Saturday 24 Apr 1819 (p. 2, col. 6 – p. 3, col. 2) CITY SESSIONS. [continued] The examination of the witness was then resumed, and he detailed at great length various acts of disorder, many of them not fit for the columns of a newspaper. Though the defendant had nothing but a sweet-wine licence, she was in the habit of vending all kinds of spirits to men and women indiscriminately.—In his cross-examination by Mr. SAUL, this witness said that he had seen both men and women drinking in other public-houses, but not in the same manner as at the defendant's—He has looked in at the kitchen door and seen women, drunk, drinking on men's knees, cursing and swearing. Both the defendant and her servant were frequently as drunk as the girls. He never saw similar disorders in Rickergate as in and near the defendant's house. Never heard that there is a charter for Rickergate, and that it cannot be kept up unless there is a fight on Martinmas Saturday night. Mr. Mayor.—I think it is not fair to bring the Rickergate charter into jeopardy here! Sarah SIMPSON, Jane CARRUTHERS, William IRVING, William ANSON, Edward BARNES, Joseph SIMPSON, and John BARNES, the constable, proved numerous acts of disorder, &c. Jane CARRUTHERS lives near Dinah's house, and has frequently had her windows broken by stones at night; and she deposed that the alarms to which she has been constantly exposed have greatly injured her health.—William ANSON slept in an upper room in the house about six months, at the end of which period he was obliged to quit, having been constantly disturbed and annoyed. When he has been going to bed, he has seen women of ill-fame lying and sitting upon the stairs. Has seen men and women come up and go into a bed-room, and has heard Dinah call the girl out, saying that she had been there long enough. Dinah and the maid used frequently to fight—there was such a noise that he could seldom get any rest. When witness has got up in the morning about five o'clock, he has seen women lying at his door, drunk, and kinds of dirt about the stairs, &c. Mr. SAUL addressed the Jury on behalf of the defendant. Although he appeared in court as the legal adviser of Dinah LAMONBY, it must not be understood that he came forward to defend such crimes as she was charged with. He was fully sensible of their enormity, and well knew their pernicious effect upon society. He came there upon a very different principle—he came to see the defendant's case investigated according to due form of law, and that nothing of an extraneous nature might be introduced into it,—for if she had been guilty of murder, she was still entitled to legal assistance. Having said thus much, he trusted that he should stand acquitted of giving countenance to any of the offences imputed to the defendant.—He hoped the jury would dismiss from their minds every thing which they might have heard regarding the defendant elsewhere. He would not say that no evidence had been given to criminate the defendant under the present indictment; but she had not been proved guilty in the double capacity of innkeeper and b——d. Tippling was incident to all public-houses, and disorders frequently arose in spite of the utmost care. Why Dinah LAMONBY had been indicted more than ten others, he was at a loss to conceive: there were others equally notorious, and why was the defendant singled out for punishment? The evidence ought to have been confined to the period laid down in the indictment, otherwise, how can the defendant be prepared to rebut charges the nature and date of which are unknown to her? The usual form of indictment had been departed from in this case, for the purpose of bringing forward evidence for the period of six years.—Mr. SAUL deprecated the observations of Mr. FAWCETT in regard to her countenance: he was yet to learn that the countenance was any proof of guilt; neither was it very correct to insinuate that the defendant had been guilty of other crimes. The jury, he was sure, would confine themselves strictly to the matter in charge: but he did not think they would consider her guilty of any other disorders than those to which she was peculiarly exposed as the keeper of a public-house. The Mayor said, in consequence of what had fallen from Mr. SAUL, he felt himself called upon to state that, in his opinion, no charge was ever more clearly proved than the present against the defendant—but that was a point which must be decided by the jury. There was nothing irregular in the proceedings, she had had an impartial trial. Perhaps the jury would not think it necessary that he should sum up the evidence, but he would do so if they wished it. The jury said it was unnecessary, and they immediately found the defendant Guilty. The defendant was brought to the Bar to receive sentence. She put in her wine licence, and announced, with great confidence, that she had ten of her neighbours ready to speak to her character. The first witness was James MILLER, who thought the defendant a very good neighbour. William GRAHAM, of Jollie's Buildings, was the next: he considered the defendant, (under the qualification of, as far as he knew,) a quiet, harmless woman, and a good neighbour. He served her with coal and turf, which he carried home to her house, and never saw any disturbance. This witness was particularly fierce and impudent. John EPPLES was the third witness. It appeared that though he lives at some distance from the defendant, he considered her a very excellent neighbour. On being cross-examined by Mr. FAWCETT, he admitted that he and all the witnesses for the defendant had assembled at her house that morning. He first said that he had only a glass of sweet wine there—then he declared that he had had nothing whatever—and on being pressed closely, he admitted that he had drank spirits in the house! This man also conducted himself in a very improper manner. As such witnesses as these only aggravated the case, it was not thought proper to call any more. The Mayor then addressed the Defendant. He told her that she had been convicted of an offence fraught with the most pernicious consequences to society. She had enjoyed a fair trial, as well as the advantage of the best legal advice that this city could afford. Her career of guilt and infamy had been a long one, and the public good required that her punishment should be exemplary. Sentence,—Twelve months' imprisonment in the House of Correction, fined ten pounds, and to give security, herself in £50 [?], and two sureties in £20 each, for her good behaviour for two years afterwards, and to remain in prison till such fine be paid, and such security found. The defendant was taken from the Bar, swearing and raving like a fury. An aged woman named TURNBULL, was put to the bar, charged with stealing five yards of printed cotton, from the shop of Messrs. HESLOP and LITTLE. She pleaded guilty.—Several respectable ladies and gentlemen, including Mr. HESLOP himself, came forward and gave the prisoner a most excellent character. They related various particulars to prove that the prisoner was in her dotage, and they attributed the theft entirely to this circumstance.—The Court humanely discharged her with a fine of 1s. only, on the condition that her friends should take care of her.