Old Bailey, Tuesday, Dec....
The Times, 1824-12-08T00:00:00

Vc tiaturanylast a-disclosure of certain reprehensibld cnnduct oa $:ha P Wdied ia--ppointed to summon juries for Middlesex, -:D2 4tynecddent. -WVhen Ailr. Anes, of Lower-street, Isling- '0o pxted tt0bd excused'from serving in the evening, on account OQfuenkt private business, the application, being refuRed, MIr. sla:e tbatseveral of his neighbours had been excused by paying a gUratulcy.hence he t-onsidered that those who never tam- pered wi1 tt officer should be allowed a reasonable indulgence. T hE statanent led to an inquiry, when Mlr. Griffith Todd, and se- vehralother gentlemeen of the jury, fully established its correctness. The urt then ordered the case to be brought forward this day, and gave ntice forbe summoning officer and his deputy (the person charged withtaking bribes) to attend. At 9 o'clock this morning,Mr. Sergeant Arabia, Sir James Shasv, and Alr. SheriffBrown took their seats = herturon Mr. Shelton, the Clerk of the Arraigns, inquired whethcr the offlicerS whose pre8ebce was required were in attendance ? when the was informed that the principal was in court, but his deputy 'was not.. t, AIr. Sergeant AmisIN then asked whether the gentlemen of the jury who on Sattirday niade the accusation were present, as a long list of names had been given in ? Air. 'Wontner said he was informed that some of them were coming. 'The earned JUDOE said that a number of persons made state- ments the other day which, altheugh inculpatory of their own con- duct Inasmuch as they had been induced to give bribes to avoid a publc duty, yet they had, by such statement, acted, when called upon, in a most candid manner. He could not, however, but expre6s surprise that the parties were not now in attendance. A gentleman in thc jury-box said, that the jurymen who were the principal complainants came principally from the Islington dis- .trict-, but there were Eeveral to attend from his side (Chelsea) of the metopol is. Pursuant to the request of the Court, he gave them no- rice yesterday. Sir JAMrEs StrAw then gave directions that officers should be des- patched immediately; but the Judge said, it was expedient to know whe:her the parties implicated were in attendance or not. The summoning officer then stood fortlh, and stated that the per. Bon who acted as his deputy (and who had been accused of malprac- tices) left town yesterday for Bristol. JtJDGE.-IIOW came it that he left just now, whenahe must have been aware of the requisition to attend the Coirt ? Officer.-I believe he is gone in consequence of the death of a brother, or brother.in-law. Alderman.-This conduct is extremely wrong. It is qnly a few days since this n,atter was before the Court, and it is impossible but to think that the party whose presence is required must have known of the fact; or, i: he dId not, it was the imp2rative duty of the siam- rnoning officer, who is answerable for the conduct of those he em- ploys, to have informed him. JUDGE.-Officer, you were here on Saturday, and heard what passed, eand what the Court ordered. It was therefore your duty to have produced your deputy, or have communicated with him as a matter of course. Pray, Sir, have you seen him since Saturday last? )fficer~.(Hesieating4.)Yes, my Lord. for about three minutes, but I said nothiZg about it. A Idermnan..l-pon your solemn oath did you not tell him of the charge brought against him oa Saturday. It seems imnprabable you shtould have overlooked it when its importance to you is so very con- Offlicer.-Indeed 1 did not. i31r. Sherift BRowN here interposed, and said, that he knew how to deal with the officer who had been guiltv of sucb blameable ne- glect in not giving the Infermation required by the CourL JUrDGE.-There is no excuse for such conduct. This summoning offieer was here, and heard what passert. He then exculpated hifm- self in the best manner he was able. The Court, in order not to in- terrupt the pressing business then before it, and in order to allow reasonable time, postponed the Investigation, and gave strict orders that the persons who were supposed to have taken bribes should have 'oeeu in attendance. It appears, howerer, that the parties have met, and the ofacer, whose duty it was, for his own sake, to have done so, has neglected to tell his deputy of the matter. He knew the case demanded tIquiry to-day. The officer replied. that he was not aware that it was specifieally -ordered for this day, but the Judge appeared to doubt the assertion. Sir J. SH.&w again expatiated en the extraordinary and culpable .-conduct of the officer. It was quite clear froin the acknowletlgment of respectable persons, thit bribes had been tendered and refused; therefore, as the matter involved the privilege of all persons eligible. to serve on juries, and the dignitv of the Court, as well as the cha- racter of one of its officers, he would again express his determination thatthe,ubject should be fully investigated. The CoarT then conferrdl for a considerable time; after which, bir J.A4Es SHAW said the Court had come to a determination that a. public proiecution shouhl be instituted against the summoning officer, and that process of action should issue forthwith. The communication was deprecated by the officer, who renminded the Court that iie hoped they would aItertheir determination, on ac- count of baving a large family. Alr. tSergeant ARAsrN told him he had no right to complain, as lie bad brought all upon himself by his own conduct and wilful melect. ?he matter here terminated for the preseat. James Cox, aged 17, stood indicted upon a charge of having re. ceired a watch from - Carroll (who was convicted a day or two back for stealing Ihe same watch), knowing it tO be stolen. T. Poole- am a labourer at Acton; I gave a watcl to Mr. Fos- ter to be cleaned. MIr. S. Foster.-I am a watch-inaker at Acton; the last witniess gave me a watch to clean: on the following Wednesday I went out between 3 and 4 o'clock, and left my wife at home; I left the watch hanging in the window; when I came home about 6 o'clock, the watch was gone; I saw it on the Saturday after, In the possession of t"e-constable. Sophia Fosetr-I am the wife of the last witness ; he left nme at *some on the Wednesday; after be was gone, Carroll ame In and staked what would be the expense of repairing his watch; I told him I could. not tell. About ten minutes after he was gone, I missed 'lr. Poole's watch; I did not see the prisoner at all before Carroll one ir*. I had put the watch an the counter. Eljzbeth Wheatley-I live with my brother, who is a watch- maker at Hammersmith. I remember a cart stopping next door, in which sat the prisoner and Carroll; the latter came into the shop. nd was talkin to my sister. I heard him say he wanted to look at a gold jeal; she sent me for my brother, and on umy return with himi, I met both Carroll and Cox in the cart. --Wheatley.-I am a watchmaker, at Ilammersmith. I re- collect being fetched bv rAy sister to tie sbop, and on my arrival discovered that I had been robbed of a gold chain; my sister told sne. thepersou who came into the shop hAd got into a cart, in which waaifoaier nmia. I then pursued the cart, and saw it In Phllli- more pIace,- Eeiisington; the prisoner was upon the pavement, out ,of the cart; they wzes both taken into custody, and searched; Cox VVi'ih jeZknw nothing whatever of Carroll; they were searched by nrq ythe constable; there w3S a watch found on one of them. %4 - yleY proved having been sent to take the prisoners, and a he flarched them, and found as above stated. Ifaniel DarweIL4 emn hostler at the Red I.ion, Acton, and saw th~ihc soaer come in company writh Carroll in a cart, to bait the ]soee5, at the inn, as well as to dine. 'Thisbeing the whole of the evidenee on the part of the prosecu- tifoni, Mr. C. PsrrLas begged t& submit to the Court, that ther was Do casetogo to thejury, upon these grounds. Theprisoner wase in t s instance 'ndited for receiving (and not for the theft) the wa a, knowing itto be stolen. Now, he contended, that, as it haa been, Cox had gone in the cart with Carroll, and must have-waited outside during the period occupied in the comamission of the theft, Cos must be considered in the light of a principal in the crime, and not ag 3 receiver. Under these circuinstances he (Mr. Phillips) sub- mitted, thatno case had been made eut against Cox to go to thejury. DMr. Sergeant ARAB3r having overruled the objection, summed up, and, the Jury found the prsonerguizy. Wiflam Sparks vas charged with having struck H. Smnith, and thereby caustd his death. The prisoner was sitting in a public- howue, in the iarish of Sc. Leonard; Shoreditch with a little dog in his, In, and the decea8ed coming in, said, " That'a a pretty dog." Thisuetitefur ter con versation , during which the prisoier hit the dceased tupoa the head, who died Wvithin six hours Two surgeons,- however, who had opened the head, said, that its appeisra4ice W s6uch as not to make them to iay'positively that his death was~eamused by theblowzeceived from the prisoner. The Jury therefore, under the direction of the Judge, acquitted. 4.a v ______- (.LX) BAILEY. TUESDAY. DEC. 7.