Middlesex Sessions, Tuesd...
The Times, 1824-01-14T00:00:00

T1 a BuoO rsges s WSa indicted for assaulting Roe-a SIart, on the 13th of November;. It appeared, frorn the evidence of t'he prosecutrix, thatonthe even- ing of the 13th of November she entere a stage-coach in the city to proceed to Tottenhain, where she resided witl her husband. 'lwo adies and a syoung gentleman were in the coacb, and the defendant entered it soon after. The defendantsat downbeside the prosecttrix, an4said "Holloa, is it you, Mrt.Hart ?" The prosecutrix was rather t.ttprised nt thi familiar address, because, though she knew the Srisoner by sight, she had never spoken w him. Before the defen- datt had been*'n the coach long, he began to utter thc most obscene Isn:1age in a wvhisper to the prosecatrix. She was natuirally irdignant at is ase conduct, and told the defendant that he had better speak what be had to sayaloud. The defendant then gave her a punch in the side tvith hf elbow. Thie prosecutrix was in the family way, but un- wiimgto state her situation publicly,sbe merely said to him wben he .uck her, that he mi,,ht do her more injury than he was aware of He then repeated his blow with greater violence than before. At Newington the two ladies got out of the coach, and the prosecutrix placed herself under the protection of the younggentlen,an who was sitting on the opposite side of the coach. Mfr. Leaver, the young gentleman alluded to in the evidence of the prosecutrix, stated, that when the ladies had left the coach, and the prosecutrix came over to his side of the coach, the defendant asked her how her sister was, obsarvipg that she wasTV "a good girl.' The prosecutrix flew into a passion, and said, " Am I not a goad girl? I have been married 16 months, I have got one child, ant I have another coming." She also called the defendant 'a nasty bl4cRguard, anid used oathr angry expressions. She coni- pjainw, too, of having been hurt, but the witness had heard hersay nothing until after the defendant made the observation about her sister. He knew neither of the parties, The CoUxtT observed, that.nhe last witness had put an end to the :ase for the prosecution. The jury immediatelv aecgitted the defendant. WZin. Strie1-and, James Pask, and John Cuttell were indicted for having obtained money from Wim. Alumbray under false .pretenees. The prosecutor stated, th!at on one of the saledavs at Aldridge's 'Repositorvy in St Aiaiin's.lane, he twok two horses'there to be sold. Heanivec too late forthe sale, and intended to takehis horses home agamn He left the horses in the street for a few minutes in the care of a boy, and when he returned, he found then in the possession of Strcklaand and PEask, who stated that he (the prosecutor) must pay a fiue of Sve shillings for eacb horse, on acoount of having exposed themfor sale in the street. The prosecutor protested tbat he had not intendedeto sel1 the horses in the street, but in spite of his re- tnonstrances they were taken to the green_yard, and the prosecutor, before he cQald reipiver thenm, was compelled to pay a fine of 5s. for each horse, and lOs. to the owner of the green-yard. It was stated by Alr. ALLEY, for the defenaants, that Strickland and Pask had mly discharged their duty in seizing the prosecutor's horses. The fact was, tlat individuals were in the habit of bring- ing horses, and exposing them for s.e outside of Mr. Aldridge's Repository, to the great annoyance of the inhabitants. Strickland ani Pask were beadles of St. Mvartin's parish, and had received in- structions from the committee which appointed tleem,to endeavour to abate the nuisance which the inhabitants of St. lartin's-lane com- plained of, by seizing all the horses which tliey found standing n the street It was under these ircumstances that the prosecutor's horses were seized. The fines whieb the prosecutor paid bad been given to the vestry-derk. The CouRT was of opinion that there was no proof that the de- fendants had beens actnated by any corrupt motive ; if tley had erred, it was from mistake. The jury returned a verdict of Not Gitity. Thomas Ers-well was indicted for committing an assault on the person of lUarv WVebb. It appeared trom the evidence, that-the prosecutrix lived as a ser- vant with the defendant, who was a baker, resiging in Conipton- street, Clerkenwell. The prosecutrix was 15 years of age. It was her duty to sit' up to let the workmen in. On the nightof the 19th of November, she was sitting as usual on a sofa, in the parlour, awaiting the arrival of the men, when the defendant came to her, and oroceeded to take indtecent liberties with her, The prosecutrix struggled very much, and cried out, and the pnsoner, th1iming he heard somebody coming down stairs, left her. The defendant is a married man. The defendant called a woman named Taylor, a lodger in his house, who stated that she had on several occasions seen the defend- ant and the prosecutrix kissin1r each other. The COURT, under these circumstances, directed the jury to ac- quit the defendant. The Jury accordingly retumned a verdicl of N\ot Guilty. The tCOURT observed that the defendant's conducthad been most IdiFgraceful. JlM[IDDL;!EX SES.SIONS, Tuesda', Jan. in.