IT would be neither easy to the Wrighter, nor very satisfactory to the readers of these remar­ques, to have a precise account given of every par­ticular business at the Sessions, in every of which, are tryed so many Petty felonies, and other common offen­ces as would be little worth the observation of those that should read them, the objects of mens curiosityes being things rare and portentous, and not common and Vulgar; I shall therefore pretermit (in this narative) those tryalls that were of less note, and consequence and only give you an account of those that were most remarkable at this Sessions.

And they were in three notorious mischances, first of a Barbarous Murther acted by an unnatural Mother upon her own Child. 2. for a Villanous Robery [...] [Page 4]he was so much a friend to himself as to put himself upon his Tryal by Pleading not Guilty.

Upon his Tryal upon this Second Indictment it was proved against him by the Attestation of Several VVit­nesses, that Mr. Rowland Lee the Younger Sojourning in his Fathers house and heving a Little Room therein for the keeping of his account, the Prisoner being then Servant to his Father took his opportunity when the said Mr. Lee was one day out of Town, broke into the said Room, and thence took a way the aforesaid 20 Pound.

The fact was Clearly proved against, him both by VVitnesses and his own confession in a letter of his own wrighting, which was read in Court, and wherein he owned the fact, and said moreover, that he stole the key wherewith he opened the door out of the said Mr. Lees Pocket; but the witnesses tonement varyed in their E­vidence as to that, whether the said doore was broken open or opened by a key.

There was some dispute in the Court whither the In­dictments was well laid for the burglary, for that the fact although the same yet related to several persons the house that was broken open being Mr. Rowland Lees the Elder, and the Money that was taken away was Mr. Rowland Lees the younger, and therefore it was advised whither another Bill should not be drawn up to indict him severally of the burglary, but this Court not being agreed upon; the whole matter was left to the Jury, who brought him in guilty upon [Page 5]the first Indictment by his own Confessons, and upon the Second they at first brought him in not guilty, but the Court not being satisfied with that Verdict they went out again and brought in a Special Verdict, which is to be argued at another time.

There was a woman at the same time tryed for being accessary with the said Rookewood, And receiving the monyes that he had Stollen; But although it appeared to the Court that she was a person likely enough to be guilty of such a crime, yet no direct Evidence coming in against her, she was acquitted.

The next was one Edward Coker who stood indicted for the ravishing of a Child of 11 yeares old, the Child was there and gave her Evidence in Court that the said Cober coming into her Aunts house where she lived, did get her into a Room and did there force her; The Ant attested that she hearing the Child cry out, came into the Room where he was in the dark with her, and found by evident tokens that the Child had bin abused, but al­though the fact appreared very foul against him yet the Circumstances thereto not being so direct as to prove a Rape, according as the law directs on those case, he was brought in not guilty upon that Indict­ment, but that he might not go Scot-free the Court directed another Bill to be drawn up for an Assault upon the said Child, which Bill was found, and upon his tryal thereupon was found guilty, and was fined 25 Markes by the Court for his offence.

There was also tryed the Bayliff that killed his fellow Bayliff at Soehoe, he was found guilty of Murther.

The Merchants Servant had the Allowance of his cler­gy and was burned in the hand, together with 5 other.

There are Seven men are all condemned to Die whereof the aforesaid Bayly was one.

And 8 to be Whipt at the Carts Tayle.