LONDON SESSIONS, Wednesda...
The Times, 1824-10-28T00:00:00

These Sessions coromenced yesterdav, before the REDoRtDE1 and a bench of Aldermen. The RECORDERt, in addressing the Grand Jury, said, that upon looking over the calendar, hie perceived a charge of forgery which woutd renuirc their most attentive consideration. In cases of con- viction ot such aio offence, thic convict, it was known, was usually handed over to the executioner. The forgery of a bond, or deed, or power of attorney, was a thing of a much more complex nature than the forgeries which were generally charged in courts of justice. A5 to a deed, if aRter execution of it by the bona flde parties, any alter- ation should be made wbich rendered it different from its original form, chat alteration wvas a forgery. if proved to have been unau- tho,i7ed. If a power of attorney appeared to have beea executed by three persong, and that oniv one of three executed it, the act was forgery. The case to which he alluded (Air. Fauntleroy's) would nost probably occupy a rreat part of the time of the gentlemen of the Oran4`,vry, whom he thetefore recommended to dispose of the bills of a IEsi complicated nature previously. A FIELD-LANE CASE. The Grand Jury having withdrawn, Thornaoc l'ord, a translator of boots and shoes in Field-lane, was put to the bar, charged with an assault upon Mlargaret Alarchar.t, the wifeofhis next-doorneigh- botur, who carries on the same business with himself. That two of a trade should disagree. is proverbial; but in this instance the dis- agreement was still more extensive; Ibrthe two dogs, of which each hadl one, were continually fighting, and so daring in their animosity, as to carry on hostilities occasionally, not onlv in the lane, but over the sacred thresholds of each other's domicile- On the occasion which gave rise to this indictment, the engagement was fought in Mrs. Mlarchant's shop, who, indiznant at the trespass, interfered in the behalf of her own dloz, and kicked Ford's out. fle ran to the tlog's assistance, and th reatened, if M rs. Al archant repeated her kick- ng, he would kick her. She kicked the dog notwithstanding, and Ford kicked her in revengre. This, with the omission of the Field-lane language which was used upon the ecca. sion. was the case on the part ef the prosecution ; to prove which five witnesses were called, all of whom swore to the kick given to Mrs. MaTchant. Fordl was not without his partisans in the lane, and called three witnesses in his defence, all of whom as positively swore that MVfrs. Mllarchant never wac kicked at all. The last, and apparently only impartial witness called, was Hughes, a wvatch- man. whom 51archant, the husband, had fetched from his beat to take char,e of Ford. By the time he arrived, the row was pretty well over; and as upon inquiry he found nobodv was hurt, he re- fused to take the ch arge. - I tho:ught," said he, " please your Lordship, that as I hadl seen no breach of the peace. I was not justi. fied In taking the man into custodyv and I told them if they were dlissatisfiet1, they mighit send over to the watchhouse for the officer of the night." The REconDERt (smiling)._" Vou did perfectly right; you may standdown; you areavery good lawYcr. Ift ou (1o not see the peace broken, and no mischief has been done, you do right not to inter- fere. It Is not for persons in your situation to lend yourselves to the gratification of the angrv passions nf individu2ls." Mr. CHARLES Pltr.r.Li's(the defendant's coinsel.)_'rhen avery pleasant situation se are all in. As hiis Lordship says so, I suppose this i; the lawv, and I am ver;' sorry that it is the law. A great service watchmen must be to us, if, aftcr we have had ouri heads broken in ali affrav,the watchman,onbeing called to ourTassisvance.istotell us he has nothingtndo with thebusiness, as hehad ont thepleasure tosee theblow struck. So, T suppose, if s felony was committed, and I call in the watchman, and sitow him the thief, he is to say, " Oh! I tid not see it done," andi leave us to our remcdv of sending to the watch-house for tie Dogbkrrp of the night. The REco RDER made no) repiv at the time to these remarks hut in his summing up to the jury he took occasion to observe that the learned counsel had expresscd himself sorrv at what he hadl stat- ed to he the law. Such, however, was the law laid down, as hemust well know, by tic trighest authority. In a charge of felony, the case was widely dilferent, and no officer, in a case of titat sort, would be warranted in refusing to take into custody an alleged felon. ble then took a hastv review of the contradictory evidenlce, observing, that whichever side thev believed, no great injurv would be sustainetd. In actions for damages in assaults of this nature, his two learned friends, )Ir. Bearcroft and Air. Alingay, used alwavs to sav, " Gentlcinen of the Jury,-This is a shilling aU the world over." Tic jttry, after a little hesitation, brought in a verdict of gttilty; and the Court sentenced him to a fine of Is., and to enter itnto his own recognizance in 101. to keep the peace for ]2 months. Charles Bratnwel.', a wine- nerchant at Padtingtou, stood indict- ed for asraulting Wim. WValker. a gentlemian in the employ of the respectable firm of Severn, King, and Co., and AMary Ann, his wife. A crosi-bill had also becn found against Air. aV er, fer an assnult on Mr. Bramwell. Mr. Walker was returning with his wife and chill fronm a visit to his brother, whien they were met in Tower.street bv the defentlant Brainwell. anti a Air. Shrdgalte of tie Excise, who had just left a dinner-party in the neighbourhood; and the charge against Air. Brantwell was. that in passing he put his hand verv indecently upon the person of Airs. Walker; and upoin her IuShIand's remoinstrating with him for so doing, lie struck hitn a violent blow. NV ith respect to the indecent conduct towards the lady, both she and her husband swore positively. Fron the shape of the proceedings, thtere being two indictments, 3ir. Bramwell was cnabled to give his staternent also upon oath ; and he positively swore that lie never intended or did touch the lady at all, and that the fnrst commencement of the affray was by his receiving a kick from Air. X'Valker, who chargedi him at the tine with having indecently assaultedI his wife; that he denied having done so; that AIr. WValker repeated the charge with insulting language; and then-and not till tben-ite did strike hin. Air. Shasigate corroborated his friend's statement, declaring that he believed Air. Bramwell did not touch the lady atall. If he bad, he thought he must have seen it. The REconDER put it to thie jurv, to say whether they believed 't might not he a misconception orT the paTt of ilr. and Ai rs. W21l aer, in which case he would have beset thc first assailant. If, on the ntlicr hand, they thouight that Mir. Brainwell had laid his hand in- decently upon the lady. that was such a provocation as fully justified the husband in the kick he was alleged to have given. The Jury, after sonie consultationt-.acquitted Air Walker on the irdictment against him ; and pronounced a verlict of C,villy on tnat azainst Mr. Brnatawell, who was inanediately sentenced by the Court to pay a fine of 201. to the King. LONiDON sE rI S, Wednesday, Oct.27.