Star.
London, England, 1821-12-11 00:00:00

PAYNE V. JONES, ESQ.

This was an action against Mr. Jones, the Marshal
of the Bench Prison; to recover the expenses
the plaintiff had been at, and the fees to which he
was entitled for the execution of a warrant and arrest
of a prisoner an•l keeping him several days.
Mr. NI ARRYATT, for the plaintiif, stated the case.
In 1818 a prisoner in the Bench, named Parsons,
made his escape; and, in November following, the
plaintiff accidentally saw Parsons in Dorset•,hiie, and
having heard that the Marshal had offered a reward
of £2OO for his apprehension, he gave information
to Mr. Jones that he had seen Parsons, and, if he had
the property authority, could apprehend him ; at the
same time mentioning the reward of 12200. Mr. Jones
wrote to him on the subject; said he should be glad
to have Parsons again in his custody, but bad not
offered .C2oo—he would pay all plaintiff's expenses,'
and make him a handsome preseht if he took him.
At this time another person also gave information to
the Marshal, and offered to take Parsons, but the
Marshal-wrote, informing him Payne was employed,
and the warrant would be sent to him. The escape-
warrant was, in fact, sent to Payne; but the other
individual, offended at not having the job, gave in-
formation to Parsons, which enabled him to escape
for a time ; Payne and his man, however, followed
him from place to place for a month, and having
traced him a round of upwards of 200 miles, at length
lost him entirely at Bridport. In the April following,
however, he again heard of Parsons, and gave infor-
mation to Mr. Jones,who repeated his offer of paying
expenses, and adding a reward of ten guineas for the
caption. A new escape-warrant was sent, •and Par-
sons was taken ; and, as the terms of the ChiefJustiCe's
warrant directed, lie was taken before a Magistrate,
and entered into recognizances to appear to the in-
dictment for an escape. Plaintiff then applied to
Mr. Jones for payment of his reward and' eipenses,
but Mr. Jones desired to have the prisoner brought
up to town, and granted a warrant for that purpose.
Parsons was accordingly apprehended by p4intiff
and brought up to town, and for this the defendant
paid him ; but for the previous expenses of the mid),
for himself,• man, and horse, amounting to £BB. 18s.
the Marshal refused to make him any compensation,
saying he would settle when Mr. Parsons settled
with him; and to recover the reward the Marshal
had promised, but now refused, the present action'
was brought..
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, contended that the
plaintiff had already been overpaid, he having re-
ceived upwards of £3O of the Marshal ; that thestory•
told by his witnesses of the pursuit of Mr. Parkons
all over Somersetshire and Dorsetshire, was a fabri-
cation altogether ; that that individual was the whole
ti,1211 at West Camel) within three miles of Payas
_ _

house, and might have been taken at any time in an
hour. The Learned Counsel called witnesses to sup-
port this statement.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER is

THE COTTON ESTATES.—BEER AND OTHERS V. WARD.
This highly important cause, which has excited
considerable interest, was concluded, after four days
investigation, during which a number of witnesses,
and much documentary evidence was produced; to
enable the Jury to come to a decision.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL this day made an elo.
quent reply to the Jury, contending that the legiti-
macy of the plaintiff and the lunatic son was not in
the least shaken.
After the CHIEF JUSTICE had taken nearly five
hours to state all the facts and bearings of the case
with precision, he left the Jury to decide upon all
the evidence, whether the alleged cause of illegiti-
macy was made out. • -
The Jury retired from the box, and on their re-
turn found a verdict for Mr. Ward, and consequently
that William Cotton, the lunatic, was not heir at
law of William Cotton, the father.
The above decision gives the property to the wife
of the Rev. defendant, who is the legitimate daughter
and heiress.

• OLD BAILEY SESSTONS.
Yesterday, Thomas Bertrand was capitally indicted
for assaulting E. James on the highway, and robbing
him of 4s. 6d. The prosecutor. was passing through
Whitechapel about midnight, when the prisoner and
three others jostled and kicked him. threatened
to call the watch, and was going on, when -the pri-
soner said—" What are you going to give charge
for ?" and knocked him down. The prisoner's assn•
dates helped him up and ran'off, but he overtook
the pr4oner. At the watch-house he found his pocket
turned out, and that he had been robbed of 4s. 6d.
Two witnesses gave the prisoner a good character
as an honest, industrious young man.
The Jury found him Guilty—Death, aged 19.
The prosecutor recommended him to mercy on ac-
count of his youth and previous good character, and.
the officer of the district said, in answer to a question
from the Court, that he never saw the prisoner before.
Richard Jago and Thomas Beck were capitally in-
dicted for hurglariously breaking into the house of W.
Orde, Esq. and stealing property to the amount of se-
veral hundred pounds ; and Mary Beck and Henry
Lewis, with receiving that property. The particulars
having appeared in our Police Reports, we shall state
them but briefly now. Mr. Orde resides in Berkeley-
square, and the woman, who is now the wife of the
prisoner Jago, was Mrs. Orde's confidential servant
for fifteen years, but on her marriage was discharged.
Mr. ()Ede and family going out of town for some
months, left the house in the care of Mr's. Jago and
her husband. From the day they took possession,
Jago and the other prisoners commenced making
away with the goods; and on the eve of the return
of the family, they determined, in order to complete
the wot k of robbery, and prevent suspicion from fall-
ing on Jago and his w ife, that the latter should go
out, while T. Beck, and others not yet in custody,
who had been admitted, should carry off the most
valuable of the property, while the rest of k was
thrown into confusion, to induce a belief that the
house had been broken into in their absence. This
was carried into effect ; and, although some suspicion
did fall upon J.igo and his wife, nothing came out
until Beck told his landlord, Gates, of the circum-
stances, and brought part of the stolen property into
his house, with Gates s consent. Some of these arti-
cles were shewn to a man named Pugh, who imme-
diately gave information to the Police, and several
persons were apprehended, who all made full 'con-
fesion of the circumstances, and strove to throw the
greater weight of guilt on each other. Gates was ad-
mitted King's ev►dence, and some other witnesses
spoke in corroboration of his testimony. The pri-
soners, Mary Beck and Lewis, had been detected in
pawning part of the stolen property, and a great part
of the goods had been conveyed to the lodgings, and
disposed of by the female prisoner.
The prisoners called no witnesses, but most strongly
protested their innocence.

The Jury, after retiring for nearly an hour, re-
turned a verdict, finding Jago and T. Beck—Guilty
—Death, and acquitting the other two.
'111.2 following were convicted of felony, viz.—James Dew,
for stealing two pillow-cases ; Thomas Taylor, for stealing a
coat and waistcoat; William Jones, for ate:sling 'Vbs. of tea;
&c.Paul Seddons, fur stealing a coat, Sarah Smith, for stealing
wearing apparel; Sarah Woodward, fur stealing a rug and other
articles; Catherine Itooke, for stealing 6lbs. of bacon; and
George Wickleart, aged 19, for embezzling 2s. the property of
his master. He was sentenced to be fined Is. and to be dis-
charged at the end of the Sessions.

The following were acquitted, ,viz.—George Goulding, of
horse-stealing ; and Richard Wood, of maliciously stabbing in a
quarrel, with a pair of scissors, his fellow-apprentice.