OLD BA:LEY SessioNs—William Evans, a young man of very respecta-

ble appearance and good address, was indicted for having embezzled a bank- er's check for 1661. as. id, the property of his employers, Messrs. Lilwall and Moline, wholesale cheesemongers, Gracechurch-street. It was proved that in August 1827, two checks, one for 1661, 3s. id., and the other for 601 had been paid to the prisoner on account of his employers ' • and that the prisoner, who had cashed the checks on the day he received them, air counted for the 60/. but not for the other sum. He had gone to America; and on his return had begun business for himself, when he was arrested. The prisoner urged that the prosecutors had agreed to compromise the matter, on the sum deficient being paid up by instalments. He also objected to the evidence of the prosecutors, who are Quakers, as the crime was committed a year before the passing of Lord Lansdowue's act admitting the affirmation of Quakers in criminal cases. The Common Sergeant said, that this point had been discussed by the Judges ; and they had decided that the affirma- tion of Quakers was admissible in all cases, without reference to time. The prisoner was found guilty, but recommended to mercy. [This is the drst conviction under Lord Lansdowne's new act.]

Francis Dooling pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter, in having killed the wife of John Packer with a poker.

John Costen, a dustman, was charged, on the coroner's inquisition, with the wilful murder of his son William, a boy ten years of age, by striking him on the head with a pewter pot. On the indictment found by the grand jury, the prisoner was charged with the minor offence of manslaughter. It appeared, that in August last, while the prisoner was at work in the yard of Mr. Sinott, the dust-contractor, the boy was drinking tea from a pewter pot ; and his father having asked for some, the boy handed him the empty pot, and laughed. The prisoner, irritated, threw the pot at the boy. It struck hint on tine right side of the head, and he fell. The prisoner, on seeing him fall, jumped off the dust-hill where he was sitting, and picked hint up ; and immediately tied a handkerchief round the boy's head. and took him to an apothecary in the neighbourhood. The wound bled profusely ; the skull was extensively fractured; the brain protruded ; and the boy died in six days. The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had only intended to throw the refuse of the tea at him, but the pot slipped out of,his hand. He was found guilty of manslaughter.

Thomas Higgins, a fishmonger, residing in Vv-alker's.court, Berwick. street, St. James's, was indicted under Lord Ellenborough's Act for mali- ciously cutting and maiming William Rendition. The prosecutor, in his ca- pacity of inspector of nuisances, had twice summoned the prisoner to Marl- borough-street Police-office ; and this had engendered such hatred at him in the mind of the prisoner, that he had been heard to threaten his life. These reports having reached tine ears of the prosecutor, he took occasion to ask Higgins if they were true ? The prisoner not only confirmed the truth of tine reports, but added, with an oath, "I'll kill you the first opportunity." The prisoner shortly after met Rendition, and stabbed him in time face with a knife. A person who came to the wounded man's assistance said to the pri- soner, " Higgins, you have done the business." Higgins said he was sorry he had not killed the fellow. The prisoner now pleaded intoxication at the time. The Jury found him guilty. William Vyse was indicted for having received certain bank-notes, the property of Messrs. Whitehead and Company, of the Stratford-upon-Avon bank, knowing them to have been stolen. They were 1/. notes ; and formed part of a sum amounting to upwards of 19,000/. inn notes which had been taken from the Warwick mail-coach, in November last, but the whole of which except those for II. have been since recovered. The evidence against tine prisoner showed that he had called at Messrs. Waterhouse's booking of- fice, in Islington, with notes of the Stratford-upon-Avon and Shipton-upon- Stour bank, to get them cashed: On the 5th ofJuly he brought five 11. notes, which he left with the clerk for a few days, till inquiry was made; and after- wards called and received cash for them, deducting Is. of discount for each note. On the 15th, he returned with ten 11. notes. These he also left with tine clerk, till inquiry was made,—remarking, "if these pass all right, I can put several others inn your way." These notes were sent to a banking-house in London, where it was supposed that they were payable, to make inquiries about them ; and fronts the answer that was returned, the prisoner was taken into custody. Another person spoke to the fact of his having received some 1/. notes from the prisoner. He was found guilty. The prisoner had for- merly been sentenced to be transported at Hertford ; but being subsequently found at large, he was tried at Maidstone, and sentenced to be hanged. He had received his Majesty's pardon, on condition that he should be transported for life.

James Collins was convicted of having stolen a gelding value 20/. He was recommended to mercy.

Thomas Davis was accused of having stolen 93/. in sovereigns and silver from the house of a publican at Isleworth. On the one hand, it was sworn to by two witnesses, that on the evening of the theft, they had seen the prisoner at the public-house; another witness had seen him come out of the bed-room window of the prosecutor's house ; next day the prisoner, along with a female, spent about 111. in the purchase of various articles of wearing apparel ; and when he was apprehended thirteen sovereigns were found in his possession. Several witnesses, on the other hand, distinctly swore that tine prisoner had spent the evening at Richmond ; he was whim his sister between nine and ten o'clock, the time when the theft was supposed to have been committed ; but at that time he had no money. The Jury found him not guilty.

James Thompson was indicted for having stolen three gold watches from a pawnbroker's shop at Stepney. There was no direct evidence against the prisoner; though a man dressed like him was seen to run from tine shop- window on the morning of the theft. It was proved that the prisoner had gone into a clothes-salesman's shop that morning, and after having made a purchase, produced a gold watch, and told the witness that if he could dis- pose of it for 10/. he would pay for the clothes out of the money. The watch was sold ; but the prisoner, in place of paying for Isis purchase, produced another watch which he also wished to sell. The witness became suspicious, and refused to take the watch. The prisoner then left the shop in haste, saying that he would call again and pay for the clothes. One of the notes which he received for the watch was found upon the prisoner when he was apprehended. The Jury found him guilty.

William Farrow was found guilty of a burglary. John Rutt and Joseph Clark were found guilty, on separate indictments, of having stolen ten ounces of tea each, the property of the East India Company.

William Chapman was accused of having stolen 43/. from the house of Henry Towell, cheesernonger, Clerkenwell. There was nothing to implicate the prisoner but the mere suspicion of the party who lost the money ; and that suspicion rested only on the circumstance of his having been in the room where the money was alleged to have been kept. The prosecutor admitted that the prisoner had always been a kind and attentive friend to him, and that he had in various ways most materially assisted him in his business. The prosecutor's wife attempted to fasten the crime upon the servant-girl ; but this having failed, they had the prisoner apprehended, though they had previously been of opinion that he was strictly upright and honest. A great muster of witnesses gave the prisoner a high character for honesty and re- spectability. The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Robert White was found guilty of having sold to a man named Watts three counterfeit sovereigns for 5s. each.

John Evans, aged thirty, was prosecuted by his father for having stolen three 10/. notes. Two of the notes found upon the prisoner were identified by the father' who earnestly recommended him to the mercy of the Court, on the ground of insanity. He had for nearly four years been confined in Lunatic Asylums. The Jury acquitted him on the ground of insanity ; and the Court told the father that his son would be taken care of. The prisoner was then removed from the bar, apparently unconscious of his situation.

Henry Burgess, aged fifteen, was indicted for having forged and uttered on the 12th July a check for 35/. to Sir William Curtis and Company, with intent to defraud them. The check purported to be drawn by Messrs. Borrodaile and Company ; and was unhesitatingly pronounced by the wit- nesses to be a forgery in every respect. The prisoner employed a boy named Higgins to present it at the bank. Suspicions were excited, the prisoner was sent fur, and given into custody. Higgins had no knowledge of the nature of the check, nor had he any suspicion that it was forged. The Jury found the prisoner guilty of having uttered the check knowing it to be forged ; but recommended him to mercy, on accuunt of his youth and good character.

William Heath was indicted for having entered the dwelling-house of Edward Hopping, and stolen property to the amount of 4001.; and Mary Heath was indicted for having received the articles knowing them to be stolen. The evidence against the man only amounted to his having been seen near the house on the night of the robbery ; and there was no evidence whatever against the woman. The Jury acquitted both the prisoners.

Frederick Holloway was found guilty on the charge of having stolen a pony, which he afterwards sold for 4/.10s. Gel. Timothy Davis, a youne'' boy, was found guilty of having stolen a parcel of newspapers value 3s. 6d. from the pocket of the Peterborough Coach. The Judge, Mr. Arabin, said that he looked upon the offence as a very bad one. Stage-coaches were for the benefit of the public, but if the property in. trusted to them was subject in this manner to depredation, the convenience of stage-coaches would be turned into a disadvantage. In order to protect the public, it would be absolutely necessary to transport the prisoner.

Samuel Simpson was convicted of having stolen a cow from a field near IIornsey wood, which he afterwards sold for 91. I Os.

Isaac Fryett was indicted for having stolen a great variety of ironmongery articles, the property of Mr. Edward Colwell, a furnishing ironmonger, in the Haymarket. In consequence of suspicions against the prisoner, a boy was placed in the warehouse to watch him; and on the 21st of August, he was seen to carry away a parcel containing knives and forks, which had been pre- viously marked. He wasapprehended and searched, and the knives were found upon him. A great number of articles, belonging to Mr. Colwell, were also found in the prisoner's house, and which he identified, by some private marks, as his property. The private marks on some of the articles were erased. i The prisoner, n his defence, said that he had purchased the articles from different persons ; and a woman declared that she had seen a tea-pot and milk-pot which the prosecutor had identified, in the prisoner's lodgings nearly two years ago. Another woman said that the tea-board claimed by Mr. Colwell had been in Fryett's possession for the same length of time. The Jury found a verdict of guilty.

Henry Wood, also formerly a servant to Mr. Colwell, and one of Fryett's companions, was charged with a similar crime. The stolen articles found in his lodgings were identified by Mr. Colwell. He made no defence; and the Jury found him guilty. William Downes, another party concerned in the plunder of Mr. Colwell's, was arraigned on a similar indictment. No evidence was offered against him, as he was the person who made the disclosures which led to the apprehen- sion of the other prisoners. Mr. Baron Vaughan thought that the ends of justice would be satisfied by the conviction of Fryett and Wood. The pri- soner was acquitted. Ann Prangnell was indicted for the murder of her illegitimate child. On the 20th of June, she came to lodge with Mr. Jones, grocer, in the neighbour- hood of Bryanston-square, where she lived about three weeks. On her ar- rival, she appeared in a very weak state of health. She brought a number • of boxes with her. On the 22nd of August witness was throwing some water down the privy, when he found the body of a small child wrapped in a flan- nel petticoat. It was in a very putrid state, and the head appeared to be in several pieces. The medical man who examined the body said, it was im- possible, from its putrid state, to discover whether the child had been born • alive. The head was separated owing to decomposition. Mr. Justice Little_ dale stopped the case ; and the Jury immediately acquitted the prisoner.

James Mayden was capitally indicted for maliciously cutting and maiming George Green, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Green was the principal witness ; and his evidence was substantially the same as that which he gave at Bow-street, and which was noticed in our police re- port last week. The only additional circumstance was that he had never struck the prisoner nor struck at him. One witness said that he saw the prosecutor standing on the step of the prisoner's door, putting himself in a position to fight. He advised Green to go away. Most dreadful language passed between the parties. The prisoner in his defence said that he only intended to knock the prisoner's hat off, and not inflict any injury upon him. He received a good character for humanity. The Jury found the prisoner guilty. William Butler and Jeremiah .Leary were found guilty on separate indict- ments of street robberies. William Harrison was convicted on the charge of having stolen three pounds weight of copper, the property of his master. John Barclay was convicted of bigamy. In his defence, the prisoner said that his former wife had been unfaithful to him, and was living with another person, which he had ignorantly supposed was sufficient ground to set aside the marriage. William Jones was convicted of having stolen plate from a dwelling-house, of the value of 10/.; John Carr, of having stolen a hat from a man whom he found asleep on the steps of a door; and Thomas Beagle, haying stolen some articles value Gs.

John Pcoltock, aged sixty-one, a smith, was tried for receiving four sets of fire-irons, and other articles, value 41., the property of Edward Colwell. It was to this man that the prisoners Ward and Fryett, con- victed of having robbed Mr. Colwell, were alleged to have disposed. of

part of their booty. Several of the articles found in the prisoner's house were identified by the private marks upon them, as having belonged to the prosecutor ; but the witness did not know that any of them had been sold in the shop. The approver on the trials of Ward and Fryett was also ex- amined. The Jury, however, did not think his evidence of sufficient weight to convict the prisoaer; and they therefore returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Daniel Bailey was convicted of bigamy. In his defence, he said that his first wife was a most abandoned character; and for sixteen years, during

which he had lived with her, he had led the life of a dog, and often wished that he was dead and buried. At length they agreed to separate, and never more to speak to one another. The character which he gave his first wife was supported by evidence. The Jury found him guilty, but recommended him to mercy.

Louisa Caulfield was sentenced to be transported for fourteen years, for having stolen a watch from a drunken man who happened to stop in the street to chat with her.

John Lipscomb° was indicted for having stolen two sacks of apples, pears, and peaches. The prosecutor expressed his belief, that the fruit found in the prisoner's possession when arrested was his, as he had that morning been robbed of a considerable quantity of fruit. There were foot-marks in the garden which exactly agreed in size and shape with the prisoner's shoes. A

former conviction of the prisoner for a similar offence was read. He was found Guilty. Mr. Sergeant Arabia remarked, that by a new and judicious modification of the Act, this offence was punishable with transportation.- Sentence—to be transported for seven years.

Silvester Murphy was charged with having stolen a handkerchief and a pair of gloves from James Hudson. The prosecutor was goit.g home after midnight, drunk ; and he met the prisoner on Clerkenwell-green, who agreed to see him on his way, as far as Jewin-street. After they separated, the prosecutor missed the articles, and the prisoner was taken into custody.

'1'lle handkerchief was found in his hat. He said it was his, till it was dis-

covered that the prosecutor's name was upon it. The gloves were found under the watch-house table. He declared that his hat did not fall off on

their way home. In his defence the prisoner said, that both their hats had fallen off (this was proved to be the case), and in stooping to pick them up, he found the handkerchief lying beside his hat ; and as he was in the habit of carrying his handkerchief in his hat, he kept it, under the impression that it was his own. The Jury acquitted him; and the Judge told them they had done perfectly right.

Robert Jones was convicted of having stolen a gold watch and a cameo ring, and Georgiana Baxter was found guilty of having received the same, knowing them to have been stolen.

John Jones was convicted of having stolen a pocket handkerchief from a gentleman while he was standingb on the flour of the Court of Chancery listening to the proceedings of the Court.

Augusta Romaine, whose appearance indicated the deepest distress,

her manners were those of a person who had moved in a respectable spit la in life, was indicted for having stolen a blanket, a counterpane, and son: :

other articles, from the furnished lodgings occupied by herself and children.

Anne Hart, the person in whose house the prisoner had lodged, identified as her property the articles which were produced by a pawnbroker, who said they had been pawned at his shop, but he could not swear to the prisoner as the person who had pawned them. The officer who apprehended her sup- plied this deficiency in the proof, by producing the duplicates he bad found upon her person. The prisoner put in a written defence, stating, that she

was the daughter of a distinguished naval officer, and the wife of a gentleman who had once moved in the higher circles of life, but was now reduced to the

most extreme distress by a long and protracted lawsuit : he was at present abroad, and she was in expectation of receiving a remittance from him ; but as it had been delayed beyond the time, she had been compelled to pawn the articles in question, in order to save her children and herself from actual starvation. She solemnly denied any intention of stealing those articles, and declared that she only took them to procure a few necessaries, fully determined to replace them the moment she received any money; and, at the same time she took them, she had no doubt that she should be supplied with money to redeem them within a very short period, and to restore them to their rightful owner. The Jury found her Guilty, but most strongly re- commended her to mercy, on account of her misfortunes.

Andrew Strahan was convicted of having stolen a watch and seals from a man on the evening of the 7th, and sentenced to be transported for life.

James French, convicted of having passed base coin, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. This case was prosecuted by the Mint. The notorious Mrs. Cooke was placed at the bar along with an accomplice in some of her swindling transactions, mined Barret; but they applied to have their trial postponed till next Sessions, on account of the absence of material evidence ; which was granted, but they will not be liberated on bail. A man and a woman were found guilty of having stolen a small sum of money in a brothel. The Common Sergeant refused the prosecutor his ex- penses, because those who keep such company must expect to be robbed. Four men were found guilty of having stolen twelve tame pigeons._

INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S Comm—The Court resumed its sittings on Mon- day, in the matter of Mr. Richard Zouch Troughton, landing waiter in his Majesty's Customs, the Chief Commissioner recommended that his credi- tor, should accept the debtor's offer of setting apart 450/. a year out of his salary, and an annuity which he enjoyed, for the payment of his debts, ra- ther than incur the expense of a Chancery process for the doubtful point of forcing him to give up all the annuity.

John Tew, a tailor in Tipton, Staffordshire, was brought up for farther hearing on his petition to be discharged. It was objected that he had owed his brother-in-law 98/.; for which he had made over to hint debts amounting to about 40/., but he could not tell the names of the debtors. The insolvent was remanded till he produced his brother-in-law to state what debts he had received, and the insolvent's schedule to be amended accordingly. Robert France was opposed by a creditor, because, in an action which he had raised for the recovery of 10/. the insolvent, in place of settling the ac- tion, or bringing it to a speedy termination, had put him to considerable ex- pense. The insolvent was sentenced to be imprisoned eight months.

The Reverend Henry Morgan Say, late of Sutton Valence, Kent, was brought up on Wednesday, for re-hearing and adjudication. After some ob- servations from counsel as to some books and papers, the reverend insolvent said that lie would always, even at a moment's notice, give his assignees all the assistance he could. There being no case of remand, he was ordered to be discharged forthwith.