Star.
London, England, 1829-09-08 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

These Sessions commenced yesterday at the Sessions
House, Clerkenwell-Green, before J. CoN sr, Esq. Chair-
man, and a fill Bench of Magistrates.
After a few assault cases of no public importance,
William Hodael was indicted for an assault on his wife.

Mr. ADOLPHUS, in stating the case, observed, that
cases of this description had generally been treated in
Court with a levity that they did not deserve. This case
was not one in which the husband and wife could be pro-
perly told to " kiss and be friends," but it called for a
punishment that would make the prisoner remember that
he was not allowed to ill-treat the prosecutrix with im-
punity, because she was his wife.
Catherine Braw Hodsel stated, that the prisoner, her
husband, was a brass-worker ; he had been formerly her
first husband's errand-boy, but she had married him since
her husband's death, and he had treated her on all occa-
sions very ill. On the day laid in the indictment, he first
threw a bag of tools et her, which she parried from her
head ; he then threw her down against a vice, and hurt
her shoulder ; she ran up stairs, and he followed her with
a carving-knife ; she bolted the door, and he stabbed the
knife through the pannel ; and told her that so much of
the knife as was through the door he would send into her
body. He kicked his foot through another pannel, and
the prosecutrix was so frightened that she jumped out of
a first floor window, and went to a neighbour's.
Mr. C. Phillips, for the defendant, asked her if she
was not very jealous of the defendant ?
The prosecutrix replied, that her health had been af-
fected by him three times.; and that he had, since their
separation, brought women to sleep with him in her bed.
The Jury found the prisoner—Guilty :
And the Cmtinmsx told him he had mistaken the
power of a husband very much. For instance, a man
had no right to throw a stool at his wife—{lt was here
intimated to the Chairman, amid much laughter, that it
was a bag of tools, and not " a stool," that the de-
fendant had thrown).
The Court suspended the sentence till Friday.
THE SPITALFIELDS WEAVERS.

Abraham Davis,Wm.Goodwin,Wm. Hicks,Wm. Shad,
James Harper, and Wm. Scarlett, were charged with
having conspired together to intimidate Messrs. Brooks,
Duff, and Emmerson, silk-manufacturers, and compel
them to carry on their trade in a particular way, contrary
to their free consent, and that they did with this intent
deliver the following resolutions to Messrs. Duff and Co.
and demand their acquiescence in the same :
At a general meeting of the journeymen Spitalfields
weavers of silk, held at Temple-mills, in the county of
Essex, it was unanimously resolved-8,000 persons pre-
uent—lst. That there be a general strike against those
'manufacturers who refuse to pay within 10 per cent. of
the book prices of 1824.
2d. That no cane-spreader be allowed to turn on a cane
without a printed certificate, to prove that it is the right
price, on, pain df being excluded from the trade ; and that
'nose such can receive the trader's protection.
W. 'That the works of those masters who refuse to pay
the above prices be sealed ; each shop to seal their own,
in the following way, viz. to divide themselves into small
divisions, and each division mutually sealing their work.
4th. That every shop-meeting assemble to-morrow
morning at eight o'clock, at their respective places, for
the purpose of carrying into effect the foregoing resolu-
tisus.

The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. ALLEY was proceeding 'to open the case to the
-jury on the pmt of the prosecution, when
-Mr. AnoLonas,•for.the defendants, •said the asen,act-
Mg wider his advice, would withdraw their plea and ad-
mit themselves to •be guilty. The fact was, they•had
acted under an erroneous notion of the state of the law.
Considerable distress and excitement prevailed at the

-

,time, but now they found themselves to.have been in the
wrong, they were anxious to express their contrition, and
throw themselves on the clemency of the prosecutors.
Mr. ALLEY said, as a proof that the prosecutors were
I actuated by none but public motives, he would at once
I accept the proposed terms, and consent that the defend-
! ants be discharged on their own recognizance..
There were five other men charged with offences grow-
ing out of the same state of feeling, to whom he was
I willing the same mercy should be shown, and he trusted
the forbearance shown would not be lost on them.

Charles Copps, George Boulton, and William Monks,
were then placed by the other defendants, on a charge of
sealing the works of Wm Monks, by and with the con-
currence of the said Wm. Monks.

James Howard, Samuel Wood, and James Greenlief,
were charged with a similar offence in sealing William
Vickery's work, with the exception that Vickery bad op-
posed their so doing.
The prisoners having respectively retracted their for-
mer pleas and pleaded guilty,
The Chairman proceeded to address them :—Their of-
fence, he observed, was a most serious one to the public ;
and he almost doubted how far he ought to permit their
discharge, merely on their recognizance.. He would not,
however, interfere, to prevent the merciful intentions of
the prosecutors, but permit their discharge on their se-
verally entering into their own recognizance. in 201. each.