Star.
London, England, 1820-01-15 00:00:00

• OLDSAILEVIE&SIONS.

on the arrival of the Judges,
dated •

YesterdaymoTri

ing, on me
at ten o'clock, the following prisoners were pi_ . at
the Bar, and severally arraigned for forged notes, viz.
Edward Welch, James Carey, James Melvin, Wm.
: Wood, James Cowley, Wm. Garrett, John Wiliams,
Was. Brown, Henry Bucknell, Sarah Wicks, Henry
Johnson, James Wright, James Bryant, Mary Kelly,
Ann Hall, and Catherine Martin—when they seve-
rally pleaded guilty to the minor-offence of having
forged notes in their possession, knowing them to
be forged.
Mr. RzYwofassitCounsel for the Bank, stated that
each of the above cases had been the subject of ma-
ture consideration by the Governor and Directors of
the Bank, and he was by them instructed to offer no
evidence in support of the capital charge. The pri-
soners were, therefore, under the direction of the
Learned Judge, acquitted of that part of the indict-
ment, but having pleaded Guilty to the other, they
are subject to fourteen years transportation.
The following prisoners pleaded Not Guilty to the
general charge, viz.—Janes Gain, Sarah Paley, A.
E. Harewood; Wm. Saul, John Parsons, George Perry,
John Storey, and Ann Pitcher.
They were, therefore, remanded to take their trial
for the capital offence.
On William Paley (by trade a cabinet-maker) being
arraigned for uttering Notes, knowing them to be
.forged, several £lO and £5 notes, he pleaded guilty
to the minor offence of having them in his posses-
' Sion ; but was informed by NI!. Justice HOLROYD,
that the indictment against him was for feloniously
disposing of and putting away the notes, not merely
for having them in his possession.
Prisoner.—". My Lord, I can only plead
.what is
"true—l had the notes in my Possession.
The Court.—" Then do you plead Guilty or Not'
'Guilty to this indictment?"
Prisoner,—" hy may I not plead Guilty to the
minor offence as well :is another ?"
The Court.—" You are not charged with that.
You may plead guilty if you please to the indictment
read to you, hut that plea subjects you to the penalty
of dv.ali."
Prisoner.—" I can plead no other way except
as to having them in my possession."
The Ceurt—" I again tell you that is not the
charge, and if you obstinately won't plead, the con-
sequence to you will be terrible."
The prisoner then pleaded Not Guilty.
Joseph Skelton was indicted for the wilful murder
of William 'Turner-, on the 23ti of December last.
William Hughes deposed, that on the evening of
the day mentioned in the indictment, he, together
with his partner, -he deceased, were driving a coal
waggon along Ghandos-street, which at that time
vas obstructed b,' a dust-cart belonging to the p:i-
soner. The deceased attempted • to pass with his
waggon, and in doing so turned the cart of the pri-
soner across the road. The deceased proceeded
. 'along the street, and was fhllowed by the prisoner,
wrio kuockcd him down under the fore-horse, and he
was in consequence run over, and his death caused.
In cross-examination, the witness allowed that at
`the time when the waggon of the deceased struck
the -Care of the prisoner, many- persons conceived
themselves in 'danger, and cried oat, *4 You have
nearlf kind er inhe' • •
William-Jefferson, a Constable of Bow-street, was
on the left:hind side of the way, and the dust-cart
*as as near to the pavement as it well could be, ad-
mitting room for the ladder. The neat thing he saw
was the dust-cart turned sharp round ; witness
crossed over, and just as he got round by the horses
"el the Coal waggon, the prisoner came up and struck
- the deceased ; he was standing by the horse next to
the shaft-horse. The waggon was at this time moving
on. When the deceased fell he cried out " help,".,
avid witness called to the people to bring a light ; the
deceased lay near the; shaft-horse ; witness turned
round to look at the prisoner, and Hughes asked
him why he struck the deceased? he immediately
Struck him (Hughes). When the light came, he saw
the waggoner lying on his back, with his leg broken
to pieces, and his whip lying alongside of him. Wit-
ness secured the prisoner—and his comrade, Hodds,
came up to him and told the prisoner to bolt, as it
/ea% all wrong.
Cross-examined.—Witness had no idea that the
deceased was in such danger, he thought he would
scramble out of the way,. There was_ some nob,e,
which might have caused the horses to go of.
Several witnesses were called for the prisoner, who
gave him a good character for mildness of temper
and humanity.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD summed up the evidence, at
great length, to the Jury. The main question for
their consideration was, whether the blow given by
the prisoner to the deceased, was given with an in-
tention to destroy him, and take his life; er whether
it was given by a sudden irritation, with a view to
punish or chastise him, for the supposed injury of
turning round bis cart. If the Jury were of the
latter opinion, they would find the prisoner guilty of
manslaughter; but if, on the contrary, they thought
be had acted from malice aforethoui.ht, and inflicted
the blow which led to the death of the deceased, it
was their duty, however painful, to find the prisoner
guilty of murder. 'The character, his Lordship said,
which had been given to the prisoner, would bare
its due weight with the Jury.
The Jury, having consulted together for a few
Minutes, pronounced a verdict, finding the prisoner
Guilty of Manslaughter.
Thomas Broophey was put to the bar, and indicted
for killing and slaying Catherine, his wife.
It appeared in evidence, that in the middle of the
night the prisoner came 'Nine drunk, and shortly
afterwards the lodges i.i the house overheard some
altercation between him and his wife. They shortly
after heard a noise, as if somebody had fallen. On
doing up to the room door, two female lodgers found
the prisOner staadiag outside, very much intoxicated.
Ott entering the room, they saw the deceased sitting
close to the bedside, and a quantity of blood on the
floor. The deceased seemed very weak, and coin.
splained that her husband had pulled her out of bed,
that she had fallen on her beck, and was much hurt.
It further appeared, upon the testimony of a fellow-
-lodger, that the poor woman was far advanced in
pregnancy. The landlady was called to her assist-
anice, but time deceased-died in about three-quarters
of an hour. The prisoner came in and out of the
room. while the women were assisting his wife, and

cried out to her—A! Come, old Wallin, hide rile-
thing to 'drink ;" and wanted to put a bottle, with ,
some liquor, to her mouth. The women would not
let him, saying it was a poor recompense to give her
drink after he had killed her. He seemed, though
drunk, quite uneasy at his wife's situation: he cried
ever her, tore his hair, and said he would not part
with her. He was with some difficulty taken into
custody, as he said he never would quit his, old
woman.
Mr. Burgess, a surgeon, was tailed. He said, he
found the woman in a state of exhaustion, from loss
of blood, and far advanced in pregnancy. There
was no external bruise on the body ; but, upon exa-
mination, he found a large blood-vessel broken. This
might have been caused by a fall or a blow, as in
her state, the vessels were distended.
The prisoner, in his defence, said, that his wife
had jumped out of bed, to prevent his going out,
and in so doing had fallen down.
A witness was called, who gave the prisoner a
good character for good temper and disposition.
Mr. Justice BURROUGa summed up leniently, and
the Jury found a verdict—Not Guilty.
William Frith was capitally convicted for a bur-
glary in the dwelling-house of FranCis Gregg, Esq.
and stealing goods, Bank Notes, tkc. to the value of
£7OO and upwards.

COURT OF REQUESTS, CASTLE-STREIT.

JANVAST 13.
DRURY-LANE THEATRE.
HOLMAN V. ILLISTON.
Thikwas a proceeding, on an Order, against the
present 'Lessee of the Theatre-Royal, Drury-Lane,
calling on him to shew cause why he refused to pay
into Court Ws. for the plaintiff's use.
The plaintiff stated, that he was occasionally em-
ployed at Drury-Lane as a figment, receiving ss. per
night as a remuneration for his services. During the
first four nights of the new Pantomine, called "Jack'
and the &an stalk,' he attended, and danced in the
piece ; but on the fifth (Friday) night, he was unable
to attend, and on the following day, when he attend-
ed to receive his salary, he was informed, that in
consequence of his non-attendance on the evening
before, his money was to be stopped, agreeably to
a standing regulation of the Theatre. In a day or
two afterwards he wrote a polite letter to Mr. El-
liston, requesting the payment of his four nights'
performance, and hinting, that if it was not liqui
dated he would recover it by proceedings in the
Court of Requests, but to this letter he received no
satisfactory answer. Some days after he accidentally
met the defendant in the street, who jeeringly said,
4' Why, Mr. Holman, I have been waiting for your
summons." 66 Yon shun not wait long," was the
answer, and on the following day-plaintiff did take
out a summons, to which Mr. Elliston refused to
attend till the present order issued.
It was now contended, by a Gentleman who at-
tended for Mr. Elliston, that the plaintiff's claim was
ism tenable, inasmuch as he had been guilty of a
breach el those rules and orders by which the highest
as well as the lowest performer was bound, and by
the strict enforcement of which alone, anything like
authority could be maintained in the Theatre. These
regulations were rather numerous—but the clause of
them which particularly applied to the plaintiff, was
for absenting himself, without shewing cause for so
doing, or giving sufficient notice, in order that his
place might be supplied by another. A number of
regulations were then put in, and amongst the rest
was one which inflicted on any performer, &c. a
week's salary penalty for absenting himself, under
the conditions above stated.
The plaintiff said, that Mr. Elliston, with a view
of saving expenses as much as possible, he supposed,'
kept no minor ballet performers on the establishment,
but employed such persons by the night, when he
wanted them, at the sum office shillings. He de-
nied having subscribed to any regulations, or that
ever the instrument produced had his concurrence;
bat even if it had, he contended that he was a
nightly servant, and that its operation could not
apply to him.
The Learned Commissioners, after a short delibe-
ration, were of opinion, that the right of the plaintiff
was not at all affected by the regulations quoted, and
they accordingly adjudged the defendant to pay-the
whole of his demand and costs.
CREEVEY V. THE SAME.
In this case the defendant was summoned for-the
payment of a trifling debt claimed.by the plaintiff, a
respectable cow-keeper in Drury-lane, for carting a
quantity of rubbish away from Drury-lane Theatre.
It appeared, on the hearing of the case, that when
Mr. Elliston took the Theatre, he entered into a con-
tract with Mr. Cadogaa, the Surveyor of the Parish
of St. Clement Danes, for carting away all the rub-
bish from the Theatre. The contract, through ex
remissness of Mr.Cadogan's,servants,was not regularly
fulfilled, and the consequence .was, that heaps of
dirt and rubbish were frequently lying in the street
in front of the building. The Surveyor of the Parish
of St. Martin's-in-the•fields (in which Drury-lane
Theatre is situate), having his attention called to this
nuisance, gave frequent notices to have the rubbish
cleared away, and on the occasion which formed the
subject of inquiry, said, if it was not removed within
a limited time, he would lay an information against
the Lessee, which would subject him to a fine of 4435.
and costs. In order to avoid this penalty, an autho-
riSed agent of Mr. Elliston's sent one of the men to,
look for some person who would undertake the re-
moval of the rubbish, and at a late hour on a Satur-
day night the plaintiff, by means of his men and
carts, performed the duty ; but when he sent in
his bill, nobody knew anything of it, and he was
driven to the disagreeable necessity of instituting
proceedings.
Mr. Elliston's representative only wanted to be
satisfied of the justice of this claim to pay it, and
that being done, he felt satisfied.
The Commissioners said Mr.Ellistea ought to be
obliged to the plaintiff for undertaking so dirty a
job at such precarious hours.

Thursday evening, about dusk, a Gentletaan was
knocked down, near the Mint, in Union-street, South-
wark, by three ruffians, who robbed him of a pocket-
book, containing two El notes, a silver watch, &c..—
His cries attracted the attention of a constable named
llyaml, who happened to be passing, and he pursued
the thieves very promptly, but they all escaped. The
watch was afterwards found near tha.spet.