Star.
London, England, 1828-10-29 00:00:00

COFFIN V. MORRIS.

defendant Millet; end by their evidence it was proved
that Millet had paid for the toleworts which had been
removed from the premises of Joseph Jefferies, and that
when he discovered that Jefferies's affairs were ember-
rased, he refused to keep a plough and some harrows,
and other implements of husbandry which he had pur-
chased, and insisted on his rizfit to return them; that
he was threatened to be sued for the amount which he
had agreed to give for them; but that acting under the
advice of a professional man, a friend of his, he re-
torned them, and they were afterwards seized for taxes
owing by Joseph Jefferies.
Several witnesses gave the defendants Millet and the
younger Jefferies a good character.
Lord TENTIRMIN, after going through the evidence,
told the Jury that the law, as staled by Sir J. Scarlett,
was correct—namely, that a debtor mtght, prior to a
judgment and execution against him, dispose of his
property ; but then there must be a real sale and pur-
chase; for if the transaction was merely colourable, ot;
if there was a clandestine removal of property, the
transaction was illegal. It would be for the Jury to
say, under all the circumstances, whether in this case
there had been a clandestine removal of property? and
if they thought that there had, then they would conr
sider further whether the defendants Henry Jefferies
and Millet had performed their part in the transaction
without a knowledge of the motives and intentions of
the other defendant, Joseph Jefferies.
The Jury, without hesitation, pronounced all the de• ,
fendants Guilty.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Gottoneu., Oen 28.
Before the Lona CUM Jostles and Common Jerks.
PARTON V. HICKMAN.

In this action the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of
upwards of 601. the balance of his bill for work and
labour done as an attorney for the defendant. The de-
fence was, that the plaintiff had betrayed so much igno-
rance, and had been guilty of so much neglect in the
proceedings which he had been employed to conduct,
and which bad terminated unfavourably to the defen-
dant, that he was not entitled to recover any thing in
compensation ; but the evidence upon this point not
being sufficiently strong to satisfy the Jury, they returned
a verdict for the plaintiff.'
The LORD CHIRP Justus, in his charge. took an
opportunity of observing upon the admirable form
and nature of the law which regulated this land, and
at the same time of expressing his regret that so many
evils should have crept into the practice of it. No
persons, he observed, lamented those evils more than
those at the bar; and he hoped that the Gentlemen
who bad lately been appointed by his Majesty to in-
quire into and correct the present state of the law,
would not fail, now that they had the opportunity.
to introduce such a reform in the practice of the law,
as would effectually prevent a continuance of the mal-
practices which at present disgraced it.

This was an action to recover 841 s 1.55.6 d. the amount
of the plaintiff's bill for lodgings, necessaries, and cash
furnished to the defendant% wife, who had been de-
serted by him. The case was undefended, and wit-
nesses on the part of the plaintiff proved that all the
different items of the bill had been supplied..
The LORD CHM Jusnca, however, told the Jury,
that although a man who had turned his wife out of
doors was liable to pay any debt she might contract for
the necessaries of her existence, yet he was not respon-
sible for loans of money. They would, therefore, de-
duct the advances of call which made a part of the
present claim, and tett): ir a verdict for the remainder,
the whole of which appeared to have been contracted
for mere necessaries.
The Jury, under this direction, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 201. 16s.

r evidence it was proved
hleworts which had been
Joseph Jeferies, and that
iies's affairs were ember-
'ugh and some harrows,
amity which he had pups
:ht to return them; that
For the amount which he
but that acting under the
a friend of his, he re-
ierwards seized for lazes f.
lefendants Millet and the
tcter.
ng through the evidence,
staled by Sir J. Scarlett,
debtor might, prior to a
nst him, dispose of his
t be a red sale and per-
ras merely colourable, or
emoval of property, the
'old be for the Jury éo
es, whether in this case
emoval of, property ? and
1, then they would conr
'ardent: Henry Jefferies
tir part in the transaction • :
motives and intentions of
defies.
n, pronounced all the de. ,
LAS, Gon.onau., Orr. ea.
ica and Common Jades. •
I
ICEMAN.
ought to recover a sum of
of his bill for work and
r the defendant. The de-
d betrayed so much igno-
f so much neglect in the
ten employed to conduct,
nfavourably to the delft-
I to recover any thing in
!nee upon this point not
sfy the Jury, they returned t
6 in his charge, took an
upon the admirable form
I regulated this land, and
ig his regret that so many
the practice et it. No
al those evils more than
oped that the Gentlemen
ted by his Mojesty to in-
present state of the law,
hey had the opportunity.
in the practice of the law,
a continuance of the mal-
lisgraced it.
MORRIS.
Per Mi. Ms. 6d. the amount
:jogs, necessaries, and cash •
wife, who had been de ti
-
was undefended, and wit-
lima proved that all the
cl been supplied..
e, however, told the Jury,
id turned his wife out of
debt she might contract foie
ce, yet he was not respon-
rhey would, therefore, de.
ressAis • rse•P nF IVII•

IT

R t

L •

house of Messrs. Curtis and Company, detailed the
Wanner in which the bill was entered in their bvi,lcs.
John Dixon, examined by Mr. 13111,DRICK—I am
partner with the prisoner; he drew all the bills; the
writing in the body of the bill produced is in the
prisoner's handwriting. lam not aware that we have
any customer of the name cf Mountain living at Bury
St. Signoras, whose acceptance it purports to beat.
William James, examined by Mr: LAW-I am ledger
clerk at the banking house of Messrs. Lees and
bankers, where the bill is made payable; there is no
person of the name of Mountain that keeps an account
at our house.

Mr. Henry Mountain-I live at Bnry St Edmund's.
About nine months since I was in the prisoner's employ ;
he was at that lime carrying on business as a draper at
Bury; I was an app entice; there is no other Henry
Mountain i 3 that place besides myself, and I have never
bad airy dealings with the prisoner on my own account,
nor at any time owed him any money; the acceptance
of the bill now produced is not in my handwriting, or
by my authority.
Joseph Warren, examined by Mr. LAW—I am a
draper at Bury St. Edmund's, and know the handwriting
of Henry Mountain; the acceptance to this bill is not in
his handwriting.
A. W. Robarts, Esq. examined by Mr. Lew.--I am
a partner in the house of William Curtis and Co. Pre.
toner had applied to me on several occasions to discount
bills; at one time I refused to comply with his request.
A few days subsequently I received a letter from him,
stating, that in consequence of our house having refused
t r discount, and finding his affairs in an embarrassed
state, he had determined on absenting himself for a short
time.—(The letter was here put in and read.)
Edward Hurst examined—ln consequence of some
information that I had received, I went, in company w iih
a person named Forrester, to Ss. Helen's. We there,
went on board a ship bound for America. I found the
prisorer in the cabin, and asked him if his name was not
Wilkinson, as I had a letter for him ? He said it was.
1 then told him that I was a police officer, and had a
warrant against him on a charge of forgery. Prisoner
was at the time in the act of writing; there were seve-
ral letters lying before him ; I asked him if they were
his? he replied that they were. 1 then took them from
him, and put a mask upon them. The letter now pro-
duced is one of that number.
The letter was here put in and read; it was addressed
to the Editor cf The Times Newspaper, and purported
to be written by a third person. It stated that the
re-
ports in circulation respecting the prisoner having ab-
sconded were unfounded.

This was the case for the prosecution.
The prisoner, on being called on for his defence,
read the paper which be had previously handed up to
the Judge; it was to the following purport I beg
most respectfully to state, that I am not lead), to take
sty trial, and I think I stated on Friday sufficient
rounds to warrant the ordering it to be postponed, but
the Learned Judges thought otherwise, and decided
against the application. Their motives for so doing I
do not imkugn; they were, no doubt, guided by strict
impartiality, and an equal love of justice, and on tech-
nical grounds they were perfectly right; but for the
reasons I then stated. I have no means of defence. I
have no access to my papers; but if my trial had been
postponed till next Sessions, I should have been fully
prepared: however, that not being allowed, I shall not
do myself or my cause the injustice of attempting a
defence. I refrained from cross-examining any of the
witnesses my persecutors have brought forward against
me; nay, I even requested the Learned Counsel, whom
I bad retained on my behalf, to take no part in the pro.
ceedings; for as my slight request was refused, I de-
termined to let my persecutors have their own way, and
quietly to submit to their malice, and the awful conse•
quences that may attend it."
Mr. Justice PARK inquired if there were any witnesses
to character ?

Prisoner—Oh no, I have not taken any means what•
eve, for my defence.
Mr. Justice PARK recapitulated the evidence at great
length. His Lordship called the attention of the Jury
to the letter, which was proved to be written by the
prisoner to the editor of The Tiara, and which stated
that the prisoner had not 14 childten, but only 10, and
that the amount of the forgeries which he had committed
was not 14,0001. as represented, the whole amount not
being more than4s 0001. and that would have been repaid
if the Bankers had not refused to discount.

The Jury consulted for a short time, and then returned
a verdict of Guilty, but recommended him to mercy.
Mr. Justice PARK—Prisoner, the Counsel for the pro-
secution think it necessary that you should be tried on
another indictment. My Learned Brother and myself
will thereforecouie down here specially on Tuesday next
(this day week), which will give you an opportunity of
Inspecting your books and papers.
The prisoner was then removed from the bar.
NEW COURT.
(Before the Common Satorest.)

Mary Arm &oldie, aged 19, a good-looking female,
was indicted for stealing a shawl, value 10s. the property
of Abraham Smith.

It appeared itieeidence that the prisoner and a young
inas, who represented himself as ber husband, took a
furnished lodging at the prosecutor's house, at Ball's
Pond. During the absence of tte prosecutor, the pri-
soner stole the shawl, and pledged it for fcur shillings
The above facts having been sworn to, the prisoner was
called upon for her defence.

The girl, in a flood of tears, said that she had been
seduced by a young Gentleman flow her parental roof
at a very early age, who had promised that he would
make her his wife. She became pregnant, and fled
with him to the above lodgings, where he deserted her,
and being thus disgraced, she was afraid to return to
her parents, and endured the greatest want ; net having
tasted food for two days, she was induced to commit
the robbery. She admitted pledging the shawl, bat
intended to release it as soon as possible. Since she
had been-confined, she had given birth to a child, which
died almost immediately afterwards. She was ex-
tremely sorry for her past conduct, and her parents
were sa,istied of her contrition, and had kindly con.
seated to receive her back again, if she promised peter
to ►ee her betrayer again, which she now before the
ALMIGHTY would promise, if the Coutt would give her
the opportunity.

The above address.was broken several times by the
hysterical sobbing of the poor girl, and her situation,
and the cause that produced it, excited general coal-
•

A very respectable looking young man said (weeping
bitterly) that the prisoner was his sister, and he was
satisfied that the villain who had seduced her had been
the cause of her downfall. 1-14, was authorised by her
mother, who was ill in bed, to say, that she would
gladly receive her back again.
The Learned SiRGIANT asked if they knew whereto
find the fellow ?
The brother &clued he ,did not; be wished he did.

—The Jury found her guilty, but most strongly ammo-
messa!ed her to mercy. ,
Caroline Thomas and John Kirby were indicted for
stealing a watch, a sovereign, half.a.crown, a sixpence,
and a hat, from the person of Thomas Allan, on the 27th
' of September. The Jury found Caroline Thomas Guilty
of stealing, but not from the person; Kirby AO
William A/lansby and Henry Cooper were charged
with stealing a watch, value 15-. from the person of
Thomas Field.
The prosecutor deposed, that be is a Chelsea pen-
sio.ier, and on the 13.11 of October he went to see his
sister. Returning home sather intoxicated in the course
of the evening, he missed his watch, and acquainted the
watchhouse keeper of St. Martin's with the fact.
A boy, named William Ward, who accompanied the
prosecutor home on the night in question, deposed that
the two prisoners joined them on the road, and witness
left them in Hemming 's-row; he, however, watched the
prisoners a few minutes, and when they get into Pall-
Mall East they threw down the prosecutor, and he saw
them rob him. Witness knew that prosecutor had his
watch when he first left the prosecutor and the prisoners
together.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHURCHILL—Witness left
the prosecutor in the charge of the prisoners, because
he was in a hurry, and as the prisoners had a gentle-
manly appearance, he supposed they would take care
of him.
Hannah Humphries knew the prisoner Allansby well,
and saw him twice on the evening of the 14th October,
each time in a different dress.
The officers who apprehended the prisoners found
half a crop n on each of the prisoners, but the watch
was not in their possession.
The prisoner Allansby put in a written defence, in
which he stated that the prosecution was a foul con-
spiracy, got up by the police officers, who had a spite
against him in consequence of his having exposed their
mal-practices at the Theatres bifore the Police Com-
mittee. The pi ironer particularly alluded to a witness
named Keene. whr, he said, was a common informer,
and wanted to get a place on the Bow street establish-
ment. The prisoner had, upon one occasion, given
Keene a sound drubhing, at an auction in the City,
for his infamous conduct.
There was a preat deal of contradiction in the evi-
dence; but the Jury, after some consideration, gave a
verdict of Guilty.
Elizabeth Yates. a little girl, about twelve years old,
stood charg-d with stealing a shawl, value ss. the pro-
perty of Thomas Barker, from the person of Mary
Baker, on the 14th of August.
The child Mary Ann 11 siker. deposed that she was
carrying a younger brother on the day in question, near
Whitecross-street, when the prisoner came up to her,
and suddenly ran away with the shawl, which was
wrapped round her brother's shoulder,. Verdict—
ot Guilty.
Robert Archer was indicted for stealing a coat, a
pelisse, and other article., above 51. in value, from the
dwelling-house of John Plumb.—The prisoner's name
was gist stated as Robert Shanks, but as the late Act of
Mr. Peel empowers the Court to alter the name it ne-
cessary, he was then charged as Robert Archer.
Louisa Plumb deposed, that she resided in Chapel-
street, Pentonville, and het husband is a jeweller ; on
the 24th of September the prisoner knocked at witness's
door, and gave her a note, which he said came from a
person named Oxley. While witness went up stairs
with the note, the prisoner was left in the passage, and
on her return the prisoner was gone, and she missed the
pros erty in question.
It appeared that the report of a similar case at Hit-
ton Garden, about a month since, led to the apprehen-
sion of the prisoner.
The record of a former conviction for felony was
read, and the Jury, after a little consideration, returned
a verdict—Guilty.

ROB/MIT UPON THB HORTICULTURAL SOCIIITT.
Reuben Bale was indicted for stealing three pounds
weight of seeds,. value 121. the property of the Horti.
cultural S' cirty, and John Wood for feloniously re-
ceiving the same, knowing them to be stolen.
After some consultation with the respective Counsel,
Mr. PHILLIPS, on the part of Hale, acknowledged the
offence, who expressed great contrition for it.
Mr. Putman said, he could prove that the prisoner
bore a good character, and hoped for the leniency of
the Court.

Mr. Bonn's, on the part of Wood, made a similar
statement.

The 'Counsel for the prosecution (Mr. BOLLAND)
stated, that the Society had no wish to pre,s for se. erity,
and their only object was to show that such offences
could not be committed with impunity.
Mr. Smith, M.P. gave Wood au meant character.
They then both pleaded guilty.
The Court adjourned at nine o'clock, till this day, at
twelve.

NAVAL Ecososay.—At the. battle of St. Vincent's,
the Excellent, shortly before the action, had bent a new
foretop-sail, and when she was closely engaged with the
San Isidore, Captain (afterwards Lord) Cou.nrowooto
called out to his boatswain, " Bless me 1 Mr. l'effets,
how came we to forget to bend oar old topsail ? They
will quite ruin that new one I it will never be worth a
farthing again r
John Latimer, the man who is charged with the mur.
der of George Howarth, a watchman, at Manchester,
was examined at that place on Saturday last. He was
apprehended at Carlisle, where he has a wife and four
children. From the evidence, and tsbich included the
statement of the deceased, which he made shortly be-
fore he died, it appeared that on the night of the 10th
rn►t. Latimer had had some misunderstanding with a
woman of bad character, and against whom he pre.
(erred a charge at the lock-up of having robbed him of
Ss.6d. He applied to the deceased, and to other watch-
men, to assist him irs recovering his money, but they re-
fused to assist him, as he appeared to be nearly intoxi-
cated.' Between twelve and one at night. when he was
tst the lock-up, Howarth took hold of his coat and
pulled' him out, and told him to go about his business.
He did not go immediately, and Howarth took hold of
him by the collar, and gave him a swing. He did not
fall, but still refused to go away, and Howarth then
(his fellow watchmen state) gave him two slight taps
with his stick. He then went away, and about three
o'clock, when Howarth again went on duty, Latimer
met him, and, it is alleged, stabbed him in the belly with
a carving knife. After'he had committed this outrage
upon Howarth, he went to the residence of the woman
with whom he had quarrelled, and applied to be ad-
Mined. He was refused, . and he then said, Go I'll atop
at the door till morning, and I'll watch her out—l'll
have her life, and I am ready prepared for it now.*
The prisoner had been employed as a weaver at Min.
cbester, and :in his lodgings a carving knife was found,
and with which it is supposed be stabbed Howarth. In
his defence be said that be was innocent of the murder.j
He was committed to Lancaster for trial.

I'ULICE IN ILLLIGENCE.

11 A NSION.IIOUSE.
Leantaroas.--The Authorities of a Fcm de Broth.
Society were summoned before the Loan Maroc for having re-
fused to pay a claim made by the daughter of a deceased member.
It appeared that the deceased had hero suspended, according to
the rules or the Society, which rules directed that a member under
suspension should not enjoy any of the benefits. It appeared also.
that she died whilst • under suspension, and the claim which the
'teat of kin would have bad was denied upon the part of the Au-
thorities ationlance.
Mr. Haler, jun. for the Stewardesses, said, the deceased had
nut only been wider suspension, but she bad also neglected to
m.ke her regular payments. Either of these grounds was au&
ciciit to warrant rejection.
The Loan blares said, It appeared to him, that the honest
meaning of the case was, that the claim ought to be paid to the
daughter.
Mr. Hol-der, the chief clerk. said, be never bad heard a similar
case. but be supposed that advantage would not he taken of the'
calamity of death to deprive the daughter of her claim.
The Solicitor for the claimant argued, that except a Member
was bursas )dole excluded from the Society all opposition was nugatory.
Mr. Haler, jun. stated, that by the rules of this Society, a
member was obliged to appo lit a nominee to receive her death.
money; and to support the present demand the daughter should
produce a nomination, signed by the deceased. independently of
letters of adoiniistration.
Sir Peres Lama thought poor people who joined Societies of
this kind hoe* nothing to nominees, or letters of administration,
and if the Lotto Maros bad no bjection, they would issue the
order.—Mr. Heider. jun. bete produced the articles, from which
it appeared that there was no provision in them whisk gave a claim
to a next of kin. The snicks merely referred to the husband of
the deceased, or to her nominee.
The Lotto blares and Sir Paves LAMM' requested that some
compromise should be made. This was done. Half the sum de-
manded was banded over to the daughter of the deceased.

I