Otto BAILEY SESSIONS. — Thesa sessions were opened on Thursday, by the
Lord Mayor, Recorder, Continua Sergeant, and other official gentlemen. The Judges in attendance were Sir J. A. Park, and Sir J. Parke.
Mary Rice, a widow, was indicted for havity,* stolen a watch, &c. value 9/. The charge having been proved, Sir J. A. Park observed that the principal
question tir the consideration of thus Jury was the value of the property. If they were of opinion that the watch and its appendages were worth 5/. the offence was capital. He believed that juries were often accused of tampering with their consciences by finding the value of the property to be less than it really was, front humane motives ; but in the present case he thought that they could not find a verdict short of the capital charge. The Jury found the prisoner guilty of stealing to the value of 41. 19r. only. The Judge shook his head.
William Connell, aged twenty-two, was indicted for counselling and pro- curing, Dennis Aaron, a boy, to steal two coats and other articles, of the value of 5/. It appeared from the evidence of the boy, that the prisoner had ad- vised hint to steal two coats, a pair of trousers, and a waistcoat belonging to his father. The prisoner pawned them with a broker in Greek-street, for 3/. 10s. it turned out, however, from the examination of the lad, that the prisoner did not wait t'or him, when he went to commit the crime, at a point sttfliciently near the house ffiont which the clothes were stolen, to constitute " aiding and watching." in the eye of the law ; and the Judge therefore di- rected hitn to be acquitted. He was detained for trial on the charge of having received the goods knowing them to have been stolen.
John Hunter, a musician, aged twenty-six, was indicted for causing and procuring to be forged an acceptance to a bill of exchange for 50/., purport- ing to be the acceptance of George Henry Hunter. In November, the pri- soner called upon Mr. Morley, grocer, Sidmouth-street, to settle the terms upon which he could obtain possession of a house and shop ; and they having, agreed upon 40/. as the price, the prisoner proposed to give hint a bill of e in payment, of which his cousin, Mr. George Henry Hunter, would be the acceptor. Mr. Morley., before closing the bargain, expressed a wish to see the prisoner's cousin. He at once as- sented; but when they went to the house, Mr. G. H. Hunter was not at home. Subsequently, on the same day, the prisoner called again on Mr. .Morley, who threw a bill for 50/. This the prisoner taok away, and brousht hack with what he said was the acceptance of his cousin written upon it. Mr. Morley endorsed the hill ; but the prisoner professed to be so near- sighted as to be tunable to write, and Morley therefore wrote his name, the prisoner putting his mark to it. The bill was three times presented to Mr. G. H. Hunter. who refused payment. On one of these occasions, the prisoner was present, and Mr. Hunter said, " How can you ask me to settle it ? You know it is not my acceptance." Mr. G. H. Hunter admitted that ther pri- soner was his third cousin. The acceptance on the bill was not his, no had he ever given the prisoner authority to accept any bill for him. He had said to the prisoner that he would aid him in setting up in the world ; but he had never promised him a bill. The prisoner is not absolutely blind, but ite can neither read nor write. He was educated as a blind musician. He knew nothing whatever of bill transactions. Mr. Joseph Jackson said that the pri- soner came to hint and asked him to write "accepted, G. H. Hunter," across a bill, as he was nearly blind, and could not do it himself. His request was complied with. This was the leading evidence for the prosecvtion. Time prisoner admitted having got Mr. Jackson to write the acceptance ; but he . did not know the effect of what he was doing. Judge Parke directed the attention of the Jury to that part of the evidence by which it appeared that Mr. G. H. 'Hunter had made promises to the prisoner of assistance; to the apparent ignorance of the prisoner in bill transactions ; and to his seeming candour in taking the prosecutor to Cateaton-street. If the Jury could infer from all this that the prisoner conceived himself authorized in using the name of his cousin, and had no intention of committing a fraud, they would acquit hint; - butt if they could not come to this conclusion, then they were bound to find hint guilty. The Jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.
Several cases of theft were tried before the Judges in both courts, and in most of them convictions were obtained, but the trials elicited nothing culious • or interesting.
Benjamin Barrup was indicted for the murder of Mary Mortlock, by shoot- ing her with a pistol. The particulars of this homicide have already been slated. The prisoner and the deceased were seen coming along Crawford- street, when Barrup made a stop and fired the pistol. The female screamed, and ran across the street ; and the prisoner gave himself up to a watclunan. The female died in the hospital ; but the opinion of the surgeon was, that the wound was not the proximate cause of her death : she was labouring under an inflammation of the chest, and fright and a cold had accelerated her death; but the disease was such, that in his judgment the woman would have died if the wound had not been inflicted. The deceased had been predisposed to take cold from the fright, and all the circumstances had acted in conjunction; the cold was not produced by the p stol-shot, and it was only a remote cause of death. The Judge, under these circumstances, directed the Jury to acquit the prisoner. He was, however, detained to take his trial for shooting at the deceased with the intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.
Previous page
