Star.
London, England, 1827-11-05 00:00:00

ilitas yeah about lOW On the Sanday,"Litegtion.l
Crook, Watkins, and Weston, were in the back room 14)1
sank., drinking wine. Since the preceding night the;
taw library had been taken away. Weston quitted the
others and bent into a fro;t room, where he packed up
his papers, which, *together with other articles, were
sent awayln the evening ; ten or twelve hackney coaches
were emplbyed far the purpose; all the persons in the
house must have heard the noise made by the temoval
of the-goods.
' Miss Reynolds, whe assisted Miss Weston in pecking
the wine, corride;rated that witness's testimony.
'• Charles Wade lave evidence to the same effect. The
books were taken to Millar'i; they were taken down in
Crook's presence, and be said, when he went away, he
would send a cart in the morning.
Mrs, Holt proved the employment of her husband's,
cart, in January,lB26, to carry away goods from Wei-
ton's ; and was confirmed by the carman who had been,
sent on that occasion ; the goods were taken to Watkins's.,
Mr. TOwne, the attorney in the action* in the Cora-
ls.* Pleas, proved the receipt of the money he had,
claimed on behalf of Machin and Debenham, and of
another person.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL here admitted that he
could not prove a
_knowledge of the circumstances on'
the part of Millar, so as to affect bkn ; and this defend-
ant was accordingly acquitted.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The COMUON SERGEANT addressed the Jury on the
pats 9f Crook, and observed that he bad never witnessed
so extraordinary a cause. Crook was accused of being
a conspitator ; he would ask • with whom? Why, with
that very Weston who was now in Court, and who, it
seeped, bad given information to the.prosecutor, and
against erhetn, therefore, the prosecution had not been
pressed.,
..Wptkins was dead, the Langdens and Miller
bad been acquitted, and yet none of the pirsons whom
these acquittals enabled the prosecutter to call into the
laoss had been put there, although theirevidence would
have been most material; and would have shewn that
Mr. Cniek was as guiltless as any of them, and indeed,
tees gnat, than any, since none of the removed property
had been traced to him. These acquittals, however,
had been delayed till the last moment, no doubt with
the view of preventing the advisers el Mr, Crook from
being able to know how to avail themselves of those
persons' evidence. From the situation of Weston, and
trim the credit he obtained from different trades-
men, there could be no doubt that he was a, per-
son Of c.orttiderable address and plaeeibility,and yet.
he who most probably had . deceived Crook into ,his,
conduct was now permitted to escape, neither. being
called on to answer as a defendant, nor to give an
account of himself in the box; while Mr. Crook, who
hard probably beets made the dupe of Weston, was
left to struggle alone against this indictment. He (Mr.
Common Sergeant) -protested against what had been
said in the Common Pleas being now used to head the,
consciences of the Jury bete. From the 4f6t to the last,'
the only crime of which Mr. Crook apeeatect to have
been guilty wee that of having repulsed toe musts
confidence in Weston; and there was no.proa that he
had gone to Weston's house, but Inc the air purpose
of ebtaitsiug that snowy for which he-had trusteed
Western That person was a conveyancer, and in his
addeps,a most plausible man ; and surely it was no ,
great difficulty for such a man to pews.* a siarp;ei
broker that he ought to convey away his papers, the
more especially so as every man must know that a
conveyancer often had in his possession papers belong.
big to other persons, and which, in honesty, he was
bound to prevent from being taken into the custody of
the law, from which their real owners might Offer
considerably. The Jqry here had a different duty_
the, were not called on to say which of tbe,e persons
they asould rather protect, but whether they thought
the defendant Crook was so guilty as to deserve their
condemnation. Had the Jury received all the in-
formation that might have been afforded them; or
had not the circumstances been partially represented
before them, with the view of producing a particular
effect? If such evidence was to be held sufficient
in these cases, there were few men who might not be
made liable to such an indictment as the present; for
gem one aught, at one time or other, have used ex-
pressions which, if afterwards repeated without the
accompanying circumstances, might produce an effect
extremely different from that which was created by ,
them when they were uttered. The Jury would do
well to hesitate long before they gave credit to the story
told by Sweet, who was much interested in the result
of this indictment, for besides his gain 'elation to the
circumstances which affected others, it was notorious
that whenever, in a case lithe this. a high fine was imis
posed, the Crown made a present of a considerable
portion of it to the person by whom the indictment had
been refet r ed. The Learned Consmon Sergeant could
not but seater most deeply the evidence which had been
pieea by Saeet to-day, upon the subject of the wish of
the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, that an indict-
ment should be preferred against these parties. The
Jury. would recollect, that when Sweet was about to
stale that wish so expressed by the Chief Justice in the
Common Pleas, the high authority that presided here
today had attempted to stop the statement. It was
irnpossilsle not to wish that the same caution had been
eaetcited by the Learned Judge in the other Court,
since there could be no doubt that such an expression,
from tt•e mouth of such a person, could, be attended
withal°. other effect but that of prejudicing thapaety
against whom it was directed. Mr. Ctook had always
bone air excellent character and there was notbiag
he had done in this 'case which ought to make him
forfeit it. .The indictment charged him with having
acted: fraudulently, in order to cheat and defraud
Sheriffs Crow der and Kelly. Now, one or both of
those persons,. if bath were present, should be put into
the hex, and from them the Jury would hear that the
defendant Crook bad always ism ne so good a character
that they did not believe him capable of that which
was now laidxo his charge. Were the Jury prepared,
(*she bare. evidence they had now beard, to condemn
Crook, when or that same evidence the prosecutor's
Counsel had expressly. declared three of the defendants
entitled to an acquittal, and when there could be no
cosh. that Crook bed done no more than any of the
sobers? lVRre they prepared to degrade him Irons the
station he had, always held, and to declare that the
nisei-whole, more than 40 ysart had borne an excellent
character, and had so deserved the confidence of hi,
- fellow citizens, that they had elected him the Deputy
for the Wreaths which lie resided, bad all at once, and
that too not only not for his wen advantage, but posi-
tively against his own interest, wilfully become a party
to *,fraud?' He trussed they would not, but would
agr es. with him, that although Crook might be accu4J
of a want of crustion, there was not in his conduct the
slightest evidence of guilt.
Aleerreen.Crowther, who bad keen Sheriff of
Lpedonik 1825, had known the defendant Crook for
neoily.twenty years, and believed him to have always
dclespeel. and bone a very good character.
Aldesmen Weithman gerre,evidence of a similar
kind. He bad fire known the defendant as an appren-