Star.
London, England, 1827-07-25 00:00:00

could attend to such an important case, he (Mr. Tab
found) would venture to my that the only sentence the
Court would pronounce would be, that the defendant
should pay a fine of one shilling and be discharged,
while the unfortunate defendant wool,l be thrown out
of bread, and ruined by the delay. This must be the
ioiwritable consequence if they gave implicit credit to
the witnesses. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
compare the testimony of Hawks and Lawrence, aril
coMended that if they were found to differ in the story
the', had told, or to have been making offensive allusions
to the circumstances of the defendant, they had departed
from the duty of churchwardens, and taken the character
of partisans; sod the defendant was entitled to their
verdict. Uofortunately for him, he could not avail him-
self of the testimony of his wife, who had-witnessed the
whole transaction, while these two Geat:emen might
have corroborated each other's statement. As they had
failed in so doing, he hoped the Jury would by their
verdict not give a triumph to party spirit. He could
not cqnclude without saying, that the case reminded
him of the account given by Major Sturgeon hs the
Mayor of Garrett. where he says, that " as he was re-
miming to town in the Turnham-green stage, with En.
stgn Pottypan, and four others, they were stopped,l
robbed, and cruelly beaten, by a single footpad"--.1
(Laughter).
Mr. Justice larrtsuace having summed op, the
Jury, after a short consultation, found the defendant
Not guilty.

Crows Bidr.—Before Mr. Baron V
John Judd stood indicted, charged with having, nit
the 17th of July last. stolen a smockfrock, the property
of James Powney. From the evidence of the promoter,
who resides in the parish of Bisham, it appeared that the
prisoner called at his cottage to ask for a drink atm-
, ter ; shortly after the smockfrock was missing, and sus-
pecting the prisoner, the prosecutor went to Marlow,
and gave notice to a salesman there, that if such an sr-
Aide was offered for sale, he should stop the seller.
John Moss, the salesman, proved that the prisoner
offered the frock io question for sale for 6s. The pro-
secut, r having identified the frock now produced to be
his property, the Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
One month's imprisonment, and hard labour.
Joseph Dockers. a private of the 17th Lancers, was
charged with having stolen front the person of William
Caudell, a A Reading bank-note, on the 17th May last.
From the evidence of Caudell, it appeared that on
the day in question he was drinking at the Horse and
Groom public-house, White Waltham. when the pri-
soner and two of his comrades came in; they drank
together, and the prisoner introduced himself as the son
of a widow residing in the neighbourhood, and agreed
to go is the direction of his alleged house with the pro-
motor, who, after paying his reckoning: departed in
company with him. Shortly after, the prisoner, who it
was supposed had seen the 51. note at the time the pro-
secutor paid his reckoning, availed himself of an opper-
ituoity to take it from his pocket. The prosecutor at
'OM time was in a state of inebriety, but taxed hint with
*8 robbery.
On cross-examination by the Learned Judge on be-
ts* of the prisoner, Caudell admitted be bad keen
drinking its the public-bouse from ten o'clock in the
morning to half-past eight o'clock, when be left with
the prisoner.
Mr. Edward Smith, a farmer, through whose fields
the parties passed, proved seeing them together, and
shortly after hearing the prosecutor call out " You vil-
lain' 30, hate robbed me." With the assistance of his
sbeplier cl, Mr. Smith pursued and overtook the prism"
who willingly submitted solsissearched, but only Is. 44.
footed cm biro,
Vise in isonpr called his two comrades, Thorogood and
Mapes, v. ho gavehisp a good character, and corroborated
AfirsAtaftement as to the stare of drunkenness in whichtbss
ipesileattor left the public-house.
The Ltareed Judge having reca pitulattd.the evidence,
the Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN, after remarking that it was
impossible for any one who had heard the trial to have
a doubt on the subject, sentenced the prisoner to scree
years' transportation.
sti OLAND CIRCUIT.—NORTHAJIPTON, JOLT 15.
The Commission was opened here, on Saturday, by
Mr. Justice Houtoro, and the business commenced
before his Lordship, on the Civil Side, this mot sing.—
The trials on the Crown Side will commence to-morrow.
There are 55 prisoners for. trial.
CATELL O. 'SHAM, CLIMIL..-2112 CLOCK.

This was an action brriught to recover the price of a
clock, of the value of 91 101. sold to the defendant in
the early part of the year 1824. It appeared that the
idefendant, who is a Clergyman of the Established
L'hurcls, residing at-Boughton, about three miles from
ibis town, having occasion for a stock, and wishing to
be as economical in the purchase of it as possible, went
in search of a second-hand one, and at length suc-
ceeded in finding one in the shop of the plaintiff,
'who is a furniture broker. He agreed to purchase
it, upon the plaintiff assuring him that it was a good
one, and would go well. It was accordingly sent home
him, and, by his direction, placed outside the fe-
male-servante bedroom-door, in the attic, where, in
eomequence of the lowness of the ceiling. it could
emt.atand upright until part of the head was knocked
In a few days afterwards the plaintiff received
intimation that the clock would not go. lie sent a
clock.maker to examine it, who found that the crutch
touched the wall, and that that prevented it from
going. The clock.maker set it right: it went, and
is came away. In a few days more another message
arrived from the defendant--4, the clock would not go."
The clock.maker was again dispatched to examine it,
and found the clock down, because it had not been
wound up. He asked the maid-servants why they had
not wound it up? and they replied that they would
sooner see it at the devil, for that with its clicking and
its striking it disturbed their rest at night. The clock-
maker then wound it up, the clock went, and the clock-
maker came away. In a few days afterwards the plain-
tiff once more received a message from the defendant,
the clock would not go," and once more the clock-
maker was dispatched to examine it. Upon this occasion,
as upon the first, he found that the works were impeded
in consequence of the situation into which it had been
forced. He again set it right, the clock again went,
and, for the last time, the clock.maker came away.—'.
The plaintiff heard no more of the clock until a few
days subsequently, when it was brought to his door by
a carter. He refused to take it in, and the carman
conveyed it back to Boughton. The defendant, how-
ever, told him to carry it once more to the plaintiff, and
if be did not receive it, to leave it in the stteet. The
carter accordingly took it again to the plaintiff; the
tatter refused to admit it; and the carter set it down
in the street. He afterwards took it up again, saying
he did not like to see it in the cold, and left it