The National Register. — London, England, 1811-12-15 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL the preceding January, about eight in the morning, he went to the house of Francis Daniels, an acquaintance of his in that city, and on the maid opening the door, he knocked her on the head with a hammer, then cut her throat, and drew her into the hall; after which, be murdered the master of the house, as be lay in bed, with the same hammer and knife, and then robbed the house. On Sunday, the 27th of April, the same ruffian went about ten o'clock in the morning, to the dwelling of Martin Van de Brug, a dealer in clOth, on pretence of having a stranger at his own house, who wanted a suit of clothes, and having thus inveigled Van de Brug thither, he beat out his brains with a hammer, gave him seven wounds in the throat with a knife, and threw the body into a cellar. He then returned to the house of his victim, and understanding from the maid that her mistress was at church, and would return home alone, he murdered the maid, and also a child about six months old which she held in her arms, both beating out its brains and cutting its throat. When the wife came home from church, the Jew opened the door, telling her that her husband was in his chamber and expected her there. He there dispatched her with the hammer and knife, as he had done the rest, and taking all the money and jewels he could find, quitted this scene of death and horror. The execrable wretch was discovered by means of some blood on a pair of shoes, which he had sold to a cobler's wife ; and be ing committed, tried, and sentenced to death, he was executed in the manner following : The malefactor was drawn from the prison to the place of execution, where his body was placed upon the scaffold, display ed, and fettered; the hammer and knife being bound about his neck. Six gobbets of flesh were torn from his body wit h burn ing pincers; his arms and legs were afterwards broken upon a wheel, and the murderer was then burnt to death. His body was next quartered, and deposited on the wheel which had been used for his torture, and was raised upon a pole close to the gallows. LAZY REPORTS. COURT OF KING'S BENCH-GUILDHALL. SATURDAY, DF.C. )4. BLIACHFORD V. BOUSFIELD AND OTHERS. This was an action for goods sold and delivered, to the amount of 9031. 18s. 6d. brought by an emtheio lacernan and sword cutler in the city, against the five defendants", to which four of them pleaded thbt they were not liable, and the fifth, of the name of Eastman, pleaded his Certificate under a Commission of rankruptcy. It appeared that the defendants were jointly con erned in an adventure to Buenos Ayres, to the value of 60,000. part of which was composed of the goods supplied by the plain tiff on the order of Eastman, for himself and the other parties concerned, and their bills were drawn otthe house of Hunter and Rainey. The plea of Eastman was admitted to be good, but the difficulty lay in making out the other defendants jointly concerned in the transaction. k appeared, that one of them had frequently called at the plaintiff's to see if the order was in progress of execution, and then spoke of it as a joint concern. A deed was also put in, whereby the adventure was divided into twenty-one shares, dursible among the five defendants in specific proportions. Mr. Tapping, for the defendant, contended, that this was no proof of their liability ; and Mr. Toddy, on the same side, con tended, that this was an illegal adventure under the Statute of Ann—but Lord ELLENDOROUGIi held, that the deed was a recognition by the parties themselves, of their joint interest in the transac tion, and necessarily of their liabilty ; and, as to this being an il legal traffic, that could not effect the claim of a bon fide toder selling his goods to the parties actually concerned in such illegal traffic. The Jury, therefore, found a verdict fur the plaintiff to the full amount of his demand. MONDAY, DEC. 9. An action was tried, brought by Miss Faulder,ivho had lived fourteen years with the late Thomas Clarke Jervols, Esq as his mistress, against I\ l lr. Silk, one of the executors of Mr. Jervois, for the payment of an annuity bond for 5001. dated ~ ./Bth of July, 1808. Mr. Silk, the defendant, had refused payment of the bond, upon the ground that the deceased was insane at the time that he executed it. On the part of the plaintiff it was proved, that Mr. Jervois was a man of eccentricities from his early day., but that he had displayed no more than those ebullitions of which a man who is termed an oddity may be thought capable. It also appeared, from respectable evidence, that Mr. Jervois had 'men— tioned to the plaintiff some time before, in the hearing of some of his friends, that he would settle upon her 3001. per annum, a sum which he said was as much as he could afford, in conse- 791 quence of his limited means. At the time that he made this as-; sertion he appeared to be as much under the influence of serious deliberation as any man could be. He afterwards received con siderable accession to his fortune, by which he was enabled to give to the plaintiff further provision, as a compensation for her services as a cher anaie. On the part of the defendant a number of witnesses were called, who swore to many acts of insanity committed by Mr. Jervois; but they admitted that he had his lucid intervals, and that he was as rational at those times as any man could be.—The Jury returned a verdi c t f or th e plaintiff, upon the ground that Mr. Jervois was sane at the time of the ex ecution of the bond. OLD BAILEY. YONDAY, DEC. 9. Charles Pitt was this day tried before the COMMON SER.. 3irtor, on an indictment, charging him with sending a certain letter to Mr. Samuel Freeman, of the Aldgate Coffee-house, two days subsequent to a trial, in which the present defendant was plaintiff and a gentleman named Smith was defendant; on which trial the said Samuel Freeman gave evidence. The letter was charged to contain a malicious and libelous imputa tion against the said Freeman, accusing him of having sworn falsely in the course of his evidence, and indirectly threatening him with a prosecution for perjury, uitess he thought proper tts retract the assertions. he bad made. The above case was clearly proved, and the Jury, without he sitation, pronounced the defendant Guilty ; and he was sen tenced to pay a fine of One Shilling, and to be Imprisoned Six Calendar Months. All the prisoners in the Calendar having been tried, sentence was passed on those convicted during the Sessions.—Of those, the following received judgment of death : Sarah Colman, for stealing to the value of 151. in a dwelling house; Thomas Linton R.Ggers, alias Linton John Rogers, for stealing to the amount o f' 7a in a dwelling-house; John MqVilliams Duplex, for horse-stealing ; Catherine Hart, for stealing goods privately in a shop, to the value of 20s. ; James 111'Call, alias James 111'Cret:c:h i for horse-stealing ; John Ho libram, for burglary; and Johnll'7lliams, for highway robbery. POLICE. SHADWELL. CHARGE oy MURDER. Monday evening, as a person of the name of Ashburn, who , lives in Gravel-lane, Rateliff-highway, was talking with some others, at a public-house, over the late horrible murders, the sensations he experienced were so strong, that he made a Con fession to them of a murder committed by one Thomas Font zick, a Portuguese, who underwent an examination before the Bench of Magistrates, at the above Office. Ashburn, stated, that he was at Gravesend at the time the Arniston, Bait ladiaman, .was about proceeding on her first voyage, which he supposed to be near Is years ago. As he was returning to London in one of the Gravesend boats at night (the day he does not perfectly recollect), he observed a wherry come along side the boat with three passengers, one of whom was the prisoner, a sergeant, and a publican, since dead; when they. came •n board, a dispute arose respecting a young man, who was said to be crimped by the prisoner, although the sergeant declared he had enlisted. him. Blows ensued, and the sergeant was knocked down into the wherry. The witness did not exactly know, which of the party struck the blow, but that the prisoner jump ed on him, and he heard three crushes of his bone*. He did not see his body thrown overboard, but only the sound of some thing falling into the water. On their landing, be missed the sergeant, but saw Font zick and the publican. Mrs. Ashburn, the wife of the witness, was on board, and partly corroborated the testimony of her husband. She stated that it was very dark, and being asleep below, she was awoke by the crashes; but only knew of the murder from her husband having frequently mentioned it when he was in a state of in toxication, and that she admonished him to silence on the busi- ness. The Magistrates asked Ashburn his reason for withholding the statement for so long a period ? The witness replied, that he was afraid of getting into trouble, and that he shoutd be murdered. He was then questioned by the prisoner's Solicitor, whether he knew the name of the master of the boat, the re— sidence of the publican, or the place of landing ? To these in terrogatories he gave no satisfactory answer. Mr. Markland questioned Mrs. Ashburn respeciing ler hus— band's state of mind in his frequent fits of intoxication, and she acknowledged her husband scarcely knew what he said. Its