Star.
London, England, 1804-12-04 00:00:00

count of the Defendant, had been guilty of impertper
etmdtta to a Gentleman in Cheapllde. The ',torten-
me teemed to be taking the part of the watchman;
and (aid that Mr. Metcalf could not judge or the
matter. as he had neither feen the beginning nor the
end of it. Upon this the Defendant broke out in a
virulent rage, and Rruck the Profecutor on the mouth
with his cane, Paying at the font time, that the
whole of them were in a cunfpiracy to prom& one
another, and to take bribes from the women of the
town. He purfued the Profecutor round the table,
Warren obferving, that if he had been t young man
be darttinst'hrve ufedhim in that manner, and that
he would have, in that cafe, knocked his head about.
A great deal of wrangling and abufe paired. The
Profecutor never attempted to firike the Defendant;
but nu the contrary behave, very refpeafully. Be-
ing fhewn the paragraph air-ye-mentioned, he denied
havinginferted it, feen it in manofcript, or knowing
an thing about the matter.
John Trinstke, the Conliable of the night, raid,
that he had for about ten minutes gone out of the
vratch•houre oh the ;sth of Augu ft, about to o'clock
at night On his return he few the Profecutor and
the Defendant in the watch honk. They were quar-
relling. The Defendant eras complaining of the con-
dna of a Watchman, of the name of Taylor. who bad
infulted aientlernan in Cheapfide. The Profecutor
was defending him. The Defendant became vio-
lently Ininernate, and treaded the watchmen, confia-
bits, and beadles, of a eonfpiraiy, and of taking
bribes frdtts thew —s. The Profecutor laid, that
Mr. Metcalf never came there except to Make a com-
plaint; and, that as to the affair of Taylor he could
not poßibly judge with accuracy of the matter. The
Defendant then Rruck him on the mouth with his
cane, *upon which he rote to interfere and when he
came in betweeri them, the Defendant's hand was at
the Profecutoes breaft, but whether he (trod him
with his fiR or not, he could sot pofitively tell. But
be did certainly (hike him again over the arm with
his Rick. The Profecutor.tan round the table, and
• was purfoed by the Defendant. The Profecator laid
that he was a cowardly fellow, thus to flrite an old
man, that if be had been a young man he dull not
have done it. He did not take the Defendant into
malady, becaufe being a Common Council Man be
was (edified that he would be forthcoming when
called apes, and therefore he thought there was no
ot canon to keep him in confinement.
This dared the evidence on the part of the profe-
anion.
Me. Ovule, Costae' fof the Defendant, then
rob, and made an able defence on the part of his
Amt. He was extremely forty that a man of In
much refpeftabili:y as. the Defendant mould have
been brought into Court for fuch a trifling and vexa-
tious affair as this was. It was not cm account of
the alihult that Mr. Metcalf had beep brought there.
The true reafon was what he had wrung from the
'-Profecutor on his crofreiamination, via. that Mr.
Metcalf was more bury about the watch-bottle than
any other Common Councilmaw. Mr. Metcalf had
thought it his duty to infiseft the watch-hoofes and
examine into the condo& of the watchmen and cow
Rablea, in order to take care that they might be
kept to their duty, and this was the great mule of
complaint. This was difagreeable to the whole body
of them, and therefore whenever an opp( rtunity of-
fered, the phalanx altogether joined againft him.—
He alked be Jury, whether they did not think it
very probable, from the evidence, that the Profecn-
tor had endeavoured to provoke the Defendant to
affault him, in order to have a fort of revenge of him,
for hit preventing abufes ? He concluded, by obferv-
ing, that he would leave the cafe in the hands of the
Jury, who, he was lure, would do that which was
juR and right.
The Redwine then fommed op the evidence,
and in his comments upon it, took occafton to ob-
ferve, that nothing could be more improper than to,
infert any thing in the Newfpapers with regard to ac-
cufed percents before trial, as this had a manifell ten-
dency to prejudice the minds of Juries, who ought
to be completely impartial. He was tatisficd, how-
ever, that there was no prejudice on the prefent oc-
tillion. He then adverted to the condo& of the De-
fendant, who 14 far from being benefited by his tank,
night to be judged the more itriely in an accufation
for violating the law. If the watchmen were negli-
gent of their duty, the law would punilh them ; but
they certainly ought to be proteeted in their occupa-
tion till C.sne delinquency &Quid be proved againfl

them.
The Jury immediately foond the Defendant—
G‘tilty.
After making tome cnmpenfatinn to the Prnfeettr
tor, the Defeolaw was reprimanded by the Recor-
der, fined a (billing, and difcharged.
John tio/rybritk, a botcher, No. 6a, Colman-lbreet,
was indiled for defrauding the public by having nne
fcale heavier than the other. It appeared, however,
that this was produced by the moillure on the bard
where the meet was 'generally placed, and the De-
fendant was acquitted.