Star.
London, England, 1828-11-07 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Nov. 6.

William Jilt, Sylvan: Ward, Jobs Hubbard, and
three other defendants, were indicted tor a misdemean-
our, in having refused to obey an order made by two
Magistrates (Messrs. BENNSTT and THTIOSID).
Mr. ALLEY stated the case on the fart of the prose-
cution. The defendants are officers belonging to a
friendly society, called the Alfred Union Benefit So-
ciety, and having expelled one of their members, an
order was given by the Magistrates, desiring them to
receive him again, which defendants would not obey.
Mr. ADOLPHUS (with whom was Mr. C. PHILLIPS),
on the part of the defendants, objected, that as the in-
dictment did not set out that the Magistrates had any
jurisdiction, it could not be sustained. There was no

evidence that any such sea ty was in existence, and
there was no Act of Parliament giving the Magistrates
power to make such an order as the one in question.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Const) overruled the objection;
and Mr. ALLY called the prosecutor, George Spurgin,
who deposed to the fact alleged in the indictment.
Cross-examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS—Witness had
read the Magista ate's order, and served it upon Sylvanus
Ward.
After the examination of another witness for the pro.
secniion, Mr. ADODPHUS, for the defence, submitted that
though the Act of Parliament made a service of an order
upon ot,e member of a society valid upon all the others,
yet there was no evidence in this case to prove that any
one of the defendants, except Sylvanus Ward, had any

connection with the society.
The CHAIRMAN told the Jury that there could be no
doubt in the matter, for the Act of Parliament com-
pletely answered the objection of the Learned Counsel.
There was a great deal of contumely in the ca.,; and
though the defendants had had an opportunity of re•
pairing their error, they had only aggravated it.
The Jury, after some consideration, gave a verdict of
Garay; and the CHAIRMAN) at the request of Mr. Alley,
consented to adjourn the sentence until next Sessions, to
give time to the defendants to obey the order.
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE.—Henry Holey Holm.
James Wood, and Clunks Charsley, were indicted for a
misdemeanour, in having, on the 13th September last,
unlawfully and wilfully broken open a vault in the
Church of Hendon, in which certain dead bodies were
interred, and that they did unlawfully sever a head
from one of the said bodies, to the outrage d public
decent y.
Mr. ADOLPHUS and Mr. C. PHILLIPS were for the
prosecution; and Mr. ALLEY and Mr. A. Dowl.lus for
the defence.
Mr. ADOLPHUS stated the case to the Jury. The
Learned Counsel observed that the defendant Holm
was a young Gentleman of the medical profession, who
had devoted some attention to a science advocated by
some, and laughed at by others ; and that the, alleged
offence was committed with a view to solve certain
doubts which had been raised relative to the system.s-.
Another of the defendants was the son of the sexton of
Hendon ; and the third was a bricklayer. Mr. Adolphus
then dN eh upon the necessity of maintaining the sacred
right of sepulture: and told the Jury that he hardly dare
mention to them that the defendant Holm was charged
sith having cut off the head of his own mother. He
I understood that the defence intended to be set up was,
that immense advantages, in a scientific point of view,
were to accrue from the revolting act. 8.. t, if this Is;
true, never had such a strange idea entered into the
mind of man. Mr. Adolphus made a few other obser•
vations, in his usual impressive style; after VA bids
Mr. ALLEY took an objection to the indictment, be.
cause it did not set forth .that the defendants did the
act "for gain and lucre," and therefore though it was
punishable by the Ecclesiastical Court, this Court had
SO power to entertain it. It was, he said, no offence at
common law, unless the intent in disinterring a body was
to make a profit by it. The Learned Counsel cited an
Act passed in the reign of King James, which only
made it an offence to take up a body for ,e charm,
sorcery, and witchcraft." Unless there had been an
averment in the indictment, that in taking up the body
an outrage against decency and public morals were
committed, it could not be sustained.

Mr. ALFRED DOWLIKO followed in support of Mr.
Alley's argument, and urged several points with great
ingenuity.
Mr. ADOLPHUS replied, and insisted upon the neces-
sity of protecting the last asylum of those who sleep in
the arms of death. The Learned Counsel said he had
no doubt that to take a body from the grave for scien-
tific purposes was an indictable offence. His Learned
Friend, Mr. Alley, had stated ;hat he never saw an in•
dictment in which it was not averred that the bodies
were disinterred for gain and lucre; but he (Mr. Adol•
phus) had never met with an indictment in which these
words were introduced.
The CHAIRMAN said, that because a particular crime
was indictable in the reign of King James, they were
not to take the ct nverse of that proposition. It the
offence alleged in the indictment were made out, it
clearly was punishable by law.
Mr. PHILLIPS then called the Rev. Theodore Wil•
Hams, who deposed that he was Vicar of Hendon.
Mr. ALLEY, however, objected to the evidence of the
Reverend Gentleman, unless he gave proof of his being
the Vicar.