Star.
London, England, 1821-09-14 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

CARIUSUF..
Akrander Haugham pleaded Not Guilty to a charge I
of uttering eighteen guinea notes, purporting to be of
the British Linen Company, knowing them to be
forged, with intent to defraud J. Clark.
In the opening of the case it was stated, that the
prisoner was in the cattle trade, and on the 9th of
June last the prosecutor had come to Carlisle fair
from Ireland, with some cattle, for sale. He sold
prisoner four cattle for £2O, who tendered eighteen
guinea notes, and paid the remainder in silver. He
said then, which was a very suspicious circumstance,
that his name was Forster, and that he would be at
Rosley-hill on the Monday following. Clark went
there, but did not see the prisoner—he had occasion
to change the notes into a bill on the Tuesday, but
they were rejected, as being forged. Search was
then made for the prisoner, and he was found at,
Dornock. He, when first accosted, denied having
been at Carlisle, or of having purchased any cattle
on the day in question. When taxed with. the notes,
be gave a different account how be came by them
to his former account. There was one circum-
stance in the prisoner's favour—he had not absconded,
although he knew of the affair a full month before
he was taken.
James Clark comes from near Newry, in Ireland ;
was at Carlisle market on the 9th of June last; had
cattle there ; prisoner asked the price of four beasts,
and after a little conversation went into the tent of
Mi. Stevenson ; they agreed for twenty pounds;—
prisoner gave eighteen guinea notes and twenty-two
shillings of silver. Witness put them into his pocket,
and never had them mixed with any other notes. Pri-
soner said he would be at Rosley-hill on the Monday
following with the cattle, and some few more which
he had at home ; supposed from what he said he
lived on the English side; told him that his name
was James Forster ; never heard him use the name
of Haugham. Witness went on Monday to Rosley-
hill fair, but did not see the prisoner. Went to Mr.
Elliot's Bank at Carlisle, on the Tuesday following,
in order to get a bill for them, and Mr. Elliot ob-
jected to them as being forged ; witness previously
lent four of them to a Mr. Mullen ; he left the other
fourteen with Mr. Elliot ; went to Appleby fair in
order to find prisoner, and when he returned the cattle'
had been brought from Dornock to Carlisle.
Cross-examined by Mr. Losu.— Cannot read much,
but knows one note from another ; knows they were
the British Linen Company by other notes he bad
seen of the same Bank ; never saw prisoner before;
they were about an hour in company.
William Wallace, an Irishman, was present at the
time of sale. After hearing of the affair he made in-
quiry on the road as he was going homewards—over-
took Mr. Stevenson, and while he was with him a
person came up and told them he had driven the
beasts across the water (Esk), and got three shillings
for it. Witness then went that way in search of
them, and found them still in the prisoner's possession
at Dornock—prisoner kept a public-house. Asked
the prisoner how the beasts came on he had bought
at Carlisle the Saturday before? To which prisoner
answered, he had bought none, nor had he been there.
Stevenson was with him then; and witness said to
him, did not that man buy four beasts of James
Cl:u kon Saturday last?—to which be replied that he
did. Witness told prisoner that James Clark and a
Police-oflicer were coming ; upon which he said he
would .hew them the beats, and they went into a
field where they found the four beasts. Stevenson
then told him that the eighteen notes which lie bad
paid for the cattle were forged ones. Prisoner an-
swered, if they were bad ones lie bad got them for
good ones from a man in Carlisle, in payment for
some bacon—he either said that, or that he had got
the money exchanged he got for the bacon, and had
received the notes in question in the exchange. He
said he had got them the very day he bought the
cattle. Witness brought the cattle away, and left the
prisoner in company with Mr. Stevenson—did not
know prisoner before seeing him in Carlisle.
Cross-examined.—When asked why he denied being
in Carlisle, prisoner said he was afraid of his cattle
and goods being taken, as a man had an order against
him—as soon as lie knew their real business he went
into the field with them.

Alexander Stevenson keeps a public-house at Cargo-
lane, and remembers being with a booth at Carlisle
Fair on the 9th of June last. After hearing of the
forged notes, went in search of the cattle along with
Wallace..--(This witness corroborated the testimony
of Wallace.)
• John Fatish, writer in Annan, was present at the
examination of the prisoner before Mr. Dalgliesh, a
Magistrate of Annan.—(Examination was here sent
in, which stated that prisoner had sold bacon in Car-
lisle, and had got two £5 notes ; had got them ex-
changed for ten British Linen Company by a person
of the name of Telford, and had borrowed eight
more of him, for which he gave a promissory note,
and those for eighteen guineas were the same which
he had given to James Clark for the cattle.)
George Wilkin, of Caldewgate, bought bacon of
the prisoner on the '2d June last, which was weighed
by the Excise Officers (Willoughby and Morpeth).
l'risoner paid the duty (7s. Bd.) Witness paid for
part of the bacon in two £5 notes, Richmond and
Settle Banks, which was not so current here as the
British Linen Company. Is sure it was on the 2d
of June, as he had that day received a monthly bill
from a person with whom he deals. Telford resided
in Caldewgate, but did not know where he now was.
James Willoughby, Excise Officer, weighed forty
stone of bacon for last witness—entry on 2d June;
prisoner paid 7s. Bd. duty.
John Elliot, banker, in this city, received the notes
in question from Clarkl and Wallace; made a mark
upon them after they had lain five or six days upon
his desk ; he shewed them to Mr. Carrick, banker,
agent for the British Linen Company, on the day
that he received them.—(The notes were here pro-
duced, and Mr. Elliot believed them to be the same).
Cross-examined.—Brought them from Mr. Car-
rick's in his hand on the day he carried them ; Bri-
tish Linen Company notes were in great circulation
in the neighbourhood. Laid the notes on the desk
he does all his business on : it was possible his clerks
might have changed them.
Re-examined.—Took them to Mr. Carrick's be-
cause he thought they were forged.
Hubert Nemo had bees clerk with the British

Linen Company a great many years ; is sure the notes
were forged ; the signature was engraved instead of
written ; the numbers were incorrect, and knew, in
particular, his own signature to be forged.
John Ferguson, clerk with the same Company,
corroborated last witness.
Mr. Elliot was recalled by his Lordship, and asked
particularly whether or not it was possible that the
notes might have been changed? To which he an-
swered in the affirmative.
The Charter was here put in, but it failed in au-
thorising the Company to issue notes, but on its
being suggested to his Lordship that he had con-
victed five persons under it at Newcastle and that
its liberty to issue was recognised by the Stamp and
all other Acts which related to the issuing of notes,
his Lordship was of opinion that that was sufficient.
Mr. Lour, for the prisoner, submitted to his Lord-
ship that the case could not go to the Jury, as there
was no evidence to identify the notes.
The JUDGE expressed his doubt upon the subject,
and said he had sent a note to his brother, llolroyd,
desiring his opinion.
Mr. COURTENAY, for the prosecution, thought this
was an objection for the Jury to consider of,
His Lordship.—Certainly not.
Mr. COURTENAY supposed the case to be equally
in the same situation as to proving the identity of a
barrel of flour.
His Lordship thought otherwise, as there were cir-
cumstances with regard to a barrel of flour which
might tend to the identity of it, as quantity, quality,
tracing, &c. and was clearly of opinion that there
was no case for the Jury.—The answer to the note
sent to Justice Ilolroyd was of the same tendency,
therefore his Lordship told the Jury that the prisoner
was eatitled to his Acquittal.
There was no bill against Adam Sewell and Rich-
ard Winthoy for stealing 15s. 6d. from the house of
Ellen Carr, of ltitson's-lane.
No bill against the Township of llarrington for
not repairing a King's highway.

SOMERSET.
The Assizes commenced on Monday sennight, at
Bridgewater, and closed on Saturday. The calen,
dar enumerated 101 prisoners, and there were 5.1
causes entered at Nisi Prias, though but few of any
public interest.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM, in his charge to the Grand
Jury, said, that it was to him always a painful duty
to say anything which might appear like casting an
imputation upon the committing Magistrate ; but
there was a committal which he could not pass over
without the expression of his strongest disapproba-
tion ; he alluded to that of John Graddon, only
eleven years of age, who had been sent to jail for
want of sureties to appear as a witness to give evi-
dence against a man committed upon a charge of
felony. He had not expected to meet with such an
instance in this country in the present enlightened
age; it resembled the barbarous practice of days
long since gone by. The Jury might take the law
of commitment of witnesses from him ; when wit-
nesses had given their depositions, it was the duty
of the Magistrates to bind them over to appear at 'the
Assizes or Sessions to give evidence against the pri
soner ; and perhaps in some cases they were justified
in requiring sureties from the witness, as in the case
of a responsible person refusing or wishing to evade
attending—then the Magistrate might say to the un
willing witness, " If you do not enter into recogni-
zances to appear, I will commit you." But if a poor
man or woman, not resident at or near the place,
should be a necessary witness, it was toe much to
require sureties, and in default thereof, to commit
them : the Magistrate's duty was to bind them over
to appear on their own recognizance, and not to ask
impossibilities. But for an innocent child, only eleven
years old, without friends, to be sent to jail for three
months, because he could not obtain two responsible
persons to be bound for his appearance to give evi-
dence, was most unjustifiable; it was inflicting upon
him, considering his tender age, by an imprisonment
of three summer months, a greater punishment than
the culprit himself would, if convicted, receive by
one even much longer protracted. In Italy, it was
true, this practice prevailed ; but what was the con-
sequence? Why, when assassinations and the most
atrocious crimes were openly committed in their
streets, persons, instead of preventing or appearing
against criminals, ran away and hid themselves, be-
cause in that country the witnesses were sent to pri-
son to secure their attendance at the trials. He could
not refrain from making these strong animadversions
on this practice, which he trusted would never again
occur. There was another committal which called
for notice, namely, that of sending two girls, one
aged 14, and the other 16, to the Assizes, for steal-
ing a basket of wortleberries ! The worthy Baron
concluded his animated charge by strongly recom-
mending the Magistrates to bear in mind that they
should commit prisoners in such a way as to lessen,
as much as possible, the expense of prosecutions,
both to the prosecutors and the county stock : this,
by sending trifling cases to the Sessions, would lighten
the business of the Assizes. He congratulated the
Magistrates of the county upon the absence'in this
and the neighbouring counties of all prosecutions
which tended to agitate the public mind : it was with
sincere pleasure that he learnt there were no prose-
cutions for the publication of treasonable or seditious
pamphlets; nor for political riots; nor for the disse-
mination of those horrible irreligious publications
which tend to undermine the Christian faith, and
destroy those hopes of eternal happiness which are
the best consolation this life can afford.
TILE KING t•. ROBERT POOK.

The prisoner was indicted for forging an endorse-
ment to a bill of exchange, with intent to defraud
Messrs. Sparkes and Co. of Crew-kerne, bankers.
Michael Lewin, the first witness examined, stated,
that he was a traveller in the employment of Mr.
Samuel Hebditch, of Lopen, near South Petherton,
in this county; in July last, being at Bideford, he
sent to Mr. Hebditch a letter, inclosing the bill in
question, which was a draft of the Old Bideford
Bank, upon Messrs. Esdaile and Co. for £5O, pay-
able to the order of Hebditch, together with a pro-
missory note for £2O, and a customer's acceptance
for £lO ss.
Dakin, a clerk in the Crewkerne Bank, proved,
that on the 21st July the prisoner brought the said
£5O bill to the bank to have it changed ; the witness
told him it could not be discounted without the en-
dorsement of Mr. Hebditch, to whom it was payable,
upon which the prisoner took it away ; on the 25th

the prisoner returned-with the bill, which note had
the words, 44 Mr. Simeon Hebditch, L. Lopen;'
written in one line on the back of the bill ; witne=s
observed, it did not appear to be Mr. Hebditch's
hand-writing ; upon which the prisoner said, it was
endorsed by Mr. Hebditch's son, a young man of his
own age, by Mrs. Hebditch's desire. The witness
then gave the prisoner forty-nine £1 notes of the
Crewkerne bank, and 15s. 3d. in cash, retaining for
the discount 4s. 9d.
Some suspicion having attached to the prisoner,
who was servant to Mr. Templeman, of Lopen, he
absconded, and was pursued and taken at Lyme, in
Dorsetshire. The 1:93 promissory note and the
£lO ss. acceptance were found upon him, and he
had deposited forty-six of the £1 notes with the
daughter of his landlord.
Upon his examination before the Mayor of Lyme,
he voluntarily confessed that the letter containing
the bills had been entrusted to him by the Postmaster
of South Petherton (on his calling for his master's
letters), to carry it to Mr. Hebditch; that he had
opened the letter, and being unable to read, had
shewn the bills to a little boy whom he met, and who
informed him of their value; that the bill had not
been endorsed by Mr. Hebditch's son, but he refused
to say by whom.
Mr. llebditch's eldest sort, a boy of ten years old,
was examined, to prove that the endorsement was ,
not written by himself or his brother, a boy of eight
years old, and the endorsement by Mr. Hebditch
himself was disproved by Lewin.
The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he was not
aware of the consequences of his offence, and the Jury
immediately found him Guilty.
The prisoner was recommended to mercy by the
prosecutor, in which he was joined by the Jury.
Twenty-one persons were sentenced to die; four
to be transported for life; one for fourteen years;
thirteen for seven years; and the remainder to various
terms of imprisonment.
It was given in evidence, that James Loston, con-
victed of house-breaking. being discovered in the fact
by the prosecutrix, who endeavoured to secure him,
he inhumanly broke her arm.
I)emis Hayes, convicted of stealing a shirt,
when called upon for his defence, stated, that being
poor and diseased, he committed the theft for the
purpose of enjoying the cleanliness and comfort to
be found in Ilchester jail !