The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-12-08 00:00:00

THE SI ATESMAN.

Wright, a waiter at Walker's llotel, in the same
•trees, the present residence of the defendant, also
spoke to the regular attendance of the plaintiff, bet lie
dill not think .he stopped so late at night, nor came so
early.
Mr. Pullen, Attorney and rnder-Sheriff, gave tea-
timony very favourable to the plaintiffs diameter,
whom he would hove taken into his servile; lout
the Sheriff was displeased with him, and therefore
he dial not enter into any engagement with him.
Ile was to have given him thirty shillings per
week, with an increase, if worthy of it. Mr. P.
stated, that the defendant had spoken of him in fa-
vourable terms.

Mr. Middy who had been Clerk for some years
in the office of Mr. Hell, plaintiffs Uncle, stated,
that the plaintiff was senior I'lerl to then' for nine
years, and (Mr. noddy) had 200/. besides other al-
lowances.

31r. Serjeant PILL conducted the defendant's mit
whirl, rested on his having paid his wages according
to agreement, at the rate of one guinea per week. lie
put it in several documents to prove the fact. Among
these were two accounts written by the plain-
tiff, expressly charging for his services at that rate,
and giving credit for various items of cash. A letter
was also produced, written by the plaintiff on the sth
of August,soliciting the advance of 111/. and pledging
himself that it should cover the whOle of his demand
for his services during the shrievalty. It was written
in most respectful terms, and urging the advance of
the mosey, on the ground of the n.cessity of remov-
ing hi, wife and family into the r.mittry on account of
their ill state of health. It further appeared, that
during the Election for Members of Parliament, the
plaintiff haul been employed as poll clerk at the rate
of one guinea per diem.
Joseph OW was then examined in corroboration of
the agreement, and he stated that he is footman to the
defendant ; he swore that the defendant frequently
complained of the plaintiff's neglecting his duties, and
that he had told him of it when be returned haute.
The plaintiff replied, " flow ran the sheriff expect me
to live on a guinea a week." On his cross-examination, I
he, after very considerable hesitation, admitted that he
is brother-in-law to the defendant, having married the 11
defendant's sister.

John liarnfather, a cousin of the defendant, em-
ployed by him as a messenger during his Shrieralty,
gave nearly the same testimony.
51r. Serjeant V suns replied, in the course of
which he made some strong allusions to -the conduct
of the defendant it\ resisting the demand,
The Once JI'ITICIt desired the Jury to distills? from
their minds all prejudice in this case, which might
bate arisen in consequeure of the &lurches of the
Learned Counsel, or front their knowledge of any of
the parties, and &side according to strict justice. The
Learned Judge then recapitulated the evidence,
directing their attention to the point, that the only
question was, whether there had been an vgreement
betweew the parties ? This they would judge of front I
the documents. .

taken away. On the same day two of the prisoners,
Head and Lawrence, went to the shop of a person
mooed King, who resides at Edmonton, and passed a
five pound note, which they had taken from the house
of the prosecutor. On being questioned by King how
they because possessed of it, they said they got it from
the proprietor of a ma-yard at Enfield, for whom they
holLflone work. They also passed two pound notes,
Which were part of the stolen property, to another
shOpkeeper at Edmonton. The three prisoners were
soon after apprehended, at different intervals, and the
remainder of the stolen property was found upon Head
and Lawrence. There was nothing, however, to cri-
minate Clayton. Head and Lawrence made no defence,
and Clayton, after declaring his innocence of the
charge, called two witnesses, who proed an alibi tal
the satisfaction of the Conrt.
Karoo 011111110 W recaplinlated the evidence. and the
Jury, under his Lordship's direction, acquitted Clay- I
ton, and (bond Head and Lawrence--tinilty, Death.
The prosecutor recommended them to mercy. and
the Learned Judge said, that the recommendation
should be forwarded to the proper quarter.
Thomas Darker was put to the bar charged with
borglarionsly entering the dwelling-house of John
Snell, Esq. at Edmonton, and stealing therefrom a
driving-coat and three dozen of silver-hafted knives
and forks.
A great deal of evidence was produced, but none of
such a nature as to bring the charge home to the pri-
sener. The only circumstance against him was that
a chissel which was found upon him fitted the impres-
sion which was made on the gate of the prosecutor.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good charac-
ter, mad the Jury acquitted him without waiting for
the elarge of the Learned Judge.
(harks &vic was indicted for stealing a watch
sail seals of considerable value, the property of Capt.
Allachay, an Pricer on half-pay.
The prosecutor staled, that he lodged at Mrs. Cook's.
who :stilt ti hoarding•house in the vicinity of Bryan-
stun-square. The prisoner lived there as servant, and
contrived to obtain the watch under the pretence that
a lady in the house wanted One •of the seals to seal a
letter. Ile then al)• onded, and was not heard of for
some time.
John Webster stated, that about two o'clock in the
afternoon of the ljth the prisoner came to
his house. He had been acquainted with him for some
years. The next day he called again, and witness
saw a gold watch its hi. possession. Prisoner said it
had been given to bins by a gentleman to got repaired.
and that he should make ten shillings by the job.
Witness slid not see him afterwards tia he was taken
into custody.
James Jeffery, an officer belonging to Pow-street,
apprehended the prisoner in consequence of some in-
formation he had receives!, and upon that occasion
the prisoner divulged to him the whole transaction.

Jayvee Ilunt was next examined, but he conk! not
proceed in his evidence from an impediment of speOels,
which was so great that he could nut deliver himself
but at distant intervals.

I

POLICE.
Ax &Ammar (ART vuonT AN•
Cluildhall, J. Lyn, one of the gate-keepers of the South.
waric-bridge; was summoned before Ahlermas Coe,
a charge of having a‘saulted a man of respeetabk ap
pearanee, and forced him to pay the toll of anothcr pee.
son.

It was stated, the complainant, a fat elderly non, had
been puts/tied by a woman, from whom he had (sand
himself for a torte unable to escape; but Wag sat"
that his pursuer was pennyless, he hit upon an expedient
after some deliberation. Hr took the diteetiosa of
Southwark-bridge, and passed the gate; the mama
was stopped for the toll, hot a stranger seeing ands
tears, paid the peony for her, and she soon overtoeli the
man; but be suddenly turned back, and again ens
through the gate. The woman was again under these.
cessity of making an appeal to the feelings of thole.
Handlers, and again sneceeded. She overtook the ma.
plainant a second time on the opposite side of the
bridge, and again he turned hack. Determined to e.
cape, if possible, from his pastier, and to exhaust the
charity of the by-standers, he dodged her several times
over the bridge. After they had travelled over about
six times, the gate-keeper, of whom the &renames rise
I complained, refused to let the female pass without par.
I went of the toll. She said she was in pursuit of big
cruel husband, who was about to 1-
i e'en her, and pre.
I railed upon the toll-keeper, by her tears and entreaties.
to allow her to pass. The toll-keeper overtook thecoui.
plainant, and demanded a penny for the toll of his wife,
the complainant denied that she was his wife, and re-
fused, and the toll-keeper took the hat off leis beak
sad refused to return it until the complainant paid the
penny.
The toll-keeper, in his defence, cited a Haase in the
Bridge Act, which entitled him to distrain iissiergcr,
upon the goods or chattels dr any passenger ttlru west
through the gate withont paying the toll. lie ran.
trivet; the husband was liable for the drhts of a wife,
and therefore he had levied upon the complainant's hat.
The complainant (lefties' drat the woman who had fal-t
lowed hint was his wife, but said she was our who had a
design both upon his purse and person. But ad.
mining that she was his wife. he denied the right of
the toll-keeper to distrain upon hint for her trarellier
expenses.
.11ilernaan tor, on looking orer the Act, thought that
the clause which afforded the toll-keepers such &outstare
justice, a most arbitrary one, and one which now hate
crept throng's the legislature unnoticed, as it ass cos-
teary to the spit it of the law. However, it did sot, as
it stood, enable the toll-keeper to lrey upon one person
fur the toll of another. The toll-keeper had, lie thought,
acted illegally, as the assertion of the woman was oar
of which the truthiSZ not be ascertained.
The toll-keeper to the proposition to make a
pultliz apology, and the complainant said he should
proceed no further. '