OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.—These Sessions commenced on Thursday. The calendar contains

the names of no fewer than four hundred and seventy-two prisoners.

Mary Ray was indicted for having robbed her master of a silver snuff-box and a W. note. She made no defence ; her former master gave her a good character. She was found guilty, but recommended to mercy. Mr. Justice Gazelee said, that time recommendation would operate M save the prisoner's life: but farther than that, he was afraid it would not go.

The Reverend Peter Fenn was charged in five separate indictments, with having uttered forged bills of exchange with intent to defraud. The first bill was for 8504, the next for 5001., the third for .200/., the fourth fur 159/. 10s., and the fifth, on which he was tried, for forging- and uttering in the county of Middlesex, was a bill of exchange for 501. Mr. Thomas Pratt, army agent, proved that he had discounted the bill in qtfestion in February last, upon the prisoner's assurance that Mr. Powell, of Colchester, whose name appeared on the bill as acceptor, was a most respectable man, and kept his account at Hankey's hank in London. About a month after, he saw the prisoner at a lock-up house in Chancery-lane ; and after some conversation on the subject of the bill, in which the witness expressed a suspicion that he had been deceived, the prisoner said, " I am sorry that they are forged bills." They were alone when he confessed that time bills were forged. Mr. Vinceut, an attorney, was employed by Mr. Pratt to go to France in search of time prisoner. He found him in Calais. He had known the prisoner before ; and when he first saw him on the present occasion, he appeared like a frantic person, and said that he was a ruined man. His first words were, "I'll go quietly to Newgate, only don't put me in irons. I'll plead guilty-1 shall then have about six weeks after I am condemned—I will see no one—I will do as Fauntleroy did, and it will be over in a moment—I was coming to England to deliver myself up to justice." He accused Melton of being his ruin ; and said that he had gained by him 7,000/.; in the last two years. He likewise said that witness must not leave him, or he should cut his throat. The acceptance, "J. Powell," is Peter Fenn's writing. It was next proved that there was no such person as James Powell at Colchester; and a clerk from Hankey's bank proved that no person sunder the !muse of Powell did business there. The evidence for the defence was 0: :i:ule moment. Mr.

Justice Gazelee, in his charge to the Jury, said, that if put any faith in the witness Pratt, he did not see how they could hesitate as to their verdict. The Jury deliberated for about twenty minutes, and returned a verdict of " guilty of uttering, knowing the bill to be forged."

William Towell was indicted for having stolen a dock from the dwelling- house of Edward Richardson, of the value of 61.—The prosecutor, on Satur- day, the 16th of August, missed a dial out of his parlour, between the hours

of three and five ; but did not recollect seeing the prisoner in his house on the day of the robbery. James Brown found the prisoner at a pawnbroker's, with the clock in his possession. The prisoner said that a person gave him the clock to pledge. John Leach, shopman to the pawnbroker, said that the prisoner brought it to his shop to pledge; witness recognized him as having brought a stolen dial to his house on a former occasion, and had him arrested. t appeared that the house of the prosecutor is in the parish of St. James, Clerkenwell ; whereas it was laid in the indictment as being in the parish of St. Luke. Baron Vaughan said that the mis-description was fatal to the capital part of the charge. The Jury, therefore, found the prisoner guilty of larceny. Sarah Martin and Mary Ann Storer were indicted for having assaulted Maria Smith, and taken from her person a cornelian necklace and other articles, on the 18th August last, in the city of Westminster.—The indictment laid the offence to have been committed in the parish of St. Margaret, but it appeared that the parishes of St. Margaret and of St. Martin divide at the gate of the Horse Guards ; and this happened so nearly apposite the gate, that the prosecutrix could not say at which side of it the occurrence took place. The prisoners denied the charge; and Sarah Martin attempted to turn the tables upon the prosecutrix, by saying that she was the aggressor, as far as related to the assault, and as to the robbery she knew nothing about it. The Jury acquitted both the prisoners. Joseph Hyde was indicted for having entered into the house, No. 5, Great Coram-street, with the intent to commit a robbery. The house in question had been forcibly entered ;. and after a search of some hours, the prisoner was found concealed in the privy of No. 7, and was taken into custody. The prisoner in his defence said a few words which were almost unintelligi- ble ; and two witnesses proved that he had ever since his infancy been but half-witted. His mother suckled him while she was herself in a state of de- rangement ; and when only two years of age, he was knocked down and run over, when the brain was injured and his intellect affected.—Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

John Magarth was convicted of having stolen a purse containing some money in gold and silver, from a gentleman while walking in Davies-street, Grosvenor-square. A person who spoke to the prisoner's character, said that he had agreed to go to sea with him, if he should escape from the pre- sent prosecution. Mr. Baron Vaughan : " Very probably he will go to sea, but whether in your company or not is not yet decided."

John Webb was indicted for having stolen three pewter pots from a public-house in St. James's. A female servant, in the employ of the land- lord of the public-house, swore that the prisoner had stolen the pots. When the witness was descending from the box, the prisoner stooped down, loosened from his foot a heavy thick-soled boot, studded with nails, and flung it furiously at the girl : it struck her on the right arm, with a degree of violence that appeared to give her severe pain. After the confusion consequent on this occurrence had subsided, the Common Sergeant ordered the governor of the gaol to place the prisoner in solitary confinement after the trial, whether he should be found guilty or not. The trial then proceeded. The property was proved to have been found on the prisoner's person. The prisoner said, the girl gave him the beer-pots, and defended his attack upon her, on the ground that she had falsely sworn away his life. The Jury found him guilty. The Common Sergeant sentenced him to six months' solitary confinement in Newgate for the contempt of court committed by him in his brutal attack on the female witness, and condemned him to transportation for seven years as a punishment for the robbery.

On Friday, Margaret Hartigan was arraigned for the murder of Mary 'Moore, a child aged five months, on the 26th of August, by pouring boiling water over it. An attempt was made by Mr. Clarkson, the prisoner's coun- sel, to invalidate the indictment, in consequence of the child being stated in one of the counts to be a child "unknown," it previously having been described by name. Mr. Justice Littledale said he would wait for the result of time trial, when the objection might be again mentioned. The first witness was Catherine Crawley, az mother of the murdered child. She said that the mother of the prisoner, and some other families, besides herself, lived in the same room at a lodging in Crown-court, Whitechapel. She saw the prisoner on the afternoon of the 26th of August, for the first time, in the room in which she lived. There were three, or four other persons, and three children, in the room. At this time her Child was on the bed, in good ncalth, as was also the prisoner's child. There was a kettle on the fire; the prisoner told her mother to take it off, as it was boiling : her mother did so, and put it on the hearth-stone. The prisoner's mother took hold of Tooney, one of the women in the room, and asked her what she did there. Tooney said she was in her proper place, as she was with her gossip, Mrs. Smith. The prisoner then struck her with a stone bottle on the side of the head. Mrs. Tooney said she did not expect such a reception when she paid a visit. The prisoner again struck Tooney in the face. Tooney had her child in her arms. She put her child into the witness's lap, and began to fight the pri- soner, and knocked her down. The witness's child was on the bed all this time. Tooney did not strike the prisoner with violence. The prisoner's mother and brother then began to beat Tooncy, and witness got up and endeavoured to part them, saying that it was a shame for two to set on one. The prisoner screamed out " Murder!" on Tooney's beating her. A woman named Anderson came into the room, and helped the witness to separate them. She had put Tooney's child on the bed with her own child and the prisoner's. On the witness separating her from Tooney, the prisoner struck the witness. Anderson separated them. The prisoner then took her own child off the bed, took up the kettle of boiling water from the hearth, and said " that if she could not get her revenge on the — won-en, she would on the children," and immediately threw the kettle of boiling 'water on the children, and ran with her own child out of the room. The lid was on the kettle when she threw it on the bed. The children were at the head of the bed. She put down her own child when she threw the kettle, and took it up again immediately after, and ran away. The prisoner threw the kettle against the wall at the head of the bed, and it fell on the bed. The witness immediately took up her own child and dipped it in a tub of cold water, which was in the room. The child's clothes were soaked with the water, and so hot that they burnt the witness's fingers. She then screamed out " Murder !" and some man came into the room and took the child to the hospital : it died the next day. In her cross-examination, she said that she took away the mother of the prisoner, that Tooney amid the prisoner might fight it out. They fought for about ten minutes. The kettle had been off the fire about two minutes before it was thrown by the prisoner. The prisoner and her mother were the cause of the whole quarrelling. They had invited a strange woman to tea with them, atid they had even quarrelled with her. The principal parts of the woman Crawley's evidence was corroborated by Catharine Tooney and Anne Anderson. Mr. Wilde, one of the dressers at the hospital, im- puted the child's death to the scalding which it had received ; and he con- sidered its immersion among cold water to have been rather beneficial than injurious. The prisoner made no defence, but several witnesses were called to character, who said that they all considered her a very humane, kind woman. The Jury returned a verdict of manslaughter.

Caroline Elizabeth Miller was charged with bigamy, she having married a person named Jones, while Hogg, her former husband, was alive. There was nothing in the evidence for the prosecution of any interest. The jury found a verdict of guilty. Baron Vaughan observed, that the case did not call for any heavy punishment, and the prisoner was suffered to go at large upon bail.

'flie Reverend Peter Fenn was again put to the bar, on the charge of hav- ing uttered a forged bill of exchange for 1591.10s., with the intent to defraud Sarah Cooke. John Cooke, shopman to Sarah Cooke, said, that he had dis- counted the bill to the prisoner at five per cent. The prisoner remarked to witness at the time, that he would be of service to him, and ordered 161. worth of goods at the shop, for which he tendered a bill of 36/. in payment. Witness went to France afterwards with Mr. Vincent, in search of the pri- soner, and found him at Calais. When witness saw him he was ready to fall upon the earth, and exclaimed, "011 God, I am a dead man ! If 1 had a hundred necks I must lose them all." The prisoner then asked to be taken to Newgate quietly, without putting irons on him. The witness having ex- pressed a hope to the prisoner, after the uttering, that the acceptance was a good one, the latter remarked, that he might rely on it, it was as good as a bank-note. Mr. Vincent, the attorney, gave nearly the same evidence as on the first trial. Mr. Lucett, whose name was at the acceptance, swore that the signature was not in his handwriting. The prisoner, in his defence, said, that he had long been in the habit of discounting bills for Mr. Lucett, ° through the means of an agent, and that that agent had brought the bill in question to him as a blank, and had desired him to fill it up. The jury re- turned a verdict of guilty; but they concurred with the prosecutrix in recom- mending the prisoner to mercy. A sketch of the prisoner's character and dealings was published in the

Times, with the knowledge of the attorney for the prosecution, soon after his apprehension. Its publication, pending- the inquiry into the charges against him, was greatly complained of by the prisoner's counsel, as calculated to prejudice the public mind ; and it was severely condemned by the judge. We subjoin a part of the article :—" It appears that, about thirty years since, this man was ordained in holy orders under the name of Fall. Under the assumed named of Fenn, lie was employed as a teacher in Kirkman's Aca- demy, at Islington, and about ten years since, purchased on his own account, an academy in Bloomsbury, in which he succeeded beyond his most sanguine expectations. Unfortunately for him, Mr. Fenn was not satisfied with the profits derived from his school; he started also as a bill broker, or rather di:- counter of bills, taking to himself an exorbitant rate of interest. He thus made many bad debts, and was himself ultimately induced to resort to other usurers, who, like himself, though more wary, were not wanting in the rate to be charged to a brother miscreant. Spurred on by this connexion, he was led to cominit the crime of forgery, and not only committed various forgeries him- self, but he also made one of his tutors draw and accept bills in fictitious names. He also had the unmanly hardihood to involve his pupils in his guilt ; for he has also, in like manner, made them draw, accept, and endorse fictitious hills, and has circulated that kind of rubbish (among tradesmen only) to an enormous amount, and in order to give a greater facility to his criminal traffic, an account was opened at Messrs. Ransom's bank. The circumstances which led to his immediate detection, was his absenting himself from his home, to- gether with several of his cheques (which he had post-dated) becoming due, which were returned as a matter of course, by his bankers, for want of fluids. Under these circumstances, a meeting was convened, and an intercepted let- ter coming to hand, disclosed the whole system, and that the reverend gen- tleman had emigrated to Paris, under the assumed name of George Lewis."

John Silver was indicted for time wilful murder of his wife. Silver is a tailor, and lodged with a shoemaker named Nathaniel Qucich, in Hanover- street, Long-acre. On the 9th ofJune last, his wife ran out of her room with her clothes in flames ; and it was imputed to the prisoner that he was guilty of the wilful murder of the unfortunate woman, by intentionally setting fire to her dress. The evidence negatived that charge ; but nothing could be more brutal and unmanly than the prisoner's conduct. Instead of affording his wife assistance after she had been burnt, he left the house under pretence of getting a coach, but never returned. Having absconded, he was found some time after at Bow-street. The poor woman was conveyed to the Middlesex Hospital, where she died on the 2d of July, three weeks after the accident. She told the nurse just before her death, that on the day the accident happened she had quarrelled with her husband : she was cooking beef-steaks, and had a lot of waste paper in a box, which she threw on the fire : whilst she consumed the paper, her husband struck her a blow, and turning round to strike him again, her dress caught fire. The deceased ex- pressed to the nurse her conviction that she was dying. After the facts had been proved, Baron Vaughan addressed the Jury, and said they must acquit. the prisoner. If, in consequence of the blow given by the husband, she had fallen into the fire, it would have been manslaughter ; but she was turning to strike a blow, and therefore it did not amount to that crime. The Jury acquitted the prisoner.

James Morgan, alias Cooper, John Adams, James Drabwell, and John

Burston, were indicted for the manslaughter of John Corker. Cooper and the deceased resided in the parish of St. Pancras, where pugilistic contests very. frequently occur. On the 18th of July, Cooper, (a chimney-sweeper) got into a dispute with Corker. Some provocation occurred on both sides, and they went into the fields to fight. The defendants were present, and active in promoting the fight ; nothing unfair occurred, unless it was unfair in the defendants to press the parties to continue the contest. They were fairly matched. The deceased said he would rather die than give in, and being weak, he received a severe fall, ruptured a blood-vessel, and died. The fight lasted twenty minutes ; and in the course of it, the deceased repeatedly fell. He complained that Adams had kicked him while down. Corker was carried off the field dead. Mr. Merry and Mr. Harding, surgeons at Kentish Town, opened the head of the deceased, and found a quantity of blood suf- fused on the brain. There was no appearance of external injury, and both were of opinion that the violent exertion of the deceased might have oc- casioned the rupture which produced death. The Jury acquitted the defendants.

The Court was occupied several hours with the trial of three low females for stealing a basket containing various articles of small value, and some clothes, from a woman named Gregg, who went to the house of one of the • prisoners in Chequer-court, White Cross-street. It appeared that the prosecutrix suffered the prisoners to strip off her shawl, her shoes, and other parts of her dress, and carry all to the pawnbrokers to raise money for gin. She was carried home intoxicated and half naked. The defendants alleged that they did not rob the prosecutrix, but took the things with her consent.— The Jury acquitted them. William Cox and Samuel Hilder were indicted for having broken into the house of a Mr. Newcombe, and stolen some rings and other articles ofjewel- lery. The prosecutor's shopma.n, on the morning of the theft, saw the pri- soners a short distance from his master's house. He soon after heard a cry of "stop thief," and saw a man in pursuit of them. He had discovered that the diamond pins bad been taken from his master's window. The prisoners were apprehended in Brunswick-square. One of them struck the witness several blows. They threw away a number of rings, which were picked up. The value of the rings was 401. They had abstracted them through an aper- ture made in the window. Another witness said, that he saw some persons taking something from Mr. Newcombe's window ; but he could not swear to them, as he did not see their faces. The prisoners were found guilty.

LONDON SESSIONS.—Sampson Jenesse and James Capel were tried on Wednesday, on an indictment which charged them with having assaulted William Styles and John Challoner. Jenesse was charged with having un- lawfully rescued Capel from the custody of Challoner and Styles, when they had him a prisoner on a charge of assault. The two complainants were men employed by the inhabitants of the Ward of Cheap, to go about with boards on their backs, with the weeds " Beware of Mock Auctions " inscribed on them. The two defendants were connected with one of the obnoxious places against which the exertions of the inhabitants of the ward were directed. Capel, it was charged, assaulted one of the placard-bearers, and the two took him into custody: with the aid of Jenesse, he broke from them. The charge of rescue failed, from the absence of a witness. Capel was then tried for the assault ; but it turned out to be so trifling in itself, and withal somewhat provoked, that though he was found guilty, the Court allowed him to go at large upon his own recognizances.

On Thursday, the Magistrates were engaged in hearing arguments for the granting of licenSes to two publicans ; but their decision, in both cases, was delayed.

Minnzesex SF.SSIONS.—These sessions commenced on Monday, before Mr. Const and a bench of magistrates. The first three cases were for petty assaults ; where the offenders were punished with small fines. The next case was that of a constable named Webb, who was indicted for having assaulted and imprisoned a baker for four hours, without lawful authority. The trial was remarkable only for the irreconcilable statements of the wit- nesses. The constable was found guilty.

George Flower, a miserable-looking man, upwards of sixty years of age, together with his wife and son, were indicted, for having kept without suffi- cient food, and having otherwise ill-treated, a little boy ten years of age, entrusted to their care. The prosecution was at the instance of the parish- officers; and the witnesses proved that the child had been but indifferently treated, and frequently complained of hunger; but it was not proved that the prisoners were under any obligation to support the child. The chair- man, therefore, stopped the case, and the accused were acquitted.

WilliardCrockford and Richard Austin were indicted for keeping a com- mon gaming-house. The indictment described them as labourers residing in the parish of St. James's, Westminster, and charged them with keeping and maintaining therein a certain common gaming-house for their lucre and gain, and with playing at a certain unlawful game called rouge et noir. Crockford appeared and took his place in the dock. He pleaded " not guilty." The !other defendant did not answer to his name, and his recog- nizances were estreated. Mr. Phillips appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Alley for the defence ; and a show was made as if the case were really to be proceeded with. The witnesses whose names appeared on the back of the indictment, Thomas Heath and James Carr, were called, but neither of them were forthcoming, and Crockford was, in consequence, pronounced " not guilty." " I hope," said Mr. Alley, as Crockford was making his way out of Court, " that this will be the last of these prosecutions, and that they will now let us alone." " Not while they can get anything out of you," said the Chairman. "I never saw such an indictment," continued Mr. Alley, " before ; it extends as far 'back as 1820, and embraces every act subsequent down to the present time." " Very crnel, indeed," observed Mr. Phillips. " Only think of their having continued this nuisance ever since the year 1820."

Two persons named Browne and Martin, the one the night-constable, and the other the watchouse-keeper at Bunhill-row watch-house, were put to the bar, charged with having assaulted Ann Tresillion, a married woman, and improperly confined her for several hours in a loathsome cell in the watch- house, in which a prostitute was confined on a charge of felony. The jury acquitted Martin, and found Browne guilty. Martin immediately declared that it was he who took the woman into the watch-house, as he felt it his duty to do from her conduct, and that Browne had no band in it. In this statement Browne, of course, concurred : he was, however, sentenced to pay a tine of 40s.

.lames Lennox was indicted for an assault on two watchmen ; but it came out that the, prisoner was the party assaulted. The jury, therefore, ac- quitted him ; and the Chairman refused the prosecutor his expenses.

There were five indictments against a man named Jackson and his wife, for keeping houses of an infamous description. They pleaded guilty to the whole ; but no judgment was given, the prisoners having promised to refrain from their wicked courses in future.

William Howell was charged with having struck and ill-used a young woman. The trial brought to light some failings on the part of the prose- cutrix and her sister, but which were far from justifying the prisoner. A verdict of guilty was taken, on the understanding that he was to indemnify the woman.

The Magistrates were engaged on Wednesday, in investigating some cases of assault of no interest. In one of these, a man, seventy years of age, undertook to conduct his own defence; but he was found guilty, and fined 104 ; whereas, if he bad left his case to his counsel, as advised, he might have got off for 40s.

The Magistrates were on Thursday occupied in hearing parish appeals.