Star.
London, England, 1827-07-17 00:00:00

-the Hon. Captain Win. Gordon, the appellant in this
case, captured two prizes, the Leo and Tickler. Tbe,
captors appointed Mr. James Wilkinson, the defendant
in the present case, then Secretary to Admiral Martin,
at Lisbon (now Agent Victualler at Malta), agent,•
isr
conjunction with Mr. Twynam, purser of the Magi=
cienne, and Messrs. Lark and Woodhead. The prizes
were sent to London, and sold; the proceeds, amount•
jag to 17,0001. were received by Mr. Lark, and part
was distributed by him and Mr. Twynam in England.'
A large sum, however, remained undistributed in
1816, when Mr. Lark and his partner became bank-
rupts. A suit was, in 1821, commenced in this Court
against Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Twynam, at the in-
stance of the Directors of Greenwich Hospital, as
trustees for the captors, to recover the balance. Mr.
Wilkinson, however, satisfied the Directors, that almost
immediately after his being nominated agent (without
his solicitation), he was appointed to his present situa-
tion, which disqualified him from acting as agent ; that
be was never called upon to perform, and lever did
perform, any part of the duties of agent, so'asto entitle
him to share in the agency; and that he had no con-
cern whatever, in respect to the proceeds, except that
sum of MI. was paid to his own agent, without solici-
tation, by Messrs. Lark and Co. and which he was ready
to refund. The Directors, thereupon, consented to
abandon the proceedings, upon the 2001. being repaid.
Captain Gordon, however, in the year 1828, commenced
a suit in his own name to recover the balance from.
Mr. Wilkinson, alleging that evidence had been dis-
covered tending to invalidate the statement of. Mr. Wi-
lkinson, on the faith of which the former suit was aban-
doned. The claim was for upwards of 6,4001..
Upon the case being called,
Lord Browns, said, he had read the papers, but, he
confessed, without muck edification. This person (the
defendant) was charged with having received money on
account of the captured ships; but he had appeared
before the Directors of Greenwich Hospital, and proved
that he had realized none of the proceeds, and bad re-
ceived only a small sum, of which he gave an account.'
The Lea Aavectsva (ter the ippeliant) thought he was withio
m the amoral principle.
Lord Stowass—Too may say so, but I do not think so.
Dr. Jima (with the Knse's ADVOCATE) observed that thine
was clearly an acceptance of the agency.
Lord Strowass—On what terms sod conditions? Who would
be an agent, if I were to pronounce each a decree?
Dr. LIUSELEGIVE, for the defendant, observed that it was a case
of unexampled hardship.
The Krare's ADVOCATE replied, that It mast attach to these eases.
Lord Slowest. remarked, that there bad beets a case the other
day (allading to that of " Dentarara") in which a pent= was
forced, after dissolution of partnership, to pay money received by
his partner, which was bird ; put there was an intimation of what
was going on.
Dr. Lersansoreso—There was no intimation given to the agent bete.
The Kure's Arevocava.—l do not like to argue the case in this
way. If your Lordship decides against us, we must take the
props steps for appealing.
• 'Lord Browses-1 have read the papers, but lam willing to
hear. yes.
The Kortais Arovocars—Ne, my Lord, I do not wish to en-
COSISier argument in the form of a judgment.
After lone further discussion,
Lord STOWELL said, the case appeared to him very bard and
kiproper ;.he would, however, give time for consideration till next
, Corm day. • rt :
This was declined, and the Court dismissed the *Went.
EALWESAWI Pia&
This wu a suit to recover some prise booty alleged to have been
received ill the East India Company at the capture of Palembang,
he leis, whom the reigning Panjarang (or Suites) was deposed,
and his property redeemed by his successor. The ease was only
enieted epee, and is so important, as well as intricate, that it Is ex.
realest to defer We report till the argument is (wished. T<is fixed
far Friday next.

lOth. The letter in which it was enclosed was ad-1
sod to Messrs. Henderson and Co. in the Isle of
n, and the money was part of the half-pay of a,
amain Fielding, for whom they were acting as

prisoner was employed in the department through
,ach this letter had to be forwarded.
Mr. Law submitted that the property ought to have
been described as the property Of Fielding.
Tne Comm over-ruled the objection.
It was further proved, that when the note was found
on the prisoner, he said he got it from a Mrs. Brookes,
at whose house he lodged in Nelson-square.
On inquiry there, it was discovered that Mrs. Brookes
had removed from thence.
Prisoner, when called on for his defence, proceeded
to read a lens written statement, in which he protested.
his innocence, and observed, that he had got the male
at a gaming table the night before, but could not say
from whom. He spoke of the great respectability of
his family, upon whom the present charge against hies'
had already brought so much misery.
Some clerks of the Post Office proved, that when ds*
prisoner was twice sent for to the office of the principd
of his department, he had ample opportunity of gettimi
rid of the note which was found on him. There was*
fire in the room, into which he might have thump the
ROM or any papers he bad, if he had any fears of their1
being found in his possession.
Several highly respectable individuals, amongst whom
were some Clergymen of the Church of England, who
had known him from his childhood, gave him an ex-
cellenecheracter fbr honesty. His family was described
as very respectable. Prisoner was justof age.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH summed up, and the Jury,
after an absence from Court of nearly an hour, returned
a verdict of Not Guilty. On the application of Mr.
Law, the prisoner was immediately discharged.
THE BETHNAL. OMEN OANG.ROBBERT OF MR. FULLER.
- Thomas Norton was put to the bar, charged with
having (in company
,with several others not now in
custody) assaulted Henry Fuller on the King's highway,
put him in bodily fear, and taken from his person, by
force, a ease of surgical instruments, two cases oelan-
cets, two sovereigns, three shillings and sixpence in :if-
ver, his hat, and cravat, in September last.
The particulars of this case it would be unnecessary
•to detail. The facts have already been before the public
on many occasions. The prisoner is the eighth person
who has already been put on trial for having been con-
cerned in the robbery. Three of the parties tried were
capitally convicted, and one executed.
Mr. Fuller again swore to the circumstances of the
robbery. He Was going home through Fleet-street-
hill, Bethnal-grout, at half-past seven ip the evening,
when he was surrounded by a gang of about twenty
persons. Some of them bound his hands, and held him,
while the others stripped him of the articles mentioned.
He believed the prisoner was the person who took his
hat. He had no doubt that prisoner was one of the
party by whom he was attacked.
A police-officer proved that when he had the pri-
soner in custody, he expressed his regret that he had not
given himself up long ago, as it would have been all,
ever be'ore that time. When asked what he had done
with himself to be so long cut of the way ? he said he
would rather be hanged than " come it," (meaning than
give evidence against his associates.)
Prisoner said nothing in his defence, but called a wit-
ness so whom Mr. Fuller, the prosecutor, spoke imme-
diately alter the occurrence. Witness asked him whether
knew any of the persons? but he said he was sue-
rameded by so many that lie was not able to distinguish
the features of any.
Mr. Justice LirrtsteaLa summed up, and the Jury,
after deliberating in Court for about half an hour, re-
tired. On their return in about 20 minutes, they delivered
a verdict of Guilty.
Lyon Lyons, aged 65, was put to the bar charged,
with having stolen 30 scent bottles, some with gold and
some with silver tops, value 151. two medicine chests,
value 81. and other articles, the property of Dr. Reece,
of Piccadilly.
Samuel Carter, who lives as assistant to Dr. Reece,
near the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly, proved that the
premises of that Gentleman were opened by pick-lock
H/OHWAT ROSSZRY• keys on the 16th of June, and the property abovemen-
Elizabeth Ryder was indicted for forcibly taking a tioned stolen. The robbery was not discovered till the
watch from the person of Charles Piga= on the night following day.
of the 11th of June. Mr. Cope, one of the City Marshals, proved that he
The prosecutor stated, that on the night its-question found the property at the house of the prisoner at Cock
as he was walking through Whitecross-street, a man and Hoop-yard, Houndsditch. The prisoner bad a box
swan up and seized him by the throat, and while he before btm, and appeared to be counting the smelling
was so held the prisoner came, snatched his watch, and bottles. When asked how he came by that property,
ran off. By the description he gave of her las blind of he said he bought them and could chew the invoice,
ale eye), she was arrested next morning. Verdict, Guilty. but after some time he said he could not find it, be was
so confused. The property was claimed in a few days
three Dointry was put to the bar, charged with steal-
ing a 51. note, the property of Philip Codd and another. by the prosecutor.
At the last Session the prisoner was indicted for the The prosecutor, Dr. Reece, was called to prove that
capital offence of stealing a letter from the General Post the property produced was his.
Office, containing a 51. note, he being then a clerk em-
On his cross-examination by Mr. Lam witness said
ployed in the Office. On that occasion he was acquitted, he believed in the New Testament on which he was
owing to the absence of a material witness. He was,
sworn, and repelled indignantly the insinuation con-
however, ordered to be detained, and a fresh indictment veyed by the question.
was preferred against him, charging bins with the Mr. Lew said that he might have been misinstructed,
minor offence of stealing the 51. note. but he had been given to understand that witness was a
When put to the bar, the prisoner pleaded that belled kind of believer in the reveries of the late Mrs. Johanna
been already tried for the offence with which he was now Southcote.
charged, and submitted, that legally he could not be tried Dr. Reece said, that this attack originated with Mr.
a second time for one and the same offence. Phillips (who was for the defence with Mr. Law).
Mr. C. PHILLIPS said that this was most unfounded.
Mr. LAW, for the prisoner, said, that the charge in the The course of examination was suggested by the in-
present indictment was for stealing the 51. note. This structions which they had received.
was the minor charge, but the question for the Court The Doctor then, after some remarks, not important
was, whether that was not included in the capital indict- to the case, proved that the bottles produced were his
ment, on which a Jury had already acquitted him ?
property.
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL (who with Messrs. Bolland The prisoner in his defence said, that he was then
and Sheppard, conducted the prosecution) observed that nearly 60 years of age. and he had never been in prison,
in the former indictment there was no count which or charged with any offence, before this. He was a
charged the prisoner with the larceny only ;he therefore man very unfortunate in his family. Two out of the
could not, under that indictment, have been convicted of four of his children were deaf and dumb. As to the
the minor offence. affair of the smelling bottles, he would leave that mat-
Mr. Justice &remotion having consulted with Mr. ter entirely to his Counsel.
Justice LITTLWALR, directed the trial to proceed ; and There were some witnesses called, who spoke to the
added, that theo 'Section would be laid before the Judges, manner in which the prisoner spent his time on the
and the prisoner should have the benefit of it. evening of the 23d. He went to the Surrey Theatre
The Souctroa-GENERAL now stated the case, and on that evening, and went home to his house and
called witnesses to prove it. It is not necessary that we went to bed that night. One of the witnesses who
should here go into the detail of the evidence, which lodged in the house usually locks the door and keeps
has already appeared. It will be sufficient to say that the key. He did so on that night. It appeared that
it appeared that the prisoner was employed as a clerk in the witnesses spoke to the 23d, but the prosecutor being
the inland department of the General Post-office, Liver- recalled, proved that the robbery was committed on the
pool division. In consequence of some suspicions which 16th. One of the prisoner's witnesses now desired to
attached to him, he was sent for to the office of the be recalled, and spoke to his having been confined by
head of his department, and examined. Oa his person illness to his house, and attended by a doctor on the
was found a 51. note. It was farther proved, that this 16th. Witness did not go to bed on the evening of that
note had been put into the Post-office bellman's letter day until after prisoner had gone to bed.
bag, at the corner of St. Jamea's-square, on the night of Some ten or twelve witnesses (many of whom had

OLD BAILEY, JULY 16.
-......._.

Peter Johnson Hamilton was indicted for uttering, as
good and lawful coin of the realm, a certain piece of
base metal made to represent a sixpence, and being a
counterfeit of that coin, he well knowing the same to be
counterfeit; it was also charged that the prisoner was
before convicted of a similar offence.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty, and persisted in that
plea. notwithstanding the declaration of Mr. LAW (who
appeared as Counsel for the Mint) that he was not
authorized, in the absence of the Solicitor to the Mint,
to say that the plea of Guilty would be of any advan-
tage w him.