Bristol Sessions, Oct. 27...
The Times, 1824-11-03T00:00:00

wliese derendants were indicted fora conspiracy to bribe one Strong (better known by the name of Vabb'e) 'to lose a prize battle, whic he hcbad agr~eed to fight with letentlant Bailey, and thereby to def'raud certain persong who had laid wagers on the fight. Mtlr. T,AuN'urO said the Indictment wtas for a conspiracy and gross traud. Stephen Strong was a boxer of coasiderable celebrity and much amusement was expected ftrolt a fight between him and the detendant Bailey. The termsof this tight were mnade the sub. ject of a written agreement, b which Strong and Bailey agreAd.-to fight for 251. a-side, on the A of February, I824; 5L a-side - being deposited in the haodsofa gentleman of the name of Tripp, at. the time when the agTeement wad signed. T'he defendant Perris,. not content to take his fair chance, resolved ou gettirig up what Is calltd a * cross-fight." It often happens, however, thakrogetiy conf4unds itself, and thus it was in the preecnt case;. for after Strong had been prevailed on by the defendants to lose the fight, the parties puttheir frauduilentintentionis into the shane of an agreement in writing; a copy of which I will now read*- r, Stephen Strong, do tree to fight James Bailey on the 23d of 1rebrUaSTy, 18N4, for251. a-side ; and do agree by an oath before (me) W. Ferris and James Bailey, to lose and let the afore4ai4 James Bailey win the aforetsid fight, by my promising the said Stephea Strong 251. for himself, whdlly and 0olelv for his own self; '- The mark >X of Stephen Strong. "51. in hand, . Stephen Strong. " Wim. FeTri st Witness-Jamnes Bailey. "1 James Bailer." Strong, th@ugh he gave way to this arrangement, had stilt a little honestyleft, and wished-to reserve a power of commnunication to some of his dear friends. In fact he did so; and, as it always hap- pens, one communiated to the other, till the thing got publicly kfnown. The fight nevertheless took place. I do not know hbw it is, gentlemen, but there is something about a Bristol man which mnalkes him extremely averse to take a beating-so it was with Cab- bage. Although he agreed to lose, his Bri6tol luck got up, and he gave Bailey a most tTemendous beating. dabbage, gentlemen, could have told you all the particulars of the conspiracy vrhich we are ro try; but he is no longer in the rin. Since his fight with Bailey, he encountered that mighty boxer Death, who, in vanquish- ing him, bas deprived me of one of my best witnesses. Th e witnesses having proved the statement of the learnedcounsel, Mr. SMITH addressed the jury for the defendant Ferris. The foundatiou of the charge was an agreement to fight-an agreement in direct breach and violation of thelaw-an agreement on which no civil action would lie and in relation to which no wager could be recovered. Prize-fighting was illegal, and it was no crime to de- prive a man of an advantage he could hOt legally enjoy. On that groand he opposed the indictment. The Town-clerk was unwilling to decide upon the objection, but he left the case to the jury, wilo, after a few minutes' convultation, found bothi the defendants Arot Guilty. BRISTOL SAYSIONS, Ocr. 27. CONSPIRACY TO LOSE A PRIZE.FFIGHT. rlIE RENG, ON T{lE PEOSECUTIOM OF JOHN COOK,.JOHr PULEiM, AN1D JOHN LEWVIS T^tPP, V. WILLIAM rEURIS AND JAMErS DAILEY.