defendants held to bail to take their trial. A week after

the defendants charged the prosecutor with the astau:t
before two Magistrates at Hampstead, by whom be was
convicted.
The CHAIRMAN decided, that the prosecutor being
the fint to complain, was not to be stopped in his pi
ceedings by the subsequent complaint of the defend-
aim. The trial proceeded, and the defendants were
both found Guilty.
Mr. ALLEY observed, this proved the absurdity of
the Act. The same ass roll was tried before two tribu-
nals, and by one, one party was found guilty; by the
other, t' e miser patty was found guilty!
The male pi ironer was sentenced to pay a fine of fifty
shillings, and the female one shilling.