Star.
London, England, 1821-09-15 00:00:00

house in Glamorganshire had this house in Load. n
for the purpose of paying its bills. What sort of a
banking-house it was, appeared from the fact, that
Mrs. Woodall never could get more than a quarter's
rent from the firm. If the Jut y were prepared to say
that the hone seas nothing but a shadow, then the
intention of putting Williams and Co. on the bills
would appear evidently to have hero to cause people
to believe that the house called Williams and Co.
was a substantial house. This was a fraud upon the
Public. If, therefore, the Jury should be of opinion,
that the house, No. 3, in Birchin-lane, was a mere
house of straw, they would be perfectly justified in
calling the bill a false instrument, and returnit.g
verdict of guilty.
The Jury retired to frame their verdict, and after
being absent from Court about three-quarters of an
hour, they remitted, and through the Foreman re-
turned a verdict of Guilty of uttering the bill with
intention to defraud again-t both prisoners.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM observed, that it did not ap-
pear by the evidence that the prisoner Tipper was
present when the bill was uttered. He wished the
Jury would reconsider their verdict, and say whether
they intended it to embrace Tipper in its operation.
The Jury, after consulting for a few minutes, re-
turned a fresh verdict, finding Pott Guilty of uttering
with intention to defraud, and Tipper Not Guilty.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM here asked the Jury whether
they were of opinion that the name of Williams and
Co. was assumed by the defendants with the inten-
tion to defraud?
Several of the Jurors replied—" No."
Mr. Baron GRAHAM.—The only question for you
to consider is, whether the prisoners fraudulently gave
the bill the credit of a gcod house ?
The Jury, being unable to come to an immediate
decision on this point, again retired from Court, and
returned in about ten minutes with a verdict against
the primmer Pott—Guilty of uttering with an inten-
tion to defraud.
Mr. Baron GnAtiam.—lf so, then, Gentlemen, you
find the prisoner guilty of a fraud only ; and under
this indictment he cannot be convicted. Do you be-
lieve that the name of the firm of Williams and Co.
the bankers, was used on the face of the bill to as-
sume the name of a good house, and to impose upon
the Public ? •
The Foreman of the Jury.—Yes, we do.
Mr. Baron GRAIIANI..—TheiI, I consider, Gentle-
men, that that is a forgery, and the prisoner must
be found guilty, subject to a revision of that opinion.
A verdict of a Guilty" generally was then taken
against the prisoner Pat, and Tipper was acquitted.
John Tipper was again placed at the bar, and in-
dicted for feloniously making, forging, and counter-
feiting an acceptance to a bill of exchange for
in the name of Williams and Co. with intent to de-
fraud William Howell.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM told the Jury that on this in-
dictment the prisoner must be acquitted, because he
was not present when the bill was uttered.
The Jury acc:,:clingly returned a verdict Not Guilty.
John Young, a well-dressed young man was in-
dicted for assaulting Frederick WoV, on the King's
highway, and taking from his person a silver watch.
It was proved that Cie prisoner was one of a gang
of three, who ran against the prosecutor in the street,
and snatched his watch. All three ran away, and the
ptisoner WAS pursued and overtaken. No property
was found in his possession.
In his defence, the prisoner said, that he never
touched the prosecutor or his watch. He was passing
at the time, and was nearly knocked down by two
men who were running away. Four witnesses were
called to his character, and gave him an excellent
one for honesty.—The Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
It appeared by the statement of Mr. Hardy, the
Clerk of the Papers, that the prisoner had been tried
before on a similar charge, but had been acquitted.—
The prisoner was then called up to receive judgment.
The COMMON SERJEANT then addressed the pri.
soner:--" Whatever character you may formerly
have possessed, it is now quite clear that you have
been connected with a desperate gang of pickpockets.
The streets of the Metropolis are at present in a'
dreadful state, and no pet son can walk about after
dark without the risk of losing his property. It is a
melancholy fact, that not content with robbing per•
sons, many have had their lives endangered by brutal
violence. The streets must be cleared of such des-
perate gangs. The sentence of the Court, therefore,
is, that you be transported for your natural life.
recommend you to warn your companions in crime."
The prosecutor wished to recommend the prisoner
to mercy.
The COMMON SERJEANT said he had already taken
the most merciful course. The prisoner had an aged
father and mother, and he had saved them, by passing
this sentence, from the pain of seeing their own son
at the gallows.
Charles Bull was indicted for assaulting John Phil-
lips on the King's highway on the 9th of August, and
stealing from his person a chain and two gold seals.
The prosecutor stated, that he was, at about nine
o'clock in the evening in question, passing by the cor-
ner of Red Lion-court, in the Minories, when the
prisoner rushed oot upon him, and snatched at his
chain and seals. Mr. Phillips seized hold of the pri-
soner's wrists, and held him fast. In this situation a
man came behind Mr. Phillips, and pulled him down
upon the ground. The prisoner then got loose, and
ran away with all his speed down Red Lion-court.
Some persons then came up, and pursued the pri-
soner. The prisoner in the struggle lost his hat on
the ground ; Mr. Phillips took it up, and carried it
to the watch-house. There the prisoner acknow-
ledged it to be his.
Some other witnesses were examined, who proved
that they saw the prosecutor on the ground. The
prisoner was running away without his hat; and
there was a man near Mr. Phillips who, from his not
running away, was taken to be a friend of the prose-
cutor's. When the prisoner was pursued down the
court, this man placed himself directly in the way,
and prevented those who were in pursuit from pass-
ing. At length the prisoner was taken and brought
to the watch-house.
The prisoner made no defence. One witness was
called, who had known the prisoner until within the
last two years.
The Jury found a verdict—Guilty of stealing fro
the person, but not violently.
The COMMON SERJEANT said, there could be no
doubt bat that the prisoner and his companions had