The National Register. — London, England, 1822-08-11 00:00:00

25stg ►nttLLigcnce. DURHAM. THE RISO a. WILLIAM(.—SPECIAL JURY. The expectation of thin estraordinary cause had crowded the town of Durham in an uncommon manner since the beginning of the assizes. The Court was escessibeiy crowded long before his Lordship came. At ten o'clock the cause was called on.— Twelve of the special jury attended, but one of them being ex caned from ill-health. a common juror was sworn in his place. Measra. Scarlet( and Tindall were counsel for the plaititilf , aid Messrs. Brougham and Alderson for the defendant. John George Lanibtun, Esq. M. P., sat at the bottom of the table among the counsel. Archdeacon Phillipsou took his place on bin Lordship's left hand on the bench. Mr. Scarlett addressed the jury for a whole hour, and pleaded with remarkable earnestness for a verdict. A great part of his address was a reply to the arguments which he anticipated Mr. Brougham would use. Ile contended that a verdict against the defendant was necessary to save the Whip, of whom be Mr. Scarlett) was one, from the imputation of hostility to the established church. He knew that no other opportunity would lie given to him to Address them. He therefore called cpon them, after they should be entertained by the speech of his I , .ed friend, whom ineloquence and ability no man could PM pith'. to revert to the question before them. If his learned •friend could satisfy them that there had been no intention to bring into contempt, no calumny, no slander, no attack on repu tation, no effort to depreciate the clergy in public estimation, then. Sod then only, could they lied a verdict for the defendant. The usual formalities of proof were thee gone through. Mr. Ilrosgharn elicited, in cross-examination, that the bells were merrily pealed for the coronation, but were quite silent—" sup yressed their emotions," on the death of the Queen. "Mr. Bronghain spoke for an hour and forty minutes with an energy and copiousness of his peculiar reasoning, never equalled even by himself. He himself was obliged to join with Ins Lordship in lamenting the bursts of fervid applause which frequently interrupted the proceedings. He appealed to the .Jury whether they had ever known a person standing in the si tuation of a public pa•osecutor, stating his case with so much ardour, having recourse to so much declamation, urging his arguments in so loud and so eloquent a fashion, as his learned friend the Attorney-General of my Lord the Bishop of Dur ham. But, very tar Irate complaining of this, he called upon them only to draw the inference which lie had drawn three quarters of so boar before--that hi► learned friend felt what a labouring case his was, and how dill'ereut from all be bad ever felt before, when prosecuting, and especially for libel. " Gen tlemen, he has called my client that unhappy man. Unhappy he will be, indeed ; but be will not be the only unhappy man in this country, if the doctrines of my learned friend receive the sanction of your verdict. Such a verdict, I fearlessly tell you, would utterly destroy the liberties of us all." The learned gentleman afterwards contended that it was perfectly lawful to location the very foendation of the established church, and to make all sorts of animadversions on the clergy as a body. This doctrine he contended to be particularly applicable to this country, where there were three different establishments, and still more in this country, where there was a church so splen. didly endowed. He represented with undescribable effect the forlorn and pitiable condition of the Scotch, whom his Majesty was about to visit, but who, though moral, well educated, re. ligions, and loyal, had not such a thin as a bishop from IL. '('weed to John O'Grost's, and knew not the blessing of tithes. Tlw learned counsel then argued that the writing iu question did not all allude to any discussion respecting the establishment, but only lamented the fatal tendency of the mis conduct of the clergy. " Who among us has not within the the last three weeks expressed that the flagrant misconduct-of an individual brought disgrace on his order l" The statements respecting the conduct of the clergy towards the Queen, and the ollusiou to the late of the illustrious personage, were p fw erful and pathetic beyond description. In conclu►ion, lie called upon the jury to give their verdict fur the defendant, for the sake of that hietarchy who brought the action, but against whom a verdict fof guilty nould he a fatal blow. "It is your duty to proclaim that light must continue to visit every recess of {hit hierarchy, and by that light its abuses must be cur- ,ected." Air. Baron Wood said the jury would not he influenced by the eloquent and emphatic speech they had beard, but would judge soberly and dispassiouately. He was directed by law to tell them hisopinion, and he ►old ►hem, therefore, that he was clearly of opinion that i► was a libel and a gross libel. Messrs. Alderson and Brougham reminded Isis Lordship that be watt not directed, but empowered at his discretion, to give his opinion, as in criminal cases. Mr. Baron Wood.—Then I inform you, gentlemen of the jury, according to that discretion that this is a libel. The jury considered two minutes, and tli.m retired ten minutes before one. The (Mutt having adjourned before they were agreed on their verdict they were, after a long delibera tion, conducted to the Judges' Chambers, where they delivered a verdict of Guilty upon oue count, and " Not Guilty" upon all the others. VIE KING V. WILLIAMS. This was an indictment by Load Stewart, for a para graph copied from the Irish:oats into the Durham Chremick, reflecting on the late Mai (pis of Londonderry. Mr. Brougham ',tilted, that Load Stewart having assured Mr. Williams that it was totally untrue, he authorised him to say he believed it be so on his lordship's authority. Mr. Sergeant Hullock expressed his lordship's satisfaction with this apology, and consented to a verdict of out guilty ULACPIIESIV. • An old man, named C. Hodgson, way convicted of tit tering abominable expressions respecting the Bible, the Saviour, and the Virgin Mary, at Bishop Ackland, while a missionary fruit' London was preaching in the market place. He was sentenced to imprisuuwcnt for two calen dar months. M. A. Tsylor, Esq. as foreman of the grand jury made a report of the state of the gaol, after a full investigation of the c ise alleged by one of the debtors. Every cir cumstance e: complaint visa entirely disproved, and the conduct of Mr. Wolfe, the lov , •rnor, posed to be ex t emely cot reef, humane, and judici •••• Robert Peal, aged 50, was tried fur the murder of lt. Peat, in Darlington, on the 2111infJune last. The facis,as ploved in evidence, were these:—The prisoner being tonsil' and heir at hart to the deceased, had been left a le pie) in a will made in IS S. but having given offence to the testator, another will, made in 1815,1eft the whole property to the wile. prisoner contrived to get posses ▪ of the st ills, and was charged with given pri• son to lire deceased. in order to oluain his properly as heir at law. 'File prisoner lived at Ktv ells worth, in the ;NUS tip Hier ig of Yu' kshire, and came into Darlinron ▪ r!. Monday, being market-day. He always caned at ,i house ot line deceasi d. Ou the 2 th of June, THE NATIONAL REGISTER a Monday and market-day, he called at the house of the deceased. The wife of the deceased had put a piece of lamb in a quart of water on the fire at ten o'clock, and went out to market twice. The prisoner followed her the last time she returned, &L.! told her be had been in the house in her absence, and that her linsband was then in an adjoining room. Ile then said that be had read in the pipets, that persons had been poisoned by water. The deceased and Lis wife, after havinz partaken of the broth and lamb, sickened and vomited. The prisoner called again at four o'clock, and saw them vomiting. He had never before called more than once im • day. The de ceased died at halt past twelve at night. No medical man was r I lit for. Several neighbours who tasted of the lamb sickened. The proectitriz observed several pieces of a broken phial on the hearth ; the prisoner had bought a phial of laudanum front • cliyniist, which he said was for ladies at Middleton, but which lie told :he city-mist, after some suspicious were created, he had still in his posses sion. Before he was sent off to prison, lie wrote to his wife, in which he directed Isis sun to give np the wills, and then added "'Think no more of me, my chance is very bad." The deceased was buried four weeks before the prirmer was charged. A medical man gave Muth,- Deal to all who tasted of the lamb, and they recognized the same taste. 'flue medical man was of opinion that the deceased died of the laudanum in the Guilty. WEDNNIDAY, AUG. 7. Au objection to the indictment was taken into conside- ration this morning, when the Chief Justice over-ruled it, and iu the must solem manner sentenced the unhappy con: •ict to be executed on Fl iday next. HEREFORD. BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. 1110MA5 P. Hoses. Mr. Richards stated that this action was brought by David Thomas agaiiit Anua Jones, for her refusal to marry him accord ing to their mutual promises. The damages were laid at 20901. Mr. Taunton said that he had the honour to represent a gen • tleinan in a respectable situation of life, who was reduced to the unpleasant uecessity of seeking damages for the breach of an engagement rarely violated by the female sex. Miss Anna Jones, the defendant, was not a thoughtless girl, who had yielded to an imprudent passion, of which she had repented in time ; she had arrived at years of discretion, being of the ma ture age of 46. (a loud laugh). Mr. Thomas was some years younger, being about $8 years of age, and enjoyed a freehold estate of from 2201. to 2501. per annum. The parties, who resided in the county of Cardigan, were, in 1918, introduced by a mutual friend, when the plaintiff was smitten by the charms of Miss Anna Jones; and she, after standing the usual blandishments (he would not say rigours) of a siege, consented to take Mr. Thomas for better and for worse as her husband. The courtship was not clandestine ; but was carried on by Miss Jones under the 'audio° of her mother, with whom she resided, and to whom she could have recourse for advice when ever it was needed. By her desire, Mr. Thomas expended no less than 2501. in adapting his house to tier taste, and she attested her sincerity by finding the timber for the work. She belonged to a sect of Christians called • Anabaptists," and as she was desirous of promoting their interests, and of having a place of worship neat her house, she prevailed on her lover to grant a lease of some ground adjoining his premises, for the purpose of building a chapel, which was accordingly erected. After all this had been done, to the surprise of the plaintiff, Miss Jones refused to fulfil her engagement, and left him to bear his expense and mortification as be might. Iler promises to marry would be proved beyond all doubt, for she had not only expressed her intention iu words, but had attended at the °dice of a solicitor at Llandillo, with Mr. Thomas, and had as sented to instructions io writing for her marriage settlement.— These instructions proved, that a family was expected from the union ; for they provided for raising portions for younger sons and daughters. down to the 9th or 10th child. (A general laugh). It was difficult entirely to preserve gravity on such a subject ; but the injuries sustained by Mr. 'names were far from trilling. had been put to great expense by the ex pec ations which n.. J defendant had disappointed, and for these lie was entitled to a fair remuneration. And, without dwelling much on the injury to his sensibilities, could It be thought that he now would be as well received by the fair ladies of Cardi ganshire when he attempted again to seek a partner for life, as he would have been before he experienced the scorn of Miss Anna Jones 1 On the whole, a considerable loss and vexation had been sustained by Mr. Thomas, for which he bad a right to expect reasonable and temperate damages, Witnesses having proved the case as stated by Mr. Taunton, s. well a subsequent refusal to marry the plaintiff', Mr. Campbell addressed the jury for the defendant. So ri diculous, lie said, was this cause, that his learned friend (Mr. Taunton), who even at the bar wore by anticipation a judicial gravity on his countenance, was unable to refrain from bursting into laughter while be told the sad tale of his client's misfor tunes. In truth, a more ludicrous, a more absurd, a more un principled action, never was permitted to disgrace a court of justice. Would the plaintiff be the less pointed at on ascount of the attempt which lie had made to-day? Might lie not have worn the willow in silence, or have sought to forget Ids loss with some other lady, more suited to him, more young, more suited to satisfy all the purposes of a marriage settlement than her whom he had lost I Vi lien a woman was deserted by her lover, when she had wasted the beat years of her life indepen dence on his fidelity, alien she had lost her all by his baseness, there was some excuse for her seeking redress in a court of law. But what excuse was there fur a man who dragged into public a woman whom lie had professed to love—who consigned the object of his delicate, his impassioned, his gentle affections to the custody of John Doe and Richard Roe ?—(A laugh.)— In this case, the Jury •wuutd perhaps think that neither the promise 110( the refusal to marry was proved by wit nesses on whom they could rely ; for how could they believe that witness, fur example, who overheard a conversation while stopping a gap, in which the defendant admitted a fictitious expellee of 20001. which happened to be the precise amount of the damage laid in the declaration, and talked of bonds which had no existence. But if they believed there had been an en • gagenient which the defendant had lroken, what claim had the plamtill' to the damages 1 Of the injury to his feelings, his counsel had scarcely ventured to speak, lest lie should ruin all by bursting into laughter. The lady was forty-six ; and though one of the witnesses said she was beautiful, he (Mr. Campbell) had her 01411 authority to state that sbe was exceedingly plain,"—a confession which when made by a lady, was entitled to implicit credence. She was not veq accomplished t for she could neither read or write—nor could she be of very sound understanding, if she heard the instructions fur her set tlemiit read over, and sull'ered the anticipation of her nume rous family to remain without objection. If the jury gas e him sixpence fur his wounded feelings, and another sixpence for his pecuniary losses, they Mould du 111/U mimic II:AU justice. Mr. Justice Bayley expressed his opinion, that the promise was fully proved by the instructions for the settlement. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a verdict for something ; but in estimating the amount of damages, the jury would recollect the diepropurtiou in the age of the parties ; and, whle they considered any fair expense really occurred in nontemplation of the marriage, they would set off against it, the timber provided by the defendant. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 1001.-- The verdict was received with evident surprise and dissatisfac tion by the learned Judge and the whole court. SUSSEX SUMMER ASSIZES. LEWES, AUGUST s.—The Summer Assizes for this cfnutty commenced here today, before the Laird Chief Baron, on the Crown side, and the lion. Mr. Justice Park, on the Civil side. In the Gaol Calendar there are 35 commitments; and the Cause Paper contains twenty entries. CROWN SIDE. Henry Durrant, alias Henry Hood, was indicted for assaulting Mary Austen on the King's highway, in the parish of 'f icehurst, on the 7111 of June, and stealing from her various articles of grocery, and two pair of hoots. This case was marked with circumstances of brutal violence. Mr. Berens stated the case for the prosecution. The prosecutrix MPS a widow woman. On the 7th of Jane she went limit her dwelling at Swilualen to Ticehursi, to purchase groceries amid other articles. Returning homewards at seven o'clock in the evening, she was over. taken by the prisoner, a stout young man of twenty, who first asked her the way to Saleshutst. She pointed out the way. He asked her what o'clock it was, and has. ing told hint, he immediately knocked her down with a bludgeon. Fur a moment she was insensible, but ion. mediately recovering, site had an opportunity of o b sess. mug the person of the prisoner, whose face was marked with a large scar. lie demanded her money. She said she had none, turned her pockets inside out to convince him, and begged for mercy. The prisoner struck her another violent blow on the head, and then ran oft with a small parcel, containing some tea and sugar, and two pair of leather boots, which she had bought for herself and daughter. Violent as the blows were she was per fectly sensible ; but in consequence of the loss of blood she was unable to pursue her way. With difficulty, however, she crawled to a a neighbouring house, where she was known. In consequence of her description of the prisoner lie was apprehended. On his person was found a dark smock frock stained with blood. The pro. secutrix swore that the prisoner had worn a dark smock frock when he attacked her. She had no doubt what ever of his identity. When the prisoner was taken up he gave contradictory accounts of the smock frock. He said he was at a place called Newich, VS miles distant from the spot where the robbery was committed, at the time the offence was alleged to have beets perpetrated.— As to the marks of blood, he said they were occasioned by a fight in which he was engaged with another man about a week before, and that his nose was blooded on that occasion. These statements of the prisoner were completely contradicted. The prisoner said nothing in his defence. The Lord Chief Baron summed tip the evidence, and the Jury immediately found the pristine! guilty— death. The Learned Judge proceeded to pass the awful sen tence of the law, and conjured the prisoner to prepare for its execution, assuring him that he certainly could hope for tin mercy in this world. AeGiieT 6.—J. Wiggens was indicted for the wilful murder of Heury Lilliot, at Brighton, on the 20th of April last. Mr. Andrews conducted the prosecution. It appeared in evidence, that on the day mentioned in the indictment the pri soner and the deceased hail set two boys to tight on the beach at Brighton. Some altercation took place as to the merits of of each combatants ; mutual reproaches followed, and soon as the boys had done lighting, the prisoner attacked the deceased and offered to light him. The latter being the lighter man of the two, after a round, in which he got the worst, declined the combat, but still continued to jeer the prisoner upon the subject of a defeat in which be was beaten by some other man in three rounds, and said, that if lie, the deceased, had more weight be would be a match for him. After provoking him for some time in this manner, the prisoner fell upon the deceased, knock ed him down, and whilst he was on the ground kicked him two or three times between the hip and the back. The deceased being released, he walked home, apparently not much hurt.-- This was on the Saturday. Oa the Monday llollowing lie com plained of a psi') in his back, but lie continued to work for six or seven days afterward& at his business as a bricklayer, when lie was obliged to lie in bed, from which he never rose again, and expired on the secoud of May. He web examined after death by two surgeons, who stated, that there appeared to be no marks of violence on the body, either externally or inter nally, which could produce death. They attributed morlellity to a fever produced by encitement of the constitution, in con sequence of the blows he had received. Between the hip and the region of the kidneys there was the mark of a slight contu sion, but not such as would have produced death. The de ceased had been previously in good he.ilthi The prisoner called two or three witnesses to Rive as account of the transaction, but their evidence did not differ materially from that of the wituemes for the Crown. The Lord Chief Baron charged the Jury, that they must ac quit the prisoner of wilful murder, there being no evidence of any malice aforethought to sustsin that part of the charge. lf, however, they were of opinion that the prisoner bad occasioned the death of the deceased, they would be justified in finding him guilty of manslaughter. The Jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter only, and the Learned Jndge, after animadverting upon the cowardly brutality of the prisoner in kicking the deceased whilst cia the ground, the latter being confemedly no match for hint in self defence, sentenced him to six months itoprisoumeat is the county gaol. James Tilley and D. Barnett were indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Watson, at l'etworth, ou the night of the 'nth of April, and stealiug therein three Chichester and two Arundel bank totes for the payment of 11. each, two cannisters, containing a quaniudi tity et ed of tea, and a gun, her property ; and Henry Leggett was for receiving the gun, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Curwood conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Wortnn the defeuce. There were circumstances of considerable atrocity s in this case. The prosectitriz, and elderly m aiden lady, and a female servant of still more advanced years, resided in a detached house in the parish of Petworth. Ua t he night of the 'bit' of April. they had finned to bed