The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-04-10 00:00:00

mot • %'," nig _TATF,S . . .—....._ SURREY AS.SlZRE,e4saniorox, Aram 4. ---ento--. ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. TIC ZINO ON TER ritosectivwx OF eta THOMAS S. ORAN !NEM O. EDWARD 114111tATII, ESQ. AND °VIERS, MADERLY, JCN., WIANCELY SEN , AND BYE. Mr. flarnewell opened the indictment io this case, which charged the defendants with conspiring to defraud 1 the prosecutor of certain acceptances or bills of exchan g e' to the amount of 50001. Mr. Watford stated the circumstances under which tbo prosecution bad been instituted, and which have, intact. already appeared before the public on varions former oe. cvion. It appeared from the learned Counsel's open* , that in the wrath of June IR.O Sir T. S. Champneys l was in the rules of the King's Bench. This .was pre- vim to the death of his father, and of course anterior to 1 . his arriving at his present title. He was at that time, much pressed for money—and lodged in the same house with the defendant, Mr. M'Grath, who had been a pay master, but who was also labouring under pecuniary ' difficulties. After some time the parties became ac-1 quainted, when Mr. WOrath proposed a more speedy re- 1 medy of raising money than Sir Thomas was then puree-1 ing—namely, through the medium of Mr. Maberly, the younger, whom he represented to be a wealthy coach- 1 maker in Welbeck-street. The course su g gested was 1 an exchange of acceptances , Mr. M'Grath representing' that Mr.hiaberly's acceptances were as good as the Bank of England. An exchange did accordingly take place on two several occasions, in August and December, in the same year, to the amount of 50001 : Mr. hlaberl y giving his acceptances, and receiving in return the ac -1 ceptances of Sir T. Champneys, to bills drawn by Mr.' M'Grath. Of Mr. Maberly's acceptances, under specific agreement, Mr. M'Orath took one-half, or in lieu re ceived carriages, which he afterwards sold. Notwith standing the assurances of the credit of Mr. Maberly, however, it turned out that Sir Thomas was unable to procure a farthirg for his bills, and was ultimately de prived of all chance of reimbursement, by his.bankruptcy, in the month of March following. Two of Sir Thomas's acceptances, one for 2000/. and the other for 5001., sub sequently became due, on being in the hands of Mr. hlaberly, sen. and the ether in the hands of Mr. Bye, to whom they had been paid by Mr. Maherly, the younger. These gentlemen sued upon them, and recovered judg ments ; and for their supposed participation in the &t -iered fraud, they were also included in the indietmen+.— This was the short outline of the case, which Sir Tho mas Champneys wad himself called to prove. He detail. ed all the minutiae of the transaction, and from his state • meet it would seam that he had been most dishonourably duped. — in cross-examination by Mr. Gur ne y , who ape Peered for Mr. IWO., he admitted that he had preferred a • billet' indictment of the same sort against Mr. WU. and • Mr. Maherly, jun. at the last Summer Assizes, on which occasion he had solmcenaed Mr. [Flaherty, sen. and Mr. Bye, as his witnesses. That indictment had been quash ed from an erroneous description of liiiii.self ; and he now included the last mentioned gentleman from an umbers • standing that they had participated in the fraud. The agreements entered into between the parties, end some of the hills were then put in, t oge ther with other , rkirmentary evidence, to prove the dates of the trams -Vettittak . cs bin, Thomas Chainneys also underwent a long cross, examination, by Mr. Comyn and Mr. Holland, on the part of Air. Miserly the elder, and Mr. Bye. Mr. Ma berkie, theyounger did not appear, either io person or by Uonneel. ' "The case for the prosecution being closed — Mr. CORNET addressed the Jury at great length. He nrkeirthe utter improbability of Sir Thomas Champneys, who bad been dealing in bill transactions all hislife, be , comtpg the dupe ny scheme of fraud, however plausible. lie then stated, that in point of fact, Mr. Maberly the younger, at the time when the interchange of bills took . place, was in every point of view a tradesman of the highest , repeetability, and in a very extensive way of business, in proof of whieli it was only necessary to state, that on his Bankruptcy his stock and premises sold for not less than .-Io,oooi. Mr WOrath, too, was a gentleman, although la . bottling under temporary dielculties, of considerable expec .tailons through his wife, and, therefore, not very likely to lend himself to an act of fraud, which must not alone expose him to certain loss, but to great degradation. Whatever co lour Sir Thomas Champneys might now think proper to give to the mutual accommodation which was sought by himself and Mr. Mll.,it was clear,that long subsequent to the hank reptey of Mr. Mxey, he continued to entertain for Mr. M'Grath the highest respect—in proof of which he would refer to his own letters. The learned Counsel then read ex . tracts from a variety of letters addressed to Mr. M'Grath, and dated . after March, 1821, in which the prosecutor ex pressed himself towards that gentleman in terms of cordial friendship. Under such circumstances he felt that, if he were to leave the case here, he might confidently tram the result to the good sense of the Jury, who, he was sure, in inch a view of the facts, would not return a verdict which must entail the most penal consequences on an honourable man :—but he would go further —and would prove, by re spectable testimony, that Sir Thomas Champneys, upon w h ose evidence this case solely rested, was himself alto - gether unworthy of credit upon his oath ; and having done so, he should sit down satisfied that the verdict would be " Not Guilty." Mr. Corny* was then about to address the Jury on 'behalf of Mr. Bye, but the Lord Chief Baron interposed, and said there was not the slightest pretence for including either Mr. Bye, or Mr. Maher's , the elder, in this indict ment. There bad not been a tittle of evidence adduced which, in the remotest degree, affected the integrity of their character. Under the direction of his Lordship, a verdict of ac quittal was then taken as to these two gentlemen, who were immediately warmly congratulated by their friends. The l e tters of Sir Thomas Champneys to Mr. *Grath, alluded to by Mr. Gurney, were then put in and read. Mr. Bye, the defendant who had been just acquitted, was then called.—He stated that he was a tyroomitb, and was a creditor under the estate of Mr. Mutely the ranger, who had carried on business as a coach-maker an a most extensive way, in Welbeck-street. He always thought him an honourable man, and entrusted him to Site very slay when the commission ras issued. His stock and premises sold fur 10,0001. Mr.Crovrtlier, a currier, also a creditor of Mr. Maberly, the younger, gave testimony to the same effect. He g.ve him credit till two days before the docket was. struck. The estate would produce about ten shillings is toe M pound. r. Finmore an attorney residing in Craven-st had,known Sir, Thomas Chatoneys for many yest•st reet, ite was concerned for him professionally ; he would not be lieve him on his oath. He had known bim swear falsely in that Court.—Mr. Noah Edw. Lewis, residing in Melts Rs-place, Lambeth-road, had knewosSir Thomas Champ beys for three years, and from what he knew of Mar *mild riot believe him. • • Mr. Penn, residing in the Rules of the King's Bench. hal) known Sir Thomas Champneys for some years; and, certainly, from what he knew of him, lie would not 11.- 1 lieee him on his oath. 11 , did not feel that he was led - lied inlaying that his testimony was to be doubted when sworn la a Court of Justice. le crofts-examination, witness admitted that lie bad warned Sir Thomas Charlatanry* against , having any pe. , 'eligible t r ansautions with Mr. Slttirath. H e never said Mr. ‘Grash was nut to be trusted. This was about the tiny thosebills sere concocteJ. In re-examination , he s aid he had known Mr. Mac. /path both hereaad at Brussele. He wasa man of most grlentaisty, ma nners, and, for any thing he kn ew to coatrary, both hormaiable and respectable in characier. • Ail was the case for the defence. Mr: Watford Laying made an able and animated reply, The Chief Baron wassined ap with impartiality, and his accustomed perspicaity:' The Jury immediately fodnd the remainidg defend ants Mr. M'Grath and Mr. Maberly , the you a g er,-Not ti nifty. WARWICK ASSIZES, APRIL 1. HOLIIRS V. READING. Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an action brought by the plaintiff. to recover damages for the loss of service sustained by him by the seduction of his daughter. The plaintiff was a gentleman residing in Portsea, Hampshire. He was living on his property, had a large family, several of whom were respectable settled. One of his daughters was comfortably married in Kenil worth to aM r. Johnson. In February, 1821, her sister, Miss Jane Holmes, came upon a visit to her. She was about 17 years of age, well educated,nnd prepossessing. Her conduct was marked with the greatest psapriety. She was, moreover, carefully looked after by her sister. This young lady having received some inst ructions in music, was desirous of improving herself in the art. Understanding that a • bliss Reading, a young lady in the neighbourhood, who turned out to be the sister of the de fendant, was in possession of a barpstchord, an acquaint ance was soon brought ebout, which ultimately led to mutual visits. In this manner, Miss Holmes became intl- 1 .mate with tbe defendant. This gentleman was the soul of a wealthy man who had followed the business of al cooper in that neighbourhood. It was observed on the part of Miss Holmes's friends, that the attentions of this gentleman were very marked. On one occasion, it hap pened that, as they were retorniog from church, the de fendant took away Miss Holmes's Prayer-book. and gave her his own, pointing out to her especial notice the matrimonial service. Mrs. Johnson asked him for an explanation. He acknowledged his attachuient, and avowed the most honourable intentions. She fully laid open the state of the young woman's family. The father was communicated with, and he gave las assent. In short, the defendant was received in the family as the person that was to become the husband of Miss Holmes. From this time forward the attachment continued to im prove, and on the 19th of August the scene to ,k place, which gave rise to this proceeding. On the evening of the 19th of August, the family being gone to church, and the young lady being left at home, the defendant contrived to get into the private &pertinent of Miss Holmes, and there took place the, loss of her honour. He gained his triumph. She was henceforth an object of coolness and neglect, and of no value to him ; " He flung her like a worthless weed away." Would that the gentler sex %entail take warning from such examples—would that they could be made sensible by those instances of the degradation they are retinced Is by surrendering, even in the eyes of those to whom they make themselves victims. The young lady, how ever, urged Sher to the only re station paration in , site— mairiage. presents her sa tells him that that consequence was likely to follow which must be the result of what happened„—What does he do?—re commends bitter apple. She spurned the base proposal. Subseqeently he turned round and offered to marry Miss H. provided her parents would give bee a fortune of SOW,, which they were not able to give. Miss Holmes gave birth to a child on the 16th of May, k 2!. These were the circumstances,-and be did not think he could state a more aggravated case. The conduct of her friends would he shown to be most circumspect. She herself was of a spotless character. The only improvident act she had ever committed was to give her affections to one so utterly unworthy of them. The following witnesses were called : Miss Jane Sarah Holmes was then called, and examined by Mr. Rea nea.—l shalt be n i ne teen y ears of :te. next May. My father lives.a‘Portses, is now retired'. and is living on his property. My father is-out of his mind. I am living with my mother. - .I have a sister living in Kenilworth ; she is married to Mr. Johnson. I was on a visit to my sister in 1621. It was opposite to Mr. Reading's. I learned music at home, and being anxious to practise, I was induced to use a harpsichord of Miss Reading's. I became acquainted with M r. Daniel Read ing ; be visited me at my enter's • his attentions became very particular. 1 came in one day when Mr. Reading was speaking to my sister. She asked him if his inten tions were honourable. He assured her they were. He asked about money. She said he could not expect any thing until my father's death. He said he did not mind having it at the ti.ue of marriage. One Sunday after church I called on Miss Reading . ; be took up my Bible and Prayer-book, and put them in his pocket. 1 asked for them, he said they were safe. He brought them home in the evening. He showed her his Prayer-book, and pointed out the matrimonial service. Mr. DaNMAN objected to this line of evidence. A pro mise of marriage was no excuse for sedaction. Mr. Justice PARK.—The evidence is admissible, not for the purpose of showing that a pro mise of marriage bad taken place, but to set forth the character of the young woman. The examination proceeded.-1 by his desire visited his father and mother with my sister. I remember going on a visit to Mrs. A., about seven miles off. Mr. It. came with me part of the way • he visited me there next day. I went to Mrs. G. at a ;bort distance; lie came to nie there. This was in June. The intimacy continued. I was on a visit at his father's, about six miles from Kenil worth. He was at this time paying his addresses to me. The witness then stated that on the evening of the 19th of August, the family being gone to church, she and Mr Reading went up to the dining-room ; she dressed her sister's child, and sent the children out to walk. Mr. R. during this time went up to her apartment. Sheathl not know any thing about it. He was laying on the bed, pretending to be asleep. She went to awake him, thinking he was asleep. Witness described what followed. He then left her. She dill not see him fur a fortnight. Ile came to Kenilivortb, but did not call on her. She met him after the lapse of a fortnielit in the street, and asked him why he did not call ? Ile said he had been busy. She asked hint to fulfil his promise, lie said his father would not consent. She said she would tell her sister; he desired her not, and said he would ask his father's consent again. She went shortly after t.• Banbury, and wrote to him. In this letter she told hint she was in a satiation that compelled her to wish for as speedy a marriage as possible. (!'he answer of Mr. R. was handed to the witness, and proved by her to be his b an d -writing .) It contained a refusal to marry her: She soon returned to Kenilworth. She wrote , to him to call. She told him again about her situation ; he said be hoped it was nothing of the kind, hut if it was, he wished her to take some bitter apple. He pressed her to take it. He asked her could she not find it in her bro. titer's shop ; she said she never heard of it. In a day or two she sent for him again. He said lie was coining to Warwick, and would -; : , et it. She said she would not take it, if he did. She saw him again next d iv. She ask-il him to let her see it. He would not, unless she faithfully promised to take it. H. would no. let her see it, but wished her to take it, in order to avoid disgrace on him and her She said, in order to save disgrace his only way was to marry her. About a week after she saw him, she said, 4 ' what ant Ito do, all my friends will , abandon me." Ile said he hoped they would not. She was delivered of a child 16th May, 1822. Cros -examined by air. Desrstax.—She left her father in February. 1821. She was to go back. She was not to remain with her sister fur any specified time. The de fendant attempted to be familiir with her twice after the 19th of August, but she would not. Mr K. came to her door to call her one morning at Mrs. Oreenway's. She has sent notes to Mr. It. Denied all improper uc qnaintance with a man of the name of Poe ell, a black smith. 51 , e did not tell • Mrs. Johnson of what :OA '‘ place till September, when she found that Reading would not marry her. There was a young man, named Allen, at Portses, who paid his addresses to her. She ' corresponded with him until she knew Mr. Reading. He was an apprentice in the dock-yard. He paid his ad dresses to her for a twelvemonth. It wu against her ftiends consent. On her cross-examination, she said that, after the 19th of August, Reading ac cused her of impropriety with Powell. She solemnly denied it, and offered to con front Powell. By the Junce—Witness was only on a visit with I er sister, and would have come back at any time she was bent fur. Mrs. Johnson, sister to Miss Holmes, confirmed the testimony of the last witnms, so far as she was con cerned. She spoke to Mr. It. after her sister had ems,- municated her situation to her. He denied all know ledge of the fact. She afterwards spoke to him again; she said the only reparation he could make to her war to marry her. He said be would If her friends would give her 5001. Cross-examined—Miss Holmes was not her servant. Her friends found her in clothes. She paid her no i: .•••••• - sot but find you guilty, is one of a very serious and very • aggravated natu fel tis as offence whicloif oiler ate twould 1 'go to unhinge the very foundation of society.—Front what has transpired in the course of the trial, and else where, of your former life and profession ass mos of re ligion,offering yourself as a guide and a pattern to others, it does appear to me tut your case is greatly aggravated —.That you, a man of such' pretensions, should be guilty of such a crime, which not only religion but morality for: bids. After you had deserted your first wife, you inflict on another innocent person a wrong for which You can never make reparation. The conduct of your first wife, in marrying again after you Lad Left her, can afford no justification to )ott ; and, besides that, I now find that even after your second marriage . you violated your vow to yonr second wife, and were living in a disA graceful state with a third woman at the time of your apt prehension. The offence of which you have been corn victed is amongst some classes, I am sorry to say, viewed very lightly. It is necessary to check this impression II an example, and though I am sorry to see a man of your' rears in such a situation, yet I feel It as a painful dntv, imperative upon me, to pass on you the sentence of the law, whice is, thatyoa be transported for the term of se ven years." The prisoner appeared amazed at the sentence, bat it was observed that he did not require the support of the railings in going down from the liar, bat walked a steady step. LANCASTER ASSIZES, Aram 7. SREACEI or PROMISE OF 3JARRIAGII, HIRBERT it. BARROW. This was an action brought to recover a emnpeesatios in damages for the injury sustained by the plaintiff, be reason of the defendant refusing to perform a promise of marriage, which it was alleged he had made to her. The damees were laid at 1,000/. Mr. Baouotoor stated the case for the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Miss Hibbert, was the daught-r of a hatter re siding at Failsworth, near Manchester; the defendant was a publicau at the same place; lie was•lsinotelf the owner of a public-louse, and was a in in in opulent cif leumstances. The parries were, therefore, pretty much s a par with respect to their station in We. and he believed 'gnat in point of age. The intimacy between them hail subsisted for a considerable time, and it anfortneatelv happened that the plantitf, relying more than she ought to have done on the honour and the repeated promises of the defendantohad been Induced to stureuder her virtue —a circumstesee which did not form a material part of the present case, but might b- ni ide the ground of a Ss p alat ises ot m e complaint. After being chi deluded by reiter Aral romairiage, and put c from lime to time by the defentlant,lierliopes of that union which he hail led her to expect, were at length totally blighted by the mar riage of the defendant with anotoer woman, with whom Ise received a considerable portion, and nothing was left to the plaintiff but that compensation wide' she was seeking, an I which he trusted she would receive at the hands of the Jerry. Ann Ogden, wife of David Ogden, of Failsworth, had known the plaintiff for a long time; her father wad a hatter. Koetv the defendant, who was a pithlwan at Failsworth. The plaintiff and defentlato bad been inti mice for 12 or 14 years. Witness was in ha father's house with them in the year l 1S ; they were talking to gether; defendant said if ever lie miss married to any wit. man It %mild be to her; lie repeated this twice. He afterwards asked her to go out at the door, he had a few words to say to her, aliieh he did not wish amp one else to bear. He took hold of It r band and led her to the door, and said she anti he must be married very sow). Site had a child several years ago; she was 30 pairs of age, and he two or three and thirty. Cross-exai JJ JJ ed by Mr. Wtooraus —Pray, Mrs: Og den, what is the age of your ol lest child?—Twelve years. And your second ?—About eight. And your third ?-1 t is dead ; it would hare been three if it had lived. And pray, Ma'am, when tiere you married ?—About two years ago. Bless me! had you all those children before you were m 'tried ?—Yes, Sir. What was the age of Miss !Jibbed's child when the conversation took place which you have mentioned? — Between two and three years. Re-examined—The defendant married a Miss Simpson, did be not?—Yes, Sir. And old Simpson bu It him a public-house ?—Yes, Sir. Miss Hibbert's fattier never did build him a public house, did he ?—No. Mr. BROUGHAM—Aye, that's the difference, you know, Ist tween the two ladies. Charles Stott produced a certificate of the did; ads , t's marriage, which took place on the 22 I of Au . ust, 1022. Served defendant with the writ in this action. He said he bad paid money enough on account of the child ; he did not want to pay any mnre. Mr. Wit.t.tasss,lor the defendant, contended, that be the plaintiff could recover in this action, the Jury must be convinced not only that the words imputed to the defendant were really uttered by bim, but also that they were understood by the parties at the time to b: a distinct promise of marriage binding upon both. And what were the witnesses who, were called to prove this notable case ? There was the particular frienu, the inti mate associate of the plaintiff, who came shamelessly ins the box, and admitted that she had three bastard children before marriage. What sort of reliance could they place upon her testimony, when they saw such a laxity in that point of morality which was so essential to a female? Even if they believed the promise, of which evi dence was given, what did it amount to? The defends ant led the plaintiff to the door, and whispered in her ear some idle words, which just as touch amounted to a legal and binding promise of marriage, as jumping over a broomstick constituted a binding ceremony. It was in evidence, that the connection b-tween the parties had subsisted for years, and that so long as the defendant re mained unmarried, the plaintiff did not give herself any trouble about it. " Cursed be all laws but those which Love has made," would, hs supoosed, have been her mot . % if ever site hail read the Post, so long as slot could live in a state of con cubinage with the defendant. But o loot he got married —when this sinner became a publican—she was inflamed with the sight of his house—she thought some money might be got from him, and she set h-rself about proving a breach of promise of marriage by the testimony of that witness whom they hail heard, but tell, he trusted, they would not believe. Mr. Justice HOUROYD summed up, and the•J nry re. turned a verdict for the defendant. wages. Mrs. Oreenway lives at Baddinglon. Miss Holmes was on a visit wit!► her. Mr. Heading visited her there ; nothing improper passed between them. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. DENSIAN here urged that there was no proof of Service to her father. It WAS rather proved that she bad been in the service of another person. The Junco--Then 1 . 11 ►iall the girl to ask-her if she made tea for her mother. Miss Holmes examined by the Judge.—l have fre quently made tea for my mother, and attended her when She was ill. Mr. DENUAN then addressed the Jury, and ingeni ously commented on the evidence with a view to the mi tigation of damages. Ale. Justice PARK summed up, and elaborately set forth the law of the case. The Jury, after a quarter of an hour's consultation, re- I turned a Verd ic t foe tue plaintiff—Damages 2001. BRISTOL., Tegeoat. Before the Recorder, Sir RORCRT GIFFORD. Thomas Day, aged GI, a Dissenting preacher, a man of meek and pious exterior, was tried upon an indict ment for bigamy, in having intermarried with Elizabeth Doncaster, his former wife, Mary Day, being still alive. The Parish Clerk of the Parish of St. Mary, Woolwich, in Kent, proved that on the 26th of August, I e. 419, a marriage was soleuiniacd at the Parish Church by banns, between a man of the name of Thomas Day, and a wir man named Mary Lancaster. A Baker, residing iti ti,e Borough of Bristol, stated that he knew the prisoner, who had lodged in his house for nearly four years, and during that time lived with a woman of the name of Doncaster, or Davis, who always passed for and was taken to be his wife, until his former wife, Mary Lancaster, came up from ondon, and insist ed (limn some provision for her children by him, when " fitnons piece of work" took place between the wives. Elizabeth Doncaster, the last female married, stated that she had known the prisoner for more than ten years. She knew Lim first at Bristol, and was married to him at St. Mary's Church in that City., and she had lived with him ever since. She was present when the prisoner oas taken before the Mayor, where he acknowledged that he had been married to Mary Lancaster. The witnew was much afflicted at her situation as a witness against the prisoner. Cross-examined by the prisoner.—Witness 'lid not hear Mary Lancaster acknowledged that she had no right to him. The prisoner was then called upon for his defence, when he began to complain of the many visitations which he had recently endured, and amongst them of severe illnesses in consequence of the imprisonment and, the tribulation which he had already undergone for his sins. " When I took Mary Lancaster by the hand, my Lord," said he, "I lived with her about a month, when I found her out in the most sitafal doings. She went af- 1 ter other men ; and when I exhorted her about it, she told me she could not help it, for she was fond of variety., " I find I like variety," says she, and so I verily believe she did.—(Laughter.) However 1 stood it like Job, till one day l found her with a young shoemaker in any very house. I took him by the scuff of the neck and turned him out. Then I exhorted her. Says she "I am very sorry for it, and I'll try not to do so again ; but, says she "ill let you into a secret. 1 haveanother husband on board the Topaze East Indianian ; he has much more riht to me than yon have, and as soon as he lands mean g to go to him."—" Very well," says I, and so you may, for I don't like to keep another man's property." And so she was married, that is the truth ; here is the copy of her register, to show that she is married now.—(fhe prisoner pat in the copy of the register.) And besides that, she married a man from Deal, I believe, and served him the same as she's served me, only I could never fa thom the bottom of it. I then took my wife Elizabeth by the band ; but do assure your .Lordship, that I neither m arried her " wilfully, wickedly, or maliciously," nor with a view of breaking the marriag e oath. If I wa s now upon my salvation, 1 should lie acquitted of that, and I hope I shall be acquitted here. The prisoner' then proceeding to promise the learned Judge that, if he was merciful to him, he should "have his prayers." He continued, "I will only say further, what w a s sa id by the very best Judge that ever eat on a bench. If there is a doubt, incline the scale on the side of the prisoner." The learned JUDGII, in his charge to the Jury, told them there was nothing beyond the prisoner's bare asser tion to prove that Mary Lancaster was the wife of air other man before he married her. His Lordship saw no thing in this case to rest a doubt upon. 'fbe Jury suggested to his Lordship that the copy of the marriage-register formed a strong corroboration of the' prisoaer's statement. The learned JUDGE said that the copy could not be received as evidence. The Jury, after a short deliberation, found the pads soner (Willy, but recommended him to mercy. His Lordship, after the Jury had delivered their ver dict, told them that the register of the first wife's second marriage, so far from proving the prisoner's case, proved that she was married after his marriage. The register proved that she was married again in 1811. After the trials of the other prisoners bad been gone through, the prisoner was brought tip for sentence. His appearance and manner had undergone a remarkable al teration. His weakness had increased apparently to the last extremity: lie walked with trembling steps, sapport ing himself by the railings, and after having rested him self to recover strength to speak, he said, in a weak, " die away" tone of voice, scarcel audible, " Most excellent Judge, be pleased to hear a /ew words from one ..ho ad dresses you in the bitterness of penitence. Be merciful to me, my Lord, for my constitution is lost ; I am very ill, very ill, indeed; and if your Lordship visiteth use with much imprisonment, 1 fear, alas ! that I must shortly appear where sinners cease to trouble. As it was said by the Lord of those who 'night the gate of mercy in peni tence, Seek, and ye shill find ; knock, and it shall be opened atria you ;' so I hope It *ill be opened to-day to me, who am truly penitent. I will conclude by saying, as the last words of our Lord Jestis were to the thief,— . Verily I say unto thee, to-day thou shalt be with me io • Paradise; so 1 hope l shall to-day be in the Paradise of oak f London: Edited, Petaled, and Pabllsited, at the e * ineicy with your Lordship." His Lordship then addressed the prisoner to the M. Tu. IIiTAVILIMAN, No. 5197 Stein* by lb, WRDELL. lowing eflFtt :—" The offence of Which the Jury coed* LI.. it: to whom all Commute" Ohm, OrOrrs, bc. ate re , quested to be addressed. MARRIEO.—On Tuesday last,,Joseph Bainbridge, Esq.,. of Hatton-garden, surgeon in the East [mit Company's ser vice, to Mts. Richardson, of Okford-street. On the 9•Ft ir st., at St. Bartholomew's the Great. Archi bald Maclaurin, Esq., Solna-raft-house, to Mary Ann Hester, only daughter of Tho.i.as Hester, R-q Clothfair. On Tuesday. the Wit inst., at St. Atoms New Church, Mr. Justin M`Carthy, to Miss Samna Nowise, of Claren don-square, - . ---- DIED.—On the 1111 Inst.. In Wilmot-street, Bien.eick square, in her 761 h year, hlrs. Elizabeth Calvert, rilict of Mr. Jima Calvert, formarlv of Old-street. On Wednesdey, the 2d Instant, at' Kaoline, James, youngest son of Robert Alderson, Esq . . Norwich. On the inst.. John (*ethyl, Esq., of Reedly, oat. ef Basinghall-street), aged 49. 1-b l_. R lan