Star.
London, England, 1817-12-10 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY SESVONV.

nooks Cote& and Ma; Corsrt, were indicted for
stealing nine shawls, from the shop of Wm. Beach,
of Grafton-street, Suho-square.
The prosecutor (Mr. Beach) deposed; that he re-
members the prisoners to have been in his shop- on
the evening of the 6th of Novetriber last, when they
bought about a yard of muslin. He did not then
miss any shawls. But it appeared in evidence, that
the prisoners being taken into custody on the Sth of
N wember, upon another charge,, the shawls speci-
fied in the indictment, and which were identified by
the prosecutor, were found upon Cotelin.
Cotelin threw herselt upon the mercy of the Court.
Cotelin was tound Guilty, and Curbyn Acquitted.—
On the verdict being pronounced, Cutslin begged
that if she should be sentenced to imprisonment, the
Court would be so gond as to allow her to remain in
Newgate, as a countrywoman of her's (French) from
whom she had experienced great humanity, acted
there as school-mistress.

Both prisoners were tried upon another indictment, I
for stealing a shawl from Mr. Bird, linen-draper.—
The prosecutor deposed, tliat both prisoners came
into his shop on the Sth of November; C-rbyn en-
deavoured to occupy his attention abont the centre of
the shop, while the other erisoncr took a shawl out
of the window. This, however, he immediately per.
ceived, and seized Cotelin, whom, with the other
prisoner, he had detained.
Several witnesses were adduced to the character of
Corhyn, who, it appeared, is married, and bad
moved in a respectable walk of life. Neither of the
prisoners were indeed, from their connection and ap
peatance, likely to awake any suspicion of such guilt
as had been this day so fully proved against them.—
Both were found Guilty.
The Judge (Mr. Baron GAnnow) here took occa-
sion to inform the prisoner (Cotelio), that as it now
appeared that she, as well as her colleague, regularly
employed herself in ahopliiting. neither the one nor
the other could expect to remain in the country.
John flail, a schimney.sweeper, was indicted for
manslaughter, in having refused to use proper means
for extricating a boy (John Dowling) from a small
chimney, into which the prisoner had compelled him
to enter, and in which the buy was suffocated.
Mr. ALLEY took an objection to the indictment.—
The prisoner had, lie observed, been indicted for
murder, in consequence of this transaction, and the
Grand Jury had ignored the bill. But here he was''
charged with a felonious iefusal to do that which it
was net alleged in the indictment that he h •d the
means of doing, and from the omission of this Alt--
, gation, be contended that the indictment could not
be legally maintained. The Learned gentleman
cited authority in support of this objection, which he
thought that the mope:. time to press, in older to save
the trouble of going -threegh the case.
Mr. Ara:wows a. knowledg,ed the onkelr of his
Learned Friend as to the time and mantiet in which
he brought forward his objection, against the validity
lof which he confessed that he was nut prepared at
once to quote any case vrecisrly in pint.
The JCDOE (Baloil Gallium-) decided in favour cf
Mr. Alley's objection, observing that althoulth lie ,
should lament and deprecate as much as any man the I
exercise of cruelty towards these unhappy children
who were employed in sweeping chimnies, although
he should rejoice, if, by machinery, or any other
means, such employment should be rendered unne-
cessary, still this was a ground upon Which he felt it
his duty, as well as that of the Jury.' to tread with
peculiar cautiou.o-to save their judgment from being
warped by any popular feeling, and to determine ac-
cording to law. lie felt the less difficulty in deci•
ding upon this occasion, because it the Counsel for
the Crown should think proper to enter into the C M.„l
the point of law might he saved for the consideration I
of use 'Judges, while it the pr,,secution of this indict-'
ment were now abandoned, the Learned Counsel
would not be precluded from another course o: pro-
ceeding. But from the omission of the allegailan in
the record referred to by'the Counsel fur the prisoner,
the legal objection of that Leavned Counsel was indis-
putable, and the indictment was clearly bad.
The Counsel for the prosecution declining, in con-
as of this decision, to enter into the ease, the
prisoner was acquitted.—After the verdict the Judge
said, that he begged it to be understood that this ver-
dtct held out no encouragement: whatever to the prat-
, tice of any harshness or cturlty towards the. pour
boys employed in sweeping chimnies, as it was en-
tirely owing to the impriper construction of the in-
dictment, which not being drawn according to the
forms prescribed by law, necessarily fell to the ground,
and such would have been the case if an equally de-
fective indictment were preferred for burglary, rob-
bery, or any other charge.
Tire following were capitally convicted :
Frederick Carrick, for stealing in the dweiling•house
of John Churchman, a work box, three rings, a
brooch, and other articles, value Os. and upwards.
Thomas Gisandlet•and George Do/ton, for burglariously
breaking and entering the dwelling•house of Jusech
Catley, and stealing various articles of apparel.
Mama: Leonard, for assaulting Richard Gadsby on
the King's highway, and taking a silver watch.
Cashman brad, for stealing a pearl necklace, two
peatl bracelets, and other articles, ut Isaiah Israel.
Louisa Pin Its was indicted for stealing Emma, the
infant daughter of Susannah Potter, five years and
seven months of age, with intent to deprive her of its
possession. The prosecutrix is a widow-woman, resi.
ding at No. I.s.Vere-sttoet, Clare.market. The facts
were clearly proved.
The prisoner, in her defence, said, she had been out
all night, and was in such a state as to be ignorant
of what she did.—The Jury found her Guilty.
• . The following were convicted of felonies, viz.—
Sarah Dauncey, for stealing a cloth mantle; D.
Davies, for stealing a cloth pelisse ; C. Russell, is:
stealing three shirts; J. Mann, for stealing a watch ;
J. Evans, fur stealing a pair of boots and a pair of
shoes; J. Cowley, for stealing two pair of shoes ;
W. Rielly, alias Hugh Kell and J. Conner, fir
stealing a dressing-case; L. King, for stealing seven
yards of flannel; J. Pockett, fur stealing a pound
and a half of tobacco; W. Hopkins, for stealing a
saucepan ; J. Jones and P. Davis, for stealing a hair
trunk; W. Faber, for stealing three shoe brushes;
T. Hurley, fOr stealing a hatidkeichief—This pri-
soner being called upon for his detente, observed,
ss it was a queer concern, and the Jury laid better
settle it stomps themselves."