Volume 1 — Wheeler's Criminal Cases

Grand Larceny. John Lee was charged with stealing a number of articles of wearing apparel, from on board the schooner Scott, of Baltimore, lying in the East River, on the 29th of An-*“■1832- He was arrested and committed during the session of Grand Jury, and a Bill was immediately found against him.

Petit Larceny. Mary Williams was brought up for trial, charged with stealing from the dwelling house of George M’Intyre, a Silk Shawl, Dimity Petticoat, and several other articles J to wearing apparel. ' The facts in evidence appeared by the testimony of Mrs. 1 M’Intyre, the prosecutor, that Mary Williams came to live in the house of George M’Intyre, her husband, at No. 14, Cross-street, on the 16th of August, 1822, and went away on the 19th of the same month, taking'the…

<p>The general ,is> when a prisoner is found in the actual posses-goods, he can-be bailed-</p>

On Counterfeit Notes. Nicholas O’Bryan was charged with having in his possession two $3 counterfeit bank-notes, of the Bank Hartford, with an intention to pass them, knowing they were counterfeit.

On Counterfeit Notes.' The prisoner, an active good looking young man, was indicted and brought up for trial, at this term, for having in his possession with intention to utter and. pass off to others, two counterfeit notes ; one $5 on the Mechanic’s Bank of the city of New York; one $10 on the Merchant’s Bank of Providence, Rhode Island ; to which indictment the prisoner, by Messrs. M’Euen and Graham, his counsel, plead not guilty.

Grand Larceny. Motion of Adjournment.. Price appeared before the conzt in behalf oí the pr:sonanCi read an affidavit to r/aí cS ilio trial to the next , A term. ,rpiie 0f the case are these : Dr, Carmichael, a gentiernan of fortune, who lives ia the city of Natchen, came to dle northern states to spend tite summer.

Indictment on Counterfeit Notes.—Motion to put off the Trial. The prisoner was charged with passing counterfeit money, was tahen up, committed,and was this day brought cut for trial. On calling the witnesses for the prosecution, it was found that none attended.

Assault and Battery. Hagar Prince, a black woman, was put to the box for A charged with committing a violent assault and battery on Mr.--—■ It appeared by the testimony of the witnesses called on behalf of the prosecution, that she came into the house of the prosecutor at the corner of Bayard and Mott-streets, and commenced beating him in a most violent manner, without any real or apparent cause.

Petit Larceny. Marx A. Turrell was indicted for stealing one Mack one camkr>c muslin gown, lace ruffles, &c.; the property of Ann Johns, a colored woman.

Indictment on. Counterfeit Notes. Peter Mead was charged with atttempting to pass off David Roe, Jun. No. 99 Catharine street, two $3 counJ } w terfeit notes ; one oh the Bank of New York, and one $3 note, on the -Union Bank..

Assault and Battery, with intent to murder. Richard Williams, a convict in the Stite’s Prison, . , , , was put to the bar for trial, charged with committing an aggaujt; and battery, with intent to murder, upon the per- * son of Hiram Maxwell, also a convict in the same place.

Disorderly House. It appeared by the testimony offered upon the trial, that the prisoners lived in Walnut at the corner'of Cherrysíreet, and kept a house for the reception and entertainment of prostitutes of almost every age, sex, and condition. They had occupied the house from May last, and from that time to the present it had been a continued nuisance, r ' not only from indecent language and conduct heard and °*3served, but from the noise and tumults in and about the house.

<p>On a trial for larceny, proof of possession 0f the stolen larceny charcharacter is not shown. Vide Thom-^Crawlíy’s case. M’Nally’s By. 378.</p>

Eliza Tripler was charged with stealing five silver sPoons fr°m the house of Mr. Stonehale. Mr. Stonehale missed the spoons, .and immediately went to the silver smiths in the. neighborhood, and gave them a description of the articles stolen.

Indictment on Counterfeit Notes. Robert S. Watts, apparently about twenty years of age was Put t0 the bar, charged with passing a ,|3 counterfeit note of the Bank of Morris upon the person of Mr. Molahan, a respectable grocery store-keeper, at No. 53 Catharine-streei on the 20th day of September last, He called in about dusk, and bought a few articles, and 0ffered Molahan the note described in the indictment in payment. Molahan hesitated to take it.

Petit Larceny. Maxwell offered to read the examination of the prisoner, which contained a confession of the felony, and also that he had been before convicted of a petit larceny, and had just been released from prison. This information was derived from him by the committing magistrate, in the form of question and answer, upon his examination.

Assault and Battery. The defendant, a foreigner, was charged with commit- , , ’ TT . t, . ting a violent assault and battery upon Henry t rost, on the 15th day of'July, 1822. The prosecutor, who is an officer, came to the house of the defendant to execute a warrant upon him ; upon its being executed, Frost told he had it, and that he must go along with him ; the defendent refused, and wanted to know for what cause he had a ... warrant against him.

Assault and Battery. Jane M’Murray was charged with committing an as-an(f battery on Mrs. Parker, on the 6th day of June, 1822. ^ appeared in evidence, that Mrs. Parker was a respe ta]fie woman, living in the Bowery, and kept a small store ; that the defendant came to her store and purchased one half-a-dollar’s worth of paint; telling Mrs. Parker she might wait until the afternoon for the money, or send her little girl with her home for it.

Petit Larceny. Redmond Kirby, a young man, apparently about twenty-five years of age, was charged with stealing, from Mathew Austin, a $5 bank note, on the 23d day of October, ±oaa. The facts were, that Kirby was in Austin’s employ, working in the new houses in Broadway, nearly opposite the Circus. He had worked with hiña for Some time.

Grand Larceny. The prisoners were charged with stealing from the store of Haggerty & Austin, on the 16th or 17th of June last, a large quantity of fancy goods ; they were taken and deposited on Ward’s Island, in the East River, about 12 miles from New York.

<p> Disorderly House. </p> <p>The prisoner was put to the bar for trial, charged with keeping a disorderly house. She plead not guilty.</p>

Assault and Battery with . „ intent to convmit Jxape. Hush Flinn, a young man, about twentjr-five years- • . . of age, was charged with committing an assault and batte* wkk intent io commit a rape, orí the body of Mary Ann on the 28th of July, 1822, between one and two , ■, , kept a grocery store next door to the residence' of Mr., Jameison. . . his little daughter, a most interesting child about ten a§e?' tc> Flinn’s store, for a quart of beer.' The family were about…

<p>it is the inc°^¡ rime, and it f,e0 impartial comparison"^ a11 tiie cirth“case.”63 °</p> <p>Leach’s eas® vol. i. p. 303.</p>

<p> On Counterfeit Notes. </p> <p>m The prisoner was charged with having in his possession with intention to utter and publish, and also with ac- • tually passing a $10 note, of the Bank of Middletown, m the State of Connecticut, to Mr. Josiah Smith. The cumstances of the case were as follows : The came to Mr. Cox’s store in Maiden Lane, and purchased a pair of shoes, and offered the $10 note in payment.— The prosecutor at first hesitated to receive it, but upon the prisoner telling him it was a good note, he finally took it in payment of a pair of shoes, and gave the prisoner $8, retaining two, the price of the shoes.</p> <p>He observed the hurried manner of the prisoner, in receiving the change. This excited his suspicion that it was a bad note. He went in the evening to different places to ascertain if the note was genuine ; finding the note was counterfeit, he endeavored to see the prisoner, but could not find him.</p> <p>He then came to the Police Office and made an affidavit of the facts. A warrant was issued, and the officer to whom the warrant was given, found him in the house of Nick O’Bryan, in Banker street. As soon as the prisoner saw the officer, he attempted to make his escape; he ran into the back room, and was followed by him, and taken. After a controversy between him and the 0fijcer¡ finally concluded that he would go peaceably to the Police. Office; but on the way there, he knocked 0:®-cer down and attempted to escape. The officer, by his exertions and the assistance of the by-standers, again secured him, and succeeded in taking .him to the Police office.</p> <p>He was there examined, and refused to give any satisfactory account of himself or the note; except that he had got it from a Mr. Street, in the market.</p>

Assault and Battery. John H. Osborn was indicted for committing a violent assault and battery upon John Stubbs, on the 29th of July, 1822.

Assault mid Battery. Archibald M’Ardle was charged with committing a violent assault and battery upon Peter Crawbeck, on the J *• 3 5th of September, 1822. The prosecutor testified that on the 5th of September, his attention was attracted to the circumstance of an rest made by the defendant on Miss Jemima Johnson and sister. Mrs. Clark, on a charge of passing upon the defendant a $5 counterfeit note.

<p>The jurymay convict ex a initiation °r otiy’^but t® desirable to have other ortestimony, where it can bc had_</p>

Cruelty to Beasts. Robert Stakes was indicted for beating his horses in a most barbarous manner on the 31st of October, 1822. The beating took place nefir the temporary establishment of the office of the Daily Advertiser, in Broadway, above Broome street. The circumstances of the case were as follows: the prisoner was driving a load of manure to a place out of town, and according to the testimony of some of the witnesses, the horses baulked and refused to draw the load.

Bigamy. The prisoner was charged with the crime of ° . ° J It appeared by the testimony, that Whigham married a certain Mary Boyd, on the 18th of July, 1818, in Brooklyn, Kings County: and afterwards, in the city of New York, married a certain Harriet Ann Eliza Robertson, on the 4th of December, 1822.

Grand Larceny: Deborah Smith was indicted for a grand larceny, for stealing from the dwelling house of Elkanah Smith, a Merino Shawl, valued at thirty dollars, on the 2d of DeJ cember, 1822. The proof against the prisoner was positive and satisfactory as to the felonious taking, it being found upon her, &c. The shawl was sworn to be worth more than twenty-five dollars by Miss Smith.

Grand Larceny. The prisoner, a young mulatto girl, was indicted for a grand larceny, for stealing from the person of William P° wers, on the 25th of November, 1822, a silver watch. It appeared by the testimony of the prosecutor, that he walking along Banker street, and was accosted by the prisoner. She took hold of his watch chain and pulled it _ , , . ,, , , , , , . out. He followed her into a cellar and demanded his waic¡2. She denied that she had it, or had taken it.

Assault and Battery. The defendants were indicted for committing an assault an-d battery upon Joseph Green, on the 3d day of September, 1822.

<p> Assault and Battery. </p> <p>The defendant was charged with an assault and hat-very.</p>

Assault and Battery. Assault and Battery. The above cases were called up for trial by Maxwell, r J 3 District Attorney; cross indictments being found against, ab°ve defendants. The facts of the case appeared as follows: Messrs. Wertendyke and Pike were officers of the church at the corner of Christy and Delaney streets.

Assault and Battery. Richard Jennings was charged with committing a violent assault and battery upon William Manning, a mujattQ marij on igth ¿|ay 0f September, 1822. jt appeared by the testimony of the prosecutor, that he was an Oysterman, and had moved his stand, during the fever> to the-----wharf.

Assault and Battery. Assault and Battery. These were cross indictments. It appeared by the testimony of the prosecutor, and others, that Finn was, an officer, and in that capacity had received an execution to be executed against Odie. That he went to Odle’s house to execute it, that he found him engaged leading his horses up the alley to his stables.

Grand Larceny. The prisoner was put to the bar, charged Vith larceny, for stealing two pieces of Plush, two Chinchilli Hats, &c., altogether a'mounting to twenty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents, from the store of Mrs. Platt, No. 439 Pearl street. It appeared by the testimony of Mrs. Platt, that she missed the articles in December last, and that by the vigilance of the police officers the prisoner was arrested and committed to Bridewell, to answer for the felony. Messrs.

<p>A watcllIilan has no right to arrest a febe a woman between^"?!) fy fofdoming up to him and calling him but on'a^usplcí ion of felony, breach of the Peace-</p> <p>* Where it appears a t^e part of the defendant has and served, fnd.lias n°r been obeyed, the court will not order on the trial until ment ^has been issued, retorned’ and</p>

1N this case N. B. Graham read an affidavit in the common.form, to put off the trial to the next term : stating the _ - . . . „ absence oí material witnesses, &c.

<p> De Graff pas in Prison on a charge of Forgery. </p> <p>On a motion to bail on acharge of fel‘ndTbe confined to ¡¡^g. dep03‘</p>

Conspiracy. The defendants, who are journeymen hatters, were indicted, for “ being persons of evil minds and dispositions, “ on the twentieth day of November, in the year of our “ Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, with, “ force and arms, did conspire and combine, confederate k « u and agree together, to prevent and hinder one Daniel Acker from being employed in his business as a hatter, and to cause him, the said Daniel Ackre, tobe discharged “ from his…

<p> Receiving stolen goods, knowing they’ werestolen. </p> <p>The prisoners were put in the box, charged with receiving, knowing they were stolen, 20 Leghorn hats, 2 pieces of gingham, 1 piece of cotton shawls, the property of Mr. Norsworthy, on the 15th of December, 1822.</p> <p>Mr. Norsworthy testified, that he had lost the articles mentioned in the indictment, about the last term of this* court, but at v/hat period they were stolen, he could not teip jje pac[ found them at different places in the city, and from circumstances that had since come to his knowledge, he had no doubt they were stolen by Ann YanderHilt, a black servant girl, who resided in his family.</p> <p>Eliza Mellis was called, and proved that she kept a Hrolcer’s office in Chatham street; that each of the prisoners had been at her house, and had sold or pawned her some of the'articles specified in the indictment, at different times, and recognized each of the prisoners, as having, sold her part of the articles.</p> <p>The court in-Ann Vanderbilt was called and sworn. structed tier she was not compelled to answer any ques- . , .... , tion that would criminate her, or even to answer any question at all; and directed Mr. M’Ewen to advise with in order that no advantage might be taken of her ignorance.</p> <p>Upon her consenting to answer any question put to her, the court directed the examination to proceed.</p> <p>She testified, that she was a servant in the family of Mr. Norsworthy, and had, at different times, taken the articles out of Mr. Norsworthy’s store, and had given them to Eliza Hays, the prisoner ; that she had taken them at her request; that Eliza Hays told her to steal and bring her the articles which she mentioned; in accordance with this request, she did steal, and bring hef the articles mentioned in the indictment; that JBliza Hays had received all of them, but it was known by each of the other prisoners that they were stolen, and that they received part of them.</p>

Assault and Battery. Assault and Battery. The defendant in the above cases were put upon their trial, charged with committing an assault and battery upon John^tlasper Defloor, on the 9th of December, 1822.

Grand Larceny. Hiram Maxwell was brought to the bar, charged with stealing from Andrew Colvin, a horse and gig, and plated harness, valued at $>225, on the 18th of December, 1822.

Assault and Battery. Neil A. M’Kinnon was charged with committing a violent assault and battery, in the following words : “ City and County of New York, ss.* The jurors of the People of the State of New York, in and for the Body „ 0£ Qjty an¿ County of New York, upon their oath “ present: that Neil A. M’Kinnon, late of the first Ward “ of the City of New York, in the County of New York, ¡¡ aforesaid laborer, on the twelfth day of November, in ’ J ’ “ the year of our Lord one…

False Pretences. Eber Hale was indicted under the statute, for obtaining money by false pretences, in the following form, for : * That Eber Hale, late of the first Ward of the city of “ New York, in the County of New York aforesaid, la“borer, being a person of an evil disposition, ill name “and fame, and of dishonest conversation, and devising “ and intending, by unlawful ways and means, to obtain “ and'get into his hands and possession, the monies, goods “ chattels, and…

On Counterfeit Notes. terfeit notes, in the following words : Glorianna Lewis was charged in an indictment on conn-.

Petit Larceny. John Sheahan was indicted for a petit larceny of 6 pur Caps, the property of Augustus F. Dettreich. The facts of the case appeared as follows : it was prove¿ that the prisoner kept a store, or rather a cellar, at the r r corner of Ferry and Pearl Streets, for the sale oí oranges, that in consequence of information obtained by the police, Mr. Conklin and Mr. Homan was authorized to search the premises of the prisoner.

Petit Larceny. Nick O’Bryan was put to the bar, charged with committing a petit larceny of a watch, the property of Walter Barmore, on the 27th day of January, 1823. '-It appeared, by the testimony of William M’Menomy, his mother, and James M’Menomy, his brother, that the prisoner came to Mrs. M’Menomy’s house on the 28th day of January, and offered the watch for sale ; it was purchased by William M’Menomy for a small sum.

Grand Larceny. The prisoner was indicted for stealing from the person of John Gunyan, his pocket-book, containing one bank check of $27, one note of $20, two notes of $10, twenty notes ■ of $5, and also twenty notes oí $8, on the 10th day of December, 1822, altogether amounting J 7 3 ° ° $225.

Counterfeit Notes, Andrew Haggerty was arraigned on a charge of having in his possession, with intention to utter, counterfeit notes r ’ ’ of the Eagle Bank in New Haven, to which he UOt guilty. » mi • The circumstances attending this case were as follows: Messrs, Homan, Hays, Raymond, and Connell, went the house of Nick O’Bryan, for the purpose of searching for stolen goods.

<p>On an indlct“ant for receiving stolen goods, sfoieT the Jury are f“om ^“thé c i re umstances of the case the intent of defendant received the sood®> ktl0'T; stolen, or "ot‘</p>

<p>The crime offorgingand passing a forged note,is to fVonT^U °hl facts of the case: and it to asiTa^witness, even on the part of the proseeuti o n, if it was his opinion that the notes.</p> <p>Pleas of sanity are to be received with caution,</p>

Conspiracy. The defendants were charged with a conspiracy to fraud J. W. Forbes -Of two plated candlesticks, and other silver ware, on the 24th of February, 1823. The facts the case appeared, from the evidence, to be as follows •.— The defendants came to the store of the prosecutor, who . lives in Broadway, near Wall-street, on the 24th of ruary, 1823, between 3 and 4 o’clock in the afternoon, J * 7 1 and asked Mrs. Forbes if her husband was in. She told them he was not.

Assault and Battery. The defendants were charged with committing a violent assault and battery upon James S. Smith, on the 16th day of November, 1822. The facts appeared as follows: the defendants were tenants in the Brew-house in Cherry Street, owned by the prosecutor; and it was to repel the officer whd came to distrain upon the premises, that the alleged assault and battery was committed. Evidence was admitted by the Court that conclusively showed no rent was due.

Receiving stolen goods, knowing they were stolen. John Sheahan was charged in an indictment for receiyjincr stolen goods, knowing they were stolen. He was ° ° . arraigned for this offence, and plead not guilty. Griffin, an apprentice to Mr. Brown, Soap and Tallow Chandler, testified that he sold to the prisoner one box of tallow candles, the property of Isaac and David I. Brown- It appeared the prisoner had a cellar in the neighborhood of the Messrs.

n j t-Grand Larceny. t The prisoners were indicted, and plead not guilty to a charge of grand larceny, for stealing two silver watches, two $5 notes, eleven silver tea-spoons, &c., amounting to $^9, the property of James Montgomery, who resides at 4, Ryder street.

Petit Larceny. The prisoners . were indicted of a petit larceny, for stealing two pair of boots, the property of David and B. Dunham, on the 10th day of February, 1823. The property was found upon the prisoners, and they confessed the crime. It appeared by the testimony of Maria Teller, the sister of the prisoners, that Jason was not ■ quite fourteen, but that William Teller was more than fourteen.

<p>Statute for the relief of the poor. In the matter of the Overseers of the Poor of the town of Gravesend, for the relief of Peter Williamson, a •</p> <p>Construction ute for the relief and ment of the L°°pr.'286, §21</p>

<p> Arson. </p> <p>Charles Davis, a young negro lad, about 16 years of age, was put *to the bar, charged with arson, in setting fire to the barn of Mr. William Good, at the corner of the 3d Avenue and Stuyvesant lane, on the 12th of February, 1823.</p> <p>The circumstances of the case, as disclosed by the timony of Mr. Good and others, were as follows :—The prisoner had been hired as a laborer by Mr. Good, and had served him faithfully since September last, that on the 12th of February, in the morning between 7 and 8 o’clock, he told Mr. Good that his brother had died the night before, and asked leave to attend his funeral. Mr. Good gave him money, and he went away and returned early in the evening ; went out again for a few minutes, and came in and went to bed.</p> <p>In a very short time after, the fire broke out in the stables ; the negro was waked up and assisted to put out the fire; they were successful in extinguishing it, and Mr. Good and his family retired to bed, leaving the negro in the barn, and requested the watchman who was stationed in the neighborhood to pay particular attention to the premises. In about one half an hour the barn was again discovered to be on fire, and was entirely consumed.</p> <p>It was proved by Mr Good and others that Charles was an jnc)uStnous boy, that during his service with him, he had behaved himself very well, had had no quarrel with Mr. Good, or with any of his family ; was temperate in ^.g an¿ or¿er]y jQ bis Conduct.</p> <p>It was also proved that at the first fire he carried water and assisted in putting it out; and that, after it was extinguished, he remained in the barn after the family had retired to bed, and until the barn was again on fire.</p> <p>It was also proved that after Mr. Good and the people thought they had extinguished the fire, it was found still burning under some bags of cut straw that lay in the barn, and this occurred two or three times before the fire was finally put out.</p>

Assault and Battery * The defendant was indicted for an assault and battery committed on Henry C. Hedley, Esq. It appeared that the J defendant was indebted to Mr. Hedley $50 or 60 forattortley?s fees, and by reasons of some difference between them, had been in the habit of deriding and quarrelling with Mr. Hedley whenever he met him in the street. On . 0 the day laid in the indictment, the parties met in street, when Pentz commenced the same strain of abuse.

<p> False Pretences. </p> <p>The defendant one of the Society of Friends, was in-dieted for obtaining from the Washington Insurance Company, and from James Swords, President, and Peter Hawes, Secretary of said Company, a check on the Union for $3162 67, by exhibiting to the Company, through those officers’an affirmation, in writing, taken before Jo- ’ ' seph Dodge, Esq., of Flushing, Queens County, on the ^Oth of February, 1820, stating, that a certain second carding machine, of the value of $350, set forth in a statement t'le ^oss ceriain goods, destroyed by fire on the 16th of the same month, annexed to the same affirmation, was, , , . - , among other things, so destroyed.</p> <p>mpg indictment, by way of recital, stated, in effect, that ' J J the defendant, on the 10th of the same month, effected 1 . . insurance on certain machines and things appertaining to a wollen factory at “The Alley,” in the town of Flushing, which things were set forth in the indictment; that on the 16th of the same month the factory was destroyed by fire; and that on the 23d he made the affirmation, which is also set forth, stating that the second carding ... machine was destroyed ; and, by the exhibition of this affirmation to the Company, he falsely and fraudulently ‘ J • obtained the said check—whereas the said second carding machine was not destroyed by fire, &c.</p> <p>In the conclusion of the indictment, it stated, in effect, that he obtained from the Company, by means of the false pretences as aforesaid, one check, for the payment of money, commonly called a bank check, on the Union Bank, for the sum of $3,122 67, and of the value of $3,-122 67, which said check is in the following words and figures : “ Cashier of the Union Bank, pay to -or bearer three thousand one hundred and sixty-two dollars and sixty-seven cents,” &c. The check produced in evidence corresponded with that set forth in hcec verba.</p> <p>It appeared that the defendant, carrying on this factory at the place set forth in the indictment, sometime before the insurance was effected, through Benjamin Clark, Esq., of this city, his agent, exhibited to the Company a paper enumerating the articles to be insured, with their respective values annexed, made out by David Titus, a friend, who did business at the factory; and in this paper this second carding machine was set forth, valued at $350. Other articles, appertaining to the factory, for. some reason which did not appear, were not contained in the paper, and were not insured ; and among these' was a machine worth as much as that in question. The defendant left this paper with his agent, and did not return to this city unt^ ^a7 a^ter the fire, when he expressed much anxiety lest the insurance had not been effected ; and, pursuant t0 Clark’s advice, he called on the officers of the Company, and stated Ms loss. They handed him his policy, and told him that on making such proof, by way of affirmation, as their rules required, the sum for which the articles were insured should be paid. The same day he made the affirmation, which was drafted or dictated by Clark; but by reason of its not setting forth the articles destroyed properly, this affirmation was not acted on; and he then returned to Flushing, and on the 23d of February affirmed to the one upon which the money was paid, before Dodge, the Justice, and brought it back to this city, and left it with Clark, who received the money and deposited it in the Franklin Bank, from whence, in a short time, it was drawn in small drafts in favor of the defendant’s creditors, as his counsel alleged.</p> <p>The amount of the proof, in relation to the second carding machine, was, that it was bulky ; that the defendant 'was a miller, and had his mill, which he attended, a short distance from the factory; that about- a month before the insurance was effected, this machine was taken from the factory and put into the mill, in open view, another being substituted in its place. He had purchased the machine in question of one .William K Lowere, on credit; and after the loss of the factory, Lowere, who knew that the defendant had received the amount insured on the article, called on him for payment, and threatened him that if he did not pay him, he would expose him ; and, not being satisfied, he gave information to the Company. It further appeared, that the defendant, about this time, was embarrassed, and, ultimately, took the benefit of the act, freeing him from imprisonment. A number of witnesses affirmed in his favor that they had known him several years, and before this, had never heard any thing against his character. One of them, Charles Wright, on being asked by the Court what reason the defendant gave for qot refunding the $35^0 to the Company, answered, that he insisted that he had a right to it, for he had lost many articles which were not insured; and on Wright’s endeavoring to convince him that he had no such right, and ought to refund the money, the defendant said that he could not, for he had paid it all away to his creditors.</p> <p>Before the defence was opened, the counsel for the defendant raised several questions of law as to the validity of the indictment. The following is the principal one r They contended, that inasmuch as the averment, in the conclusion of the indictment, stated a check different from the one set forth in hcec verba, and that produced in evidence ; and as that averment contains the only allegation of value in the indictment, value of the check set forth could not be predicted on the averment; and it therefore followed that the check set forth was one of no value: at any rate, there was a fatal variance between that averment and the evidence produced in its support. They cited 2 Burr. 1127; Hawk. P. C. B. 2, C. 25, § 83 ; 4 Term Rep. 490.</p> <p>It was argued on the part of the prosecution, that there was no variance; that the averment of value applied to to the check set forth and produced, according to the strict rules.of grammatical construction; and that if the averment had stated the value but at one dollar, it would have been sufficient. In this indictment the false pretence resorted to is the gravamen ; and that is sufficiently set forth.</p>

<p>Where two-go to a merly represent them is an agent for the packets, and wanLhlChsuhpplies, and seg00dsfor which cash is to be paid on delivery, and of th®m aiterwards brings an org®lodgfo1 f/m the other, and without payment and he who gave the order endorses a forged note to the merchant in payment, it was held that thejuvy might from the facts and circumstances, infer t0 cheat the merchant 0f his goods.</p>

Manslaughter. CASE. Robert M. Goodwin was arraigned and tried on an indictment for manslaughter, for killing James on the 22d_day of December, 1819. The facts of the case were as follows : The deceased and the prisoner had a previous dispute, and on the day laid in the indictment, they met each other, by accident, m Broadway. The pns- . oner, m company with a friend, was walking for pleasure, and carried a sword cane in his hand.

Murder. CASE. The circumstances of this case were as follows, a judgment, in one of the Ward Courts of the City, had been §Wen against the prisoner ; and upon which judgment, an execution had issued, and was put into the hands of Nathaniel Slawson, a marshall, to be executed. ' He went in company with a Mr. Griffin to Randall’s house and saw the prisoner ; he told the prisoner his busi- , ' , ,. . , , ness, and exhibited to him the process; he replied that the execution came…

Murder. Diana Sellick was brought up and arraigned on a ° 1 ° charge of committing murder on the person of Hetty son, an infant, on the 14th of January, 1816. CASB. The facts appeared by the testimony as follows: The prisoner had put her child to Hetty Johnson, the mother of the deceased, to nurse, and on the day mentioned, came to h°use for the apparent purpose of seeing her child. She had a white bowl which she said contained gin, and wanted Mrs. Johnson to drink.

Murder. CASE. The Prisoner was arraigned on an indictment charging him with the murder of Margaret, his wife, and pleaded t ... The facts of the case appeared as follows: the prisoner and the deceased occupied a housi in Anthony street, in company with Catharine M’Gee and Jane M’Pall : they occupied the same room both for the business of the day, and the repose of the night.

Conspiracy * and mortgage were of no validity. The defendants were indicted for conspiring to defraud George De Grass of a sloop, the Shepherdess, of the value of $650; and the means alledged were that they represented that a bond and mortgage, on lot No, 12, in Aurelius; county of Cayuga, held by Keys, was good and valid; and the overt act alleged to be was, that Keys procured from De Grass. possession of the sloop, whereas the bond It appeared that abbut the 1st of June…

Disorderly House. The defendants were charged in an indictment in the - „ common form for a nuisance./ The facts of the case were as follows: the defendants were Managers of the Theatre in Warren street, called the City Theatre.

Disorderly House. Sarah Rowland, a widow woman, was arraigned and for keeping a disorderly house, The faejs were, that she lived at 100 Chapel-street, next door t0 the cofner of Leonard-street, and kept a small grocery store ; that young apprentice boys and others were in the habit of frequenting her house, for the purpose of drinking and tippling, and meeting young girls. It appeared by the testimony of Mrs. Eldridge, that her daughter had been seduced and ruined in house.

Disorderly House. Mart Ann Clark was put to the bar charged with keeping a disorderly house. A number of officers were called, who testified that,, the prisoner lived in Banker-street 5 that she Was above sixty years of age, and had daughters, young women, who were in the daily habit of sacrificing their virtue before their mother’s face.

Forgery. Samuel Clark was charged with forging and having his possession, with intention to pass, two $20 forged n0feg 0f the Bank of Newburgh, and actually passing them to J. H. Purdy and Jesse Lownsbury upon the 1st 4th ofMarch last. facts were these: It appeared by the testimony of Mr. John Owen, that on the morning of the 1st of March, as he was sitting”in the stage, at the prisoner’s house, and was about returning home to Westchester County, the prisoner came to the…

<p>A Counsel has a right, at all reasonable ¿°"rs t °f within the s(m for the p.ulpose ofad," vising with his client. He „ied this right by any sherturnkey”' If Is denied admitt anco, redress may be bad bYtbe s.u in m a r y means of at-^^not’ dri^ ven to an ac-pass.</p>

In this case an important question arose, upon a discparge under the insolvent act. The defendant’s default • was entered for not pleading on the 10th of October last. On the 21st of October the defendant was discharged under the act. On the 24th of October execution was issued against him. The defendant being taken on the execution, <Iuestion wasi Has he any relief?

This was Enaction of trespass, in which the plaintiff recovered six cents damages. He applied for a certificate the trespass was wilful and malicious. This certifiCate was denied ; and now the question was, Whether the tiff must pay the Defendant’s costs, or whether he reG0V6YS ag much costs as damages ? °

<p>The return habeas corEchela as a slave is not inquiryVmay be made into the aC return whether he is a slave or not.</p>

<p>IN this case an application had been made to the Court-to compel Mr. Stryker to pay the sum of $70, with interest , . and costs) or to disbar him.</p>

Libel. The defendants were charged with writing and publishing an advertisement,* in a paper called the New-York American, on the _20th day of March, 1823, reflecting upon the conduct of Gordon and Wallach. They were charged with writing and publishing a song,t on the-21st day of March, 1823, reflecting also upon the reputaof Gordon and Wallach.

<p> Assault and Battery. </p> <p>The facts of the case were as follows : Mr. Depeyster was dnying his wagon into town, and was overtaken by v the defendant in a cart He attempted to run the cart the prosecutor. Mr. Depeyster was obliged stop his wagon in order to prevent being run over, and the car(. 0f defendant passed before him. The defendant crossed the road several times, and had like to have broke the wagon.</p> <p>It was a question whether this was an assault and battery or not.</p>

Grand Larceny. It appeared by the testimony, that the prosecutor had married the sister of the prisoner about three years ago, and that the prosecutor and his wife and father-in-law occupied the same house, or at least lived under the same roof, but separate ; and that Mr. Legget had employed . prisoner his brother-in-law, in his store at different times, for about two years past, and had allowed him no salary for his services.

Burglary. The facts of the case were as follows ; Mr. Pearsoll re- ' sided at No. 25 Elizabeth-street. On the 26th of Apsil retired with his family about 11 o’clock at night, securing the house in the usual manner. In the morning when the family arose, it was found the house was broken open, and property carried away. It was discovered the win-A * J J « dow shutter had been pryed open, and the window raised and the entry had been make through it.

Assault and Battery. It appeared, from the testimony of Ana Way, the prosecutrix, that she was a married woman, and lived with ' her husband at No. 13 Catharine slip. On the 15th of April last, the prosecutrix was engaged in the oyster cellar of her husband, situate on the opposite side of the way from his dwelling house. She returned home and retired to bed about seven o’clock in the evening, and fell asleep.

In 1818, Metcalfe was bound by his mother, before the Police Magistrate, to Banks, as an apprentice to learn the trade of a cabinet-maker, to serve until the age of one years; and in the indentures his age wa°s stated to be sixteen years, although in fact he was eighteen. Having served his master faithfully until he was twenty-two years upwards, Metcalfe gave notice to his master of his ag6) ail¿ demanded his indentures, and his freedom.

<p>The prisoner was charged with having in his possession with intention to utter and pass, and with uttering to John Simonson, a five dollar counterfeit note of the Ontario Bank, and also with having in his possession two other counterfeit notes of the same bank, with intention to pass them, on the 30th day of May, 1823.</p> <p>Tke arrest oí a prisoner on a charge such a’ duress ventTc sion made by him, while under arrest from being given in evidonee to the jury on his trial. or?erWinSfbr tained • trunk found ers* boarding" house, is a recognition of the^ruíkantl contents, and en^in 6 dence to the iury.</p>

Grand Larceny. The facts of the case appeared as follows: Mr. Peters, who kept a store at No. 48 Washington street, on the day laid in the indictment, had stepped’ out for a leaving the bills upon the counter, and leaving Mr. Warner Spencer and the prisoner (who it appeared liyed in the neighborhood, and who was in the habit occasionally of stepping into the store,) in the store. Mr. Peters returned in a few minutes, and missed the money.

Grand Larceny. When the jury were about to be called, Jurors per-mined to be erk Counsel cannot state facts m his opening that will not evidenceed the jury.

Assault, and Battery The facts of the case appeared to be as follows : Mr. Hogan had come to New York, on a visit, and dined o > i the City-Hotel, with the Rev. Mr. Doyle, a clergyman, In the afternoon they walked out together, and went on board the ship Amity, one of the Liverpooljiackets, from thence to the ship Alexander Mansfield.

Riot. The facts appeared to be, that they were young boys from fourteen to fifteen years of age, and were apprentices, living near the'corner of Broad and Garden-Streets, It also appeared they were in the habit of frequenting the house of Thomas M’Cready, the prosecutor, almost every evening, in company with other apprentices and boys, and insulting him by saucy and impertinent language; calling him an old tory, and threatening him with force and yi°* lence ; bursting open…

<p>Louis Lagrille was arraigned on an indictment, charging him with forging and uttering three ten dollar notes of the Union Bank, in the City •of New-York, on the 10th day of April, 1823. The notes were altered from one dollar notes to 10 dollars.</p>

Highway Robbery.* The facts of the case were as follows': A Mr. John I. Davis, who resided in Essex County, in New Jersey, came the City on business, and got in company with the prisoners in Banker-street. He entered into conversation, and drank with Reeder, and was seen, by him and other prisoners, to be in possession of a considerable amount in bank notes. About dusk they invited him to walk to the gardens, for the purpose of procuring ice-cream.

<p>On corpus for the gon7 committed for a definite period, under the act re}atms to d i s o r d erly persons, usu-vagrant act, the fh^commitmentmay be enquired into 0n the return admitted to bail.</p>

<p>Statement of case'</p>

Demurrer. This was an indictment under the statute for obtaining the goods of Alexander Watson, on the 15th of December, 1818, by false pretences. The indictment alledged, that the defendant, intending to impose upon Watson, and to cheat and defraud him,' “ did falsely pretend, to the said Alexander Watson, that he, the said James Conger, was a person of wealth and credit,” and wished to purchase a quantity of goods of Watson.

<p> Grand Larceny. </p>

Forgery. The defendants were charged in an indicfment in the common form with forging the name of Edward Weir, to a check, for ~SOO, upon the North River Bank, on the 27th day of June, 1823. Oolbern only was put upon his trial, Mrs. Weir not having been arrested.

Libel. † Maxwell moved the cause for trial. Van Wyck presented and read an affidavit to the court, stating that he had reason to believe that he could not, owing to an excitement of the public tnind in this city,, have at present a fair trial, and, therefore, by his counsel, moved for a postponment of the cause ; and in his behalf, stated, that application had. been made to the Recorder for a certiorari to the Supreme Court, for the purpose of trying the case by a jury in…

<p>-Misdemeanor.</p> <p>Maria Blake, a young black woman, was charged in an indictment at common law, with procuring a quantity of vegetable powder, called cow itch, and putting the same upon a towel, and in a tub of water used by the p~ösccutor, Mrs. Blyth, on the 21st of June, 1823. It was proved by the testimony of Dr. Gumming and others that the article was of an extremely irritating and inflammatory character, and actually produce& excessive pain and distress.</p> <p>Mr. Van Wyck, in behalf of th1e prisoner, contendeL that it was not an indictable offence ; and that no private injury could be thus punished, unless it was aiso a matter of public concern. In support of the law, as laid down, he cited the cases of M. M. Noah for breaking open a private letter, 3 City Halt Rec. 13., and of Wittenburg, for directing an innocent female, applying at his intelligence office for service, to a house of ill fame. 3 City Hall. Itec. 49. In those cases he contended, that though convictions were had the principle was distinctly recognized by the court. He contended, that the offence, to be indictable, must be public; that if the barrier was once broken down between public offerices and private injuries, so long established, and so necessary to the peace and quiet of the community, the greatest degree of uncertainty and doubt would be‘introduced.</p> <p>The objection was overruled, and the Recorder held that it came within the class of cases that had been frequently punished by indictment; such as poisoning animals, throwing vitriol on another’s clothes, <fcc. It was a perpetration of mischief, indicating a malicious intent^ which it was a matter of public concern to repress and punish, and was, therefore, indictable.</p>

Burglary. The prisoner was convicted of a burglary, and, on a motion for a new trial, the following decision was by the court:

<p>The facts of this case, and the law, may be learned from the following decision :</p>

Grand Larceny. The prisoner was arraigned and tried on an indictment, charging him with grand larceny of the goods of Lockwood and Co. in July 1823.1 It appeared by the testimony that the prisoner came into Mr. Lockwood’s clothing store, on the day laid in the indictment, and was measured for a coat, telling Mr. Lockwood, at the same time, where he lived, agreeing as to the price of making the coat, The coat was taken to the place designated by the prisoner by one of the…

On Counterfeit Notes. BADGER was charged in an indictment under the statute, with having in his possession, with intention to utter and pass to others, one three dollar bank note of the bank of Ohenango, and six one dollar notes of the bank of Geneva, with intent to defraud, &c. The facts of the case appeared as follows On the 8th of May, John Thomas applied to Cornelius Smith, a boarding-house keeper, at No. 89 Barc1~y-street, for board for himself and two others.