Old Bailey Proceedings, 19th February 1777.
Reference Number: 17770219
Reference Number: f17770219-1

THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ON THE KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY of LONDON; AND ALSO The Gaol Delivery for the COUNTY of MIDDLESEX; HELD AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On Wednesday the 19th of February 1777, and the following Days;

Being the THIRD SESSION in the Mayoralty of The Right Honble Sir THOMAS HALLIFAX , LORD MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY JOSEPH GURNEY , And Published by Authority.





The Reader is desired to correct the following Errors in this Trial.

Page 99, Column 1, Line 7, r. indictment.

101. 1, 6, from bottom, r. appeared.

2, 22, 23, for direction, r. discretion.

102, 1, 4, for Rudd's, r. Rudd.

1, 9, after question insert a colon.

1, 23, for now, r. new.

1, 33, after prosecuting insert a comma, and after those dele the comma,

1, 14, from bottom, insert a period after law, and next line a comma after question.

103, 1, 5, after witness, insert a semi-colon.

1, 10, from bottom, and 2d col. line 15, for founded, r. found.

105, 2, 10, from bottom, r. objections.

106, 1, 13, for prisoner, r. prosecutor.

109, 2, 14, from bottom, r. Chesterfield.

110, 1, 19, after the words you see, r. not merely upon Lord Chesterfield, but upon, &c.

2, 23, after forger, insert and.

2, 19, from bottom, after law, insert a comma, and the word and.

118, 2, 14, 15, for The contents of the bond, r. The counts of the indictment.


KING's Commission of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery for the CITY of LONDON, &c.

BEFORE the Right Hon. Sir THOMAS HALLIFAX , Knt. LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Honuourable Sir HENRY GOULD . Knight, One of the Justices of his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; the Honourable EDWARD WILLES , Esquire, One of the Justices of his Majesty's Court of King's Bench; the Honourable Sir RICHARD PERRYN , Knight, One of the Barons of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer; Mr. Serjeant GLYNN, Recorder; THOMAS NUGENT , Esquire, Common Serjeant; and others his Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer of the City of London and Justices of Gaol Delivery of Newgate holden for the said City and County of Middlesex.

London Jury.

William Northage ,

Isriel Elliot,

John Haslein ,

George Anthony ,

John Scott ,

William Fleming ,

John Soper ,

William Fisher ,

Joseph Clarke ,

Daniel Cooke ,

Robert Taylor ,

Nathaniel Lane .

1st Middlesex Jury.

George Clarke ,

William Seymour ,

George Manvill ,

John Brewer ,

William Birch ,

John Abbotts ,

Richard Parry ,

John Tubman ,

Thomas Cludd ,

John Roper ,

James Norton ,

William Mitchell .

2d Middlesex Jury.

Samuel Elliot ,

Thomas Langstaff ,

William Berry ,

John Cockran ,

Thomas Tomlin ,

John Pittaway ,

John Russel ,

John Quick ,

Francis Anson ,

Edward Davis ,

George Lyde ,

Thomas Clarke .

Reference Number: t17770219-1

Dr. DODD being set to the Bar, addressed the Court as follows:

My Lords,

I AM informed that the bill of indictment depending against me has been found on the evidence of Mr. Robertson, who was taken out of Newgate, without any authority or leave from your lordships, for the purpose of procuring the bill to be found: Mr. Robertson is a subscribing witness to the bond, and, as I conceive, would be swearing to exculpate himself if he should be admitted as a

witness against me; and as the bill has been found upon his evidence, which was surreptitiously obtained, I submit to your lordships that I ought not to be compelled to plead on this indictment, and upon this question I beg to be heard by my counsel, My Lords, I beg leave also further to observe to your lordships, that the gentlemen on the other side of the question are bound over to prosecute Mr. Robertson.

[Previous to the arguments of the Counsel the Court directed that an order which had been surreptitiously obtained from an officer of the Court, dated Wednesday, February the 19th, and directed to the keeper of Newgate, commanding him to carry Lewis Robertson to Hick's Hall, in order to his giving evidence before the Grand Inquest on the present bill of indictment; likewise a resolution of the Court reprobating the said order; and also the recognizance entered into by Mr. Manly, Mr. Peach, Mr. Innis, and the Right Hon. the Earl of Chesterfield to prosecute and give evidence against Dr. Dodd and Lewis Robertson for the said forgery should be read, and the Clerk of the Arraigns was directed to inform the Court whether the name Lewis Robertson was indorsed as a witness on the back of the indictment, which was answered in the affirmative.]

Mr. HOWARTH. - As one of the counsel for Dr. Dodd it is my duty to submit to your lordships such observations as occur to me in support of the objection which has been made by the doctor to his pleading to this indictment: I presume your lordships will not put any person to plead or to answer to an indictment that may be found against him, if it appears upon the face of that indictment that the evidence upon which the bill was found was not legal or competent to have been adduced before the Grand Jury: your lordships find that Lewis Robertson , who was committed as a principal in the forgery, has since been carried before the Grand Jury for the county of Middlesex, by an order that is supposed to be obtained from this Court, and hath before that Grand Jury been examined as a witness against Dr. Dodd; how that order was obtained it is immaterial for me to state to your lordships; it is sufficient for me to find that a gentleman in the commission, who was upon the bench, actuated by a very laudable spirit of preserving the dignity of the Court, and to prevent the Court's being imposed upon, mentioned it to your lordships, and, in consequence of its being so mentioned, that order has since been formally vacated by the Court; it therefore stands now as a certain fact, that a witness committed as a principal in the crime has been carried, without any legal authority, before the Grand Jury of the county of Middlesex, and hath there been permitted to give evidence against the prisoner now standing at the bar: it is obvious to every man who hears the fact stated, that it is incumbent upon the witness so admitted to exculpate himself, and to throw the whole weight and load of the guilt upon the gentleman now at the bar. Such evidence it is the genius of our law, and has been the humanity of all courts of criminal judicature, never to receive, because they have always acted upon this principle, that supposing the guilt of the party accused to be undeniable, yet the proof of that guilt shall not be received through polluted channels; as I take that to be the uniform practice of all courts of criminal judicature, I trust the same construction will hold with your lordships. It is impossible to know what passes before a Grand Jury, every thing that is transacted there is transacted under a solemn oath of secrecy, and therefore never can come forth to the world: it cannot be alledged by the gentlemen who are of counsel for the prosecution that it was unnecessary to have Robertson as a witness, because the materiality or immateriality of the evidence given by him to the Grand Jury must be perfectly a secret; but however it is fair inference and fair argument to say, that the gentlemen who conducted this prosecution conceived it to be material to have Robertson's evidence, otherwise there was no necessity for that extraordinary exertion to get him there, unless in their judgment and in their apprehension he might be a material evidence to support the charge against Dr. Dodd. My Lords, I say, upon such grounds, I trust it is fair argument in me to suppose that he was a witness materially necessary for the carrying on of this prosecution, and fixing upon the prisoner the guilt the indictment imputes to him, and that without his evidence the

guilt could not be brought home to him; I trust it is extremely clear, that Robertson ought not to have been admitted as a witness before the Grand Jury. Suppose a bill of indictment was brought before your lordships, and a prisoner was called upon to plead to it, and it appeared to your lordships that there was but one witness on the back of the bill, which witness also appeared to be an accomplice, and had been committed as a principal in the guilt, that would appear, upon the face of it, to be a bill found by a Grand Jury who are not supposed to be competent judges of law, they are only judges of fact, and the probable guilt of a prisoner is a sufficient ground for them to find a bill; but, I say, supposing it appeared, that that bill was found upon the oath of a person, who by the laws of this country ought not to be received as a witness, or at least, supposing him to be received as a witness, whose evidence never can, never has, and, I trust, never will convict any person, your lordships would not, in such a case, I conceive, put the prisoner to plead to or answer that indictment; it may be answered to me here, that there are a great many other witnesses on the back of this bill; that it does not appear here what the evidence given by Robertson was, whether there was enough to find a bill against Dr. Dodd or not; I trust that will be no objection; what passed before the Grand Jury must necessarily be a profound secret; it is enough for me to say that there appears on the back of this bill, as a witness a person, who was committed as a principal, and who ought to have answered as a principal at the bar of this Court. He has been carried up to the Grand Jury by an order surreptitiously obtained, which order the Court have shewn a just disapprobation of, and have in truth vacated; therefore I trust, in such a case, the law of this country will not permit any prisoner at the bar to be put upon this country; and if the rigid law of this country will not permit it, I am too much acquainted with your lordships humanity to suppose your lordships will permit it.

Mr. COWPER. - Will your lordships please to favour me a few words in support of the motion that has been made by Mr. Howarth, that Dr. Dodd may not be called upon to plead to the bill of indictment that is now found against him, and that that bill may be quashed; and my Lords, it is upon that general ground that the bill of indictment has received the sanction of the Grand Jury of Middlesex, in consequence of evidence having been adduced before them that ought not there to have been produced or heard. The principles upon which we who are of counsel for the prisoner mean to support this idea do not at all combat the general rules of law, with respect to admitting of accomplices evidence, the attaining justice in a degree through the assistant evidence of those who are partners in the crime, under particular circumstances and in particular cases, is very often found to be necessary; but those circumstances and the situation of the party, who is so admitted an evidence, must appear either to the committing magistrate who selects one, perhaps less attainted with the guilt than another, for the purpose of assisting the prosecution, or to the Court who are to try the prisoner; where there have been instances of the Court directing one of the persons committed for the offence to be admitted as an evidence: but, my Lords, except in one or the other of these situations, where a person is brought before a magistrate and charged as a principal, where, upon the face of the instrument, there is every evidence to shew that he is a principal, where the magistrate upon the hearing of the evidence before him commits him as a principal, and where this Court have refused to admit him to the advantage that the situation of an evidence against the prisoner would give him; I submit to your lordships that Robertson's evidence under these circumstances was improperly carried before the Grand Jury, I will not say more than improperly, that is sufficient, it is not necessary to cast any reflection upon the prosecution, it is not necessary to cast any reflection upon the officer of the Court; it suffices us to say, that Mr. Robertson's evidence has been improperly, and in an unbecoming manner conveyed to Hicks's-hall, and there submitted to the Grand Jury, and upon that evidence, together with the testimony of other persons, this bill of indictment is found against Dr. Dodd. My Lords, the gentlemen on the other side of the question will not surely attempt gravely to tell your lordships that

this might have been obtained without the interposition of a magistrate, or without obtaining an order from the Court, because if they do, they will be reduced to the necessity of arguing against their own conduct. Why were the prosecutors to come to the court? your lordships are not to give them advice; your lordships are not counsel in any prosecution; they applied to receive that sanction which they conceived, and I apprehend they conceived very rightly, was necessary for them to obtain, namely, an order for the conveyance of Mr. Robertson before the Grand Jury; however they misunderstood, or however they misrepresented, the answer that your lordships so justly gave to that application I do not know; but still, not departing from the idea that the interposition of this Court was necessary to the conveyance of Robertson before the Grand Jury, an order was obtained for this person, whom the prosecutors were bound over to prosecute capitally, to be carried before the Grand Jury. My Lords, it will be unnecessary to comment upon that order, it has been already stigma tized by the Court itself; it has been discharged, and it has been discharged as surreptitiously obtained; why then, my Lords, have I any proposition that needs an argument to maintain it, when I state this bare fact, that in consequence of an order now discharged by the Court, now declared by the Court to have been surreptitiously obtained by this means alone did Robertson's evidence come before the Grand Jury; what Robertson swears, whether he swears any thing material, or swore nothing that was material, whether the Grand Jury credited or disbelieved his evidence, whether they found the bill upon any part of his testimony, or found it solely upon the testimony of others, is totally out of the present case, because that fact remains and must remain in perfect secrecy; for the Grand Jury have not only an oath of secrecy imposed upon them, but if it were the Jury that sit there trying the prisoners your lordships would not permit any incompetent or illegal evidence to go before that Jury, however immaterial, because it is impossible for your lordships ever to say what degree of influence a piece of immaterial evidence might have upon the mind of any person whatsoever; it would be your lordships duty, and I am sure would be the conduct of the Court upon such an occasion, to take care that the Jury should hear no such evidence. Thus it stands with regard to the present bill of indictment, such was the situation of Mr. Robertson committed as a principal, and the parties bound over to prosecute him with effect; what have they done? In a case of forgery that came before this Court not a great while ago, that occasioned a very considerable consideration of the subject of admitting persons as evidence, and what safety the person should derive from being so admitted an evidence, great doubts, I believe arose. At one time I can venture to say that there were differences of opinion amongst your lordships, with regard to the propriety of admitting a person as evidence, and with regard to the advantages that were to be derived to the person so admitted as an evidence; then, upon that subject so difficult to define, so important in its consequences, and so delicate in its nature, the mistake of the prosecutor, together with the mistake of the officer of the Court (for I will call it no more) is at once to remove every difficulty, every obstruction whatever, and to take Lewis Robertson out of the situation of being committed as a principal in, and liable to be tried for that fact, to be admitted an evidence against a person by which he is to exculpate, and totally to indemnify himself from the consequence of that charge.

Mr. BULLER. - My Lords, I am of counsel on the same side with Mr. Howarth and Mr. Cowper. It is the established law of this land, that no man shall be put upon his trial for any offence, unless there be a bill first properly found by a Grand Jury; I say properly found, for if there be any objection whatsoever to the finding of the indictment, and the most familiar that is to be found in our books are those that go to the objection of the Grand Jury; for instance, where only one person of the Grand Jury has been incompetent, where only eleven of the Jury have found the bill, that therefore it shall not be tried; I take it the objections go universally; I am aware that the objections I have been alluding to, and which are particularly stated in Lord Hale, go to the Grand Jury only; but I will beg leave to consider whether the reason that governs the one does not govern the other. Another case put by Lord Hale is this; if one of the

Grand Jury is outlawed, these objections go to the persons of the Grand Jury: I am aware that that is not the present objection; but I will beg leave, with your lordships permission, to consider whether this does not fall within the same reason; for I cannot conceive that the law, which is so peculiarly watchful over the personal qualifications of the Grand Jury, should not be equally attentive to the evidence which is laid before them, and upon which they are to decide the fate of the bill which is offered to their consideration: I take it to be as essential to the finding of, the bill that the evidence offered to the Grand Jury should be such as the law allows, as it is when the indictment afterwards comes to be tried before your lordships; and if that rule holds, I trust I shall have very little difficulty in convincing your lordships that this bill has been improperly found. My Lords, the prosecutor has thought it so material to admit Mr. Robertson a witness in this cause, that though, in my humble apprehension, he stands in a much more criminal light than the prisoner at the bar, yet they have thought fit to bargain with him, to let him off from a capital felony of the most dangerous sort to society, the most peculiarly so from his situation in life of any man that can be charged with such an offence. Mr. Robertson stands in this business as a sworn broker of the city of London, as such it was his peculiar duty to preserve good faith between man and man; he is bargained with by the prosecutor to be let off in a case where he stands upon the appearance against him now as the most criminal, for the purpose of procuring evidence against the prisoner at the bar. My Lords, if that evidence be improper, there remains but one thing more to be enquired into, that is, whether your lordships can say that that evidence has not had an improper effect when it was admitted before the Grand Jury: it is not improbable that the bill might be found wholly upon his evidence; if I have a right to assume that as a fact, because the prosecutor has thought it material and absolutely necessary to produce him before the Grand Jury, why then your lordships sitting here cannot say but this indictment may have been found upon his evidence only; if it be so, is Robertson a person whose evidence ought to have been received? If I am right in saying that the same evidence, and the same evidence only, is legal before a Grand Jury which is legal upon a trial, I apprehend the case which was mentioned yesterday in Lord Hale, folio 303, is decisive upon this point. My Lords, there are more passages in that folio book; the first was the case mentioned yesterday of

" Henry Trew was indicted

"for a burglary, and (by the advice

"of Keeling, chief justice, Brown, justice,

"and Wilde, recorder) Perrin was sworn a

"witness against Trew as to the burglary,

"which he confessed, but was not indicted

"for the other felony." Here he was admitted, because he confessed himself guilty. The passage before that in Lord Hale seems to me still stronger:

"If two defendants be

"charged with a crime, one shall not be

"examined against the other to convict him

"of an offence, unless the party examined

"confess himself guilty." Now, has Robertson confessed himself guilty? No, he has not; then there is an express authority by Lord Hale, that not having done it he is no witness, he does not stand in that predicament which Lord Hale states the man to be there. He says, that they were both charged with the crime; that is the case here; the prisoner and Robertson were both committed for the same crime; he stands now charged with that crime, and he has not pleaded guilty; therefore upon this authority I take it to be clear, that he cannot be admitted a witness upon the trial, and if not, I must leave it to the ingenuity of the learned counsel to shew why a man, who the law says shall not be a witness upon the trial, shall be admitted a witness to find the bill upon, against a man whom there is no other evidence to affect.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - I am to trouble your lordships in answer to this objection, which to me is perfectly new, which to me is totally unlike any that I have ever read or heard of; and I find that the gentlemen who here support this objection, very properly don't produce before your lordships any one instance in which such an attempt was ever made, much less an instance in which such an attempt succeeded; for myself, and for those for whom I stand here, as they have no wishes upon this subject but that justice should have its course, they certainly will not desire me, nor should I find

myself at all inclined to give any resistance to the motion that is made, if I did not think that the very proceeding required it, and that the objection is without the least appearance of any legal foundation. I perceive, my Lords, the objection, as it is made, to Dr. Dodd being put upon his trial on this indictment is, that there is a witness supposed to be improperly carried before the Grand Jury, and that witness, when carried before the Grand Jury, is supposed to be so situated and circumstanced that he ought not to be heard, and your lordships are desired, for the first time, almost, I believe, in the history of English judicature, to enquire and consider to what evidence the Grand Jury gave attention, and whether, upon the whole, it appeared to them that there was fit ground to find the bill. My Lords, I have always understood that for the sake, not of bringing men to punishment, but for the sake of defending them, and for the protection of Englishmen, that it was the sole and exclusive privilege of a Grand Jury to judge, not whether a man was guilty, but whether such circumstances appeared against a man accused of a crime that he ought to be put upon trial; and this is so peculiarly and exclusively the province of a Grand Jury, that your lordships are not only forbid, by law, yourselves, to know or presume, what evidence influences the Grand Jury, but they themselves are restrained by an oath from disclosing that evidence; they are to enquire and to judge whether a man ought to be tried, whether such grounds of suspicion (for suspicion is enough to find a bill) appear against a man accused, that he ought to be brought before another Jury to receive a conviction or acquittal; and as that is the province of the Grand Jury, it is no wonder that this is the first attempt, I believe, to desire of a court of judicature, who is to try the indictment found, to declare whether the Grand Jury have or have not had sufficient evidence before them to justify them in saying,

'We think this gentleman ought to be put upon his trial;' for that is all that they have said. My lords, I should have thought this a very full and sufficient answer to the objection, if something had not been said which makes it, for the sake, not of the motion itself, but of the parties concerned, and of those who have acted different parts in it, to say something more to your lordships, as well too as to take notice of some which appear to be indeed very dangerous doctrines that I have heard delivered upon this occasion. One grand and indeed principal objection, as I before observed, to this witness is, that he was improperly carried before the Grand Jury;

"improperly carried," I think are the words used; and the impropriety consists in this, that an order was obtained for carrying the body of this Lewis Robertson before the Grand Jury, there to be a witness, and then to be brought back again to the gaol of this Court: that that order was improperly obtained, there is no doubt; I am not at liberty now to dispute it; at the same time, though it certainly was improperly obtained, and was obtained from a mere mistake upon an idea that the proceeding was regular, though it certainly was not, but at the same time it is well known to some that hear me, who are acquainted with the business, that it was a matter of course, if the prisoner had been in another gaol; for if he had been in another gaol, and not in that of this Court, your lordships know an Habeas Corpus might have been applied for, and must have been obtained, to carry him before the Grand Jury; as he happens to be in this Court in which the indictment is to be tried, instead of having an Habeas Corpus the Court is to be applied to for a simple order to carry him before the Grand Jury, and your lordships order is regularly granted.

Mr. Justice GOULD. - You do not put that as a motion of mere course?

Mr. MANSFIELD. - Whether there may possibly exist cases in which the Court will not permit, I will not go so far as to say, there may be, I don't know that there are; because this I am sure of, that if the prisoner was in another gaol, and his evidence was wanted before a Grand Jury, that the prosecutor upon applying for an Habeas Corpus might have it most certainly; if there may be cases in which it would not be admitted, they must in truth be of a very extraordinary nature: this order of your lordships has been talked of as if, when it was obtained, it gave some weight and effect to this man's testimony; but your lordships know that you neither do nor can make a man a witness, a man is or not a witness

by the law of England; that your lordships cannot make or alter; but you administer, and administer it wisely; but it is the law of England says, whether a man can or not be admitted a witness; if that law says, he cannot, it is not in the power of all the courts of judicature in this kingdom to make him; on the contrary, if he is a legal witness, no Court can say he shall not be; and the only purport of this order is to remove the body of the prisoner Robertson, and the only effect of it as it seems to me is this, that the gaoler, who would otherwise be exceedingly blameable in admitting the prisoner out of his gaol, is excused from all fault in so doing; let me suppose this man had escaped from the gaol, and had then gone before the Grand Jury, is it to be doubted that if he was by law a competent witness, that his evidence might be received wherever he offers himself as a witness, though he had escaped from gaol? and your lordships order goes simply to the fact of the gaoler carrying the body of this prisoner before the Grand Jury; and the only difference seems to me, that the gaoler carrying the prisoner out of the gaol without permission from the Court, he might have behaved improperly, but however the witness himself as to his competency could not possibly be affected by the manner in which he went before the Grand Jury: I have heard it said indeed to-day that it may depend upon the Court, that it may depend upon the committing magistrate, whether an accomplice shall be a witness or not; I know of no such law; I know it may depend upon the Court whether a man who has been used as a witness and is afterward attempted to be tried; whether in the judgment of the Court he is to be put upon his trial; or whether the manner in which he has been used as a witness does entitle him to be excused from prosecution; so a magistrate sometimes advises a person to be admitted as a witness who is an accomplice, and who is perhaps at the same time in gaol; he takes a recognizance from him to appear as an evidence; the Court will afterwards consider whether that person has acted so properly as to be excused from a trial; but this is the first time that I have heard it said that the competency of a witness depended upon any magistrate of this kind, and as high and great a regard as I have for your lordships sitting here, I should be very sorry, for one, to have the law of England so changed, that it might depend upon the discretion of judges, and not upon the fixed rules of law, whether a man shall be a witness or not. Thus much upon the first objection, that this man was improperly carried before the Grand Jury; whether he was properly, or whether he was improperly carried is to this point we are now considering totally immaterial; the persons who were guilty of improperly carrying him, those who without legal authority procured the gaoler to let him go, may be worthy of censure; but as to the competency of the witness himself it seems to me to make no sort of difference. I am sorry, my learned friend who last spoke, introduced into this cause something of which you cannot take notice, but which seems to me to cast reflections upon those for whom I am concerned, whom I know are not worthy of such reflections, and the account given by Robertson is, that what he did was totally founded in mistake; in answer to which it is necessary for me to say something, and I will say as little as I can, though I should be justified in saying a great deal more: the argument supposes, at least, that Robertson was as great a criminal as any other person accused, nay, that he was the principal offender; I, who know as much, I believe, as any body can know of this cause, am very far from entertaining that opinion of Robertson; for though I think he acted blameably; yet as there are degrees of guilt, as far as the matter is understood by me, Robertson is considered as almost innocent, for I am perfectly satisfied that Robertson was really persuaded that the bond was genuine; this however does not appear before your lordships, and therefore should not be mentioned; I speak it only because I would not have those for whom I stand suffer from a reflection which is perfectly unmerited, and those persons too are incapable of making any bargain with Robertson or any other man, in order to bring about any thing improper in this or any cause, but especially in one like this, where the life of a person is concerned; it was thought proper, it was by my advice, and that is enough to excuse all others concerned in the business, that Robertson should be received as a witness; now as to Robertson being guilty or having acted a criminal part, the whole of the argument your lordships see assumed is, how does your lordships know, or how can you know what part Robertson acted?

Mr. Justice WILLES. - All that we know is, he is committed for the same crime, we do not assume it, but we judge from his commitment that he is equally guilty.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - He is committed for the same crime; is it for a court of justice without evidence, or hearing a circumstance of the matter, to know that the magistrate is justified in committing him for that crime, that there was evidence to find him guilty, or that he may not be perfectly innocent? I have never yet heard that the commitment by a magistrate is in any place a presumption of guilt against a man who is committed; it cannot be; it never is heard of in any instance at all that appears; and all that is stated with regard to Robertson, is, that he is committed for the same crime, and so might the most innocent man alive be; nay, innocent men are committed, and consequently upon the commitment of a man for a capital crime, it is the magistrate's duty to bind by recognizance the person that appears to prosecute him who is so committed; the recognizance, as it seems to me, makes no difference in the case at all, because it is the necessary consequence of the commitment; as no magistrate can be justified in committing a man for a capital crime, who does not also bind the person who appears as prosecutor by recognizance, to prosecute the person committed: all that appears before your lordships, is, that this man is committed for the same crime that Dr. Dodd is; there is, as I say, no evidence at all before your lordships of the guilt of this man, that can be taken as any thing like evidence; for this is the first time I ever heard it suggested in a court, that a man who was committed for a crime, was by that commitment disenabled from being a witness; I never heard of such a doctrine being insinuated; suppose it now appears, which it does not, nor can it, that Robertson was equally guilty with Dr. Dodd; I will suppose it, that it appeared that it was possible for any man to know without forming presumption (which he is not authorized to form) that Robertson is equally guilty with Dr. Dodd. I will suppose it appeared so: why is it not the practice in this Court every sessions? where accomplices in the greatest crimes are admitted as witnesses, they are admitted with a degree of reserve, who by their single testimony cannot convict a person.

Mr. Justice GOULD - I wish to see the opinion upon the subject which is in print *; I recollect where the dividing line was there; I held, that the justice of peace, by a constant and established practice, and I have seen things since to confirm that, particularly a very learned treatise by the late Mr. Fielding, concerning the growth and encrease of robberies; he lays it down as a known practice, that they do judge upon all the circumstances appearing before them, which of the criminals to admit as the witness, that matter was dissented from by ten of the twelve judges; but as I understood their opinion to be, it was then to be in the direction, not of the justice of peace, but in the direction of the court of gaol delivery, where it was found necessary, which of the persons committed for a capital crime should be admitted as a witness; I believe Mr. Reynolds was present when that opinion was delivered; he told me, according to his remembrance, that was said by the learned judge here. * Vide The first number of the first sessions in the last mayoralty, and an account of the arguments of counsel, with the opinion of the Judges on Mrs. Rudd's case, by J. GURNEY.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - The question then was solely upon the privilege of Mrs. Rudd, not upon the competency as a witness.

Mr. Justice GOULD. - The true reason of that decision was, that that was a matter for the discretion of the justice o f peace, to hold forth an absolute indemnity.

Mr. Justice WILLES. - I am of opinion the judges went upon the general principle, that in that case, the inferior magistrate was to exercise a discretion. - Mr. Mansfield before you go on, I would mention, that the argument on the part of the prisoner points itself very strong this way, that no person committed for the same offence shall be allowed to be an evidence against a co-criminal without the interference of some legal authority, and in this case, there is no legal authority authorizing him to be a witness.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - With regard to the case of Mrs. Rudd, it never was made a doubt, whether Mrs. Rudd could be a witness; but the question was, Mrs. Rudd's having been in fact taken and tried as a witness by the magistrate, whether she should be considered as entitled to an indemnity which should screen her from prosecution; and that I apprehended was the only question so in the general opinion expressed by the judges; I never conceived or apprehended, that it was meant to be considered by the judges, whether they could or could not say a criminal, an accomplice, should or should not be a witness; they can say, when the person is brought before them to be tried, whether they shall hold him entitled to favour or prevent his being convicted; they can say too, where the prosecutors, who are bound by recognizance to prosecute a person committed, shall be relieved from that recognizance, because they have thought proper not to prosecute the man, but use him as a witness; but it is now to me, if it is to depend upon the discretion of the judges, whether an accomplice is a competent witness, for that is the argument made use of here. It is to depend upon the discretion of the judges, whether an accomplice is a competent witness; now that position is utterly new to me; all the favours that a man derives from being a witness, all the consequential steps which are to affect the prosecutor, one way or the other for not prosecuting all those, must depend upon the discretion and judgment of the Court, at the time when that matter comes before them; but as to the admission of a witness as to the question of his competency, I do apprehend it must depend, not upon the discretion of the Court, but upon the rules of law, with regard to the present question. What is it Mr. Robertson has proved before the Grand Jury? as to parts of the case, it cannot be doubted, that Mr. Robertson might be permitted to give evidence, if he chose it; that he did not receive the bond from Lord Chesterfield; for instance, that he did receive it from Dr. Dodd; that he knows no more of it; can any mortal say, that as to these questions, Mr. Robertson, let him stand in what predicament he will, is not a competent witness? I have no doubt, nor have I heard an argument suggested, that he cannot be a witness throughout but what law or dictum is found, which warrants the doctrine contended for; that this man is not to be received as a witness, a case is produced from Lord Hale, in which two men being actually charged or indicted, one is admitted an evidence against the other.

Mr. Justice GOULD. - In that case, it is expressly said, that by the advice of Mr. Justice Brown, a very learned and eminent man, and Mr. Wylde the recorder, who was afterwards a very learned judge at Westminster-hall, Perrin was admitted a witness against Trew; Perrin confessing himself guilty of that burglary, he was admitted an evidence.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - Advice there, I should suppose, must mean a legal opinion of the court; for a judge, fitting in his judicial character, does not advise prosecutors; it is the province of those in a different place to give advice; judges only give legal opinions, and when it is said by advice, it seems to me it can mean nothing else but a legal judgment.

Mr. Baron PERRYN . - If any advice was asked of a judge, except sitting in judgment, I should think it exceedingly improper.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - Then, all that I can collect from thence, is, that in the opinion of the judges, he was a legal witness; in another way, if it was to depend upon that question, whether he being admitted a witness, is to be prosecuted for other crimes; here it must be determined by the judgment and discretion of the Court, whether the man is so used as a witness, that he is entitled to any protection; that judgment must be exercised according to legal discretion; but where the word advice is used as applied to a man's competency, it must mean that the judgment of the court was, that he was competent; another case mentioned by Mr. Buller is. -

Mr. Justice WILLES. - The other case is, if two defendants be charged for a crime, one shall not be examined against the other to convict him of an offence unless the party examined confess himself guilty, and then he shall be admitted.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - But the charge must mean legal charge, must mean charge upon an indictment, for there is no other way of charging.

Mr. Justice WILLES. - Charge and indictment

are synonimous words in the law of England.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - In - reports it is said that a particeps criminis may be admitted as a witness where a person was indicted for treason, and others were concerned in that treason, the party that confessed it might be a witness.

Mr. Baron PERRYN. - There is no doubt of that.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - Then there is an end of all questions as to competency of this man's evidence.

Mr. Justice WILLES. - No doubt as to his competency.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - The arguments against this man were, that he was an accomplice, to which I before gave your lordships what appeared to me to be a satisfactory answer. Although twenty witnesses appear upon the back of an indictment, if one witness satisfies the Grand Jury that the man ought to be tried, they often proceed no further in examining witnesses; whether either of them proved enough to warrant the bill, it is impossible for the Court to say; if your lordships were to stop the proceeding for any thing that now appears, you must presume that the Grand Jury found the bill upon the testimony of a man whom, if there be an objection to, they ought not to have heard; now that presumption in law does not authorize your lordships at all, because if the Grand Jury were to examine 20 witnesses, 19 of whom should prove nothing, yet their names must appear upon the back of the indictment; and your lordships have no ground now upon which you can presume that the Grand Jury did find the bill upon a circumstance that they ought not to have heard; and unless therefore your lordships can do that which the Grand Jury are not authorized to enable you to do, unless you can yourselves say, that the Grand Jury have founded this bill upon an exceptionable man's evidence, supposing there was any exception to him, unless you can say that there is no foundation for the application now made, which it is clear you cannot say, because the Grand Jury may have paid no attention to more than one of the witnesses; and if upon the evidence of any one, however they might disregard the rest, there was such a ground appeared to them, as made it fit for them to find the indictment, they would be bound to find it. I have heard it said by one of my friends in argument, that it is totally immaterial, as Robertson's name appears here, whether the Grand Jury believed him or not; whether what he said was material or not, is nothing to the purpose; I beg leave to say the contrary, the form of business is, the witnesses are sworn, and their names are put upon the indictment before they go in to the Grand Jury, the Grand Jury then call the names appearing upon the indictment; they don't often examine them all; they examine as many as they think proper, and it is impossible for your lordships to say, that the Grand Jury founded the indictment upon this, or that man's evidence, or to know whether they had a legal authority for finding the bill; therefore I trust your lordships will be of opinion that this trial is to go on, recollecting that this is admitted to be the first attempt of the sort that ever was made for rejecting a bill upon a supposed knowledge of what passed before the Grand Jury, and I submit to your lordships that it is entirely without authority.

Mr. Justice WILLES. - Mr. Davenport, before you go on, tell us if you know of any case where a prisoner committed as a principal has been admitted an evidence against a person concerned with him in the same offence, without the interference of a magistrate or the direction of the Court before whom the matter is to be tried?

Mr. DAVENPORT. - I hope to satisfy your lordships, that the constant practice has always been so; it depends upon the practice, and not upon any written authority.

Mr. Justice WILLES. - The clerk of assize has come to me on the circuit, and said such a justice of peace has examined this matter, and wishes, if you have no objection to it, that one prisoner may be admitted an evidence against the other; then I always pay that deference to the discretion of the justice, unless the circumstances make it improper to do as he has desired: sometimes the clerk of assize has brought me the informations taken by the justice of peace; I look over them carefully and exercise my discretion, whether such a person ought or not to be admitted an evidence against a co-defendant, and if I see there is no probability of convicting him by the

assistance of that evidence, then I never admit him: I wish Mr. Reynolds would say what has been the practice at this Court, of which he is a very old officer.

Mr. REYNOLDS. - The judges were of opinion that every accomplice, or every man charged with a felony, that was intended by the justice to give evidence, should notwithstanding that be committed as a principal, and they mentioned as a circumstance, suppose such a man broke gaol, can he be indicted for a felony? now with regard to the orders for removing persons where it appears by the calendar, that they were committed expressly to give evidence; orders have always been granted for their being removed to the proper Jury, without asking any thing of the Court; but I never knew an instance in my life where two persons were committed as principals, that ever an order was made of course, or was ever done without the particular directions of the judges to the officer.

Mr. Justice GOULD. - I have had abundance of application from the Grand Jury upon the circuit; they came to me, I remember, at Lancaster particularly three or four instances; they said, here are such persons committed, and without the evidence of one or other it will be impossible to find the bill; then upon reading the depositions and informations, I have ordered that man to be admitted an evidence.

Mr. DAVENPORT. - My lord, with respect to the carrying of Robertson before the Grand Jury; the mode of bringing him thither has created this confusion; an application in consequence of our advice was made to this Court, not as it is misunderstood, to admit him, for that was not our advice, but merely to acquaint the Court that that was the intention of the prosecutor; we conceiving, and if we are wrong, the criminal law in this respect, I hope, will be set upon a more certain footing, that the prosecutor had a right to adduce what witness he pleased; and that the law only could reject him upon the foot of an accomplice; that I conceive to be the law, and stand here to learn if it be not; taking that to be so, and that it is our error, if there be one, for I would wish in the hearing of such an audience as this, that the innocent officer should not be reflected upon, nor the parties who are concerned in this prosecution, for they are at least as innocent and irreproachable, I will venture to say, as any man that would venture to traduce them, what have they done to produce not only such appellations, but it is publickly given out in the papers, that they had surreptitiously obtained the order of this Court: my lords, out of decency and out of respect, and as a lawyer, I conceive that nothing but decency and respect could have made it necessary for them to apply to the Court, I take it to be the common practice, and I shall be corrected if I am wrong, that for all prisoners in this gaol, necessary to be carried to Hicks's-hall before the justices, there is an order of course at the sessions upon a 2 s. fee; to send down their officer, their deputy, the lowest, the meanest man they have amongst them, to fetch that prisoner from the keeper of Newgate, to give his testimony, and to bring him back.

Mr. Justice GOULD. - Is that so? for I asked that question of Mr. Akerman, who has been gaoler here, as he informed me, twenty-two or twenty-three years, and he says positively, that there never was such a thing done when a man was in Newgate without an order of this Court, that it was so in all his experience.

Mr. DAVENPORT. - Did he inform your lordships that there ever had been such an order from this Court.

Mr. Justice GOULD. - I take that for granted.

Mr. Justice WILLES. - The Justices at Hicks's-hall could have no power to send such an order for Mr. Robertson, because he is a London commitment.

Mr. MANLEY. - I speak with respect to the practice; when we came to the Quarter Sessions we waited about an hour and half for bringing up this prisoner; we were told that we might wait till eternity, that he never could be brought before the Grand Jury upon the order of this Court, that it belonged to that Court, and without we paid for that order we might wait for ever; I paid for that order, and he was brought up.

Mr. COLEPEPER. - I do not remember that any justice at Hicks's-hall ever gave an

order to bring an evidence, before the Grand Jury: I am sure they never made an order to bring a prisoner from hence to be carried before the Grand Jury. We never make an order to bring any body before the Grand Jury; we make an order to bring them before us in a matter before us for trial.

Mr. Justice WILLES. - Certainly this order was of no validity, in fact it was not obtained, nor drawn up by the direction of the Court.

Mr. DAVENPORT. - I mentioned what I know to be the practice, whether properly or improperly done is totally beside this argument; I mentioned it as I professed it, merely for the sake of the exculpation of those who took it to be right; and I go farther, that all the counsel at the table, on one side and the other, thought it right. As to the importance of the order, the validity of it, or the authority of those who issued it, I take to be beside this question, because where a bill, which, upon its face on the parchment before your lordships, appears to be a legal one, and above exception, there is no power in any court to inquire how that bill was obtained; it is, in my judgment, totally immaterial. The fact is, the witness Lewis Robertson was at Hicks's-hall; he was before the Grand Jury; had he been brought there by Mr. Akerman without authority, is it an objection to the witness, or his examination? had he escaped from Mr. Akerman for that purpose, and came back again, is it an objection to his competency, or to their examination of him? or can the Grand Jury reject him, and say, how are you brought here? be it therefore by a wrong in law, or be it by a right in law, the fact is, he was there; and, as I have stated before, if, Mr. Akerman the keeper of Newgate, against the duty of his office, if the Quarter Sessions, against the authority they bear, had taken him there, if the prisoner had broke the gaol, and had gone there, still my argument is this, that being there there is no other question, but is he competent or incompetent? My Lords, that is the question here, and will your lordships now say, that the Grand Jury were themselves not indictable, if they had rejected the witness upon that ground? my Lords, I could not have defended a Grand Jury who had rejected witness offering his testimony, upon any ground of legal incompetency, I should have stood in an aukward situation as counsel for such a Grand Jury; if I am wrong I shall be corrected in that, if I am right, then the Grand Jury did their duty in the examination, your lordships will do yours in trying the facts upon the parchment, to which there is no objection, at least at present, made; if there be any, I am sure for one, whatever may be in favour of the prisoner, from whatever quarter it comes, I shall be perfectly satisfied; the only fear I ever possessed is, not that a prisoner should escape, but lest it should be my fault to convict him. The witness, having been examined, is now objected to, not as incompetent here, for then the gentlemen are before their time in the objection; when he is brought here it is time enough to argue, that, without your lordships order, he stands at your bar as a witness; I say, that is the time when the objection is to be made: I hope when that time comes, the objection will be answered; I feel myself, in my own judgment at least, very capable of answering it upon principles of law, upon the received and universal practice in the little experience I have had; then, my lords, if the gentlemen are before their time in the objection, we are so far right, that we are in possession of a bill found by a Grand Jury competent to examine witnesses, competetent to find, and competent to return it: from such a Grand Jury this bill comes. My lords, it has been said, and I subscribe to the doctrine, that if there is an outlaw upon the Grand Jury, if there is one that by law is no grand juryman, that it vitiates the indictment, what is the solid and substantial sense of the objection? for cases may be quoted for ever, lines may be produced out of books, but they will want foundation and sense when they come to be examined; and what is the sense of the objectors? that the grand juryman being no grand juryman at all, why there was no Grand Jury. What is the law then? I say, that as to objections arising from the incompetency of the Grand Jury, it goes to this solid plain position, and indeed all law is resolvable, when understood, into the plainest positions; it is not the law for this or any other country, if it is not intelligible to every man's capacity; it requires some pains to trace and

find it out, but when explained it must be intelligible.

Mr. Justice GOULD. - Mr. Howarth, you see the counsel for the crown insist upon going on with this indictment, found as it is; suppose conviction should follow upon this trial, to be sure the Court will save the question, whether Robertson was improperly and illegally produced before the Grand Jury, for the opinion of all the judges; but it is not for the Court to give advice one way or the other; - the Court give no advice, but the counsel for the prisoner proceed upon this indictment at their peril.

Mr. Baron PERRYN. - Mr. Mansfield, you will take into your consideration, that if you proceed upon this indictment, and the judges afterwards should be of opinion that it ought not to have been proceeded upon, because it was improperly obtained, the consequence will be, that the prisoner can never be tried upon any other indictment for this crime, and therefore this prosecution must be final; whereas if you have any objection in your mind respecting the propriety of proceeding upon this indictment, another indictment may now be preferred before the Grand Jury, and you may now make your application to this Court for the purpose of producing Lewis Robertson as a witness before that Grand Jury; and I will freely own my sentiments that a judge has no right to give his advice, whether a person's testimony is sufficient to convict another; but when the trial comes on, he is then to form his idea of the competency of that evidence; and I will never, while I am a judge, give my opinion what evidence ought to be produced: and the construction put upon what was quoted from Lord Hale is, that what is said by the Court before trial could not be given by way of advice, but only when he is brought to trial: it is contrary to the constitution that the opinion of the judge should be taken before the trial; and I should have no difficulty, I own, whatsoever, to pronounce an order for taking Robertson out of the custody of Mr. Akerman to be produced before the Grand Jury; and my idea of it is, that it would be an order of course, provided he had been in our calendar; and all the litigation of this day has proceeded from too great and an improper lenity to the prisoner at the bar in not putting him upon the footing of other prisoners, by bringing him here six days before the sessions; and whoever was the author of that lenity has produced all this confusion. You will consider whether you will proceed upon this or prefer another bill.

Mr. HOWARTH. - I have advised with the gentlemen with whom I have the honor to be of counsel for Dr. Dodd. We made this objection to your lordships under the hope that it had some weight and substance in it; I believe all of us are rather the more confirmed in that objection by the arguments of the gentlemen on the other side; and we are willing and desirous, on the part of Dr. Dodd, that the trial should proceed, if your lordships will reserve the question for the opinion of the Twelve Judges.

161. WILLIAM DODD , Doctor of Laws , was indicted for that he on the 4th of February instant, at St. James, Westminster , feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, and willingly act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting a certain paper writing, partly printed and partly written, purporting to be a bond, and to be signed by the Right Honourable the Earl of Chesterfield , with the name of Chesterfield, and to be sealed and delivered by the said-Earl; the tenor of which said false, forged, and counterfeit paper writing, partly printed and partly written, purporting to be a bond , is as followeth (that is to say)

'Know all men by these presents that I the

'Right Honourable the Earl of Chesterfield

'am held and firmly bound to Henry Fletcher

'of London, Banker, Esq; in the sum of eight

'thousand four hundred pounds of good and

'lawful money of Great Britain, to be paid to

'the said Henry Fletcher , Esq; or his certain

'attorney, executors, administrators, or

'assigns, for which payment to be well and

'faithfully made I bind myself my heirs, executors,

'and administrators firmly by these

'presents, sealed with my seal, dated the fourth

'day of February in the seventeenth year of

'the reign of our sovereign Lord George the

'Third, by the grace of God of Great Britain,

' France and Ireland King, defender of the

'faith and so forth, and in the year of our

'Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy


'Whereas the said Henry Fletcher , Esq;

'hath contracted with the above bounden the

'Earl of Chesterfield for the absolute purchase

'of one annuity or clear yearly sum of

'seven hundred pounds of lawful money of

'Great Britain, free from all taxes and deductions

'whatsoever, payable quarterly for

'and during the natural life of him the said the

'Earl of Chesterfield, at and for the price or sum

'of four thousand two hundred pounds, and

'which said sum of four thousand two hundred

'pounds the said Henry Fletcher hath paid to

'the said the Earl of Chesterfield at the time of

'the execution of these presents; the receipt

'whereof is hereby acknowledged. Now the

'condition of the above written obligation is

'such, that if the above bounden the Earl of

'Chesterfield, his heirs, executors, or administrators,

'do and shall well and truly pay or

'cause to be paid unto the said Henry Fletcher ,

'his executors, administrators, or assigns, one

'annuity or clear yearly sum of seven hundred

'pounds of lawful money of Great Britain by

'four even and equal quarterly payments on

'the respective days and times following (that

'is to say) on the fourth day of May, the

'fourth day of August, the fourth day of

'November, and the fourth day of February

'from henceforth in each and every year for

'and during the natural life of him the said

'the Earl of Chesterfield; and also a proportionable

'part of the last quarterly payment of

'the said annuity or clear yearly sum of seven

'hundred pounds up, to, and until the day

'of the decease of him the said the Earl of

'Chesterfield, without any deduction or abatement

'whatsoever; the first payment thereof

'to begin and be made on the fourth day of

'May now next ensuing the day of the date

'thereof, then the above written obligation to

'be void, otherwise to remain in full force and



Sealed and delivered by the Right Honourable the Earl of Chesterfield in the presence of


with intention to defraud the said Earl against the statute, &c.

2d Count. The same as the first, only charging it to be with intention to defraud the said Henry Fletcher .

3d Count. For feloniously uttering and publishing as true the said forged bond with intention to defraud the said Earl (knowing the same to be forged, &c.) against the statute, &c.

4th Count. For feloniously uttering and publishing as true the said forged bond with intention to defraud the said Henry Fletcher , against the statute, and knowing the same to be forged.

5th Count. For feloniously forging and counterfeiting on the same day and place a certain paper writing, purporting to be an acquittance and receipt for money (to wit) 4200 l. and to be signed by the said Earl of Chesterfield; which said forged and counterfeited paper writing, purporting to be an acquittance and receipt for money, is in the words and figures following (that is to say)

'Received the 4th day February, 1777, of

' Henry Fletcher , Esquire, the sum of four

'thousand two hundred pounds, being the

'consideration money above-mentioned to be

'paid by him to me, I say received by me



with intention to defraud the said Earl, against the statute, &c.

6th Count. The same as the first, only charging it to be with intention to defraud the said Henry Fletcher .

7th Count. For feloniously uttering and publishing as true the said forged and counterfeited paper writing, purporting to be an acquittance and receipt for money with intention to defraud the said Earl (knowing the

same to have been forged, against the statute, &c.

8th Count. The same as the 7th, only with intention to defraud the said Henry Fletcher .

Mr. MANSFIELD. - May it please your Lordship and Gentlemen of the Jury, this as you have heard already is an indictment against the prisoner at the bar, Dr. Dodd, for the crime of forgery, which in the words of the indictment is forging, and causing or procuring to be forged, and aiding and assisting in forging a false instrument called a bond; there is another charge for forging a receipt, the bond and receipt relating to one another, being two different instruments: the indictment charges him as being a forger of those two instruments, as assisting in forging them, and as publishing them knowing them to be forged; to this indictment Doctor Dodd has pleaded that he is Not guilty; and you are now upon the evidence which shall be brought before you, to decide whether Dr. Dodd is, or is not guilty of either of these crimes so imputed to him. As this prosecution and the transaction which gave occasion to it has been made the subject of very general discourse, and has been so circulated in the papers, that there is scarce any man at all that is acquainted with what passes in this city, but supposes himself to know very much about the crime imputed to Dr. Dodd, and from the stories that have been circulated, from the representations that have been made of it, judgments are very apt to be formed prejudicial to the person upon whose life you are now to determine, it is very much to be lamented that it is impossible to keep transactions of this fort from being thus made the subject of public talk, because from thence prejudices are very apt to arise in the minds of those who perhaps afterwards may fit as you do in judgment upon the matter, and I mention this to you merely for this reason, because I myself, as well as the prosecutor of Dr. Dodd, would be very sorry that he or any man standing in his situation should suffer the least prejudice from any thing that hath been said or heard before the actual trial; and I wish you therefore upon the present occasion so to judge and so to act, as if that which you will now hear from the witnesses was the first relation that had ever reached your ears concerning this matter; suppose it now to be intirely fresh, and that this is the first moment of your lives in which you knew that Dr. Dodd was to be brought to a trial under an accusation of forgery; it would be a great pleasure to me, I am sure it would to those, who for the sake of justice alone carry on this prosecution, to find that the evidence should be such as would in your judgment warrant you to pronounce that Dr. Dodd is not guilty of the crime that is imputed to him. On the other hand, if the evidence should be such as fully and beyond all doubt evinces the guilt imputed to him, then, however you and every man may lament that a gentleman of his function and character should descend to the commission of such a crime, yet uneasy and disgustful as the office is, and sorry as you may be to perform it, you will do your duty and say, that Dr. Dodd is guilty as he is proved to be: I am indeed, gentlemen, very much afraid; that though I sincerely wish it may be in your power to acquit the prisoner, that consistently with a very few plain facts that I have to state to you, it will be utterly impossible for any man who hears the story proved to think him so; it will be enough either to prove him to be the person who forged, or who published the instrument or the receipt, knowing them to be forged; the crime is the same in the judgment of the law, the guilt in point of conscience is the same, the punishment to be inflicted is the same, but I am afraid there will be no doubt but this unfortunate gentleman will be proved to be certainly the author, the forger, and likewise the publisher. The facts by which this will be made out to you are but few; the bond is for a large sum of money, the sum of 4200 l. purporting to be a bond from Lord Chesterfield to Mr. Fletcher. The receipt is for 4200 l. paid by Mr. Fletcher as to my Lord Chesterfield, a receipt purporting to be a receipt of my Lord Chesterfield; it is a bond for an annuity of 700 l. a year, and 4200 l. was the sum to be raised upon it; the bond apparently is signed by Lord Chesterfield; it is signed by the name of Chesterfield; it is attested by Dr. Dodd; it is attested also by a Mr. Lewis Robertson ; now, when it will be proved to you, as it will be most clearly by

Lord Chesterfield himself as well as by others, who are perfectly well acquainted with Lord Chesterfield's manner of writing, that this is not his bond, that he never signed it, it will thus be made out clearly to have been signed by somebody else, to have been forged by somebody; the same observation is to be made with regard to the receipt, for then when it is proved, as it will be, not to be the bond, not to be the receipt of Lord Chesterfield, but to have been forged by somebody; it will then in the next place be proved to you beyond a doubt, that the hand-writing of the person who wrote the name of William Dodd , the name of the prisoner now standing before you, was written by himself, as his hand-writing is extremely well known, and that hand-writing will be very clearly proved; now, gentlemen, if the case rested there, unless it was in the power (which for one I wish it might be) of the prisoner at the bar to shew to you that this was not his hand-writing, or that my Lord Chesterfield's signing was really my Lord Chesterfield's, why there would be clear and decisive evidence against him as the forger of this bond; in general so strong evidence as that cannot possibly be obtained to prove a forgery; because, in general hands are disguised, feigned names are used, and it is difficult to make out the signature; but here it will be proved, that the name William Dodd is really and truly the hand-writing of the prisoner. Then if a bond is proved to be forged, if the hand-writing of a man charged as the forger, is proved to be to it as the witness, and he cannot explain it, why, then there is clear and full proof that it is forged by him; and if the case stopt at that point, I am afraid it would be utterly impossible for the prisoner to make out his innocence; but as there are various other circumstances in this case, it is necessary for me to relate them to you.

When this bond first appeared to Mr. Fletcher, or Mr. Peach, who assisted Mr. Fletcher in advancing the money, being signed by the name Chesterfield, with these witness names, Dodd and Robertson, affixed to it, it had the effect, that money to the amount of 4200 l. was advanced. Robertson, I believe, was a broker employed to negociate this matter. After the money had been obtained, and the bond deposited with Mr. Manly, who acted as attorney for Mr. Fletcher, he observed upon the bond a very remarkable blot; there was no particular effect, I think, in this blot, but it was in the letter e in the word seven, which you will observe in the bond: this was upon the 5th of February, the bond bore date upon the 4th; and upon the 5th of February Mr. Manly seeing this, it struck him as something singular; he spoke to Mr. Fletcher about it, and told him that this bond had a very odd blot in it; there were some strokes both above and below the line of the bond, which had a very singular appearance; though they could not tell for what purpose any thing had been done with a pen, yet there appeared scratches with a pen as if something had been done: Mr. Manly talking to Mr. Fletcher about it, Mr. Fletcher wished that another bond might be prepared, fairly and without any blot, and might be carried to Lord Chesterfield to execute: this produced a meeting between Mr. Manly and my Lord Chesterfield upon the 7th of February: upon the 7th of February, Lord Chesterfield seeing this bond, said it was a forgery, and not his bond. The next step which was taken was that which was fit; an information was made before the Lord Mayor; and this bond having first appeared to Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Peach in the city of London, Dr. Dodd and Mr. Robertson were both carried before that magistrate; but before they were carried before the Lord Mayor, Mr. Manly went with an officer, together with Robertson, to Dr. Dodd's, and Mr. Manly then acquainted Dr. Dodd with the business on which he came: Mr. Manly told Dr. Dodd that he was very sorry to attend him upon such an occasion; that it was upon a charge of forgery against him, the forging a bond of Lord Cherfield's. Dr. Dodd appeared, as any one naturally would with such a charge brought against him, very much shocked. He was asked, what it was that could induce him to do this deed? and Dr. Dodd, struck and overwhelmed with a charge so brought upon him, and Robertson being present, whose name appears upon the bond, Dr. Dodd said, that it was urgent necessity had pressed him to it. He then gave some reasons, some tradesmens bills. I think, that he had to pay; that he meant no injury to Lord Chesterfield or any one, that he meant to pay the money back, and had resources by which he

should be able to do it; but he did not deny it, he did not pretend to deny it; he did not insinuate that he was innocent of the charge, but only, as I tell you, gave some reasons, by way of palliating the crime, for his having committed it: when carried before the magistrate, and again charged with this crime, Dr. Dodd did not then deny it; but he applied for mercy, said that he was very willing to make every restitution in his power; that he had a regard for Lord Chesterfield, and applying to Lord Chesterfield's compassion and tenderness, hoped there might be no prosecution; but neither then, nor when Mr. Manly first charged him, did he at all deny the crime, but, you see, held language and conversation which did in the most express terms admit his guilt. This is in general the amount of the proofs against Dr. Dodd, depending, you see, merely upon Lord Chesterfield, upon those acquainted with his hand and those acquainted with Dr. Dodd's, and upon those who were present at those confessions: besides this, we shall be able to explain to you how this matter began and was transacted: Mr. Robertson was, as I have told you, a broker, and appears to have been the agent of Dr. Dodd in this business: but I must, in justice to Mr. Robertson, say, that being himself perfectly satisfied by the representations of Dr. Dodd, that it was the bond of Lord Chesterfield; and I have the more reason to say this, because at the first interview, in the presence of Mr. Manly, when he charged Dr. Dodd, Mr. Robertson called out upon Dr. Dodd to say whether he was not perfectly innocent; and it is justice to Dr. Dodd, as well as Mr. Robertson, to say, that upon that occasion he did, and in the most emphatic expressive terms, acquit Mr. Robertson of his being in any wise criminal, of his being at all acquainted with the forgery or having any thing to do with it: this he did more than once in terms very explicit, which did convince every one that had any thing to do with this affair, and were concerned in this prosecution, that though Robertson was certainly blameable in suffering his name to appear as a witness to an instrument which he did not see executed by Lord Chesterfield, which it purports that he did, yet that he was himself imposed upon, that he bore no part at all in the forgery: Mr. Robertson will tell you, that from Dr. Dodd he received the bond, that at his instance he negociated it; and that Dr. Dodd had the money produced from this bond we know, because by Dr. Dodd that money that he had received upon the bond was refunded, except a small sum he had made use of; 3000 l. was advanced in notes upon the house of Raymond and Co. of which Mr. Fletcher was a partner, the other in Banknotes; there was something Robertson had as the brokerage, the rest went to Dr. Dodd; and Robertson will give you an account of this, and will explain to you how the transaction began. This is in general the nature of the evidence we have to lay before you; and after what I have stated to you with regard to Robertson, I am sure every body will go before me in considering that it was not false clemency in the prosecutor, or any improper motive whatever that made him, or those that advised him, think that it was fit and proper to use the testimony of Robertson upon this occasion, though without that it is so extremely strong, you will see, upon Dr. Dodd, that it will be almost impossible, I think, for him to answer it: there are matters of smaller consequence and less moment that will appear in the cause, which it is not necessary for me to trouble you with. Dr. Dodd, you see, is charged as the forger, as the publisher, that is, the person who uses, who delivers this instrument, knowing it to be forged; and if he be proved to be guilty of either, the crime is equally enormous, in the judgment of the law the punishment is the same. Mr. Robertson is guilty of a behaviour which no one can but blame, in having suffered his name to stand upon this bond which he had never seen executed, and in saying, as I believe he did, that he had seen it executed at the time when it went out of his hand; but all this was under a perfect persuasion, in consequence of the representations of Dr. Dodd, that the bond was really genuine. When these facts are laid before you, you know very well your duty; it will be for you to draw the conclusion. If the evidence be such as does irresistibly prove that Dr. Dodd forged or published either of the instruments, knowing them to be forged, then you will pronounce him guilty; if you see any room upon the evidence to doubt of his being guilty, if you are not perfectly convinced that he is, to be sure you and every one present at this trial will be glad that there should be a reason for you to give a contrary verdict, and for saying that he is innocent.

Mr. DAVENPORT. - Pray, my Lord Chesterfield, has your lordship got a release from Mr. Fletcher?

The Earl of CHESTERFIELD. I have (produces it).

Mr. JOHN MANLY sworn.

Did you see that release executed by Mr. Fletcher? - I did.

[The release from Mr. Fletcher to the Earl of Chesterfield was read in Court; it appeared that his lordship was thereby released from all actions and all demands by Mr. Fletcher upon his lordship from the beginning of the world to this time.

(Mr. Manly produced the bond.)

Has that bond been out of; your sight since you first had the custody of it? - Yes; it has been in Mr. Fletcher's custody as well as mine; it came into my custody on Tuesday the 4th instant; it has remained in my custody ever since, except the night after we made the information; it was left that night, to the best of my remembrance, at Mr. Fletcher's; that was on Friday the 7th; it was locked up in Mr. Fletcher's room; it was locked up in his compting-house to the best of my remembrance with the bills, and he gave it me back again afterwards.

Is that the same bond that you gave to Mr. Fletcher and that you received back from him? - I believe so.


Did you deliver the bond you received of Mr. Manly back again to him? - I did; it was always in my custody till I delivered it back.

Cross Examination.

Did you intrust it into the hands of any persons? - It was always in the room; it was never out of my sight.

Mr. JOHN MANLY . There is one circumstance that I should mention; I entrusted my clerk to take a copy of the bond, and it was then out of my sight.


Was that bond delivered to you by your brother, Mr. John Manly , to copy? - It was; I delivered it to him again immediately after I had copied it.

Was it ever out of your custody? - Never.

The Right Hon. the Earl of CHESTERFIELD sworn.

Is the name Chesterfield in that bond your lordship's hand-writing? - It is not.

Was the bond ever produced to your lordship till it was produced by Mr. Manly? - I never saw it till that time.

When was that? - Tuesday the 7th of February.

Did your lordship ever see or deliver that bond at all? - Never.

Is the name Chesterfield to that receipt your lordship's hand-writing? - It is not.

Did you ever see that bond before it was produced by Mr. Manly? - Never.

Does your lordship know the prisoner William Dodd ? - I do.

Your lordship has known him a long time, I believe? - I have.

He was your lordship's tutor, I understand? - He was.

Has your lordship often seen him write? - I have often.

Has your lordship ever observed enough of his hand-writing to be able to say whether that William Dodd , wrote as a subscribing witness to the bond, is the hand-writing of the prisoner? - I have.

Does your lordship believe that to be his hand-writing? - I believe it is.

Can your lordship form any belief whose hand-writing the name Chesterfield is? - I cannot.

Mr. HOWARTH. I beg to ask Mr. Manly, whether he delivered the bond the first time into the hands of Mr. Fletcher, or left it at Mr. Fletcher's house? - I delivered it to himself, to the best of my remembrance; it was not left at the house for him.


Are you acquainted with Lord Chesterfield's hand-writing? - I am.

Is the name of Chesterfield to that bond his lordship's hand-writing? - No, it is not.

Look at the receipt; is the name Chesterfield to that his lordship's hand-writing? - Neither is this his hand-writing.


Have you seen Dr. Dodd write? - I don't recollect Dr. Dodd's hand-writing.

Mr. JAMES NEALE sworn.

Have you seen Dr. Dodd write? - I have.

Look at the name William Dodd in that bond, and tell the Court whether from the knowledge you have of his hand-writing you believe that to be his or not? - From; the similarity of what I have seen Dr. Dodd write, I am inclined to believe it is.

Look at the other name William Dodd subscribed to the receipt; is that in your opinion Dr. Dodd's hand-writing? - In my opinion it is; as treasurer of a public charity, of which the doctor was the founder, I have frequently seen him subscribe his name: the charity is for the relief of persons confined for small debts.

And from the knowledge you have of his hand-writing, you are inclined to think that is his hand-writing? - I am.


I am steward to my Lord Chesterfield; I have frequently seen his lordship write.

Look at that name Chesterfield to the bond and to the receipt, and tell the Court whether you think that is his lordship's hand-writing? - No; I never saw Lord Chesterfield write such a hand in my life.

[The bond and the receipt were read in Court, and compared with the statement of them in the record, with which they literally tallied.]

Council for the Crown. Mr. Manly, you will now be pleased to inform the Court what you know of this transaction? - On Tuesday the 4th of this instant February, the bond that has been produced, with a warrant of attorney and a letter which is in my possession, were left at my chambers when I was not at home, as I was told, by Mr. Peach, who is a Silk-merchant in Bread-street; he came with the Broker, Lewis Robertson , as I was informed, and left them there for me to look at; I found them on my desk when I came home: I was informed that the sum of money had been paid: this was all the information I then had; they were left for me to look at to see if all was right.

COURT. Were they left on behalf of any particular client? - Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Peach are both my clients; I perused the bond, I believe, first: I observed in the condition of the bond a very remarkable blot in the letter e in the word seven, before seven hundred pounds; it was a blot of a remarkable nature; it did not appear to me to be the effect of chance, but the act of a pen, dotted in hair-strokes in a particular manner, as if done by design.

Does that appear in that bond now? - It does.

(The bond is shewn to the Jury.)

Mr. MANLY. The letter (e) is totally obliterated: I thought it a remarkable circumstance, and yet I could see no end it could answer to give me any reason or cause to suspect it was a forgery; however I thought it so remarkable as to be necessary to let Mr. Fletcher know it; accordingly I sent to Mr. Fletcher, and he came to me on the Wednesday evening.

That was next day? - I shewed Mr. Fletcher the bond, and the blot; I asked him what he thought of it? he said it was something very remarkable; I said it was; he said, I think it is best to write over a clean bond, and I will get you to wait upon Lord Chesterfield with it.

Council for the Prosecutor. Tell the Court and the gentlemen of the jury, when it was you first saw Dr. Dodd? - Shall I mention what passed with Lord Chesterfield first?

COURT. I think it will save time to let Mr. Manly tell his story.

You went to Lord Chesterfield? - I did.

Counsel for the Prisoner. Mr. Manly knows very well what is evidence, and therefore I desire he will not enter into any other particulars.

COURT. He is going to give evidence of what he has referred to already, and therefore he may go on without interruption.

Mr. MANLY. On Thursday the 6th of February, I went to Lord Chesterfield's; not meeting with his lordship at home, I took the liberty of writing a note to his lordship, acquainting his lordship with my visit, and the business, and that I should call the next morning at ten; accordingly soon after ten on the Friday morning, I went to Lord Chesterfields,

and saw his lordship; his lordship was above stairs, when I came to the room door, his lordship met me, saying, you have called about the bond; I said I had; his lordship answered, he had burnt the bond, which surprized me a little; afterwards his lordship explained to me that he had given a bond for 500 l. which he burnt when he came of age; before that explanation it was a mystery; I told his lordship, I did not understand that; I immediately introduced the bond in question to his lordship; Mr. Innis, the gentleman who has been examined, was present with his lordship; my Lord Chesterfield immediately disowned the bond.

Counsel for the Prisoner. This is, my Lord, what passed in conversation with Mr. Manly and other persons in the absence of Dr. Dodd, your lordship knows it is not admissible evidence against the prisoner.

COURT. Lord Chesterfield has been already examined as an evidence. They may ask the question of Lord Chesterfield, whether, when the bond was offered by Mr. Manly, he disowned it: this is in the course of the narrative; I shall not sum this up to the jury; but when they bring Dr. Dodd present it will be evidence.

Mr. MANLY. After I left his lordship, I went into the city to Mr. Fletcher, and told him his lordship said it was not his bond, and consulted him what steps he would take about it; Mr. Fletcher, myself, and Mr. Innis went to Guildhall to see if the Lord Mayor was there; Lord Chesterfield said, he supposed Dr. Dodd was gone off, that is the reason I did not apply to him.

COURT. That is not evidence most certainly.

Mr. MANLY. We preferred an information respecting our suspicions and belief of this forgery, in order to get a warrant against the broker Robertson, and Dr. Dodd; upon the information being taken, my Lord Mayor granted a warrant or warrants against them both; before the warrant, I believe, was signed by his lordship, Robertson the broker came into Sir Charles Raymond 's shop; Mr. Fletcher came to me, when I was at the Lord Mayor's house, in Birchin-lane, which is almost next door to Mr. Fletcher's, to acquaint me that Mr. Fletcher desired I would go into the back-room to Mr. Robertson, to talk with him in the compting house.

COURT. What passed between you and Mr. Robertson does not go to affect the prisoner at the bar. - Robertson was taken into custody; when he was taken into custody, he, Mr. Innis, myself, and my Lord Mayor's two officers went to Dr. Dodd's house in Argyll-street; Mr. Robertson and I and one of the Lord Mayor's men in one coach.

COURT. Is Argyll-street in the city of London or the county of Middlesex? - In the county of Middlesex; we were admitted into the house, and Dr. Dodd soon after came down stairs to us; when we were in the parlour together, Mr. Innis, myself, Dr. Dodd, and the officers, and Robertson, I then opened the occasion of our attending him; I told him I was very sorry to attend him upon such an unhappy occasion, it was upon a charge of forgery against him, and Robertson was then in custody for forging Lord Chesterfield's bond; the Doctor seemed very much struck, and was silent some time; I told him the broker laid the whole charge to him; and asked the Doctor what could induce him to do such an act; the Doctor said, urgent necessity.

COURT. Previous to the time when the Doctor said that urgent necessity induced him to act thus, had any promises been made to him of any favour respecting a prosecution? - None at that time; he said urgent necessity; he was pressed to pay some tradesmens bills; that he meant no injury to Lord Chesterfield, or any one, as he meant to pay the money back in three months.

COURT. You are referring to a memorandum, when did you take it? - They are short minutes I made immediately afterwards; he said he meant to return the money in three months time, and had certain resources to enable him to do it.

COURT. At the time you had this conversation with the prisoner, did you shew him the bond that you apprehended to be a forged instrument? - I think I did not; the broker here interrupted him, and said, Doctor Dodd, I desire you will declare my innocence before all present, Doctor Dodd replied, I do, I do; I think those were his very words; he very readily did it, without the least hesitation; I

then said it was a very unhappy affair, and asked the Doctor, if he had the money to return.

Had the money been actually advanced by Fletcher upon that security? - The money had been paid upon the Tuesday, and I understood it had been paid, upon my brother or clerks saying it was well executed; when I asked him if he had the money to return as that would be the only means of saving him he answered he had; I then desired him immediately to give it to me; he desired to go up stairs to fetch it, but my Lord Mayor's officer refused to let him go; upon which I desired leave of the officer to entrust him with me up stairs, accordingly we went up stairs; Dr. Dodd immediately returned me six notes of 500 l. each of Sir Charles Raymond and Co. these notes made 3000 l. Dr. Dodd took these notes out of a pigeon-hole in the bureau, or some desk of that sort; I asked him where the remainder was? he then produced his banker's book, and to the best of my remembrance there appeared the sum of 900 l. on the debtor's side of the banker's book; I asked him what he could draw for, whether he had that money at the banker's? he said he could not draw for all that, for he had had occasion to make use of part of the money, but he could draw for five or six hundred pounds; accordingly he drew a draught addressed to the acting partners of the Banking Company in St. James's Street, in favour of Mr. Fletcher or bearer for 500 l. (that 500 l. I received) immediately after Dr. Dodd had given me that draught, we came down stairs, Mr. Robertson the broker then gave me a draught for 100 l. which he said he had received for half the commission.

Was that in the presence of Dr. Dodd? - Yes; that draught was given to Mr. Fletcher, and I understand it was paid; after I had received the 500 l. draught of the Doctor, I went to the Crown and Rolls in Chancery-lane and sent for Mr. Fletcher to come to me.

Where did you leave Dr. Dodd? - I left Dr. Dodd coming out of his own house with Mr. Robertson in custody with the officers; they were to go to some tavern or coffee-house in the neighbourhood till I returned; Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Corry my Lord Chesterfield's solicitor soon after called upon me there; we then went back to my Lord Chesterfield's, and there we learnt that Dr. Dodd was at the York Coffee-house in St. James's-street; we went there, and there we found Dr. Dodd and the officers and Robertson: we ordered a room up stairs, and when we were all up stairs together in presence of all the gentlemen, I asked Dr. Dodd if he could give any security for the remainder of the money; he immediately said he would give any security in his power, he was ready to make any restitution he could; I asked him if he would give a judgment upon his goods, he said he would, or any thing else; he was, in fact, desirous of doing it; he then executed a warrant of attorney to confess judgment as a security for the remaining 600 l. and I believe that was attested by Mr. Corry and myself; after he had given this judgment he said, I think I can draw for 200 l. more upon my banker; I said, if you can it will be much better; the Doctor instantly drew a draught for 200 l. which reduced it to 400 l. that draught of 200 l. was paid the next morning, as I am informed, and have no doubt, there then remained 400 l. and the judgment was the next day entered for the 400 l. and execution taken out.

COURT. I suppose there were goods enough to answer that? - There is a distress for rent and another execution, but I am told there is enough.

Did you afterwards, or when, go before the Lord Mayor? - The next day, Saturday; Lord Chesterfield called upon Mr. Fletcher at Sir Charles Raymond's house; I had a message to come there, and a message was sent to the Lord Mayor to know his lordship's pleasure when he would be attended upon that business; an answer came back that the prisoners were then before my Lord Mayor, which we did not know of; we then went before my Lord Mayor, and were sworn to give evidence.

Was Lord Chesterfield there? - Yes; my Lord Chesterfield, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Innis, and myself; the Lord Mayor bound over Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Peach to prosecute, and the rest, as I understood it, only to give evidence, the recognizance was taken different.

Was the bond produced before my Lord Mayor? - It was.

Was there many witnesses examined before my Lord Mayor? - Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Peach, Mr. Innis, myself, and I believe my Lord Chesterfield.

W as the bond read? - I don't know; it was laid on the table: the information that was given was read to the prisoner. The Lord Mayor laid the bond before them and asked them many questions.

Cross Examination.

Do you know whether the examination before my Lord Mayor was reduced into writing? - I did not see that it was; Dr. Dodd when called upon his defence, I did not take it down, but the substance of it was, that he was pressed to pay some tradesmen's bills; he meant no injury to any one, and meant to restore the money.

When the bond was produced and Dr. Dodd charged with forging of it, he admitted the fact, did he? - He did.

What time of the day was it when you first went to Dr. Dodd's house? - I believe between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, I think near four.

When the Doctor was first charged with the crime, before any offer or act towards restitution was done upon the part of Dr. Dodd, it was I think that you said, that was the way to save him? - Returning the money would be the means I told him I thought of saving him.

I need not ask your import of these words, saving him from the consequences of any prosecution? - Yes; I so made use of these words.

Council for the Crown. You said this subsequent to Dr. Dodd's confession? - Yes.

Was any thing said before my Lord Mayor by Dr. Dodd about Robertson? - Dr. Dodd very readily admitted before my Lord Mayor that Robertson was innocent.


Did you go with Mr. Manly to Dr. Dodd's house in Argyll-street or Argyll-buildings? - I did.

When you got to Dr. Dodd's, and were in company with them, do you recollect what passed? what the Doctor said, and what Mr. Manly said?

(The witness refers to some minutes.)

Mr. Justice WILLES - When did you make those minutes? - That evening after the conversation. I arrived in the second coach, when I knocked at the door, Mr. Manly told me, in the passage, that Dr. Dodd had confessed every thing.

Counsel for the Crown. You most not relate what was said by any one, except it was spoken in the presence of Dr. Dodd - I was afterwards in the room with Mr. Manly and Dr. Dodd; Mr. Manly asked Dr. Dodd how he came to do such a thing.

What thing? - The forgery of the bond.

COURT. Had Mr. Manly the bond with him? - Yes.

Did Mr. Manly shew him the bond? - Yes.

COURT. Did he speak of forgery to him? - Yes, he did; Dr. Dodd said it was urgent necessity, and that he was willing to make recompence as far as it was in his power. Mr. Manly asked him where the money was; Dr. Dodd said, he had 3000 l. up stairs in his bureau in notes of Sir Charles Raymond 's and Co. Those notes were made payable 14 days after sight to Lord Chesterfield or order, and were signed by Henry Fletcher , one of the partners of the house; Mr. Manly then asked him what more money he had, he said he thought he could draw for 500 l. more upon his banker, which he did immediately, and gave it to Mr. Manly; we afterwards went before my Lord Mayor.

When you was before the Lord Mayor the last time was Dr. Dodd there? - Yes.

What did Dr. Dodd say then? - He said to this purport;

'I cannot tell what to say in

'such a situation; I had no intention to

'defraud Lord Chesterfield.'

Are those the words the Doctor said? - As near as I can recollect they are; his words were

'I cannot tell what to say in such a situation: I

'had no intention to defraud Lord Chester-field;

'I hope his lordship will consider my

'case; I was pressed extremely for three or

'four hundred pounds to pay some tradesmen's

'bills; I meant it as a temporay resource;

'I should have repaid the money in

'half a year; I have made satisfaction, and I

'hope that will be considered; my Lord

'Chesterfield must have some tenderness towards

'me; -

Was Lord Chesterfield then present? - His lordship was.


'he knows I love him; he knows I regard

'his honor as dearly as my own; I hope he

' will, according to the mercy that is in his

'heart, shew clemency to me; there is nobody

'wishes to prosecute; pray, my Lord

'Mayor, consider that, and dismiss me; Mr.

'Robertson is certainly innocent.'

COURT. Are you sure that the paper you have in your hand is not the Morning Post, for I recollect they are the very words inserted in the Morning Post? - No.

I ask you, for form's sake, when Dr. Dodd said what you have given an account of, whether he was not then charged before the Lord Mayor with forging the bond? - He was.

Cross Examination.

Mr. Innis, if I understood you rightly, you did not go into Dr. Dodd's house, nor see Dr. Dodd till after there had been an interview between Dr. Dodd and Mr. Manly? - I was not there at first; I came in, I suppose, three or four minutes after Mr. Manly; we set out together in two hackney-coaches.

[The six draughts, of 500 l. each, were produced in court by Mr. Fletcher.]


Are those the bills Mr. Manly returned to you? - Yes; They are all signed by me.

Are these the bills that were given for the money raised by this bond? - They are, in part, what I gave to Mr. Peach on that account.

COURT. As the annuity of 700 l. a year was to take place immediately, how came you to make those bills payable at 14 days sight? - It was the agreement with the Broker.

By that means you got the interest of 3000 l. for 17 days; hereafter a question might arise against you upon that for usury. Those six notes that have been produced were the notes that you paid for the original purchase of the annuities? - Yes.

Mr. PEACH sworn.

Mr. MANSFIELD. You left that bond, I believe, at Mr. Manly's chambers? - Yes.

From whom did you receive it? - I received it from Lewis Robertson .

COURT. Mr. Fletcher, is it not usual in these kind of transaction to have an attorney of your own to see the instruments executed? - Most certainly.

You did this without an attorney? - I mentioned Mr. Manly's going to see the deed executed: Mr. Robertson said he could not; I agreed to that, upon condition that he brought a letter from my Lord Chesterfield that his lordship had executed the bond, and desired the money to be paid to Mr. Robertson: he did bring me such a letter; that letter was left at Mr. Manly's chambers with the others; Mr. Peach carried them (the letter was produced in Court, and identified).

To the Right Hon. the Earl of CHESTERFIELD. Is the name Chesterfield signed to that letter your lordship's writing? - It is not.

Do you believe that letter to be the handwriting of the prisoner? - I don't know whose it is.


When did you first see that bond? - I left this bond with Dr. Dodd upon Monday the 3d of this month in the evening to be executed; I carried it to Mr. Franco's in Fenchurch-street; Dr. Dodd dined there on the Monday; at the same time I carried a letter which Mr. Fletcher directed me to write; I wrote it in my own hand; it contained an order for me to receive the money.

Did that bond appear to be executed by my Lord Chesterfield at the time you carried it to Mr. Franco's? - No; it was a bond filled up, but not executed.

Look at the letter; is that the letter? - It is.

Did you receive again the same bond and letter from Dr. Dodd? - Yes, at his own house in Argyll-buildings, on Tuesday the 4th.

Was the name of Dodd written to it before you came, or in your presence? - He wrote William Dodd upon the bond in my presence.

I perceive that your name is to that bond? - Yes.

At whose desire did you put your name to it? - I asked Dr. Dodd if the bond had been regularly executed, when he presented it to me, I desired him to put his name as a witness to it.

When the bond was produced to you on Tuesday, was the name of Chesterfield subscribed to it? - It was, and also to the receipt for the money.

For what purpose did you receive the bond of Dr. Dodd? - To receive the sum of 4200 l.

COURT. You did not subscribe your name

to any other bond? - Only to that bond and that receipt.

And it was given to you to subscribe by the Doctor? - The Doctor did not ask me to subscribe it; he put his own name to it; then I said, Doctor, as you have seen this regularly executed I may put my name to it? he said, yes.

Can you recollect whether there was that blot upon the word seven at the time you subscribed your name? - I don't remember the blot.

Did you receive the money in consequence of it? - I did, and carried it to Dr. Dodd.

COURT. Have you had other transactions of this nature, in negociating the sale or loan of annuities besides this? - Yes; I have done business of this kind.

Is it your practice, in transacting that business, to subscribe your name as a witness to the execution of an instrument which you have not seen executed? - No; it is not always the case, but I have done it.

Then you deceive the persons who place confidence in you; did you ever do it in any other instance? - Yes; I have.

COURT. You have experienced that it is a very dangerous thing. Look at those six notes; are they part of the 4200 l. you received of Mr. Fletcher? - These are the notes; they are at 14 days sight.

Are they accepted? - No.

COURT. Two of them I see are indorsed, Chesterfield; my Lord Chesterfield will inspect them, and say whether they are indorsed by his lordship.

Lord CHESTERFIELD. They are not.

COURT. Dr. Dodd, this is the time for you to make your defence to what the witnesses have said in support of the charge against you; it is not the province of the counsel to open the case of a criminal in your situation, but you may contradict any thing that has been given in evidence against you; and afterwards by counsel may examine any witness in support of the case you have to state to the Court; I shall with great patience hear your witnesses; and also hear any thing you have to urge in your defence.


My lords and gentlemen of the jury. Upon the evidence which has been this day produced against me, I find it very difficult for me to address your lordships; there is no man in the world, who has a deeper sense of the heinous nature of the crime for which I stand indicted than myself; I view it, my lords, in all its extent of malignancy towards a commercial state like ours; but, my lords, I humbly apprehend, though no lawyer, that the moral turpitude and malignity of the crime always, both in the eye of law, of reason, and of religion, consists in the intention. I am informed, my lords, that the act of parliament on this head runs perpetually in this stile, with an intention to defraud. Such an intention, my lords, and gentlemen of the jury, I believe has not been attempted to be proved upon me, and the consequences that have happened, which have appeared before you, sufficiently prove that a perfect and ample restitution has been made. I leave it, my lords, to you, and the gentlemen of the jury, to consider, that if an unhappy man ever deviates from the law of right, yet, if in the single first moment of recollection, he does all he can to make a full and perfect amends, what, my lords, and gentlemen of the jury, can God and man desire further? My lords, there are a variety of little circumstances, too tedious to trouble you with, with respect to this matter. Were I to give a loose to my feelings. I have many things to say, which I am sure, you would feel with respect to me: but, my lords, as it appears on all hands, as it appears, gentlemen of the jury, in every view, that no injury intentional nor real has been done to any man upon the face of the earth, I hope that therefore you will consider the case in its true state of clemency: I must observe to your lordships, that though I have met with all candour in this Court, yet I have been pursued with oppressive cruelty: I have been prosecuted after the most express engagements, after the most solemn assurances, after the most delusive, soothing arguments of Mr. Manly; I have been prosecuted with a cruelty scarcely to be paralleled: a person avowedly criminal, in the same indictment with myself, has been brought forth as a capital witness against me; a fact I believe totally unexampled. My lords, oppressed as I am with infamy, loaded as I am with distress, sunk under this cruel prosecution, your lordships and gentlemen of the jury, cannot think life

a matter of any value to me; no, my lords, I solemnly protest that death of all blessings would be the most pleasant to me after this pain. I have yet, my lords, ties which call upon me; ties which render me desirous even to continue this miserable existence: I have a wife, my lords, who for 27 years has lived an unparalleled example of conjugal attachment and fidelity, and whose behaviour during this crying scene would draw tears of approbation, I am sure, even from the most inhuman. My lords, I have creditors, honest men, who will lose much by my death; I hope for the sake of justice towards them some mercy will be shewn to me. If upon the whole, these considerations at all avail with you, my lords, and you gentlemen of the jury, if upon the most partial survey of matters not the slightest intention of injury can appear to any one, and I solemnly declare, it was in my power to replace it in three months; of this I assured Mr. Robertson frequently, and had his solemn assurances, that no man should be privy to it but Mr. Fletcher and himself; and if no injury was done to any man upon the earth, I then hope, I trust, I fully confide myself in the tenderness, humanity, and protection of my country.

Mr. HOWARTH. - My lord, upon the inspection of the bond, they don't appear to me to be intirely the same words that they are supposed to be in the record; there is a blot in the word seven, which covers part of the s and the whole e.

COURT. That is matter for the consideration of the jury; they must be satisfied they are clearly the same, or else the charge in the indictment is not supported.

Mr. MANSFIELD. - The contents of the bond follow as near as may be the bond, by having a blot in the very same word, whatever it is, as nearly imitating the blot on the bond as possible; the counts upon the receipt are separate counts, and they are totally distinct from the bond.

The Jury, after having withdrawn about ten minutes, pronounced the prisoner GUILTY: they at the same time presented a petition to the Court, humbly recommending the prisoner to his Majesty's mercy .

[Death. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-2

162, 163. WILLIAM KELLY and WILLIAM ANDREW were indicted, the first for stealing seven case knives, value 18 d. seven forks, value 1 s. a pint china bason, value 4 d. a quart stone mug, value 2 d. two pint stone mugs, value 2 d. two stone tea pots, value 2 d. and a linen napkin, value 3 d. the property of Thomas Griffith ; a cut glass quart decanter, value 1 s. two glass beakers, value 6 d. three wine glasses, value 3 d. a jelly glass, value 2 d. and a wash-hand glass, value 1 d. the property of Thomas Hitchcock , Samuel Fulham , and Roger Gill ; the other for receiving parcel of the above goods, well-knowing them to have been stolen , against the statute, February 11th .

The charge was not sufficiently made out by evidence against the prisoner.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice GOULD.

Reference Number: t17770219-3

164, 165, 166. MARTHA VERNON , THOMAS PONGUE , and SAMUEL PONGUE were indicted, the first for stealing, 14 dozen of watch glasses, value 5 s. the property of George Humphrys ; the other two for receiving the above goods, well-knowing them to have been stolen , against the statute, February 1st .

There was no evidence to affect the principal, therefore of course they were all three found


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron PERRYN.

Reference Number: t17770219-4

167. GEORGE WHITE was indicted for stealing seven yards of lace, value 4 s. a pair of treble worked ruffles, value 4 s. another worked ruffle, value 5 s. two lawn ruffles, value 2 s. the property of Mary Kinnerly , widow , and Martha Kinnerly , spinster ; and a laced ruffle, value 10 d. the property of the said Martha , January 22d .


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-5

168. AMY PINHORN otherwise DAWSON was indicted for stealing six crown pieces , the property of Charles Tyler . January 18th .

'It appeared on the evidence that the prosecutor

'and prisoner had been drinking together,

'that afterwards they went to the

'prosecutor's house, that after she was gone

'he missed the crowns from the chimney piece,

'but there was no evidence that the prisoner,

'had taken them.'


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-6

169. JOHN MITCHELL was indicted for stealing a gold watch, value 50 l. a steel watch chain, value 7 s. 8 d. and four cornelian seals set in gold, value 10 l. the property of Thomas Philip Dayroles , Esq ;


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-7

170, 171. MATHEW HARRADINE and WILLIAM HALL were indicted for stealing 11 live conies, value 5 s. and a pair of live pigeon, value 6 d. the property of James Cave February 10th .


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-8

172. WILLIAM HAYDEN was indicted for stealing a pair of mens leather breeches, value 5 s. the property of John Knowland , January 20th .

'There was no evidence to affect the prisoner,

'but a confession which appeared to

'have been improperly obtained from him.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice WILLES.

Reference Number: t17770219-9

173. ELIZABETH WITT was indicted for stealing one silk damask bocatied woman's gown and coat, value 5 l. a pair of womens laced ruffles, value 4 l. a laced tippet, value 20 s. a pair of laced lappets, value 20 s. eight linen shirts, value 6 l. a woollen cloth waistcoat, value 10 s. a silk waistcoat, value 20 s. twenty-five yards of linen cloth for towels, value 25 s. a feather bed, value 20 s. a bolster, value 6 s. a blanket, value 8 s. a cotton counterpane, value 10 s. twelve bed curtains, value 10 s. four table-cloths, value 20 s. three pillow cases, value 3 s. twenty-nine pewter plates; value 30 s. eleven pewter dishes, value 30 s. and two copper stew-pans, value 10 s. the property of John Leland , Esq ; December 30th .


I am lady's maid and housekeeper at Mr. Leland's in December last I missed all the things mentioned in the indictment (repeating them) the prisoner was left in trust of the house while the family were out of town; we went out of town on the third of August, and returned the last day of the old year; she absconded before we came home, and left a charwoman in the house; I missed all the things mentioned in the indictment; they were locked up in drawers; they had been opened and the things taken out, and were locked again; we found some of the things immediately at two pawnbrokers.

When was the prisoner taken? - About a month after: the lock of the drawer in which the sacque was, was forced off, and was in the drawer; my mistress locked the drawers when we went out, and put a small packthread through the handles of the drawers and sealed it: the house was repairing; there was a number of workmen employed in it.


I am a pawnbroker: the prisoner pawned some things with me in December, which Mr. Leland has now got; she pawned a sacque and petticoat in October, and a counterpane, and a piece of napkin for 4 l. 9 s. (the gown was produced).

MARY GOODYER . This is my mistress's gown; it was in a drawer; the lock of which was burst off.

To MIDDLETON. What did she pawn in December? - I cannot tell; they were all delivered.


I am a pawnbroker, the prisoner pawned two table-cloths with me above a twelvemonth ago; she came the 11th of October, and took one of them out (the other produced).

GOODYER. We lost such a table-cloth, but I cannot swear to it.


I am servant to Mr. Leland: my master and I were in town in December; I left my master's shirts and cloaths in the drawer; I missed them when we came back; we found part of them at Mr. Middleton's and Mr. Glay's: they were delivered to my master by the order of Sir John Fielding .

To MIDDLETON. Were any shirts or cloaths pawned with you? - Yes; there were three shirts, I believe, pawned in December, by a witness that is here.


I have known the prisoner two years or better; I was employed by her as a charwoman ; she sent me to pawn some laced ruffles, but I cannot remember when.

Any time since August? - Yes.

What else did she send? - Several odd things.

Prisoner. I leave my defence to my counsel.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice WILLES.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-10

174. SARAH FISH was indicted for stealing a pair of linen sheets, value 8 s. the property of Joseph Milward , being in a certain lodging room, let by contract by the said Joseph to the said Sarah , against the statute, &c. December 30th .


I live at the corner of King-street, Seven Dials : I let the prisoner a lodging ready-furnished; she then lived with a man that she passed as the wife of, I thought they had been married; since that she has owned they were not; after she had been some time in possession of this lodging I missed a pair of linen sheets; upon search I missed the sheets; I charged a constable with the prisoner; before the justice she acknowledged she had taken the sheets, and had pawned them with Mr. Lane, a pawnbroker

in Drury-lane; Mr. Lane was sent for and he produced the sheets, together with other things that were let to her.

[Lane produced the sheets in Court, which were deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I intended to restore them again to the prosecutor.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron PERRYN.

Reference Number: t17770219-11

175. ANN GALLON was indicted for stealing a child's coral mounted in silver, value 10 s. the property of Thomas Hammond , November 20th .


On the 20th of December, the prisoner was putting my child to bed; I had occasion to go out, when I returned she was gone with the coral; I met her about three weeks ago, I asked her what she had done with the coral; she took me to Mr. Davidson, a pawnbroker, and produced a duplicate, and they delivered the coral.


I took this coral in pawn of the prisoner (producing it) on the 21st of November; the prosecutor and his wife came with the prisoner and produced a duplicate, and took out the coral; they seemed to be good friends; the prisoner was not charged with stealing it at the time; when the coral was brought down the prosecutrix said it was her's.


I am sorry for it; I will never do the like again; I have lost the use of my limbs in prison; it is not long since I lay in.

GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d. W .

Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-12

176. ELIZABETH HARRINGTON was indicted for stealing five yards and an half of silk, value 10 s. the property of Mary Smith , widow , January 18th.


I am a piece-broker ; the prisoner was my servant : on the 18th of January, about six o'clock in the evening, I lost some pieces of silk out of my shop; I saw them in the afternoon about 4 or 5 o'clock; they were brought to me on the Monday morning.

[Two pieces of silk were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]


I am a piece-broker; I live in the same street with the prosecutrix: on the 18th of January, about 6 o'clock in the evening, the prisoner brought this piece of silk into my shop and offered it in sale to my wife; I was by at the time, I asked her how she came by it; she said almost every Saturday she was at work with a mantua-maker that employed her to sell pieces; she had brought one piece ten days before, which my wife bought of her; my wife thought this could not be a mantua-maker's piece, because there were there yards and an half of it; my wife saw two marks upon it; upon which the prisoner said, she was ordered to cut the marks off, but had forgot it; she cut them off; I desired to look at the marks; I took them, and said, I believed the silk was the same pattern of some I had seen in my next door neighbour's shop, and I would go and enquire; upon that, she said she could not stay; I went to the prosecutrix with it, and she owned it.


I was hired to sell it.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-13

177. JANE the wife of Thomas HONOR was indicted for stealing a cloath-coat, value 8 s. and a bed-quilt, value 4 s. the property of Benjamin Roberts , February 15th .


I live in White-hart-yard, Drury-lane : the coat I have on and a bed-quilt were stolen out

of my bed-chamber, we missed them at about ten at night; I went immediately to the pawnbroker's to enquire after them; I found them at Mr. Fleming's in Drury-lane; he said, if I had been half an hour sooner, I should have found the person there who brought them; the prisoner used to be backwards and forwards at my lodgings; I went and found her at her lodgings; I took her with me to Mr. Fleming's, she was in liquor; she at first owned she pawned them; but when we came to the pawnbroker she denied it.


I am a pawnbroker: I took in the coat which the prosecutor has on, and a bed-quilt of the prisoner on last Saturday between nine and ten at night; I delivered the coat to Robert to-day.

[They were produced in Court and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I know nothing at all of the things; I did not pawn them.

To the Pawnbroker. Are you sure the prisoner is the woman? - She is the woman; I had seen her before; she had not been gone half an hour before the prosecutor came.



I am a peruke-maker: I have known the prisoner eleven years, she always behaved very well; I never knew her guilty of a bad thing.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-14

178. JOSEPH WILSON was indicted for that he in the king's highway in and upon Sir William Fleming did make an assault, putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and stealing from his person a guinea, the property of the said Sir William , January 21st .


I was going to Belfont in a hackney post-chaise upon the 21st of January; when I was about two miles on this side Belfont , I perceived a man riding on the off-side of the chaise, it was then about four o'clock in the afternoon, it was quite light; I thought first that he was drunk; I looked out of the chaise fearing he would get some mischief; upon which the prisoner presented a pistol and demanded my money; I gave him a guinea; he demanded more, I said I had none; I had some letters and a news-paper in my hand perusing at that time, he demanded the letters also; I said they could be of no consequence to him; he said he would have them; I observed he was pulling a handkerchief he had under his hat down over his face; I laid hold of his pistol and took him by the collar, but by some means he got loose from me; he reeled upon his horse; then the postilion got off his horse, ran up to him and seized him, and called out to me, If you are an officer and a man of courage, come out and assist me to take him; I got out of the chaise, and found him struggling with the postilion; I wrenched this pistol out of his hand (producing it); it is a little rusty, it-fell in the dirt; Thomas Stanton , a harness-maker of Hounslow, came up to us; the prisoner returned the guinea as soon as he was taken; he was tied at first, but complaining of the tightness of the ligaments with which he was bound, we released him; he was very tractable, and made no resistance.


I drove the chaise; the prisoner bid me stop; he then went to Sir William Fleming , Sir William gave him something; Sir William gave him a check, and then ordered me to drive on; I got off the horse and came up to the prisoner and took him by the collar; then I called out, D - n you, come out and fight like a gentleman; Sir William came out, and took the prisoner, we tied him directly; the prisoner gave the money back.


I came up immediately; they had got hold of the prisoner before I came up; Sir William was then out of the chaise, the prisoner was rather taken before I got up; Sir William had wrenched the pistol out of his hand.


I lived coachman with lady Parry several years; I left her two years ago, and kept a public-house; I was cheated of some money, and was arrested and put in prison; I have

been out of employment some months: I married the daughter of Mr. Shemelt, a copper-merchant in Thames-street.



I am a lapidary's wife; I have known the prisoner from a child, he has behaved very well while I knew him; Mr. Cox the brewer put him in gaol for debt: I hope he will be a good sort of a young fellow if he gets over this.


I knew the prisoner when he was a coachman , and when he kept a public-house; he was coachman to lady Parry four or five years, he miscarried in the public-house about two years ago; I don't know how he has got his livelihood since that: he was eleven months in gaol at the suit of Mr. Cox the brewer.

GUILTY . Death .

Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

He was a second time indicted, together with WILLIAM WILSON , for that they in the king's highway in and upon Thomas Deacon did make an assault, putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and stealing from his person a metal watch, value 20 s. a cornelian seal set in gold, value 10 s. an amethyst seal set in gold, value 10 s. a steel watch-chain, value 1 s. and 14 s. in monies numbered, the property of the said Thomas , December 3d .


On the 3d of December last, as I was going from London to Watford in the Watford diligence, I was stopt on Stanmore Common ; as the chaise was going on, I heard a voice say, Have you any body within? the driver answered in the negative; I apprehended the person that enquired wanted somebody in the diligence; I put down the fore-glass, upon which two men came up to the chaise, one on the one side and the other on the other; the man on my right hand said, Be quick; understanding what the intention of the expression was, I gave him half a guinea and a sixpence; he said, that is not all; then I gave him two or three shillings; the man on the opposite side was employed in searching the front-pocket of the chaise; as there had been some other robbers on the road, I had concealed my watch under some parcels in the front pocket; after removing the parcels, that man found the watch and took it; he said, Are these your tricks? and went off with it; it was near five in the evening, and so dark, I could not distinguish faces; I cannot say whether either of the prisoners are the persons that robbed me.


I am a journeyman to a Mr. Gray a pawnbroker in Denmark-street; this watch was pledged at Mr. Gray's by Margaret Lenox upon the 23d of December last; I lent half a guinea upon it; Lenox had pledged things before; her husband is a carpenter and undertaker, and is in a very good way; Lenox was taken up afterwards in pledging something at another pawnbroker's, a duplicate of this watch being then found upon her, led to a discovery; I produced the watch next day at Sir John Fielding 's, and it was owned by the prosecutor.


I have known Joseph Wilson about two years; my first acquaintance commenced by my husband being in Newgate for debt at the same time that he was there; I was for four months together with my husband, by that means I became acquainted with the prisoner; after they got out of Newgate, Wilson visited my husband, by which means the acquaintance was continued: I received the watch from the prisoner about Christmas, he desired me to pawn it; I got half a guinea upon it at George Gray 's, and gave it to Wilson; I had frequently pawned things at this pawnbroker's for my husband in his distress: Wilson told me it was his own watch.

Why did you pawn it for him, why did he not pawn it himself? - He was then confined, I went to see him in his confinement; he there gave it me, and I brought him the money.


I was at the Brown Bear in Bow-street, near Sir John Fielding 's; William Wilson came there under suspicious circumstances; I pulled him off his horse, and found a pair of loaded pistols upon him.


If I was guilty of this fact, I would at this time own it; two gentlemen that were robbed near the time Mr. Deacon was, were ordered to look at me; and they said that we were not the men.

' William Wilson was not put upon his defence.'



Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron PERRYN.

Reference Number: t17770219-15

179. JOHN JAMES SMITH was indicted for stealing three pair of mens leather shoes, value 6 s. and two pair of womens stuff shoes, value 4 s. the property of Digory Masters , February 4th .


I am a shoe-maker ; I went to drink tea in a room behind my shop; when I came into the shop again, I missed the shoes; I don't know who took them away; they were afterwards produced to me, and I knew them to be my property.


I am servant to a pawnbroker: in the evening of the 4th of February the prisoner brought a pair of shoes to me to pawn; I stopped the shoes, and secured him.

[They were produced in Court and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I bought the shoes of a man at the White Horse in Drury-lane for three shillings and sixpence; he had them in a bag.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-16

180. ANN the wife of Theodore WEIKS was indicted for taking away, with intent to steal, embezzle, and purloin, one bed-quilt, value 5 s. a copper sauce-pan, value 18 d. the property of William Still , being in a lodging-room let by contract by the said William to the said Theodore and Ann , against the statute, January 6th.

[The Prosecutor was called but not appearing, the Court ordered his recognizance to be estreated.]


Reference Number: t17770219-17

181. JOHN KELLY was indicted for stealing a watch, value 40 s. the property of Jacob Knight , February 10th .

There was no evidence to bring the charge home to the prisoner.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-18

182. JAMES RICHMOND was indicted for stealing a quart silver pot, value 40 s. the property of Samuel King , January 20th.


I keep a public-house in Bedfordbury ; I missed a quart tankard on the 20th of January; I had been using it just before; I saw it again at Sir John's.


Two soldiers brought the tankard and the prisoner up to Sir John Fielding 's on suspicion of his having stole it.

[The tankard was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I was drinking in a public-house; the prisoner came in and shewed me the tankard, and said, if I would go with him to make away with it, he would make a handsome treat; upon this I took him to Sir John Fielding 's, suspecting he had stole it.


I found the tankard in Little May's Buildings standing in the street; there is no name upon it, only two or three letters.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-19

183, 184. HESTER RILEY and ANN SUTTON were indicted for stealing a silver watch, value 20 s. the property of Samuel Storer , privily from his person , January 26th .

The prosecutor was called, but not appearing the Court ordered his recognizance to be estreated.


Reference Number: t17770219-20

185. SARAH MATTHEWS was indicted for stealing 35 yards of silk riband, value 10 s. the property of Jane Tucker , widow , February 1st .

There was no evidence to affect the prisoner, but the testimony of an accomplice unconnected with any corroborating circumstances.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice GOULD.

Reference Number: t17770219-21

186, 187. THOMAS TURNER and MARY YATES were indicted, the first for stealing a deal box, value 4 s. a linen table-cloth, value 1 s. a printed book, value 6 d. a child's cotton jam, value 2 s. two child's flannel petticoats, value 1 s. the property of John Monday , and the other for receiving the above goods, well-knowing

them to have been stolen , January 28th .


I am coachman to Mr. Brown, in Golden Square : on the 27th or 28th of January I lost two boxes out of my apartment, in one of which was a table-cloth, and in the room a printed book, a child's cotton jam and two flannel petticoats; I believe they are worth about 10 s. on the Saturday following on an information I went to the office in Litchfield-street and saw Turner in custody, and one of the boxes and the table-cloth were there.


I attend at the rotation office: the prisoner being brought there on another offence, I went with James Hide and searched his lodging; I found a box, a table-cloth and printed book, and a stocking in his lodging; the box had a direction upon it; the things were not in that box, but in one of his own; Mary Yates was in the lodging; we searched her and found two duplicates upon her; by means of the direction on the box I went and found the prosecutor.


I am journeyman to Mr. Lane, a pawnbroker in Holborn: on the 29th of January the prisoner Yates pawned a child's jam and two flannel petticoats with me.

[The things were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]

' James Hide confirmed the testimony of McDonald.'


I found the things in Berkley-square.

'The prisoner Yates called Lane the pawnbroker, who gave her a good character.'



Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron PERRYN.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-22

188. MARY DIKE was indicted for having in her custody a certain paper writing, containing to the tenor following, that is to say,


'Lord Ongley bought of Robert Abington ,

'November 4, candles, 6 doz. 2 l. 6 s.' and under which said paper writing was contained a certain false, forged, and counterfeited acquittance and receipt for money , which is to the tenor following, that is to say,

'Received the contents in faull for the youse

'of Robert Abington . By me John Price.' For that she the said Mary did feloniously utter and publish the same as true, knowing it to be false, forged, and counterfeited with intention to defraud the Right Honorable Robert Henley Ongley , Baron of Old Warden, in the kingdom of Ireland, against the statute, &c. November 7th .


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice WILLES.

Reference Number: t17770219-23

189. ELIZABETH WEST was indicted for stealing a watch, the inside case made of metal, and the outside case covered with fish-skin, value 40 s. a gold watch chain, value 5 l. an aqua-marine stone set in gold, value 40 s. two cornelian stone seals set in gold, value 40 s. a ring seal set in gold, value 20 s. and another stone seal set in gold, value 20 s. the property of Gilbert Affleck , Esq ; February 14th .


As I was coming out of Drury-lane Playhouse last Friday evening, about 11 o'clock, from the Oratorio, at the great door leading into Bridges-street, not finding the chair at the door I retreated back into the passage, the prisoner stared me full in the face; she came right up to me in front, and quite jostled me.

Had you ever seen her before that time? - No, I had not; I felt my watch go out of my pocket and caught her by the right hand directly; I told her that she had my watch; before I had uttered the words I saw her left hand held out at full length, and she was endeavouring to deliver the watch to a man with a black patch over one of his eyes, and the man was endeavouring to receive it, but I never saw the watch in his hand; I saw the chain hang out of her hand as she was endeavouring to deliver it; upon this I quitted her and seized the man by the collar; a constable was ready that instant, who was very

attentive indeed, we secured them both and carried them into an alehouse, close by the playhouse door, where they were searched, but nothing found upon them; I went the next morning before the justice.

How long do you suppose you had the woman by the arm before you quitted her and seized the man? - Not a minute; I immediately quitted her, and seized him; she was then endeavouring to make her escape; I committed the man to the care of my brother who was close to me; and I myself retook the prisoner.

How long was it from the time of your taking the man by the collar to your retaking the prisoner? - I don't know; I believe it was about 4 minutes.

Will you take upon you to swear the woman you retook was the same woman? - Yes; the whole was within the space of three yards; I could swear to her dress; she had a little black bonnet and black gown on; I swear she is the same woman; the moment the constable came up, he said, O Sir! don't you know her? it is the famous Miss West: there was not another woman there that I saw at all; I have not got my watch again; it was a watchmaker's watch; it was good for nothing; there was a gold chain and five seals to it.

The Rev. JOHN AFFLECK sworn.

I was at the Oratorio with my brother; my brother seized a man by the collar and delivered him to me; I saw the prisoner endeavouring to get away; my brother seized her; I did not see her till he seized her and was bringing her back; she had not got above three yards; she was taken into a public house and searched.

Did you see any other woman there? - No.

Did you see no woman at all till your brother brought back the prisoner. - No; I did not.


My lord, I was going from my Lord Mansfield's chambers to my own house in Berkeley Square, going up Russel-street I heard a gentleman say, I have lost my watch, I have lost my watch, and the constable came up to me, I being nearest and said, O, I know her, and took me into custody; I never saw the watch; I know nothing of it; the constable Slade said, I know her, and on that I was taken and searched: I only came down last night; I did not think my trial would come on to-day; so I am not provided with witnesses.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice GOULD.

Reference Number: t17770219-24

190. JOHN EADE was indicted for stealing 50 lb. weight of Cheshire cheese, value 10 s. the property of William Dunn , January 17th .

The prosecutor was called, but not appearing the Court ordered his recognizance to be estreated.


Reference Number: t17770219-25

191. JOHN WILSON was indicted for stealing four deal boards, value 6 s. and an iron padlock, value 3 d. the property of William Quince , February 4th .

The prosecutor was called, but not appearing the Court ordered his recognizance to be estreated.


Reference Number: t17770219-26

192, 193, 194. RICHARD ROBERTS , JAMES DENNIS and ABRAM WOOLER were indicted, the two first for stealing a handsaw, value 1 s. a tennon-saw, value 1 s. seven moulding planes, value 3 s. a leaden glue-pot, value 1 s. an oil-stone, value 1 s. an iron square, value 9 d. the property of Thomas Boodle ; a long plane, value 2 s. 6 d. a hand-saw, value 18 d. and a stock, value 18 d. the property of Samuel Hughes , and the other part of the above goods, well-knowing them to have been stolen , against the statute, January 20th .

The prosecutor was called, but not appearing the Court ordered his recognizance to be estreated.


Reference Number: t17770219-27

195. PETER TOLOSA was indicted for the wilful murder of Mary Catherine Sophia Duarzey , by giving her a mortal wound of the breadth of one inch, and of the depth of four inches, with a certain knife in her neck, near her collar bone, of which she instantly died .

He was also charged with the said murder on the coroner's inquisition, January 18th.

(The prisoner not understanding English an interpreter was sworn.)


I am a peace-officer: upon the 18th of January last I had a warrant against the deceased at the suit of the prisoner, on suspicion of her having robbed him; Mr. Gosler and I took her about six o'clock in the evening, at her lodgings in Berwick-street, Soho; we took her in a coach to justice Blackborrow, in Clerkenwell Close ; the prisoner followed, the prisoner swore before the justice that the deceased had robbed him of gold coin, I searched her pockets and found only a few shillings; the prisoner was within the bar at the justice's to see if the woman had any of his property; but he did not claim any thing that was found on her; but seemed to be in a fury, and the justice discharged the woman; they had each an interpreter before the justice, as they could not speak English: on coming from the justice's the deceased took hold of my arm, and on the steps of Gosler's arm, and by the interpreter desired to go and get something to drink before they parted; we were going to the Angel, which was at the distance of about 100 yards; when we were about 20 yards from the justice's door the deceased gave a sudden shriek and fell down; I did not see any thing done to her; in my trying to take her up she fell down again; some person called out, Davey, come and take the fellow; I picked up a knife behind the woman which was very bloody; I seized the prisoner who was behind her by the collar, and another assisting we took him back to justice Blackborrow's office; there was blood running down on each side of the prisoner's breast; I saw he had a wound on the left side of his neck; it was but a skin wound; we sent him in a coach to the hospital by the justice's order for fear his wounds were mortal; the woman was carried into the Oxford Arms; I did not see her afterwards till she was dead; I did not hear the deceased speak to the prisoner; and I believe the deceased did not see the prisoner after she came out of the justice's.

When you saw the deceased after she was dead, did you observe where the wound was? - Just upon her right shoulder; the knife went in at the neck and slanted downwards; the prisoner stood behind her when he gave the stroke; the wound was about an inch wide.

Did they speak before the justice as if they were angry with one another? - He seemed to speak as if he was angry; she as if she was laughing; she was quite a young woman.

Was there any man with her at her lodgings? - No; she came in, she had been out to market; an interpreter that could speak English came with her in the coach; he was in the kitchen of the house she lodged at, with the woman of the house; he did not belong to the deceased; the woman of the house desired him to go with her because she could not speak a word of English; this is the knife, (producing a sharp pointed knife, the blade about six inches long) I have had it in my custody ever since.

How long might it be after you came out of the justice's before the wound was given? - It could not be a minute; after I put the prisoner into the coach I searched him; the sheath of the knife was found the next morning by a gentleman who is present.

Have you rubbed the blood off? - When I shewed it before the coroner's jury the coroner touched the knife and rubbed some of the blood off; I desired he would not; it was bloodier when I took it up than it is now.


I went with the deceased, the last witness, and the interpreter to the justice; the prisoner was at the justice's when the deceased was brought there; the prisoner charged the deceased with being accessary to his being robbed and having in her possession in a purse some medals which he would swear to; she was searched before the justice in the prisoner's presence; but the prisoner did not claim any thing that was found upon her; and the justice discharged her; the deceased and Davey went out of the office; I followed them; when I got to the steps the deceased took hold of my arm; the prisoner and deceased had each an interpreter; her interpreter came out behind me; when we had gone about 20 yards, I from behind heard the word sacre; I turned my head and saw the prisoner's hand come upon the deceased's shoulder, and she dropped on her knees giving a shriek; Davey and I endeavoured

to help her up, but she dropped again; I quitted her and seizing the prisoner by the collar, called to Davey to assist; and we carried the prisoner to the justice's; there I saw the prisoner was bleeding; I went back and took the deceased to the Oxford Arms; we laid her on a table; she was to all appearance dead; she died almost immediately; the wound was over the right shoulder; it slanted into the collar bone: Davey came to the Oxford Arms and shewed the knife which was bloody.

You said the prisoner charged her with being accessary to the robbing him; did he charge any body as principal? - No; he said he had been robbed, and he had seen the things he had been robbed of in her possession.

What is the meaning of the word sacre? - A foreigner on the Jury. It is the same as a curse or damn.


I was at the justice's and saw the deceased's pocket searched in the presence of the prisoner; the prisoner claimed nothing that was found on her; she was therefore discharged; there was an interpreter present on each side; they were about a quarter of an hour before the justice; when they were before the justice the prisoner said something to the deceased, upon which she turned round and smiled; she signified by the interpreter that she did not chuse to be with the prisoner, as he was an old man, and she a young woman; she went out of the justice's office with Mr. Davey and Mr. Gosler; I followed and the prisoner followed me; when I was at the top of the steps, about two yards from the office I turned round and saw the prisoner throw open his coat; I walked on the side of the prisoner a few yards, then he took four or five steps very smartly, and with his right hand struck the deceased upon the shoulder, saying at the time, Sacre dieu, or a word to that purpose; upon which she shrieked out and fell; I did not see any thing in his hand; I told the prisoner he should go before the justice; he staggered back and fell against me; I listed him up, and as I was lifting him up he threw something out of his hand; we carried him before the justice; as Davey was coming between me and the woman he took up a knife which was bloody; I took up the woman; she was lying on the ground; she could not speak; I carried her to the Oxford Arms and sent for a surge on, who attempted to bleed her, but no blood came; the wound was on the right shoulder slanting inwards.


I am a surgeon: upon Tuesday the 21st of January I was called upon to view the deceased; I did so; in the upper part of the collar bone I found a large wound, and by the direction of my probe I apprehend it penetrated into the cavity of the thorax or breast; I imagine the circulation of the blood was thereby soon stopped, and a suffocation ensued; it certainly had that effect; I compared the instrument with the wound, and it appears to me that is the instrument that caused her death.

Have you any doubt whether the wound was mortal and occasioned her death? - I imagine it was.

To GOSLER. You say the woman smiled at him before the justice; did it appear that she made use of abusive and scurrilous expressions to him? - No; they both spoke together at one time, but that was soon over; when silence was called.

Did she say any thing just before she went out? - No.

What countrywoman was she?

Prisoner. A French woman.


I am cook to the Dutch embassador ; I had made the deceased a present of 27 guineas; whilst I was out upon Sunday she robbed me of 40 guineas; I determined I would not live with her any longer; she spent the money she robbed me of in feasting at her own house; she must have my money, because she spent four guineas on the Saturday, and bought some stone buckles on the Saturday; when she was carried before the justice, I thought the justice did not do me the right I deserved, finding myself in a strange country where I had no friends nor relations, and the woman was not content with robbing me of my money, but abused me in a sad manner, and said at the justice's she hoped to see me without a shirt; there she used all the rascally words she could think; finding myself ruined that made me do the act I did.

To GOSLER. Whether from the manner

of the woman's behaviour it appeared to you that she did use the prisoner with all that scurrility he suggests? - There was some quick discourse between them at the first, afterwards that subsided, and when the woman was discharged she was going off perfectly quiet.

Prisoner. Mr. Gosler did not understand French, how could he know what she said?

COURT. Are either of the interpreters that were before the justice here?


GUILTY . Death .

Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice GOULD.

The prisoner received sentence (this being Friday) to be hanged on the Monday following, and his body to be afterwards dissected and anatomized, which sentence was executed upon him .

Reference Number: t17770219-28

196, 197. EDWARD HARRIS otherwise STEWARD and JOSEPH COX were indicted for stealing nine pair of linen sheets, value 20 s. a remnant of linen sheeting, value 6 d. a linen table-cloth, value 5 s. four linen shirts, value 10 s. two pair of linen shift sleeves, value 6 d. two muslin neckcloths, value 3 s. two muslin handkerchiefs, value 18 d. a silk handkerchief, value 1 s. seven child's linen caps, value 2 s. two child's linen frocks, value 2 s. a child's linen shift, value 6 d. and a child's linen pin cloth, value 2 d. the property of John Ward , January 20th .

JOHN WARD sworn.

On the 20th of January my wife and I went out to dinner; I had word sent me between 6 and 7 o'clock that my house was robbed; I went home immediately and found the two prisoners in custody; the things mentioned in the indictment were taken out of the drawers and put into a bag, but were not carried off.


I am a weaver: a shopmate of mine came in and said that three men were making an attempt to get into Mr. Ward's house; we went out and apprehended Cox walking under the window; we went up to the window and two men jumped out; we secured one of them, which was Harris; the other got off; we found nothing upon them; they left behind them a brown linen bag with a considerable quantity of linen in it.


I saw Cox helping two men into Mr. Ward's window; I went and called some other men, and we took Cox under the window; two men jumped out of the window; we took Harris, the other made his escape.

William Doughty who was present confirmed the evidence of the two last witnesses.


I was going on an errand to Coldbathfields; on Saffron hill I heard a cry of stop thief; I went to see what was the matter, and two men jumped out of a window and knocked me down; then a man came and laid hold of me, and said I was one that came out of the house.


I was a going by, a man asked me to help him into the window; he said he had locked himself out; I took hold of his legs and helped him in; I know nothing of the matter.

Harris called four witnesses who gave him a good character.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-29

198. THOMAS ROSS was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of John Moore on the 2d of February , about the hour of six o'clock in the night, and stealing three linen table-cloths, value 2 s. a pair of linen sheets, value 2 s. and two linen waistcoats, value 2 s. the property of the said John in his dwelling-house .

The evidence was not sufficient to bring the charge home to the prisoner.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-30

199. REBECCA WAITES was indicted for stealing two cotton gowns, value 5 s. the property of Alexander Dove , January 20th .

ANN DOVE sworn.

I am the wife of Alexander Dove : the prisoner lay on Saturday and Sunday night at our house; on the Monday she went away, and on the Tuesday morning I missed two cotton gowns out of the chest; I got a warrant and put it into the hand of Chivers; he went and took the prisoner, and found a duplicate of the gowns in her pocket.


I am an officer: I took the prisoner; I found upon her a duplicate of one of the gowns; she told me where she had pawned it, and went with me; the prosecutrix afterwards promised to be favourable to her, if she would tell where the other gown was, but she would not.


I am a pawnbroker; I took in a cotton gown of the prisoner on the 20th of January last.

[It was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]


The prosecutrix keeps a very bad house; I had the gown of her, and was to pay her 4 s. a week for it; being in want of money I pawned it.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-31

200. WILLIAM ROBINSON was indicted for stealing two worsted breeches pieces, value 12 s. five silk breeches pieces, value 5 l. two pair of silk hose, value 20 s. three pair of silk gloves, value 10 s. a pair of thread gloves, value 1 s. seven pair of worsted gloves, value 7 s. eight pair of cotton hose, value 16 s. two pair of thread hose, value 4 s. and eleven pair of worsted stuff, value 1 l. 2 s. the property of Richard March , William Horton , Robert Wright , and Richard Kemp , February 15th .


I am a hosier , in partnership with William Horton , Robert Wright , and Richard Kemp : the prisoner was our servant two years; on the 14th of this month a Mr. Grammer asked me if we authorized our servants to sell goods for us; I told him, No; he said he had bought goods several times of the prisoner; I got a warrant and searched the lodgings of the prisoner; I found four pair of silk breeches, and two pair of silk hose there; they have our private marks on them.

[They were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I bought four breeches pieces of the prisoner, which I have made up and sold; he brought me a piece of silk stocking which is mentioned in the indictment, and asked 24 s. for it; I bid him a guinea, which he took; I told him I wanted a piece for a waistcoat and breeches, and he brought it the next morning; he said he sold them by the authority of Mr. March, and that he could sell them cheaper than Mr. March could.

Mr. MARCH. I never gave him any authority.


I beg the mercy of the Court.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-32

201, 202. JOSEPH ARONES and SAMUEL NOAH were indicted for feloniously forging on the 1st of January , in the parish of St. Michael, Cornhill , a certain ticket, partly printed and partly written, with the name J. Boult thereunto subscribed, purporting to be a ticket made forth by virtue of an act of parliament made in the 16th year of his present majesty for establishing a lottery, and to have been signed by John Boult , then being one of the cashiers of the governor and company of the Bank of England , the tenor of which forged ticket is as followeth (that is to say)

Lottery, anno 1776.

No 25m590

'The bearer of this ticket will be intitled to

'such beneficial chance as shall belong thereto

'in the lottery to be drawn in pursuance of an

'act made in the sixteenth year of his majesty's



with a fraudulent intention to sell and dispose of the same as a true and genuine ticket, against the statute.

2d Count. For feloniously uttering as true to one Philip Levy , the same false, forged, and counterfeited ticket, knowing the same to be false, forged, and counterfeited, with the like intention, against the statute, &c.

3d Count. For feloniously uttering to Eleazer Isaac Keyser such ticket with the like intention, knowing, &c.

4th Count. For feloniously offering to dispose of such ticket with the like intent, &c.

5th Count. For feloniously bringing to said Philip Levy such ticket with the like intent, &c.

6th Count. For feloniously bringing to the said Keyser such ticket with the like intent, &c.

7th Count. For feloniously forging such ticket with intent to defraud the said Keyser.

8th Count. For feloniously uttering as true, &c. such lottery ticket to the said Keyser to defraud him, &c. knowing, &c.

9th Count. For feloniously offering to dispose of such ticket with intent to defraud the said Keyser, &c.

10th Count. For feloniously bringing to the said Keyser such ticket with intent to defraud him, &c.

Arones not understanding English an interpreter was sworn.


I know the prisoner Noah: on the 31st of December my son came to me at Tom's coffee-house, Cornhill, and said Noah wanted to speak with me at 'Change; I did not go directly, as it was post-day; in about half an hour after Noah came to me at 'Change and said, I was looking for you, that I might give you a commission; here is a foreigner who has got a prize in the lottery of 2000 l. you may sell it as well as another, and get the commission; I asked him if he knew the man; he said it was a man who lodged with his brother, and had come from the Hague; that he was a reputable man, of reputable parents; and he had received money lately from Messrs. Norden; I said, it is post-day, I will apply to Mr. Keyser, and divide the commission with him; Noah said, he had no objection; I went to Mr. Keyser and told him the story; Mr. Keyser desired I would bring the man to the office, that he might have the ticket checked; I then went back to the 'Change to Noah, and told him to call at my house to go with me to Keyser at 4 o'clock; Noah came alone; I asked Noah where the foreigner was; he told me he was gone to the play; for a man who had got a prize of 2000 l. might enjoy himself for once, and go to the play: the business was agreed to be deferred till the next morning; the same evening between 6 and 7 o'clock I was called by my son, who said that Noah was at my house with another gentleman, and had left word he was gone to the Nag's-head; I found both the prisoners there; Noah said, there is the man who has the ticket; Arones took the ticket out of his pocket and shewed it to me: I thought it a good ticket; I desired them to go with me to Mr. Keyser's office to sell it; I gave him the ticket back again, as Arones would not trust me with it; then all three went to Keyser's office, and from thence we all four went to the York coffee-house; Keyser in a little room asked after the ticket; Arones shewed it to him; Keyser took down the number, and he and I went to his office and examined it, and found that it was drawn a prize of 2000 l. on the third day of the drawing of the lottery; Mr. Keyser likewise examined it at other offices; I went back to the New York coffee-house and told the prisoner it was a good ticket, but it must first be checked at the exchequer; Mr. Keyser looked at his watch and said, it was too late to have it checked that evening; Mr. Keyser desired, that for safety he would lodge it in a banker's hand for fear of fire or thieves, which Arones refused, saying, he would not trust it with his own father without the money; upon which Mr. Keyser told him he would give him 400 l. that evening, that then he might lodge it in a banker's hand, and they might put their seals upon it till it was examined or sold, and he should have the remainder of the money; to which he gave

no direct answer; I told Keyser he had better let it alone till it was examined; they then went home, and I appointed them to come to my house the next day, in order to go to Whitehall and have it checked, and so we parted; he did not come at the time the next morning; I left word where I should be; I went to Mr. Keyser's office; but he had not been there, then I went to Tom's coffee-house and met at the corner of Sweeting's alley the prisoners coming to the office; I asked Arones why he did not come at the appointed time; Arones said he had some business to do; Noah took me aside, and said, Arones had been at Whitehall and had had the ticket checked; I told Mr. Keyser that the man had already had the ticket checked, and that it would save time; I asked Arones for the ticket to sell it; I observed on the ticket no mark of its having been checked; Arones said he had only had it examined, as he had not two guineas in his pocket to pay for checking it; I told Arones he had no occasion to have paid 6 d. as it might have been examined for a penny in the city; Mr. Keyser said, he was informed he could sell it as it was, and desired the man to give him the ticket, and he would get the money for it at the stock exchange; Arones refused to give the ticket without having the money for it; upon which Mr. Keyser ran out of the coffee-house, and in the mean time I asked Arones for the ticket, but he refused to give it me; then Noah took Arones aside, and, I surmise, told him I was to be trusted; upon which Arones called me and gave me the ticket; I threw it down and would not accept of it, being angry that he distrusted me; I said, let Noah go with me and see that I don't run away; I gave the ticket to Mr. Keyser, and he went with it to the stock exchange; Mr. Keyser came out of the stock exchange whilst I was standing with Noah and said, he thought there was a forgery in the ticket, and so he should go to Guildhall and have it examined; then Mr. Keyser and I went to Guildhall, and there it was found out to be a forgery; I then returned with a constable to have the two people apprehended; I found Noah where I left him; I asked where Arones was, to give him the money for the ticket? Noah said, he could not tell where he was, but he would go and look for him; but he did not find him; and so I delivered Noah up to the constable; Noah never had the possession of the ticket; Noah always said it belonged to Arones; Mr. Keyser said in the presence of Noah that he thought it was a forgery; he spoke in Dutch.


I keep an office in Sweeting's alley: upon the 31st of December last Mr. Philip Levy called at my office and asked me whether I could dispose of a 2000 l. prize; I told him I made a distinction between a 2000 l. prize, and one of less value; that I must know who the proprietor of the ticket was; in consequence of that I afterwards saw the two prisoners in the evening at my office; the office being small and very full at that time, I desired them to walk with me into the New York coffee-house; we went into a little room, there Mr. Levy told the prisoner Arones to deliver the ticket into my hands, that I was the person who was to dispose of it; Arones delivered the ticket into my hands; I took down the number and examined it at my own, and other offices, and found that number had been drawn a prize of 2000 l. the third day of drawing; I told him as he was a stranger he should have the ticket checked before I sold it, and advised him to lock up the ticket for fear of fire or any other accident; he said he would not trust the ticket out of his hands; I told him if he was afraid of that I would let him have 3 or 400 l. if he would lock it up at my banker's till the next morning, and I would then go with him to have it checked, and would dispose of it; Arones made no answer; but Levy gave me a hint not to give the money; the next morning Levy came alone and told me, he had waited some time and the persons were not come; I went into the stock exchange as usual, and told one of the dealers in prizes that I expected a 2000 l. prize to sell, and offered to sell it to him; he told me he had purchased as many as he chose; I told him I would have it checked; he said there is no occasion to check it, if you indorse your name to it, and we see it in the commissioner's list, that is sufficient: Mr. Levy had me called out of the coffee-house and told me they were come with the ticket; I went into the New York coffee-house; I understood Arones had been at the exchequer to examine the ticket, but not to have it checked, for he had not two guineas in his pocket to pay for

the expence of checking it; that I learned from Arones; when a ticket is checked the commissioners write upon the back,

"this ticket

"has been checked with the counter-part, and

"is a 2000 l. prize;" the price paid for checking is generally a guinea a thousand; I then told them that I could sell the ticket without being checked, but he would not deliver the ticket into my hands; upon which I left them all at the coffee-house and went about my business to the stock exchange; I was soon after called out of the stock exchange by Levy, who delivered me the ticket; I told them it was very odd that they would not trust me with the ticket; I told Levy to tell the persons to stand at the stock exchange door till I came out with the money for it; this is the ticket (inspecting it) there was my indorsement upon it, which I erased; I went with the ticket to the stock exchange and offered it to sale; a person to whom I had promised the preference of it, came into the coffee-house, several persons bid for it; at last I sold it to the person who first offered for it at 79 5/8 per cent. I then mentioned that I would have had it checked; but they told me there was no occasion for it; the person said, No, only put your name to it, and call for the prize list; we found it a prize of 2000 l. in the seventh column of the list of the third day's drawing; I indorsed the ticket as is usual when we sell a ticket, if it is even a 20 l. prize, that the person that purchases it may know from whom it came; I make myself liable by that indorsement, as I imagine that is the purpose f or which it is required; it is always understood so between us the same as if I sell a ticket during the drawing as un-drawn, I endorse it, and am answerable in case it should have been drawn; and so in this case I apprehend I should have been called upon to pay the money when I had signed my name; Mr. Shewell came into the box and said, Mr. Keyser, what have you sold this ticket for and to whom? I told him I had sold it to Mr. Bower at 79 5/8; he desired me to shew him the ticket, for he recollected something of the number; I shewed him the ticket; he said 25590, I believe I have purchased a prize of the same number which was indorsed, and says he, I think I know the person who has got it now, for I sold it again; he desired me to go to my office and examine whether 25590 was not the first 2000 l. prize drawn in that lottery; I held the ticket in my hand at the stock exchange door; one of the brokers overlooked me and said, don't be frightened, Keyser, your ticket is a very good one; they advised me to go to Guildhall to have it checked; I came to the door and saw Mr. Levy, and laid hold of his arm; Sir, said I, I am afraid there is something wrong in this ticket, and desired him to go with me to Guildhall.

Was Noah by at that time? - I cannot recollect; I went to Guildhall, but stopt at the musick shop under the Piazzas at the Royal Exchange, and erased my indorsement; I indorsed it, 'sold for a 2000 l. prize, E. J. Keyser.' I went with Mr. Levy into the Irish Chamber at Guildhall, where I knew some of the commissioners, or somebody belonging to the lottery, where I desired Mr. Johnson to check the ticket; Mr. Johnson accordingly fetched up the file with the counter-parts of the tickets, but found it would not check; while we were there, Mr. Bower, who was to have purchased it, came into the Irish Chamber and said, that there certainly were two tickets of one number, for he had seen another ticket of that number in the hands of Mr. Shewell; upon which Mr. Johnson and one of the commissioners, Mr. Levy, and myself, with one of the marshal's men, went in search of the prisoners; we went to Sweeting's-alley, I left the prisoners there, and bid them wait till I brought the money; I desired Mr. Johnson and the commissioners to stand at a distance, and I would see whether I could find the prisoners; I saw Noah, I asked him where the foreigner was, for I had got the money for him; he said he was somewhere about, he could not tell where, but he would look into the New York Coffee-house for him; upon that I beckoned Mr. Johnson and the commissioner, with the marshal's man, to follow me into the coffee-house, and there we apprehended Noah.

Have you known Samuel Noah any considerable time? - By sight, but not to have any acquaintance with him.


I am secretary to the commissioners of the lottery: this forged ticket was brought to me at Guildhall by Levy and Keyser on the first of January, just in the same state as it is now; Mr. Keyser desired me to check it; I went

down upon the Hustings to get the file of prizes; on referring to the counter-part, I found it would not check, it appeared to me to be an upper ticket, that is, a ticket higher in the check, and the last figure must have been a one or a six; I could not then find the check it belonged to, but afterwards I found out a check it fitted; it must have originally been No 25536, which was drawn a blank; I am sure it is not No 25590, which it purports to be (Mr. - produces the genuine ticket of 25590).

Mr. JOHNSON. This ticket matches the check exactly, the other does not; I went to the New York coffee-house; we apprehended Noah and brought him back; at first Noah seemed surprized; he told me that Arones told him he had found it; this was prior to his examination before the Lord Mayor: Noah gave some information by which Arones was apprehended.


I am a clerk in the lottery-office; I make all the figures of the book, of tickets, and the tickets; the two last figures the nine and the cypher in this ticket are not my making, nor the two bars over and under the cypher.

(The ticket read).

ARONES. I leave my defence to my counsel.


Arones came to me with that ticket; he said he found it; when I was upon 'Change it was a full 'Change; I told Levy, the first time, that there was a foreigner who had found a ticket worth 2000 l.; upon which Levy said, that he would apply to Mr. Keyser, who was in the lottery-office way, and let me know if he would buy it, and Mr. Levy denied me to call at his house in the evening for an answer, and bid me bring the foreigner with me; Arones applied to me on the Monday evening with the ticket; I went to Levy about it on Tuesday.

Court to LEVY. When Noah came to you upon 'Change upon the 31st of December did he tell you a foreigner had found a ticket? - No, he did not; if he had, I should have had nothing to do with it; he told me he had enquired Arones's character, and he was a reputable man.



I have known Arones six years; I knew him at the Hague; he had been in England but a few days before this; I am not at all acquainted with Noah; I met with Arones on the 30th of December at the Royal Exchange; we went together through Threadneedle-street, there we met with Mr. Brown; Arones stopt and picked up a bit of paper; I observed the paper at the time; he opened it, and found a lottery ticket in it; he gave it into Mr. Brown's hand, and he said, it was a lottery ticket, and he took down the number 25590: I asked why he took it down? he said, only for a memorandum; we walked to Houndsditch, where Mr. Brown parted with us; Arones and I went from there to the Minories, there we parted; he said, he should see me again the next day at the Exchange.

Cross Examination.

What are you? - A gentleman.

Do you mean that you live upon your fortune, or have nothing to do? - I don't stay here, I have been in England for years.

And been a gentleman all the time? - Yes.

And lives upon your means without any employment? - My family live in Berlin.

And you take up your residence in the Minories? - Yes.

That is a place that gentlemen usually live in? - No, I live there for cheapness.

Do you prefer England to all other countries? - I like to see England.

Do you deal in nothing at all, no bills of exchange, nor any thing? - No, I don't.

You have not indorsed bills of exchange or any thing of that kind? - No, not that I know of.

You do no business of any kind? - No.

Have you any relations in the Minories that you take up your residence there? - No.

Do you chuse it because it is near Houndsditch? - No, I have not lived there all the time since I have been in England; I have lodged there six months; I lodged with one Mr. Smith in St. James's street at the other end of the town; I prefer the Minories, because it is cheaper.

How long did you lodge in St. James's-street? - Two weeks.

Where did you lodge before you lodged in St. James's-street? - In Basinghall-street, with

one Mrs. Hyde, No 42, it is a hair-dresser's shop, opposite Mr. Moore's, Mr. Townshend's partner; that is two years ago; I lived there twelve months; that was the first lodging I had when I came from abroad.

Where did you lodge before you came to Basinghall-street? - I lodged in Little Bell-alley, Coleman-street, with Mr. Collumbine.

How long have you known Mr. Brown? - Past two years, almost three years; he is book-keeper to one Mrs. Steward, who keeps the new concert room in Tottenham-court Road; he is but a very slight acquaintance of mine, not that I am informed about his business; he did live in Vine-passage, Drury-lane.

How long did he live there? - I cannot tell.

You came from Berlin? - Yes, I was born there.

Have you continued to live there before you came to England? - Yes.

Where did Arones live? - At the Hague.

How came you acquainted with him at the Hague? - I was at the Hague about two years ago the last time; the first time I was there is past six years, then I knew him.

How long did you stay at the Hague? - A fortnight; I saw him twice in London before this happened.

With whom do you lodge in the Minories? - One Mr. Hart, No 6.

He is a Jew Merchant? - Yes, for what I know.

Is it in the High-street in the Minories? - In George-Street in the Minories.

Where did you meet with Arones? - At the 'Change.

You do go to 'Change though you have no business? - Sometimes.

You saw the paper lying on the ground? - When I saw him stoop, I saw it was in the foot-way where we walk; we were walking together.

What time of day did you find it? - Between three and four o'clock, I had been at 'Change till three o'clock.

When you found it and saw it was a lottery ticket, were there any lottery-offices in the neighbourhood, or are they scarce things? - Not that I know, I never trouble my head about it.

Did it never occur to you or him to search whether it was drawn or no? - I did not think about it.

Did you ever search for the number you had taken? - I never did, I have it in my book (producing the book).

How comes this leaf, upon which the number is wrote, to be loose? - I cut some leaves out sometimes, there are more cut out.

I see a list of tickets insured here? - I did not write that.

Who did? - I don't know, somebody.

Did you put down the day of the month when you found it? - I did not.

Did you put down any thing else at the time? - Nothing at all but the number with a pencil.

Did you look into the papers to see if it was advertised? - Not for that purpose, I never troubled my head about it.

Did he tell you where he lodged? - Yes; he said he lodged in Wellclose-square, but did not tell me the house.

This foreigner is a poor ignorant man, did you not tell him it might be of value, and bid him take care of it? - No, I told him it was a ticket, and that was all.

Did Brown make no claim? - No.

Where did Brown live then? - The corner of Hounsditch.

COURT. I see under the number of this ticket is wrote

'January 10, memorandum that I am to dine with Count Balgois? - That is not my hand-writing, sometimes some friends come and write in my book when I put it down on the table; I don't know who Count Balgois is; I don't know whose writing it is.


On the 30th of December, as I was going through Bishopsgate-street, on the left side of the way, I perceived Mr. Muller; I crossed over the way, and asked him how he did; he was in company with Arones; after we had walked a little way, I perceived Arones stoop; I turned my eye and saw him take a piece of paper off the ground; it was a smallish piece of paper, folded; he opened the paper in my presence; Mr. Muller spoke to him in a language that I did not understand; I asked Muller what the gentleman had found; he opened it, and said, it is a lottery ticket; he gave it in my hand; I looked at the number; I saw wrote Lottery, Anno 1776: Muller took out a memorandum book, and upon a slip of paper he made a memorandum of the number; after

he had so done, when we got nearly opposite to Bishopsgate Church, I parted from them both; I was going to take a walk; I never saw any more of either parties, or heard of them, till the 11th of January; when I got home, I was informed that a gentleman, Mr. Muller, wanted to see me upon particular business: he left word it was concerning a foreign gentleman that was in company with him the day I met him, and that it was concerning a ticket that he found upon the pavement; I did not see Muller, not being on the twelfth of January at home: upon the Sunday following Mr. Muller called upon me, and told me the nature of the affair, and asked me if I would go along with him to see the prisoner; Mr. Muller dined with me that day, we both went to Newgate to see the prisoner; I saw him in the wine room.

Was it the same man you saw pick up the ticket? - The very identical man.

On his Cross Examination, he said, 'that

'he had seen Noah, but never had any dealing

'with him of any kind; that he (the witness)

'was a clerk and book-keeper to Mrs.

'Steward, who keeps the new concert rooms

'Tottenham-court Road, and that he collects

'in debts and does business of that kind; that

'Muller was a gentleman for any thing he

'knew; that he had seen him at coffee-houses

'where he had been; that he always understood

'him to be a foreigner; that he never

'visited at his lodgings; but that he lodged

'in Little George-street; that he had visited

'the witness in Vine-passage, Drury-lane,

'where he had lived three years; that he

'remembered the number, when Muller

'came to tell him about the affair, before

'Muller shewed it him; that he shewed

'him the memorandum on a slip of paper;

'that he did not know whether or no it was

'the leaf of a book; that he saw nothing on

'the paper besides that memorandum; that

'Muller dined with him on the 12th of January,

'and asked him to go with him to

'Newgate in the afternoon; he afterwards

'said, that he saw upon the leaf where the

'number was, the name Count Burgois, and

'something about dining with him; that he

'believed the paper he put down the number

'on at the time was a less piece of paper than

'that leaf of the book; that it was a loose paper;

'that the number was 25590.'

The prisoners called several witnesses, who gave them a good character.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Justice WILLES.

Reference Number: t17770219-33

203. SARAH TONGUE was indicted for stealing a linen gown, value 10 s. four linen aprons, value 20 s. two pair of linen sheets, value 27 s. a flannel petticoat, value 2 s. a tea-chest, value 4 s. and a black stuff petticoat, value 5 s. the property of Robert Gray , February 17th .


I keep an old cloaths shop on Saffron-hill : on Saturday the 15th of February the prisoner came to our house to sell a gown; she said she was in great distress, that she came from Lancashire, and had been obliged to part with her things by the way, and that was the last gown she had; she said she was going to a place on the Thursday following at Highgate; she asked seven shillings for the gown; my wife said, she had better try to save the gown, as she had only a bed-gown on; my wife took compassion on her, and told her she should stay and eat and drink with us till she went to her place; she staid with us till Monday; then my wife went out and left her to wash the things; while my wife was out, she made me almost fuddled, and took an opportunity to go off with the things mentioned in the indictment; I missed her soon after, and went in pursuit of her, and took her with the things in her apron in a chandler's shop in Peter's-street.


The prisoner came to me on Saturday afternoon and brought me a gown; I asked her a good many questions; she said she came from Lancashire, and was going to a place at Highgate; she asked me seven shillings for the gown; she said she was greatly in distress; I bid her sit down, and gave her something to eat, and sent for a pot of beer; I did not like to buy the gown; she said, if I did not, she could not have a lodging that night; I told her if she was honest she should not want for a lodging, she should fare as I did till she went to her

place, which she said was to be next Thursday; she staid till Monday: I had a month's wash, my son and I went out and left her washing; when I came home, my husband told me we had been robbed of all we had by the woman I let in; I saw the poker lying by the trunk, and the lock wrenched off; I missed the tea-chest, and all the things mentioned in the indictment (repeating them).

[They were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]

' Maria Read who was at the prosecutor's

'when the prisoner came there, confirmed the

'testimony of the former witnesses.'


I keep a cloaths-shop in Peter's-street, Saffron-hill; the prisoner brought a petticoat to my shop last Monday to sell; she had the other things in her lap; she went from my house into a chandler's-shop; Gray came and enquired after her, and took her with the other things in her lap in the chandler's shop.

[The petticoat was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I am a stranger; I only came to town last Monday night from Lancashire.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron PERRYN.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-34

204. ALICE RICHARD was indicted for stealing a card of black lace, value 10 s. the property of Joseph Wateridge , January 23d .


I am a haberdasher in King-street, Covent-garden : on the 23d of January, when I was in a room behind the shop, and my sister, who was serving in the shop, came and told me she suspected a woman had stole a card of black lace; I went into the shop; my man was shewing her some modes; I desired a gentleman I left in the parlour to observe what passed; in about ten minutes the prisoner went out of the shop; I followed her; I took hold of her arm and desired her to come back with me, for I had something to say to her; I brought her into the shop and shut the door; I lifted up her arm, and the lace fell from her, I believe from under her apron; she said she knew nothing of the matter; I sent for a constable, and she was committed.

' JOHN VINDON deposed, that he saw

'the lace drop from the prisoner.'


I know nothing of the lace; I did not take it.

The prisoner called three witnesses, who gave her a good character.


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice WILLES.

Reference Number: t17770219-35

205. MARY SMITH was indicted for stealing a woollen cloth cloak, value 10 d. and a linen checked apron, value 6 d. the property of Robert Baynds , January 28th .


I am the wife of John Baynds ; I went out on the 28th of January, at about five o'clock, and locked the door; I returned about twenty minutes after six, and found my door broke open, and my cloak and apron gone; I left them hanging on the back of a chair; the prisoner ran out as I came to the door; I found the door open; I pursued her; she threw down my cloak and apron; I insisted on her coming back; she said she bought them of a a woman.

[They were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]


I bought the things of a woman I met in the court.

The prisoner called two witnesses, who gave her a good character.

GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d. W .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-36

206. EDWARD FOSSET was indicted for stealing a woollen cloth box coat, value 10 s. the property of Robert Carey , Esq ; February 10th .


I am servant to Mr. Carey in Watling-street ; I was at the Morris-dancers, a public-house; my fellow-servant came to me and informed me a person was taking my coat, it was on a bench in my master's yard, where the clerks write; we took the prisoner, and found the coat upon him.


There is a room in the stable where Howard the coachman and I live; I was in the room; I saw the prisoner come up the yard, and take the coat off the bench and go off with it; I told Howard of it, and then followed the prisoner and stopped him, and found the coat upon him; we sent for a constable, and he was committed.

'The prisoner did not say any thing in his



Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-37

207, 208. JAMES BROCKLEY and JOHN BAILEY were indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Davis on the 30th of January, about the hour of one in the night, and stealing a piece of silk persian containing 84 yards, value 7 l. the property of the said John, in his dwelling-house .

[The witnesses were examined apart at the request of the prisoner.]


I live at No 11, Bishopsgate-street Without ; the window of my compting-house, which is part of my dwelling-house, was broke open on the 30th of January at night; the compting-house is at the end of my shop, it looks into an inn-yard; the upper staple of one of the bars was drawn; the other was wrenched off, and a pane of glass broke, and I apprehend a boy must have been put in to undo the inside fastening; my shopman fastened the window over night; I saw it about seven in the morning broke open; my desk was wrenched open; there was nothing in it of consequence but some silver coin; there was persian silk taken out of my shop to the value of 300 l.

[The piece of persian was produced in Court, and Joseph Dawson , a weaver, deposed, he sold it to the prosecutor; and Francis Hall, apprentice to the prosecutor, deposed, it was his master's property, that he knew it by marks of his own making which were on it.]


I am a constable: on the 3d of February Mr. Lyons and I saw Brockley and Bailey together in Gravel-lane; I saw a bundle under Brockley's coat; I laid hold of Bailey, and bid Lyons push after Brockley; he overtook him, and asked him what he had got; Brockley said,

"take it and let me go," I said, that would not do; I opened the bundle, and saw it was silk; I had heard Mr. Davis had lost a large quantity of silk; we took Brockley and the silk to Mr. Davis's; who said it was his property.


I took the silk upon Brockley; I have kept it ever since.

DAVIS. It is my property, there is my mark on it.


I am quite innocent of it; I picked up the silk in Bishopsgate Church-yard; I was in bed when the house was broke open.

As there was no evidence to affect Bailey, he was not put on his defence.

'Brockley called three witnesses, who deposed,

'that he went to bed ill about six at

'night, on the 28th of January, and was not

'up till the Sunday following; he also called

'one witness, who gave him a good character.'

BROCKLEY NOT GUILTY of breaking and entering the dwelling-house; but GUILTY of stealing to the value of 39 s.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-38

209. ELIZABETH PAGETT was indicted for stealing a linen window curtain, value 4 d. the property of William Pigott , February 7th .


I keep a public house , the Red Cross in Barbican : on the 7th of this month the prisoner, with another woman and two men, came into my house and sat about an hour; then the prisoner went out of the tap room into another room, where there had been some company; I met her coming out; I went in and missed a curtain; the rod was lying behind the door; she was going away; I stopped her, and charged her with stealing the curtain; I sent for a constable, and searched her, and found it wrapped up in the tail of her shift between her legs.


I am a constable; I saw the prisoner searched and the curtain taken from her.

[It was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]

'The prisoner did not say any thing in her



Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-39

210, 211. DAVID FIELD and MICHAEL FAUCHAN were indicted, the first for stealing two hind quarters of mutton 40 lb. weight, value 15 s. a shoulder of mutton 8 lb. weight, value 2 s. 40 lb weight of beef, value 12 s. and an iron cleaver, value 5 s. the property of John Edis , and the other for receiving the above goods, well knowing them to have been stolen , January 24th .

JOHN EDIS sworn.

I am a butcher in Threadneedle-street: I have a slaughterhouse in Three Colt-court ; I was called up between two and three in the morning of the 24th of January, and told my slaughterhouse was broke open, and the meat cut up; I went there, and missed the meat mentioned in the indictment and a cleaver; one of the runners of the Compter found the meat and the cleaver in Fauchan's house; the cleaver was behind the bed; the meat corresponded with the meat I had lost.


I am servant to Mr. Edis: I was called up in the night; I went down to the slaughter-house, and found the meat gone; I staid at the watch-house while the watchman went in search of the thief; I was at the finding of the meat at Fauchan's house, in Halfmoon-alley, Little Moorfields; it was on the shelves in the closet; the other witnesses were with me; they called him up, and asked him, if Field had been there and brought any meat; he said, Yes, the blackguard had been there some time in the night, but did not know that he had brought any thing there, but we might search; we found the meat, but did not find the cleaver at that time.


I am a watchman: going by the slaughter-house at half past twelve, I saw it was broke open, and the meat lying about; I had seen Field about several times that night, and suspected him; we went to Fauchan's and found the meat there; and in the afternoon I found the cleaver there.

FRANCIS DUNN and MARTIN KELLY , two of the patrole, deposed,

'That before

'they went to Fauchan's, they went to the

'lodging of Field and took him in bed, and

'found two greasy aprons in a chair at the

'foot of the bed; which were produced in

'Court, and deposed to by Ederman; that

'the next day, before the Mayor, Field owned

'he was guilty, but said Fauchan was innocent.'


I found the two aprons that morning near London Wall; I was very much in liquor.


Field brought the meat to my house; I knew nothing of his stealing it.



Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-40

212, 213. WILLIAM PRICE and SAMUEL JONES were indicted, the first for stealing a pair of steal knee-buckles, value 1 s. nine pair of iron plyers, value 5 s. three sets of sword lockets, value 5 s. 6 d. three steel sword shells, value 15 s. three iron sword handles, value 18 d. one hundred and forty-four steel tops

for hat pins, value 18 d. and one hundred and forty-six dozen of cut steel beeds for hat loops, value 20 s. the property of Hannah Dawson , widow ; and the other for receiving the above goods, well knowing them to have been stolen , against the statute, January 25th .


I am servant to Mrs. Dawson, who is a sword-cutler ; Price was a fellow-servant with me; he had worked at Mrs. Dawson's at different times for four or five years last past; during the time he was at work with her he was not at liberty to work with any other master: we missed the several things mentioned in the indictment, out of the shop, during the last time Price lived with her: on the 1st of February we got a warrant and searched Jones's lodgings; there we found the things mentioned in the indictment (repeating them) they all belong to my mistress; I know the workmanship as well as I know my own hand-writing; we took Price on the 1st of February; he fell upon his knees, and said, I acknowledge my faults, and if my mistress will forgive me this time, she shall never know what I will do for her, and begged to be discharged; at that time he said he sold the beeds to Jones; when we came with a search warrant to Jones's house, the moment I laid hold of any of these things, he said he would shew us the things; he took them all out, and said he bought them of Price, and he said that he bought them at a fair price; that Price came to him, and said he could not get his wages of his mistress, and therefore was obliged to sell these things; Price said, in Jones's presence, that he gave seven shillings for the four gross of beads.


I am a workman in Mrs. Dawson's shop; some of the things are my work; I cannot swear to them all; I know one pair of the plyers.


I went with the search warrant; Jones was taken first, Price was taken afterwards; Price said, Jones told him, whatever he liked he would buy of him; to this Jones made no answer; Price said he gave him three pence a piece for the plyers.

'Price called several witnesses to shew that

'he worked at over hours for himself, and

'made things on his own account.'

PRICE GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d. W .


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice WILLES.

Reference Number: t17770219-41

214, 215, 216. SARAH HORTEN , ELEANOR the wife of George BROMLEY , and MARY the wife of William BOWERS were indicted, the first for stealing two linen child's robes, value 3 s. a linen frock, value 2 s. 6 d. a linen skirt, value 6 d. a linen apron, value 18 d. two linen handkerchiefs, value 2 s. and a woman's linen waistcoat, value 2 s. the property of Thomas Evans , and the other two for receiving the above goods, well-knowing them to have been stolen , against the statute, January 22d .


I am the wife of Thomas Evans ; my husband is a silversmith , and lives at the corner of York-street, Covent Garden : the prisoner Sarah Horton lived a servant with us; she continued in our service about a quarter of a year; but upon the 22d of January was taken up on suspicion of stealing several things; we had lost a great quantity of goods, amongst the rest the several particulars mentioned in the indictment (repeating them); from some information I received I was led to make a search, and upon examining my drawers I missed the several things I have mentioned; I called up Sarah Horten , together with another servant who had lived a considerable time in the family; the other servant informed me that she had received intelligence that Sarah Horten had been seduced by two other women to rob us of several parts of our property, which she had delivered over to them, and they had pawned and disposed of them; that she had received this information a long time before, but had concealed it out of tenderness; Sarah Horten being present I charged her with the fact; she acknowledged that she had been persuaded by Bromley and Bowers to take away from time to time several goods and effects of Mr. Evans's, which she had delivered to them for the purpose of pawning; I made enquiry where those other women were that had seduced her in this manner; they were found and taken up; Bromley upon being charged with the fact

confessed that from time to time she received several things which were the property of Mr. Evans; but alledged that she had delivered back the greatest part of them, if not the whole till the day following, when the things mentioned in the indictment were found at two pawnbrokers; Bowers said she had received several things from Bromley; that she had pawned them and returned the rest; but that she had brought Bromley the money; and that the duplicates were taken in the name of Bromley; and that she had never applied any part of the money for which these effects were pawned to her own use; I am certain from the conversation I had with them, that they were perfectly apprized at the time they had these things from Horten, that they were stole from us; the waistcoat and other things were found at the pawnbrokers.


I am servant to Mrs. Rochford, a pawnbroker in Bridges-street, opposite the prosecutrix's house: all the goods mentioned in the indictment except a waistcoat were pawned at our shop by the prisoners Bromley and Bowers, but the duplicates were taken in the name of Bromley only.


I am a journeyman to a pawnbroker: two waistcoats were pawned with me by Bowers; they were afterwards fetched away by Bromley and pawned by her a second time.

[They were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron PERRYN.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-42

217, 218. JOHN BANGLEY and WILLIAM BRIGGS were indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Smart on the 16th of February, about the hour of seven in the night, and stealing a mahogany tea-chest, value 12 s. three tin cannisters, value 2 s. one japan tea-board, value 5 s. six yards of silk and stuff, value 8 s. one linen gown, value 5 s. a silk and stuff gown, value 6 s. and three yards of long lawn, value 9 s. 6 d. the property of the said William, in his dwelling-house .


I am a weaver in Old-street, Spitalfields: I know nothing of the burglary; I was at my father's-in-law, at Bethnal-Green, at 7 o'clock in the evening a person came and informed me my house was robbed; I went home and missed the things mentioned in the indictment.

MARY BIN sworn.

I am servant to Mr. Smart: on the 16th of February , I went out about one o'clock; I came home about 7 o'clock, and Henry Slaughter accompanied me home; I tried to unlock the door but could not; I heard a bar fall out of the parlour window, upon which I said, somebody is in the house; the prisoner Briggs came out of the window immediately, and Slaughter laid hold of him, and he was secured; I never saw the other man till I saw him next day at Sir John Fielding 's: the things mentioned in the indictment were missing; they were in the house in the morning; there was nothing found upon Briggs.

' Henry Slaughter , who was with the last

'witness, confirmed her testimony as to Briggs

'coming out of the window, and his securing

'of him.'


I attend Justice Wilmot's office: on Sunday when Briggs was taken, Ryder and I heard that the property was carried to a house in Wentworth-street; we went there and found the tea-chest, and the other prisoner in the house of one Simpson.

[The tea-chest was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I went with the last witness to Simpson's house in Wentworth-street; we found Bangley there with 3 gowns, and a tea-board and tea-waiter, which I believe he was offering to sale.


I am a weaver in Wentworth-street: Lewin and Ryder came to my house and seized some things; I don't know who brought them there; I was not at home when they were brought; the officers and I went in together; I found Bangley there.

LEWIN. When we took Simpson he said, Bangley brought the things there.


I was at the cook's shop eating my supper; I heard a cry in the street; I ran out and saw two men struggling, one was on the ground; the man got away; I went to help the other man up, and a woman laid hold of me and said, I was the man.

Bangley was not put on his defence.


BRIGGS GUILTY of stealing to the value of 39 s. but NOT GUILTY of the burglary .

Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-43

219. ANN MORRIS was indicted for stealing a silver snuff-box, value 20 s. a silk cardinal, value 30 s. and ten iron keys, value 10 d. the property of Thomas Moore , December 10th .


The prisoner and I were servant s to Mr. Moore who keeps a public house ; he is blind, and Mrs. Moore is upwards of 80 years of age; the things mentioned in the indictment were lost out of her bedchamber.


I took the prisoner and found a bunch of keys upon her.


I bought a snuff-box of the prisoner on the 18th of January, which Cole says, is the property of his aunt.

To COLE. Are you a nephew of Mrs. Moore? - Yes; that is her property.

[The keys were produced, and deposed to by Cole.]

The prisoner said nothing in her defence.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-44

220. ALICE COOK was indicted for stealing 20 lb. weight of hemp, value 5 s. the property of Humphry Hayden , February 10th .

[The Prosecutor was called, but not appearing the Court ordered his recognizance to be estreated.]


Reference Number: t17770219-45

221, 222. SARAH WARWICK and ANN LLOYD were indicted, the first for stealing a scarlet cloak, value 4 s. a silk bonnet, value 6 d. and 2 lb. weight of mutton, value 8 d. the property of Richard Taylor , and the other for receiving the above goods, well-knowing them to have been stolen , against the statute, January 14th .

The evidence was not sufficient to bring the charge home to the prisoner.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-46

223, 224. RICHARD THURSTON STATE and RICHARD KITCHERMAN were indicted for stealing two live hens, value 5 s. three live pullets, value 3 s. a live cock, value 2 s. and five live rabbits, value 2 s. 6 d. the property of George Jones , January 26th .


I live in Clerkenwell : on the 26th of January at about 9 o'clock at night, I saw these fowls and rabbits all safely locked up; I was told between six and seven o'clock in the morning that they were gone; I was afterwards called before Justice Blackborrow, there being persons taken up on suspicion of stealing fowls; and there was produced to me two fowls and two or three rabbits; I can swear to one fowl that was produced there, because it had lost one eye.

[The head of the fowl was produced in Court and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I sold some fowls to Jones; I saw the fowls before Justice Blackborrow; I can swear that that is one which he had.


I stopped the prisoners and the fowls, and took them before the justice.


I bought these fowls and rabbits in Newgate market on Friday morning.


I was with him when he bought them.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-47

225. ELIZABETH HUMPHRYS was indicted for stealing a cloth cloak, value 5 s. the property of Catherine Murphy , spinster , February 17th .


I lost a cloth cloak out of my box; I saw it in the box last Monday; I missed the cloak and the box when I was going to bed; my landlady found the cloak at the pawnbroker's.


I am a pawnbroker: I took in this cloak of the prisoner on Monday night.

[It was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]


This box was stole out of the room where the prosecutrix and my daughter lay; when the prisoner was taken, a knife, fan, and housewife were found in her pocket before the justice, which had been taken out of the box; the box itself was never found.


A young woman who was just come from Bath gave me the cloak to pawn for her.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-48

226, 227. CATHERINE DAVENPORT and MARY the wife of John JONES were indicted, the first for stealing three linen hand-towels, value 1 s. a linen cap, value 6 d. two packs of playing cards, value 2 s. 6 d. an horn inkhorn, value 6 d. and a glass bottle in a packthread net case, value 2 d. the property of Peter Emarott , and the other for receiving the above goods, well-knowing them to have been stolen , January 16th .


I am the wife of Peter Emarott : Davenport lived servant with me about three weeks; while she was with me I lost a number of things; Jones being the only acquaintance she had, I thought she might know something of them; she came to speak to my maid; I looked at her and saw she had my cap on; I insisted on taking it off, and asked her, how she came by it; she said it was her own; I told her if she would confess where the rest of my things were I would not prosecute her; upon which she behaved very saucy, and insisted upon it that it was her cap; I sent for a constable, and then Davenport ran away; we went to search Jones's lodging and found Davenport and the rest of the things there.

'The constable deposed that he took Davenport

'at Jones's, and found all the things

'that are mentioned in the indictment there,

'except the cap.'

[The things were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]

From DAVENPORT. Whether my mistress has not trusted me with things of greater value than these? - No; I never trusted her in my bed-chamber but twice, and then I missed two caps that were pinned to the curtains.


The towels she has got there are mine; I have a person here to prove it; I had them before I knew the prisoner or her mistress; I have on my head now a cap made of the same cloth, and the same border with the cap she says is hers.



The two towels that were taken out of Jones's room I have washed several times for her; they are her towels.

She called five other witnesses, who gave her a good character.

DAVENPORT GUILTY of stealing to the value of 10 d.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.

[Whipping. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-49

228. HANNAH SMITH otherwise FIELD was indicted for stealing one black quilted petticoat, value 3 s. a black silk hood and handkerchief, value 4 s. one muslin apron, value 3 s. one laced cap, value 3 s. two linen handkerchiefs, value 3 s. a linen shift, value 2 s. a cheque apron, value 6 d. one woman's silk hat, value 1 s. three yards of silk riband, value 1 s. two yards of lace, value 2 s. and one remnant of linen cloth, value 2 s. the property of William White , December 30th .

ANN WHITE sworn.

I am the wife of William White , my husband is in the Marshalsea prison for debt; on the 25th December last the prisoner went with me to see my husband; I gave my child the key of my room to play with, and she took it away unknown to me and went and took the things mentioned in the indictment out of my room in Duke's-street, Bloomsbury; she left the door unlocked and the key lying on the floor; I went to the Marshalsea prison on the Sunday and came home on Monday morning about eleven o'clock and found the door open; I saw no more of her till she was taken, and then she had my petticoat and shift on and a pea-green riband of mine on her head; I have got nothing again but my hat, which she took off my head in the prison; it was found in her pocket.

' Thomas Doram deposed that he took the


'The prisoner said nothing in her defence.'


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-50

229. WILLIAM HENRY was indicted for stealing a firkin of butter, value 30 s. the property of Robert Patrick and Edward Parry , January 17th .


I am a cheesemonger in Whitechapel : I lost a firkin of butter on the 17th of January between the hours of nine and ten in the evening; it was in the shop within about two yards of the street door; the shop is open in the front; I had seen it in the course of the evening, it contained 56 lb. of butter; I received a message from a gentleman who is in court, that he had detected a person with a firkin of butter; I went to Gulstone-square, and saw the prisoner and the butter, and knew it to be mine; it had been sold, but not delivered.

[The firkin was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


I live in Gulstone-square: I was going home between nine and ten at night; as I was going up the street to the square, I heard a bustle behind me; I turned and saw the prisoner with a firkin of butter and two others with him; I suspected they had not come honestly by it, but I thought if they were going to deliver it, as the passage that goes through the square was shut I should see them deliver it: finding the passage shut they went to return, and I secured the prisoner and the butter, the other two ran away; I sent my servant to the prosecutor's, who came and said it was his.


A man asked me to carry it to Spitalfields, and was to give me sixpence; I was going through the square, it was shut up, and the gentleman stopped me.


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-51

230. RICHARD HAINS was indicted for stealing a linen shirt, value 2 s. two pair of silk stockings, value 3 s. a callico waistcoat, value 2 s. a linen waistcoat, value 2 s. a linen handkerchief, value 6 d. and a lawn stock, value 4 d. the property of Thomas Gartside , December 23d .

'It appeared upon the evidence, that a

'woman who lived with the prosecutor had

'worn his cloaths to the play with him; it

'also appeared, that he had given her these

'things mentioned in the indictment, and he

'said that woman might possibly have given

'them to the prisoner, who was the prosecutor's



Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.

Reference Number: t17770219-52

231. WILLIAM SUMNER was indicted for stealing a feather bed, value 10 s. and a woollen bed rug, value 5 s. the property of Mary Lambert , January 20th .


I live in Bell-yard, Golden-lane: on the 20th of January, I was removing from New-street, Cloth-fair , my bed was at the door tied up in a rug; it was missed in a moment's time; I immediately sent two men and my son in pursuit of it, and my son stopped the prisoner with it in Jewin-street.

[The bed was produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutrix.]


My mother sent me down Jewin-street, to see if I could meet with the person that had taken the bed; I saw the bed at the door just before; I went down Jewin-street, and I afterwards saw the prisoner with the bed upon his back; I pulled the bed off his back, and told him it was my mother's; he pushed me down; I got up again and called for assistance, and the mob got together and said, they would keep him till I got somebody to secure him; I went down Jewin-street and saw my uncle; he secured the prisoner and took him to the watch-house; my uncle is a soldier, he is now on duty in the Park.


I met a man in Long-lane with the bed; he hired me to carry it to Old Bedlam; when I was stopped in Jewin-street he made off.

The prisoner called one witness, who gave him a good character.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Branding. See summary.]

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-53

232. BARNARD RILEY was indicted for stealing a leather pocket book, value 2 s. the property of William Brown , February 4th .


I am a grocer in James's-street, Oxford-road: on Tuesday the 4th of this month, about seven in the morning, I was waiting at the Coach and Horses in Bishopsgate-street for an acquaintance; I laid my hand down on the table and fell asleep; the pocket-book was then in my inside coat-pocket; the prisoner is quite a stranger to me; the landlord waked me and asked, is this your pocketbook? I clapped my hand to my pocket and said, my name is in it, if it is mine; he produced it to me; this is the pocket-book (producing it) there is William Brown , Bristol, 1775, on it.


I keep the Coach and Horses in Bishopsgate-street: the prosecutor came to my house on the fourth of February about seven in the morning to wait for an acquaintance; he laid down his head and went to sleep; the prisoner came in while he was asleep; a waggoner came to me and told me, the prisoner was picking the man's pocket that was asleep; I got up to see what he was about; the gentleman's coat was open and he was sitting down close by him; I saw him put his hand into the prosecutor's pocket and take the pocket-book out and drop it; I immediately laid hold of him and asked him what he was going to do with it? he said, it was his own; I said, I saw him take it out of the gentleman's pocket; then he said, the gentleman gave it him to take care of for him.


I found it under the table.

GUILTY of stealing to the value of ten-pence .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Whipping. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-54

233. WILLIAM FLINT was indicted for stealing a pair of brilliant diamond drop earrings, value 520 l. the property of William Cox , in the dwelling-house of William Cox and Thomas Watson , January 31st .


I carried a pair of diamond ear-rings to Mr. Cox's house on the 30th of January; I heard he wanted a pair of ear-rings about that value; I left them with Mr. Watson, Mr. Cox was not within; I called the next day; then I saw Mr. Cox and the prisoner in the compting-house; I asked him if he had seen the ear-rings which I left; he said, yes; he took them out of the desk and asked me the lowest price of them; I told him 500 guineas; I

left them there that day; on the Monday following I heard they were lost; I bought them first of Mr. Stephenson; I took out the stones and made some alteration in them, and then sold them to Mr. Piggot; they were then in three drops, he reduced them into one drop; I bought them again of Mr. Piggot, and afterwards put them into the hands of Mr. Wood, who had a sale of diamonds, to dispose of them; he not selling them, they came back to me; and I left them with Mr. Cox, on sale or return.


On Thursday the 30th of January, Levi left the ear-rings at my house; he came the next morning, and I told him I thought they had not show enough for the money; the prisoner was then in the compting-house; he was employed by me as a sword-cutler ; the house is in the partnership business; Levi left the ear-rings that day; on the Monday following, I asked my partner if he had the earrings, he said he had not, then I missed them.

Were they bought in the partnership account? - No; on my own private account; if I did not return them I was to pay for them.


I am a silversmith on Ludgate-hill: I sold a pair of three drop ear-rings to Judah Levi ; the center stones were afterwards presented to me for sale on the 11th of February by one Hewson; they were very remarkable; there was one drop cut off sharp at the bottom; it is what we call a close stone, and there is some colour in it; when I sold them to Levi they were set; he broke them up and put them into a sale at the George and Vulture Tavern; I saw them there unset in the state they are now in; I saw them set afterwards in the ear-rings; I believe, in the identical ear-rings that were stole, they were set by Piggot; I have no doubt they are the same drops; I told Piggot as soon as I saw them, they were worth 250 l. they would have been worth more if they had been more of a size; there were some smaller drops brought me by the same man; I asked him who he had them of? he said, he did not sell them for himself, and wished to decline telling me; I told him, I believed they had been lost or mislaid within a week or ten days; he said, he believed I was mistaken; I sealed them up, and he appointed to come the next day between one and two o'clock; I sent for Mr. Cox and Mr. Levi, and they brought Wood the broker with them who had the drops to sell; I told them, I believed they were the drops; Wood gave an exact description of them before he saw them; they got a warrant, Hewson came to the time he had appointed, and they served it upon him; he then saw it was a serious matter, and said, he had them of Flint, who was waiting at a public house; I went to the public house to see for Flint, and before I returned they had apprehended him; he said, the diamonds were his, that he had received them from the East Indies, loose and not set.


Flint applied to me on the sixth of February to cut out the stones of the ear-rings; they were all set then; they were to be taken to pieces and sold; I sold a parcel of the stones to Mr. Stephenson, and I sold a quantity of stones to Pollard, at the rate of eight or ten pounds a carrat; the two center drops which I offered to Mr. Stephenson and which were stopped, are very remarkable; one has a flaw in the side, and the other is flat at the bottom (looking at them) these are the stones; I had no objection to sell them; I thought he came honestly by them; I sold in all 280 stones; I offered the center drop at several shops before I carried them to Mr. Stephenson's; when I offered them to him he said he knew them, that there was a dispute between Mr. Cox and Judah Levi about them; I weighed them, and desired him to seal them up, and I would come the next day between one and two o'clock; I went to Flint and told him what had happened; he said,

'D - n you; you fool, cannot you say you bought them on 'Change; I said, I cannot, I have mentioned your name, which in truth I had not; I went to Mr. Stephenson's at the time, and left the prisoner at a public house; I was taken up; then I said I had them of Flint, and told them he was at the public house; they sent to the public house, but he was gone; in the mean time he went swift by the door and a young man went out and stopped him; he said in the shop before them all, that he had them from India.


I remember making up a pair of ear-rings which I sold to Judah Levi ; I verily believe these to be the center drops; one of them is a very remarkable one; I don't know that I have any doubt about them; I bought them in August 1775, I afterwards made them up for Judah Levi ; there were in the whole 293 diamonds, small and large.

JOHN WOOD sworn.

I am a diamond-broker: Levi gave me a pair of brilliant drops to sell, not selling them I returned them to him again; about fourteen days ago he desired me to call at Mr. Stephenson's to look at a pair of drops that were stopped; I examined my book for the weight and particulars of them before I went; when I came to Mr. Stephenson's I was desired to look at them, and seeing them I had no doubt they were the same, and I have no doubt now that they are the same.


Upon the 31st of January I called at Mr. Cox's about three o'clock; when I came to the door Judah Levi was on one side of the compter and Mr. Cox on the other; I never went into the house at all; I went to the Minories with a sword and staid till about four o'clock; as I was returning I picked up a box with these stones; I kept them eight days, and not being advertized, I gave them to Hewson to dispose of.

To Mr. COX. Was the prisoner in the room when Levi and you were talking of the ear-rings? - Yes.

What did you do with them? - I believe I laid them on the desk.

Did not you lock them up? - I don't know that I did; I went out of town on Friday night; I did not miss them till I came to town on the Monday.



I am a jeweller: I have known Flint twelve years; I have worked in stones thirty years; I would not venture to swear to a stone for the world; I have never heard any thing against the prisoner in my life; I have not seen Hewson these seven years, but as to his evidence he is a fellow that knows nothing; he is the biggest villain that ever was in the world: I believe it is impossible to identify stones.

' Charles Whitten also deposed, that he

'thought it impossible to identify stones.'

The prisoner called nine other witnesses, who gave him a good character.

GUILTY of stealing, but not in the dwelling-house .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-55

234, 235. WILLIAM ADAMS and JOHN HAWKES were indicted, the first for stealing a yard of casimere, value 8 s. two yards of corderoy, value 7 s. fourteen coat buttons plated with silver, value 3 s. and thirty breast buttons plated with silver, value 3 s. the property of William Whitrow , and the other for receiving the above goods, well knowing them to have been stolen , February 15th .


I am a man's mercer in Aldgate High-street : Adams is my apprentice ; I was informed by Hawkes's master, that Hawkes had things of my apprentice which he knew he could not pay for, and thought my boy did not come honestly by; I went and examined Hawkes' box and found in it all the things mentioned in the indictment; I charged him with receiving them from Adams; he denied it; I persuaded him to confess, and told him it would be the means of my shewing more lenity to him, upon that he acknowledged he had them of Adams; I then went home and compared the corderoy with the piece it was cut off from, which matched; then I charged Adams with taking the things, and he confessed the whole fact; I made him no promises; he promised while he was in the Compter to write me out an account of all he had robbed me of besides these goods.

[The things were produced in Court, and deposed to by the prosecutor.]


Hawkes had these things of me and was to pay me for them, and then I was to return the money.


I had them of him; I did not know but they were his own; I was to pay him for them as soon as I could.

Adams called five witnesses, and Hawkes one, who gave them a good character.



Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-56

236. WILLIAM CARROLL was indicted for stealing 40 lb. weight of brass clippings, value 20 s. the property of George Peryre and Company , February 7th .

There was no evidence to prove the partnership.


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-57

237, 238. JOHN HOLLAND and MARY the wife of Thomas OLIPHANT were indicted for stealing a bushel of coals, value 10 d , the property of William Tucker , February 16th .

'The prisoners were stopped with the coals

'in the street coming from the water-side, but

'there being no proof what lighter they came

'out of, the property could not be ascertained.'


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-58

239. DANIEL DENNY was indicted for feloniously forging on the 14th of January a certain ticket, partly printed and partly written, with the name of S. Larchin there to subscribed, purporting to be a ticket made out by virtue of an act of parliament made in the 16th year of his Majesty's reign for establishing a lottery, and to have been signed by Sewallis Larchin , one of the cashiers of the governor and company of the Bank of England ; the tenor of which ticket is as followeth:

Lottery, Anno 1776.

No 36m699.

The bearer of this ticket will be entitled to such beneficial chance as shall belong thereto, in the lottery to be drawn out in pursuance of an act made in the 16th year of his Majesty's reign.

S. Larchin.

With intent to sell and dispose of the same ticket as a true and genuine ticket, against the statute, &c.

2d Count. For feloniously uttering as true to one Stewart Johnson the same ticket with the like intention, knowing the same to be forged and counterfeited, against the statute, &c.

3d Count. For feloniously offering to dispose of the same ticket, knowing it to be forged, with the like intention, against the statute, &c.

4th Count. For feloniously bringing to Stewart Johnson the same ticket with the like intention, knowing that the number thereof had been before feloniously altered, against the statute.

5th Count. For feloniously forging the same ticket with a fraudulent intention, against the statute.

6th Count. For feloniously uttering as true to Stewart Johnson the same ticket, knowing it to be forged, with the like intention, against the statute.

7th Count. For feloniously offering to dispose of the same ticket, knowing it to be forged, with the like intention, against the statute.

8th Count. For feloniously bringing to Stewart Johnson the same ticket with the like intention, knowing that the number thereof had been feloniously altered, against the statute.

A WITNESS sworn.

I know the prisoner: he and I acted as clerk to a club or company that met together at a public house in the Minories; there were three tickets bought for the club, two of them turned out blanks and one a prize; we

went to Johnson's office in Pope's-head Alley, and there we received the money for the prize; then the two tickets were thrown down, the prisoner took them up; I heard afterwards that another person of the club, John Lovett , desired to have one of the tickets returned to him; that which he had chosen was returned to him.


I chose one ticket; I had been to the office where the money for the prize was received; the two tickets were thrown down, Denny took them up; I desired to have my own ticket returned to me; the No 36609 remained with the prisoner.


(Produces the ticket) I received this ticket from the prisoner; he asked me to examine it; he said, he had been at two different offices, that at one office they said it was a blank, at another office a 20 l. prize; he employed me to receive it and bring him back the money; I examined it; at first I thought it a blank and wrote so on the back, by examining further I found that number was a 20 l. prize; I received this ticket from the prisoner at the bar at a public house in the Minories, and afterwards received the money at Barnes and Golightly's office, which I paid the prisoner 15 l. 18 s. then we went to drink together at a public house in Virginia-street; the prisoner treated the company with punch, and he shewed the guineas there which he had received; I went again and examined the ticket, when I had a suspicion; it turned out to be a blank, drawn the first day; then I went and made information before a justice of the peace.


On the 29th of June I was at the public house in Virginia-street, the prisoner was treating the company with a bowl of punch; he said, he had received the money for a lottery ticket; he took out a pocket-book and shewed us the number of the ticket, it was according to my recollection No. 36699.


I was likewise at the public house in the Minories; Denny treated, I did not know why; he pulled out some money and said he had received it of Johnson; Denny likewise took out his pocket-book, I don't recollect what that memorandum was or what the pocketbook contained.


I belong to Barnes and Golightly's office; I remember that a 20 l. prize was brought to the office by Johnson; I gave about 15 l. 18 s. for it; a week afterwards the ticket was again re-delivered to Johnson.


The prisoner told me that Johnson had a ticket of his, and asked if I had seen it, and wished I would get the money for the ticket.


I am a clerk in the lottery office: my business is to figure the numbers; there are three tickets, one is given to the holder of the ticket, the other is put into the wheel, and the third is kept as a check; I figured the ticket No 36699; there were no bars to that ticket; the bars are put only to secure the 0 from being counterfeited, by turning it to the figures 9 or 6; there is no bars to 36699; there were bars to 36609.

' John Eggleton produced the check-book,

'by which it appeared that the ticket produced

'had been altered, as it would not check with

'the number it purported to be.'


These witnesses who have given an account that three tickets were bought on account of the club, that two of them turned out blanks and one a prize, have given a right account of it, and have told you truly that the number 36609 was delivered to me and remained in my custody; Stewart Johnson did deliver it to me; I am not accountable for this ticket which has been negotiated for which the money was paid being a counterfeit, because it received the alteration after it came out of my hands; I only delivered to Stewart Johnson the number 36609.

The prisoner called many reputable witnesses, who gave him a good character.

GUILTY . Death .

Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-59

240. JOHN KELLY was indicted for stealing a deal box, value 10 d. a gauze apron, value

3 s. 9 d. a gauze handkerchief, value 4 s. twenty-five yards of French net, value 49 s. a black ostrich feather, value 6 s. 6 d. nine dozen of cap-wire, value 1 l. 1 s. two dozen of vellum trimmings, value 14 s. eight feathers called suttan, value 13 s. three ounces of spangle, value 9 s. two black ostrich plumes, value 3 s. 6 d. and a silk tinsel collar, value 10 d. the property of Samuel Manning and Jacob Allen , January 2 d .

'The evidence was not sufficient to bring

'the charge home to the prisoner.'


Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Justice GOULD.

Reference Number: t17770219-60

241. JOHN MINCHIN was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Mary Fielding , widow , on the ninth of November about the hour of eight in the night, and stealing a cotton counterpane, value 6 s. a callico petticoat, value 2 s. a flannel petticoat, value 2 s. two black silk cloaks, value 4 s. four printed cotton bed-curtains, value 40 s. a cotton head-cloth for a bed, value 10 s. a cotton tester-cloth for a bed, value 10 s. six cotton vallens for a bed, value 4 s. and a cotton bed-gown, value 5 s. the property of the said Mary in her dwelling house .

'There was no evidence to affect the prisoner

'but the testimony of an accomplice

'unconnected with any corroborating circumstances.'


Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-61

242, 243. JOHN HUNT and WILLIAM HUNT were indicted for that they feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously did make an assault on Thomas Ormond in his dwelling house, and that the said John, with a certain gun loaded with gunpowder and divers leaden shot, which he in both his hands held unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously did shoot at the said Thomas, he being in the said dwelling house, against the statute, and that the said William, at the time of the felony committed by him the said John, was unlawfully, willingly, maliciously, and feloniously present, abetting, aiding, assisting, comforting, and maintaining the said John to do and commit the felony aforesaid , against the statute, &c.

2d Count. The same as the first, only charging the shooting to be with intention to kill and murder the said Thomas Ormond , January 12th .


I keep a house at Finchley : on the 12th of January about eight at night, the prisoners came to my house; John Hunt said he came after his wife; I let him in to satisfy him that his wife was not there, as she really was not; John Hunt came in and searched the house; I did not see the other then; he came again about 12 o'clock with William Hunt ; they abused me very much and used a great many bad words; I cannot remember the words; I got up and came out with only my coat on; I desired them not to make a noise and disturb the neighbourhood; William Hunt said,

'D - n him, shoot him;' on that John Hunt immediately fired and wounded me in the thigh; there were some shot afterwards taken out of my thigh; upon being shot I immediately fell; I know nothing of what passed afterwards.

COURT. What did you say to them to provoke them? - Nothing at all; we never had any words at all; I have worked several days with them.


I live at Finchley, in the same house with Mr. Ormond: the prisoner came to his house about eight o'clock the first time; John Hunt had lost his wife and suspected she was there; he came in and searched, she was not there; they came again between eleven and twelve; we were all in bed then; they made a great disturbance and said,

"Turn out your whores, you whoremaster," that was the expression, and then kicked at the door; the prosecutor went down and went out at the door, upon which William Hunt said to John,

'D - n your eyes, shoot him,' and I heard the gun go off immediately; I went down and picked up the prosecutor.


I live next door to Mr. Ormond: on Sunday

night between eleven and twelve o'clock, I heard a great uproar; I heard William Hunt say to John,

'D - n your blood, shoot him,' and I heard the gun go off; I got up and pursued him and took them in a barn where John lives; there were two guns; John had put powder in the gun and was priming it, but had not time to put shot in; he had the gun in his hand, when I went into the barn the other ran away to another barn, where we took him.


I did not do it wilfully; I stumbled and the gun went off; we were very much fuddled; he had harboured my wife several nights and denied her.

MAY. They were very sober when we took them.

' William Hunt was not put on his defence.'



Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: t17770219-62

244. WILLIAM FOX was indicted for stealing 50 l. in money numbered, the property of Edward Chitts , in the dwelling house of Alexander Steele , February 17th .


I live at Hampton-court : I lost 50 l. out of my box which was in my master's house, Mr. Alexander Steele ; I saw it on the 7th of this month; I had locked the box about the middle of the day; I found the box broke open and the money missing on the ninth; there was a guinea among them with a mark on it that I can swear to; thirty-five guineas were found upon the prisoner when he was taken; I was informed that he was at my master's house on the 7th, and suspected him.


The prosecutor laid an information at Sir John Fielding 's, that he had been robbed by the prisoner Fox; I took him on Monday night as he came out of the Westmister Cockpit, and found thirty-five guineas upon him (producing it).

'The prosecutor deposed to one of the

'guineas, which was a very remarkable one,

'and which he described at Sir John Fielding 's

'before he saw it.'


I am keeper to Mr. Steele, who is head-keeper at Hampton-park; William Fox came to my master's house two or three times in the evening of the seventh of this month to enquire for Chitts; he was servant to the duke of Gloucester formerly, but is now out of place.


I am innocent of the affair.

GUILTY of stealing to the value of thirty-nine shillings .

Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-63

245. SARAH COOLEY was indicted for that she did mark and stamp, and cause and procure to be marked and stamped, certain wares, to wit, four shoe-buckles made of brass and other base metal coloured over and resembling silver, with a certain stamp in imitation of and to resemble a certain mark, to wit, the mark of a-lion used and to be used by the goldsmith's company in the stamping of gold and silver plate .

246. JOHN HURST was indicted for that he did feloniously forge and counterfeit, and cause to be forged and counterfeited a certain mark and stamp, to wit, the mark and stamp of a lion used and to be used by the goldsmith's company in stamping gold and silver plate .

2d Count. Leaving out the word feloniously.

3d Count. For feloniously stamping certain wares, to wit, four shoe-buckles made of brass and other base metal coloured over resembling silver, with a certain mark and stamp, to wit, of a lion, resembling the stamp of the goldsmith's company.

4th Count. The same, only leaving out the word feloniously.


I went with Mr. Clarke to search Cooley's lodging and found these buckles up the chimney.


I found in Sarah Cooley 's lodging the two stamps I have produced after the prisoner and she were taken; we took Hurst there at breakfast.


I found two pair of buckles in a glove; Cooley said they belonged to Hurst; Hurst said he bought them of a Jew; they were lying on the table before them both when we went into the room; she snatched them off the table and put them under her cloaths; he said before Sir John Fielding that he bought them of a Jew.

Mr. RUSHWORTH sworn.

I have assayed these buckles, they contain only twelve grains of silver; the impression on the stamp is the same as on the buckles.

JOHN CORN the accomplice sworn.

The prisoner and I together bought three pair of buckles of one Savage; he stamped the three pair; I sold one, we left these two pair at Cooley's lodging; Hurst produced the stamp to me, I believe he made it.


It is totally false; Corn told the justice he had the stamps of one Hog and Tustin who are in custody at Maidstone; I solemnly declare I never stamped the buckles nor saw any thing of them; there are two persons present heard him say so.



I am a bricklayer: I have known the prisoner five years; I heard Corn say Hurst was clear of stamping these buckles.

What did he say before the justice? - That Corn related the words, that he sold one pair of buckles; that they stamped three pair; that he held them while Hurst stamped them; but what Corn said to me in prison was, that Hurst was innocent of it.


I went to Corn in the prison and heard him say Tustin and Hog were concerned in the stamps, and that the prisoner had nothing to do with it; I heard their examination before the justice; he told the justice that Tustin and Hog were concerned in the stamps, that William Hog made the stamps.

Did he say before the justice the prisoner was not guilty? - Yes.

COURT. You say that Corn said before the justice that Hurst had nothing to do with it? - Not before the justice, he said so to me in prison; he said before the justice, that Hog and Tustin were concerned in the stamps.


I was before the justice: Corn said that Hog made the stamps of the lion, and that he bought the letters in Leather-lane.

Did he say whether Hurst was concerned with him or not? - I don't remember that.

Did he say whether Hurst was concerned in selling any? - I believe he did to the best of my knowledge.

Did he or not say, that Hurst and he had stamped three pair of them? - I believe he did; I won't be positive.

'The prisoner called four witnesses, who

'gave him a very good character.'

GUILTY . On the Third and Fourth Count.

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

[Imprisonment. See summary.]

Reference Number: t17770219-64

247. JOHN SAVAGE was indicted for that he did feloniously forge and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be made and counterfeited, and did willingly act in the making and counterfeiting the mark and stamp of a lion, to the likeness and similitude of the mark and stamp used and to be used by the goldsmith's company in marking and stamping gold and silver plate .

2d Count. Leaving out the word feloniously, January 23d .


Tried by the London Jury before Mr. RECORDER.

Reference Number: o17770219-1

On the First or Second Day of the Sessions, a Petition was presented to the Court from Ebenezer Smith Platt , a Prisoner in Newgate, under the following Warrant, praying the Benefit of the Habeas Corpus Act.

Middlesex, to wit,

TO the Keeper of his Majesty's Gaol of Newgate, or his Deputy.

"These are in his Majesty's name to authorize

"and require you to receive into your

"custody the body of Ebenezer Smith Platt ,

"herewith sent you, charged before me upon

"the oath of Richard Scriven and Samuel

"Burnett, with high treason, at Savannah

"in the Colony of georgia; and you are to

"keep him safe until he shall be delivered by

"due course of law, and for so doing this

"shall be your sufficient warrant.

Given under my hand and seal this 23d day of January 1777.


The prisoner was set to the bar, and his counsel Mr. HOWARTH and Mr. ALLEYNE contended, that the words of the Habeas Corpus Act, all the forms of which act the prisoner had observed, were sufficiently large to warrant the idea entertained by the prisoner, to enable himself to be discharged upon bail; that there did not seem to be in the act any restriction at all upon the judges sitting upon a Commission of Oyer and Terminer; that in every possible construction that can be made of a law, that which is most favourable to the liberty of the subject, is always adopted by the magistrate; and that any person who is committed for high treason or felony, is entitled to his discharge, upon application being made in pursuance of that act; that there had been sufficient time to have brought the prisoner to trial; the prisoner gave public notice that he was ready to take his trial; that a commission might be added to that under which the court were then sitting; that as the prosecutors had not thought fit to procure a special commission for the trial, that the court finding him in the gaol of Newgate, would certainly comply with the prayer of his petition, for the court were bound to deliver the gaol of every person that should be found in it, let the offence he is charged with be of what nature it may, unless some particular application should be made to the court to detain him upon legal or reasonable cause; that if it were otherwise, a person might be imprisoned for life without a possibility of redress: the counsel said, it might be urged in answer on the other side, that the prisoner might petition for a commission to issue against him for his trial, but it might be then doubtful whether his petition would be heard, or how surely he would obtain the prayer of it; for if those who have the power to grant the commission have not the will, the prisoner has no mode of compelling them; that it is the duty of the officers who prosecute for the crown, to see that the commission issues in due time, and with proper expedition; the counsel observed, that it had been suggested, that the court having no power to try Mr. Platt, they had therefore no power to interfere; that though that looked specious when stated, yet they did not conceive it to be true in point of fact; as for instance, suppose a man was confined in Newgate for a felony committed in Yorkshire, the court at the Old Bailey has certainly no power to try him; but suppose such a person was upon the first day of the opening of the commission to present his petition, grounded upon the Habeas Corpus Act, requesting to be discharged or tried during the session; that the court would certainly order him to be immediately removed by Habeas Corpus to the county of York, there to take his trial; and that if the court did not do it in the first instance, that man would certainly be entitled at the call-over to be discharged; that if the court could make no order (which the counsel contended they could not) to send the prisoner to any other place, or to refer him to any particular commission or jurisdiction, they submitted to the court, that the party would be entitled at the last day of the session, either to be discharged, or admitted to bail; that it had been said, a special commission was to be issued upon the statute of the 35th of Henry VIII. to try the prisoner; that if such a commission was to issue, it should appear upon the face of the warrant that the prisoner is a person liable to be tried under that commission, for unless that appear with precision upon the face of the warrant, the court certainly would not intend or presume any thing in order to bring him within that

commission; that on the contrary, so far as intendment and presumption would go, the court would intend and presume every thing in favour of a man, who is in a strange country, and who has applied to be tried: that the statute of the 35th Henry VIII. passed for the purpose of removing some doubts that had been entertained upon the construction of the statute of the 33d Henry VIII. but the court would recollect, that the law says, that a commission shall issue to try persons accused of treason in parts without the realm of England; that supposing the party to be indicted for the offence under a special commission, the words of the commission would express the offence to be committed without the realm of England, and the indictment must necessarily follow that description; that if there was a description generally that he was indicted for high treason committed at Savannah, in the Colony of Georgia in North America, that upon that description only, such an indictment would clearly be different and be quashed; that the necessary allegation and averment must be, that it was at a place without the realm of England: the counsel contended, that the warrant ought to contain the same certainty of description; that that averment was no where to be found in the warrant, for he is committed as charged upon oath with high treason at Savannah, in the Colony of Georgia in North America; that the warrant does not go on to state that it is without the Realm of England; they observed, that in such case, the court would not intend that North America is not in England; that no judge will intend or presume that the East Indies or any other part is without the realm of England unless it is so averred to be; that by fiction it is often averred to be within for the purpose of having actions tried here that could not otherwise be tried; nobody controverts the fact, and therefore it is taken as an admitted fact upon the pleading, that it was necessary that it should appear to the court upon the warrant, that the prisoner was committed for an offence that is indictable and triable, under the statute of the 35th of Henry VIII. which could not appear unless the commitment had gone on to allege, that this was committed at Savannah, being a place without the realm of England; that upon that single principle, whatever the court might conceive of their general power, under the habeas corpus act, yet upon that single principle the prisoner was intitled to his discharge. The counsel further observed, that they did not find themselves at liberty to argue now a question, which they should have been glad to have done; whether a general commitment for high treason is sufficient; they acknowledged that it had been settled in Sir William Wyndham 's case, though the counsel said the reasons did not convince them, but taking it upon the general proposition that the court could not presume or intend that the offence was committed without the realm of England, as it was not so specified in the warrant; the counsel therefore concluded, that the court would under the general prayer of the petition that the prisoner had presented to them under the habeas corpus act admit him to bail.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. WALLACE, of counsel for the crown, argued, that in cases of high treason, particularly in Broom's case in second Roll's Reports 107, and in abundance of other cases in the time of Queen Elizabeth and James the first, it had been held that the commission of gaol delivery did not extend to high treason; when that was held, Stamford says, that commissioners of the gaol delivery shall not deliver prisoners committed for high treason, because they have no jurisdiction to try it, and when that came to be corrected, as it did afterwards in Crompton's book of the jurisdiction of courts, a surmise is made that by the first of Edward VI. the law appeared to be otherwise; likewise Coke, Hale, and Hawkins say, the law appeared to be otherwise; but then the reason upon the law being otherwise, what do they conclude? why that the court may deliver them, because they have jurisdiction to try them; that a perusal of the act will plainly prove the whole scope and purpose of it, which is merely to bring into the gaol delivery prisoners in franchise, that they may not lie without the benefit of gaol delivery; and that act has put a penalty upon all sheriffs, lords of franchize and gaol keepers within the county for not bringing in criminals, that it was not in the contemplation of that act, that any other but those who could be tried before the gaol delivery ought to be brought in.

The counsel observed, that they had been drawn a little forwarder in what they purposed to offer to the court in these observations, but they intended at the outset to consider, in the fairest order that presented itself to them, the several arguments that had been used on the other side; they declared they had not in this particular case either personally or politically a single wish about the event of the application to the court, beyond that of keeping the law steady and clear in its due course; let the law be preserved; they had no kind of objection to what became of this individual case; liberty regulated by law and protected by law, they said, they venerated and admired; but liberty qualified in any other manner, they had no sort of esteem or regard for, for it was nothing better than licentiousness; that therefore the single question before the court was, as upon a point of liberty regulated and protected by law; and the counsel said, they would confine themselves in arguing it merely to the point of law upon the question; that the first thing that occurred was the observation that had been made upon the warrant, in order that it might be seen whether the prisoner was in gaol under such circumstances, as that he might be detained in prison: that the whole observation that had been made upon the warrant amounted to this; that although the crime is described in the warrant to have been committed at Savannah, in the province of Georgia in North America, that it does not sufficiently appear to have been committed without this realm. They observed that the counsel for the prisoner, instead of applying themselves to any kind of learning upon the form of warrants, or to any one case that had been decided upon the subject of warrants, thought proper to inform the court that in an indictment it would have been necessary to have stated, that the crime was committed out of the realm, for what purpose was it to be stated, the prisoner was to be indicted under the statute of Henry VIII. which makes the question of the venue immaterial, otherwise than as a formal venue to be laid within the indictment; if he was to be brought within that statute, that then the counsel for the prisoner said, the crime should be described as committed out of the realm; that if that argument was well founded it would not avail the prisoner; it was enough for them to say, that no position concerning the forms of warrants, that no case respecting disputes upon those forms had been quoted; that all the cases that had ever arisen upon the forms of warrants had not gone upon technical expressions, but upon the fair direct substantial intendment of the warrant: suppose the counsel for the prisoner could prevail upon the court to believe, that for want of the averment in the warrant of its not being out of the realm the prisoner could not be tried here under that statute, then the consequence would be, that he must be sent over to the place in which, the crime was committed in order to be tried, which thing had been done over and over again; they quoted the case of Comberley in Strange 848, where the court went far enough to affirm the whole law they were now aiming at; namely, that a prisoner might be apprehended here, this being the place of his abode; and that he might be committed here, being the place of his abode, for a crime committed in Ireland, or a crime committed in any part of the king's dominions, and that being so apprehended the imprisonment is legal; and that he might be sent over by a warrant of the secretary of state, which is the only universal warrant known of, unless the court of King's Bench would exert that warrant, which the counsel said, they would not controvert if they did; in order to the person's being sent over to the place of his trial; then, if the counsel for the prisoner were right in supposing that it would be impossible to try him without averring in the indictment, that the offence was committed without the realm, the consequence would be that the statute of Henry VIII. as to him, was gone, but that he remained here in order to be sent over to that place, which he must be sent over to. The counsel said, that if they were to argue it upon that ground, they should take themselves to be rather stronger in insisting that he was not to be discharged in this manner, than in the taking it upon the other ground; that thus much was submitted to the court to shew, as far as that part of the argument went, that he remains a prisoner unless there were some other grounds upon which he was to be discharged; that with regard to these grounds, they had been taken so variously and argued consequently so differently, that in order to make their argument intelligible upon that subject, they would resort to a little division.

That they would first of all put the question as if the ground was perfectly free of all embarrassments upon the subject of the power supposed to be conferred by the habeas corpus act, and to make that hypothesis a little clear, they would suppose this motion now made in the court of King's Bench, whose authority is boundless as far as goes to their discretion in point of bail; that supposing the application made there, what case would be represented to that court, in order to entitle the prisoner to bail? why, the evidence before them would be this, that a man who had committed the crime of high treason, which is the highest crime in the estimation of the law of this land that a man can commit, that the warrant returned upon that habeas would inform the court that he was charged with committing that crime at the distance of 2 or 3000 miles off, at Savannah in Georgia, the warrant would inform the court that such a culprit had been committed for the space of six weeks before the return of the habeas; it would likewise inform the court that he had lain in gaol one term with these two circumstances telling each way about it: in the first place, that he had made no application to the court to be bailed; in the next place, that the prosecutor had preferred no indictment in the court of King's Bench against him; that the court of King's Bench had undoubtedly the jurisdiction to try this offence, and the indictment might be preferred there; that the prisoner was in the gaol of the court, speaking of its universal jurisdiction, and therefore in that sense the application would stand thus; that having been six weeks in the gaol of that court (without any indictment preferred against him during that term, and without any application on his part under the habeas corpus act) for a crime committed in the province of Georgia, and during the subsistence of the rebellion, in the course of which he committed that crime, he applies to the discretion of that court to be discharged; that it could not be assuming too much to say, that in such a case the wisdom of the court would not think itself called upon to effect such a discharge; that it was for that reason that they quoted the case of Sir William Wyndham , which turned clear of all embarrassments, upon the single ground of the discretion of the court of King's Bench to bail; that case was argued by Sir Joseph Jekyll , and the court, upon the ground that Sir William Wyndham had been apprehended at the time of the rebellion, which then existed, would neither bail or otherwise demean him at the first argument, but remanded him and ordered him to be brought up again upon the last day of the term; and after the rebellion was over, after he had lain four terms in prison, after one assize in Somersetshire; for it had been observed, in order to meet a suggestion made by the attorney general at that time, that the evidence would arise of an overt act in Somersetshire, which would require him to be indicted there, after four terms with the general supposition that he was to be indicted in Middlesex, and where in point of fact he must have been indicted, if indicted at all; the court did, after remanding him and bringing him up again, think proper to discharge him; the counsel observed that Lord Chief Justice Parker and the court at that time, who were very great men, were as zealous friends to the liberty of this country as ever sat in justice, and that they had no doubt that, if such an application as the present had been made to them, it would have been impossible for them to have conceived that the discretion of the court of King's Bench was called upon under the present circumstances, as they appear upon the warrant to operate their discharge; thus much was said upon the case, upon the supposition that it was clear of all embarrassments upon the fact of jurisdiction; and that the observation came to be material in another view, because it had not yet been contended, that the court of gaol delivery was bound to use no discretion upon the last day of sitting, supposing them to have that authority, but that the person who appears to be in gaol must be delivered ex necessitate and without reference to any kind of discretion, without reference to bail, which is a modified way; that of the counsel for the prisoner meant that then to be sure the argument they (the counsel for the crown) had been urging did not apply to that, but though there are in the State Trials abundance of cases which have been argued,

yet there never was an argument by the most sanguine counsel in Selden's case, or any of them, in which it had been hoped by them, that upon so narrow a case as that now presented to this court, the court of King's Bench would think themselves called upon in their discretion to discharge the prisoner; that a case had been mentioned in which the circumstances belli flagrantis operated at the time as an excuse for three of the terms out of four, for not bringing on the trial; that then, with regard to the grounds upon which the counsel for the prisoner applied to the court, the counsel for the prisoner had said, that every man in prison must be discharged at the last day of the sitting of the commission of gaol delivery. In answer to that the counsel said, that in every book upon the subject of gaol delivery the justices of that commission had been treated as a court of criminal jurisdiction, and of criminal jurisdiction only; that the court would not find in any book which treats of their authority to deliver prisoners, a hint that it refers to any other sort of prisoners than those which are confined for crimes; that if it had stood upon this ground only it would have gone a great way towards proving, that a court of gaol delivery was merely a court of criminal jurisdiction; but it is one of the most ancient commissions next to Eyre, known of in this country; it was very often sent out in the intervals of the commissions of Eyre, and that the terms in the commission were very general, and implied a very large and very extensive authority, and yet if the court would trace the history of that commission, and the history of the several cases decided upon it from year to year, in the year books they would find that there are bounds to their jurisdiction, why should there be other bounds to their jurisdiction than the walls of the prison itself? why should not the case of every prisoner for debt committed under special authorities, where the commitments are bad, be discharged? but till heard, the court could not say whether they were bad or no; why were not all those cases within the jurisdiction of gaol delivery? and yet it was agreed by every one, that they were not, and therefore the court of gaol delivery has bounds; why has it bounds? because the authority to act at all upon the cases of the several prisoners that are found in the gaol was incidental to the power of delivering the gaol on the one hand; on the other hand, it was confined to such sort of prisoners in gaol as were not attached by any other competent authority of a judicial sort, but as lie there purely for their deliverance; that before the 4th of Edward III. Chap. 2. it was not possible for the justices of gaol delivery to have proceeded upon an indictment taken before the justices of the peace: in the year book of the 15th of Henry VII. folio 5, B. it is laid down that the justices of gaol delivery may proceed to give judgment upon an indictment taken before the justices of the peace; it was there argued collaterally, for the point of that case was nothing to the purpose of gaol delivery, that was a case of an assize by writ of the King's court removed out of the Common Pleas, and the party insisting that he ought to be discharged of the damages, &c. to the King, that was the question that arose there; but in arguing the question they referred to that case; that the reason of that case was plainly referrable to the 4th of Edward III. because they had authority by that statute to proceed upon the case, even though another judicial authority had taken it up; but they go a great deal further, for by the first of Edward VI. Chap. 7. which was intended by the legislature merely to be a continuance of processes, began in the reign of Henry VIII. but which had by interpretation been properly and justly extended to authorize the gaol delivery to proceed upon all manner of indictments that were depending upon prisoners in that gaol, either before justices of the peace or justices of oyer and terminer to proceed on them, or to proceed to give judgment upon them; that the authority of a court of gaol delivery to pronounce judgment upon those indictments depended upon the operation and effect of that statute; that it was stated to be so by all the books; the counsel put this case; suppose a man had been indicted before a court of oyer and terminer, the statute of Edward VI. clearly confines the authority to the court of gaol delivery, as pronouncing judgment and awarding execution upon indictments then taken; suppose judgment had been pronounced either by a former court of gaol delivery or of oyer and terminer, which for want of continuance by adjournment was gone; suppose a commission of gaol delivery came after and found that man convicted by judgment, and that the man supposing a pardon had come to him in the mean time offered to plead his pardon, that court, it had been determined expressly, could not allow the pardon; they quoted a case in Daliston, folio 20. of the resolutions of two judges, Portman and Bromley, that they were neither authorized by the 4th of Edward III. which gave them jurisdiction to hear the indictments which came in by the justices, nor by the first of Edward VI. which gave them jurisdiction to pronounce judgment and award execution; that they were not authorized by one or the other, but they directed him to take his certiorari to carry his record into the King's Bench to plead his pardon and have it allowed there; the counsel said, they mentioned these cases only for the sake of shewing the nature of the jurisdiction of gaol delivery wherever a prisoner is laid in gaol for deliverance; they might from all antiquity proceed upon an indictment; if a man laid in gaol under no attachment at all, or under an attachment for deliverance only, and no prosecution was instituted against him before the court of gaol delivery, they might discharge him; but the language of the books upon that subject is, they may discharge him after inquest upon proclamation; Lord Coke and all the writers subsequent to him take after inquest, to mean where no sufficient evidence is given before the inquest; if a bill is returned ignoramus, or no bill is preferred against him, yet the court discharges suspects; for suspect is used in the original case in Edward III. which case has guided the language in the books upon this subject, what is the purport of the proclamation? It is calling upon the prosecutor to charge the party with a crime, and if he is not charged with a crime, then he is discharged; that is the whole extent and compass of the authority of gaol delivery; if a man is imprisoned there only for deliverance they may proceed to try him, they may discharge him without trial, if nobody will come to prosecute him; that in a case in the year book it was said, that it was for the profit of the King, that they should give judgment upon him, and that was the reason why the gaol delivery gave judgment upon him; that was not said by the court, but by the counsel argumentum it was said rashly, that it was not competent for the court to pronounce judgment upon him, the statute having made it law, consequently that is the extent of it. That the authority of a court of gaol delivery would not extend for delivering a prisoner beyond where they can go in point of authority to try him. That the counsel for the prisoner had put a case, that suppose a man was imprisoned in Newgate for a crime committed in Yorkshire, there would of course be an habeas corpus to remove him.

They said in answer to that, that there was in reality no writ of habeas corpus issued, but merely a warrant commanding the gaoler of the place where he is to deliver him, and the gaoler of the place where the offence is committed to receive him.

The court of gaol delivery cannot, nor ever did discharge such a man; but their manner is to make out a warrant in order to subject him to the proper tribunal for trial. That in a case where justice had no interposition in the matter at all, where the party seemed to lay upon small felonies, without any body appearing to prosecute, though that is not directly within the case of delivering suspects, the court would in such a case as that let him be delivered rather without arguing the point or deciding judicially upon it; that the court, they apprehended, would not think themselves much influenced by an accident of that kind having passed sub silentio, when it appears clear that the true grounds and principles of the jurisdiction of courts of gaol delivery could not possibly go beyond that case. That there had been instances where men had been committed for felonies in Ireland, and they were not discharged at the gaol delivery; the counsel likewise quoted a case of a murder at Barbadoes, and a felonious marriage in Ireland, where the parties were committed to Newgate, and nobody imagined they were to be discharged by proclamation the last day of the session; that it would be idle to call upon the King's serjeant and attorney on the last day of the session to prosecute a man for a felonious marriage in Ireland, or a murder at Barbadoes; it never was imagined that that man was to be discharged under that species of proclamation, that the court finding him attached under the charge of a crime which they have

no jurisdiction to try, he must remain there in order for trial; must he so? say the counsel for the prisoner, why then imprisonment must be for life; what is this the country in which people talk that there must be an imprisonment for life, because all jurisdictions are not confounded, because every justice of the peace is not at liberty to admit a man to bail for high treason? that a person who thought himself entitled to be bailed must apply to the court of King's Bench, which alone could bail him. That according to the idea of the prisoner's counsel a court of Quarter Sessions might bail high treason; that a competency to try the crime does not operate to bail it at all; and it had been expressly laid down, that no other court can bail but the court of King's Bench; that the argument on the part of the prisoner in the present case was a very extraordinary one, for the prisoner was here directly under the hand and jurisdiction of the court of King's Bench, which might have tried him or might have bailed him; that he having not applied to the court of King's Bench to be bailed, they come now to a court in which they had not made out that there was the least degree of authority to interpose in any manner whatever. That the counsel for the prisoner had said, that the prayer the prisoner is to make is, that he may be brought to his trial; now supposing the prisoner had made that prayer; the answer to it is, it is impossible he should be brought to his trial; well, but if he has gone through the form, as the gentlemen of counsel for the prisoner said, of moving to be brought to a trial, which upon the state of his petition it appeared impossible for him to be brought to, he has then satisfied the letter of the habeas corpus act, and in favour of liberty it shall be made nonsense of; and a man that never for an impracticable trial shall be set at liberty under the habeas corpus act, because it tends to liberty; it tends also to injustice; do the laws that protect the personal liberty of one individual mean to obtain the personal liberty of all the rest of mankind, and to leave the public open to all crimes being committed upon them? certainly not. That the question before the court was, whether the present case be that in which the court is directed to take this and that particular course; that the act of parliament does not enlarge or change their jurisdiction in any respect whatever, but only prescribes to them a mode of exercising it in favour of liberty; then as the court cannot possibly do justice to the public upon the offence, could the court bail him? if so, the court is to bail a person committed for a crime which it avows in the very moment of admitting him to bail that it has no cognizance of whatever.

Mr. HOWARTH in reply referred to the special commission under which Capt. Roche was tried for a murder at the Cape of Good Hope, which commission was issued under the 33d of Henry VIII. and that commission recited all the facts necessary to bring the party within the act; it recited that he had been vehemently suspected by the council (the word made use of in the act) it recited that the crime had been perpetrated in parts beyond the seas at the Cape of Good Hope, not stopping there, but without the kingdom; the commission there following the words of the act; it directs them to try a murder committed at the Cape of Good Hope without the king's dominions; so did the indictment follow the commission, and if the indictment had not followed the commission it would not have been good. The counsel likewise quoted the case of Mr. Sayre; he was committed for treasonable practices, and any thing that had the epithet of treasonable bestowed to it is, as the counsel for the crown had said, a crime of the first import for the magistrate to take care of; yet the learned judge whose abilities were never doubted (Lord Mansfield) said, that warrant did not contain any charge with convenient certainty, it was too vague, too general, that he could not tell what were the import of treasonable practices, and upon that ground and that ground only Mr. Sayre was admitted to bail.

The counsel put another case; suppose a man committed under a warrant for stealing a variety of things, though every body knows the import of stealing, yet such warrant would be bad unless it were said that he feloniously stole; is there any body that does not know that stealing is a felony? is there any doubt about the word or any ambiguity in it? it conveys full as strong an idea to the mind of a man as saying feloniously stealing; but yet such a warrant would be bad, and a person would be

bailed that stood under such a charge. The counsel contended that the offence must be described in a legal technical manner, as much as it ought to be upon an indictment. That the counsel for the crown had said, it had been admitted that a commitment for high treason is sufficient, and he was bound to yield to the presser of a case that had been determined, but the reasons upon that case and the conclusions did not bring conviction to his mind of their property; then if the court cannot bail this man, suppose the other mode was adopted as the counsel for the crown had pointed out, of the case of persons charged with felony in Ireland, that they are sent to the place where the crime is committed; that the present defendant had no objection to travel back to Georgia at the expence of government; and though it might have been practised in extraordinary cases where the parties never complained, or never sought redress, yet a secretary of state had not so broad a power as to send a person apprehended here over to Ireland to be tried; that it is a necessary and preparatory step to that power, that an indictment should be actually preferred at the place where the offence was committed; that a certificate of that indictment should be sent. over here; that upon that certificate the party should be sent over there to submit himself to a trial upon that indictment.

The COURT observed, that with respect to the warrant the counsel on each side allowed, that convenient certainty was sufficient in a warrant of commitment; that it was not necessary in a warrant of commitment to state that it was upon oath; that it might possibly be in many instances without oath; but when the charge comes to be made formally by an indictment, greater precision is required; that in the case of Sir William Wyndham it was said, there must be a credit given to the justice of peace that he keeps himself within due bounds. As to the rule of convenient certainty: This prisoner is committed being charged, as the warrant expresses it, upon oath; so far the charge was more explicit and full than it need have been by law; for the court said, they could not think themselves at liberty to quarrel with cases that had been most solemnly determined; first in the case of Kendall and Ross, and afterwards adopted by the court in the case of Sir William Wyndham , and again in a case in the Common Pleas, where the same objection had been made to the warrant; that it was fully established by these authorities, that a court had no right to throw things into confusion and subvert the solemn judgment of their predecessors. The warrant in question alledges, that the prisoner was charged upon oath by two persons named in the warrant with high treason at Savannah in Georgia, in North America, does not that convey to the court and to every bystander, that this North America is one of the four divisions of the world that is without the four seas of Great Britain? should the court here strain and say, why there may be a Savannah in Georgia, in North America, in England, the court is not bound to go against common sense, common language, and grammar; if this were an indictment it would be a very different consideration. As to that species of high treason the adhering to the king's enemies, the antient opinion was, and Lord Coke confirms it, that they might have been tried by the Common Law in this kingdom; but as to other species of high treason, though the offence was of equal magnitude if it was committed out of the realm, according to the established constitution of this country, they could not be tried here without the interposition of an act of parliament, the more especially when the crime was committed in foreign parts, not part of the dominions of this crown; with regard to such an high treason as that, the court said, that without giving any positive opinion respecting it they would readily yield to the course of the argument of the counsel for the prisoner, that it would be necessary in order to pursue the form of the special commission, and the language of the act, to state that it was in parts beyond the seas, without the realm; but with regard to the warrant the court were of opinion that it was a very proper formal warrant. Then as to the question whether there was any power in the court independent of the habeas corpus act to bail in cases of high treason; for with regard to the discharge of the prisoner, in the first place by proclamation, however that might have been, if it had passed sub silentio from a presumed assent of the crown was another consideration, but that was not the present case, for here the king's attorney general opposed the discharge

of this prisoner, or his being admitted to bail; that by the Common Law the court of King's Bench was the only court that had power to bail in cases of high treason; Lord Chief Justice Hale in his 2d vol. 129. says expressly, that the court of King's Bench might and still may bail in any case whatsoever, even in high treason or murder; but, says he, this is in the discretion of the court, and none can challenge it de jure; there is also a case in a book called, 8th Modern, which is called, the Case of the Prisoners in the Tower; it was in the 9th year of King George I. they were persons concerned in the plot Layer was concerned in, and there was a suspension of the habeas corpus act, but these prisoners brought writs of habeas corpus to be bailed in the court of King's Bench, and they contended that the court of King's Bench was not controuled by the act of suspension, because the act said, that no judge or justice should proceed to bail or try any of the prisoners described in the act without the allowance of his majesty, signed by six privy counsellors; now said they, this term judge or justice does not restrain the court of King's Bench, it not being an adequate and sufficient description of them; but the answer to that was, that there was no authority vested in any judge or justice to bail in such a case, except in the court of King's Bench; and from thence they argued in that case, that as the court of King's Bench was the only tribunal in which that might be done, and as that court consisted as well as other courts do of judges, it was there held, that upon that principle and upon that ground, that the act must necessarily hold to that court, because no other court had authority to bail in the case of high treason. - The court said, they were clearly of opinion that no court whatsoever could bail in cases of high treason but the court of King's Bench; and that it appeared from these authorities, that independent of the habeas corpus act, there could be no possible ground for the court of gaol delivery to admit a prisoner to bail. That with respect to the habeas corpus act, which should certainly be carried to the largest extent that a liberal construction could put upon it; yet as the judges did not set as legislators to make laws, but to execute the law, they must govern themselves by it; that by that act of parliament under certain terms and conditions, and in certain situations therein described, courts of oyer and terminer and goal delivery might bail prisoners; that as to the present offence it was certainly in the option of the crown either to proceed against the prisoner in this kingdom the same as if the offence had been committed here, either in the court of King's Bench, or else before commissioners in such shire of the realm as should be assigned by the king for that purpose; that in the catalogue of special commissions in the 2d vol. of Lord Hale from fol. 10 to 20, a special commission upon the statute of Henry VIII. is enumerated as one; then it is clear that no other judicature than the court of King's Bench or a special commission has any thing to do with those offences committed out of the realm; the provisions of the act as t o the method of proceeding is, first a prayer or petition is to be made by the party to the court of King's Bench in open court the first week of the term, or the first day of the session of oyer and terminer or general gaol delivery, to be brought to his trial; that the commission under which the present court of gaol delivery acts is a general commission of gaol delivery, for all offences in a common and ordinary way committed in the county of Middlesex, therefore it is clear that this is not such a case as is meant by this act, because to petition the court of gaol delivery, who have no power at all to try the prisoner, is nugatory and is nothing. Their lordships quoted the case of the King and Yates reported in Sir Bartholomew Shower 's Reports, folio 190, the case happened in the 2d year of William and Mary; the defendant was committed to the prison of Hull, Sir Bartholomew Shower applied on his behalf, but the court of gaol delivery were of opinion they had no authority to interpose. Now suppose a man had been committed for felony in Yorkshire, and preferring a petition of the same sort to be tried here; or suppose a man committed for felony in Cumberland at this time of the year when there was no assize at Cumberland till next Summer; or suppose the case of the King and Yates of a felony committed at Hull where a special commission is not sent sometimes for 4 or 5 years together, this court could not under the habeas corpus act give any relief. - Supposing there had been no power under the 35th of Henry VIII. to have tried this man in the court of King's Bench or by a special commission, and it appeared that he was in custody for a treason committed at Savannah in Georgia; all that the court could have done in that case would have been to have enquired into what method he could have been sent over to Georgia in order to receive a legal trial, but he could not entitle himself under the habeas corpus act to be discharged, With respect to Captain Roche's case, he was committed on the 10th of July, two days before the session at the Old Bailey began; Roche petitioned on the first day of the session to be admitted to bail, but the court did not allow his prayer, he continued in gaol till the next session, which was in September; towards the latter end of that session, Roche having been very active to obtain a special commission, the special commission came down, but on account of a dispute between Roche and the prosecutor, who should pay for the special commission, it went off, and he was not brought to trial till December session following; so it was decided by the court that not withstanding it was moved the first day of the session in July, he was not brought to his trial till the December session. The court mentioned the case of pirates who were committed to Newgate to be tried by a court of Admiralty, and no notice at all is taken of such persons at the gaol delivery, no enquiry is made when a commission of admiralty is to issue; that in the present case it does not depend entirely upon the will of the crown to grant a special commission or not, because the prisoner may apply to the court of King's Bench to be tried or else bailed; that the longest time he could remain in Newgate would be till he could make his prayer under the habeas corpus act to the court of King's Bench; that being the case, where was the great hardship upon the subject in this case?

Mr. SERJEANT GLYNN said, he did not accede to the position that the power and the notice of the justices of gaol delivery is confined only to cases that they are competent to the trial of, for he thought that contradicted common, and what was stronger, that it contradicted necessary experience: that he had always understood the power of gaol delivery to extend over every person committed for crimes, though they had not the jurisdiction to exercise a power as a court of error over summary convictions; their jurisdiction extended to enquire whether a person is confined by legal authority; that if persons are committed for the purpose of trial in other counties and by other jurisdictions, the court of gaol delivery takes proper notice of that, if they are committed for trial before the same jurisdiction, in that case the neglect of proceeding before themselves is the ground upon which the prisoner is to be delivered; but where they are committed for trial by other jurisdictions, what the court does upon that occasion is to take notice that it is a legal detention for a legal purpose, that of bringing the person to trial in another jurisdiction; but supposing the case that a prisoner is committed under a commitment so absurd and informal and substantially defective that it does not amount to a charge that imports that he should be carried to any jurisdiction to be tried; that in that case the prisoner is to be discharged by the gaol delivery. Mr. Serjeant Glynn mentioned his own determination of a case that occurred at the Old Bailey, where a man was charged with divers offences in different counties, that he could not let him remain in prison, because he could not understand where he was to be carried to be tried; that where a prisoner was in custody charged with an offence triable under a special commission, he was to remain a convenient time for the purpose of such trial; that the court takes notice where a person is committed for the purpose of being tried in another place, and therefore does not discharge him, for he is legally detained for that purpose; yet if he is detained beyond a legal time necessary for that purpose, that the court ought then to interpose; and the Serjeant said, he thought the power of deliverance was upon the ground frequently of their having no jurisdiction to try, and no care being taken or expedition used to bring the person to trial in a convenient time, as the liberty of the subject requires he should be before any other proper competent jurisdiction; that there he apprehended he was a proper object of deliverance by the court of gaol delivery, but concurred in opinion with the learned judges on the Bench, that the court could not at present interpose.

[The Prisoner was remanded.]

Reference Number: s17770219-1

The trials being ended, the Court proceeded to give judgment as follows:

Received sentence of death, 6,

William Levy , senior, Elizabeth Parker for coining, to be drawn upon a hurdle, Joseph Wilson , William Dodd , Doctor of Laws, John Hunt , and Daniel Denny .

To work on the river seven years, 5,

William Fox , James M'Durmot , Daniel Hopkin , Henry Haslem , and John Folly .

On the river five years, 3,

William Wickstead , Epiphany Parker , and John Hurst .

On the river four years, 3,

David Monro , Edward Harris otherwise Steward, and Joseph Cox .

On the river three years, 12,

James Brockley , William Flint , William Briggs , Christopher Snarbon , Richard Holdgate , William Davis , Christopher Richards , Anthony Lebert , George Barrington , Samuel Bryant , Henry Gibbons , and John King .

Branded and imprisoned six months, 12,

Lawrence Petit , Charles Kent , Mary Williams , Elizabeth Adams , Elizabeth Harrington , James Richmond , Thomas Turner , Rebecca Waites , William Henry , Edward Fossett , David Field , and William Summers .

Branded and imprisoned for one year, 3,

Sarah Tongue , William Robinson , and Hannah Smith .

Imprisoned three years, 3,

Elizabeth Witt , Eleanor Bromley , and Mary Bower .

Branded and imprisoned three months, 2,

John James Smith , and Elizabeth Humphrys .

Branded, 6,

James Crump , James Tucker , Richard State , Richard Kitcherman , Jane Stocker , and Jane Honor .

Imprisoned three months,

Mary Smith .

Whipped and discharged, 6,

Barnard Riley , Elizabeth Paggett , William Price , William Read , Catharine Davenport , and Ann Buckland .

Reference Number: a17770219-1

THE SESSIONS PAPER, containing, among many others, the remarkable Trials of Peter Tolosa for the wilful murder of Mary Catherine Duarzey ; of Arones and Noah the Two Jews for forging a Lottery Ticket, and uttering the same knowing it to be forged; with some Account of the Arguments of the Counsel on the Case of Ebenezer Smith Platt , committed for High Treason in America.

*** Trials at Law, and Arguments of Counsel, accurately taken in Short-hand by JOSEPH GURNEY of Southampton-Buildings, Chancery-lane.

Reference Number: a17770219-2

Just published,

The TRIAL (at large) of JAMES HILL alias JOHN THE PAINTER for setting Fire to the Rope House in Portsmouth Dock, taken in Short-hand by JOSEPH GURNEY , and published by Permission of the Judges.

Together with the voluntary Confession he made the Day after his Trial before Two of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace; also an Account of his Behaviour at the Place of Execution, furnished by Mr. Commissioner Gambier.

Printed for G. Kearsly, near Serjeant's Inn, Fleet-street.

By whom in a few Days will be published,

The TRIAL (at large) of JOSEPH STACPOOLE , Esq; for wilfully and maliciously shooting at John Parker , Esq; tried at the last Assize at Maidstone, before the Honourable Mr. Justice Aston, taken in Short-hand by Mr. Gurney.

*** A new and considerably improved Edition of GURNEY's SYSTEM of SHORT-HAND, is in the Press, and will speedily be published.

View as XML