Star.
London, England, 1827-07-13 00:00:00

Witness was commissioned to make an arrangement for
the renewal of it. The defendant said he would con-
sult the parties, and endeavour to make an arrangement.
The second bill was given on condition that the old bill
sliould be delivered up. It was drawn by Russell, and
accepted by Harrison. The bill handed up to witness
was the renewed hill. Witness had the original bill, he
received it from Russell.
Cross-examined.—Russell had been in prison many
years. Witness did not d•mbt that the defendant knew
it. He did not trio* that the second bill was drawn
before the first begrime due ; he did not know when it
was drawn.
Mr. Harrison proved that he accepted the bill. Wit-
ness could not tell the day when he accepted it. It was
when there was another bill due. He received a letter
from the defendant upon it, but had lost that letter.—.
The defeniant had nothing to do with the drawing the
original bill.
Charles Tomlinson, the defendant's clerk, proved that
the plaintiff had several interviews at.the beginning of
1826 with the defendant, at his chambers in Furnival's
Inn, in which the parties were often alone.
Sir Paul Bagot gave the first bill to the plaintiff, and
received from him only 351. The defendant endorsed
the bill purely for witness's accommodation. Witness
went privately to Madrid, in January, 1826, and returned
in June, and was made a bankrupt in July or August.
Cross-ezamitied—Witness was formerly Sir Paul
Wathen. In that name he had accepted two bills, dated
the 2d of April, 1825, one for 1521.85. 6d. and the other
for 1511. 11..6d. payable at two months' date. Those
bills were both in the plaintiff's hands when witness
brought him the 3001. bill. The plaintiff then gave him
only SU. and witness left the bill with him as security
for the payment of the two other bills. In November,
1825, it woulJ have been in witness's power to have paid
the 3001. bill had he been pressed. When he returned
from abroad, he offered the plaintiff to repay him the
851. for the bill, but he said he would keep it.
The ATTORNIST-GINIMAL, in reply, said, there was
not a tittle of evidence to shew that the plaintiff ever
consented to the defendant's taking the renewed bill, or
that lie was even aware that he had done so. Neither
could it be supposed that the plaintiff would have
agreed to take a bill drawn, accepted, and endorsed by
people in such distressed circumstances, when he had
the security of sn responsible a person as the defendant.
The Attorney-General proceeded to comment in severe
terms upon the defendant's conduct, when
Lord TENTICROIN interfered, and said, he thought
the Attorney-General was too mach labouring the case,
which appeared to him to be clearly for the plaintiff;
and he put it to the Jury whether the plaintiff had ever
given up his claim upon the defendant in respect of his
endorsement on the first bill? and whether the defendant
bad behaved properly, and not negligently, in the steps
he took on that bill? His Lordship said he saw no rea•
son why the plaintiff should have given up his remedy
against the defendant as endorser; and if the Jury were
of that opinion, they would find [or the plaintiff upon
the count on the bill.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damakes 3241.
OLD kalLSir -S-ESSIONS.

garty, he said that Haggarty had been twice in cne
tody on this charge. On tin first occasion a Row-street
officer brought Haggarty to his house, and he told the
officer that Haggarty_ was not the person who stole his
hat ; but he was one of the party concerned in robbin
him. He permitted Haggarty to go at large, and ha
him retaken a few days afterwards, when Wilson was
in custody.
Wilson, in his defence, denied that he was concerned
in the robbery; and Haggarty not only protested his
innocence, but asserted that the prosecutor bad ad.
misted, in the presence of a Bow-street officer, that be
was not one of the thieves.
The prosecutor being recalled, said that the Bow•
street officer set Haggarty at liberty after he was taken
the first time, because he thought if he was detained
that they should not apprehend Wilson. He was posi-
t* that Haggarty and Wilson were both concerned to
robbing him.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH summed op the case, and the
Jury found them both Guilty.
John William was indicted for assaulting Harriette
Orchard on the highway, and stealing from her person
a watch and other ankles.
The prosecutria and her sister had been walking
along George-street. Bloomsbury, about four o'clock sal
the afternoon of the Bth June last, and the prisoner.who
was standing with his back against a wall, rushed with
great violence against her, struck her on the breast, and
at the same moment snatched her watch from her side.
She cried out that she had lost her watch ; and lierl
sister, who was behind her, and saw thetransaction. ran
after the prisoner, and after chasing him through seve-
ral streets she was stopped, and the prisoner escaped;
but he was taken a few days afterwards. Other wit-
masts deposed to the same effect. The Jury found
the prisoner Guilty.
Williams Harris, aged sizteen years, was indicted tee
stealing a watch, value 104 the property of the under
butler of the Earl of Harewood, in the pantry of his
Lordship's house in Hanover-square. The fact of his
taking the property was- clearly established, and the
Jury found him Guilty.
NEW COURT.
Thomas Ward Mills was indicted for bigamy.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, who appeared for the prosecution,,
said, that in the year 1813 Mills was married at Bury'
St. Edmonds to Rhoda Williams; he lived with her de
years, and they had several children. In the year 1819
he forsook this woman, and a few years afterwards he,
paid his addresses to Miss Pocknell, the sister to the
owner of a shell-fish shop in St. Manin's•lane, and to
her he was married in the year 1825. Miss Pocknell,l
however, lasing discovered that the prisoner's former!
wile was alive, her friends caused him to be taken ietel
custody. TllO facts of the case were fully established by
the testimony of witnesses, and the certificates of both
marriages were given in and read in evidence.
Mills being called on for his defence, read a long
statement, wherein he accused the prosecutors of having
• of his property, and consequently

gotten possession s.
deprived hi' of the