The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-07-17 00:00:00

sore world he heti to expect. Ile was at present in prison foe debts similar to the present ; and under ouch circumstances it was for she Jnry to say whether they would add to his embarrassments. The defendant's mother was then called to give evidence, bet ad vetoing that she would have' en pay the expellees or the present ac. tme, it the defence failed, her testimony was rejected. A verdict for the plat eiff was therefote taken—laminae 101. Doecuesextt, SA*l (TODAY, JULY IS. L' ROW N COURT. Wet. White and James fladstork were indicted for making Agnate to a smuggling boat, off the Isle of Portland, on the oth te' April last. The rianners wee tried under a new clause which had been eelsow to the fish of his present 3lojesor, fleeing the last Session of Perliament, and by soh ch it is enaeted, that every intimation fives to a smuggling boat or newel, tor the purpose of warning it of shore. shall he deemed a signal. The case for the l•rown was conducted by Mr. Sergeant ti t i Alt. te t.wYx, and Mr. Easeitig; whilst 311'. F. WILLIAMS end Mr. Weto it T conducted the defence. The owe 14 the ormecution was supported by the evidence of John Walpole and William Muni, two boatmen belonging to the Preventive &Mien From their evidence. it appeared that they were stationed it Chisel Cove, on the Isle of Portland, on the toirning a the nth A the last, and that about two o'clock in t h e sr - Awning they observed the prisoners at the bar, Who were natives of the island, and well known to the witnesses, approaching, and as trsiti as they observed the witnesses they both whistled. and wit. en•ex then saw • company of persoga at a distance, with tuba on their et•ooldere, which they threw down uptin hearing the whistle, east ran towards the cliff. A small boat was near the men with the tub., and the me" in her invantly pulled to sea. The tubs were ticket up by the witnesses ; there were nineteen of them, and they -contained brandy, rum, and genera. Upon their crow-examinations the witnesses said that it was light eflOilgh when they saw the prisoners to make them certain that they were not mistaken in their persons. When the prisoners whistled, :bey were about twenty pints distant them the smugglers, and in advance of them. There were live men in the boat. Witnesses observed the prisoners, and their clothes were wet. Walpole stated that it was about half-past one o'clock in the morning, but Thirty thought it might be two. The tiro said the prisoners whistled at the some dine, end made the same noise; the other witness thought WIC whistle was a liAte louder than the other. The prisoners had im dogs, nor were there any sheep grazing near. )ir WILLIAMS said he appeared for the prisoner Nnite, and thought it his dory to point the attention or the Jury particularly so the language and spirit of the Act of Parliament upon which Hits conviction was sought to be obtained. It was more loose and sodefinite,he thoueht, thai any Act of Parliament which Itched ever sego that affected the li lierty of t lie subject. The Act originally pointed dstt re 6 ttelY what a signal meant, and ran thus—any one making a signal with any light, Mame, smoke, &c. or aiding or abeitirg any one. But by this new chime it was enacted that any intima tion given tba smuggling boat or vessel shat' he deemed a signal, and any person guilty of such offence may he imprisoned for a pe i'mst one exceeding twelve menthe. Now he defied the most learned andokeriet to and out any word more vogue and indefinite than this word iv/404Jan. Under such an Act of Parliament, if a Th a n k w . • lamed to walk on the Isle of Monate!, so any other part of the 'coast, and a smuggling boat happened to be near, and he *skilled to his dug , or scolded at his dog, or laughed loud, nay, if a man was walking with his old grandmother, who chanced to have a . cough, and she coughed loud (a laugh, in which the Court and Jury joined), in such a case the onus prahandi would fall on the un fortunate won, and in ten eases out of eleven he would have no means of proving his innocence. Un.ler such an Act or Parlia ment no man was safe, and be therefore called upon the Jury. who were in some measure the protectors of the subject, not to 'sanction by their verdict an experiment which. was now made for the first time. Alt. W e tour addressed the Jury on behalf of the other pri toner. Ile said Dr. Franklin, who was an honour to human ne wt. had written a Yu, well-known story about purchasing a whistle in his youth, and in after-if:, whenever he beheld any one expend ton much in the purchase of a bauble. he used to 'say he paid too dearly for his whistle. Iti this way the Crown de sired to make the unfortunate persons pay by a year's im prisonment for their whistle. Ile contended, however, that the evidence was by no means stifficient, especially as the witnesses had lined in their testimony. The power:of the Crown, and the man • err in which it caused Acts of Parliaments to be pawed, were ally subjects o f ser i ous consideration. There were 441 Acts connected with navigation, and for these they chose to substitute a single Art ; but for six months after passing one Act, they did not repel the other, but Lrpt both in force concurrently. As to the. clauseue upon which the Jury were now called to act, it was mon mous. It male it dangerous for any man to walk on the sea coast in any part of the country where the Crown thought proper to sta. owl those eentry,the Preventive Water Goan]. /Is. Stawvx replied fur the Crown. Very violent attacks had been made on the Legislature for pat sing a clause which would in. elude ever description of signal ; but the Legislature had been driven to this by the ingenuity with which persons engaged in smuggling had evaded the laws. Last Assizes the Court had held thee calling nut ". Off" to a smuggling vessel was not a signal within the meshing of the Act ; and to remedy that part of the Act, the clause now in question was added, which it wan the duty ea the Jury to carry into operation. If the prisoners, however, could prove that they had been engaged in any honest legal employ. inent, or that the Jury did not believe that they whistled to warn off the smuggling boat, they ought to be acquitted. They had not • attempted, however, to account for their appearance on the cliff at two o'clock in the morning. His Learned Friend wished the Jury to suppose they were innocent shepherils,feeding their flocks to that hour in the morning. But there were no sheep our no doge: The Learned Counsel then resorted to the farce of .41f a Grandmother. cut that could not be sepported • bit better than the others: There were no sheep nor dogs, it scented, but there were nineteen tubs of brandy, genera, and rum. It mattered not whether the two pri soners whistled, or only one, as it was clear they were in company, out the evidence was that there had been a joint whistle. 'faking the evidence into their cousideration, he thought the Jury mutt omelet the prisoners. The Jury, after • moment's hesitation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The teamed Judge intpdted if the Jury were convinced that the two erisemers were together on the cliff ? The Foreman said they were satisfied of that, but they thought the evidence was not stifficiont to convict either of the prisoners. Mr. Justice O ASEL EE—Gentlemen, it is your verdict, not mine; but I wish to know whether you think the prisonera were there for the purpose of warning the smugglers ? Foreman—As there was a variation of opinion between the wit rewen, my Lord, we don't wish to find either guilty. One of the witnemea said it was at half-past one o'clock, and the other thought . it was two. Mr. Justice Geer err—So then, because one witness thought it • wee half-pest one o'clock, and the other that it might he two, you don'ethink the marmots whistled to the smuggles at all ? Foreman-31y Lord, as there tyas a variation of opinion, we acenitboth.• A verdict of acquittal was therefore recorded, and the prisoners were discharged. CITETINfi AND MAIMING. Phrehr Goff. • coarse middle-aged woman, was indicted for cut ting and maiming Robert Norris, with intent to kill him. F roe the evidence of Norris it appeared. that several years ago an enclosure of common land. took place in the pnrish of Stockton, an this county, and about 2110 acres were reectreil on which the pone inhahitents of the parish had a right of turhary. it was the duty of the parish officers to protect thts allotment, and some years .ago a cottage having been erected on was 410111M/ell at a parish meeting that it should be pulled down. Notice was given to die inhabitants that it would be demolished. and on the day named in t oe notice, Norris, who is a Sheriff's officer, accompanied by se veral Other poeons.proceeded to the place.with the intention of car rying the order of the Vestry Meeting into effect The prisoner, who lived near the cottage. placed herself in front of It. As Norris •, advanced, he told her for what purpose hr came; and her answer was " that she would chop down the first man who approached," with a reaping hot k which she held in her hand. Nom: then drew feral an unleaded pistol, with which he attempted to intimidate the teeemer, say ing he would blow out the brain: of the first person she interrupted him in the discharge of hie they ; but the come euence of this threat was, that the prisoner ran at him. and made a .furious drive with the reaping hook, which Norris fortunately es . med, and caught the prisoner round the waist, when he found ...I.tartelf robbed in the hip with a knife which she had concealed it her right hand, and which he had cot before noticed. Norris tees called out for help, and the ptisoner was secured and the knife telt. n from her. At this period of the trial a communication took place between the Counsel on both sides, the parish officers it Stockton and the Cesrood Judge, and it was resolved that the prosecution 111101114 110 t proceed further. By the direction of the learned Judee, the prisoner was there fore acquitted and discharged, finer a feeling and suitable address. FORGERY. William Wheatley, a gentlemanlike Inoking man, very respect. P:.ly dressed, and with his hair powdered, was next placed at the bar, and the indictment read, charglrg him with forging, uttering, sad publishing as true, at Weymouth, in this county, a false and • • smintevfeit indorsement for the payment of 391. 17.. 441., with an hitent to defraud Jane Luce, widow. Ile was also indicted for torging an order for the payment of .y. 19:., with intent to de. • fraud the said Jane Luce. 'fbe prosecutors nut having appeared, the Learned Judge in ' fennel the Jury that they must acquit the prisoner. He said it Was not for him to say whether there had been any collusion be tween the parties; if there was, it was for his Majesty's Attorney. General to proceed against them in another place; but their duty • • was to decide according to the evidence, and no evidence appearieg ' • • against the prisoner, he must be acelLitted. The Jury, without hesitation., returned a verdict of Not Guihy. •' ' 'flie prisoner bowed respectfully as he withdrew. Throe was but one witness in attendance, a person feent the husse of Lloyd and (hi., of London, to prove that no person of the name of James Bennett (the name in which the hill of ex change was drawn) kept an account with that firm. We some time ago adverted to the fact that superfine flour was lower in proportion to other breadstuff's than was ever before known : but we are told this is the first time in this state, in which, front motives of economy, flour was used for horse feed. It ought certainly to be put on record, that while the manufacturers of Great Britain are suffering •• for want oLfood, the people of Pennsylvania are feeding heir horses with flour.—Philadilphie I , THE BRITISH -PRESS. OXFORD CIRCUIT. STAFFOIID, JULY IL • The Assizes commenced here this day. Nothing of much im portance presents itself in the appearance of the bustneu. CIVIL SIDE. [Before Illr..lusticeiirtnitounit.l WIGHTWICK v. BREWER. The Court was occupied nearly all the day in the trial of this cause. which was an action to try a right to a certain ditch between the premises oldie plaintiff and the defendant, upon one foot of which the defendant was supposed to have encroached by building a small house. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff'. Three undefended CAPER were then taken ; and the fifth and last cause tried this day was of no importance. CROWN SIDE. Mr. Baron Hannow presided at the Crown aide. After the (hand Jury were sworn, the proclamation for the sup pression of vice was read as usual. Mr. Baron Gaanow then charged the Grand Jury. After ob serving he had so often occasion to address almost all the same gentlemen, whom he had now the honour of seeing, he felt it quite unnecessary :to remind them of those high and important duties which they had so repeatedly performed, with credit to themselves and benefit to their country. What lie was about to remark on the present occasion must be considered more as an apology than as complaint. Ilia Lordship having been detained so late at Worces ter as not to allow him to take any refreshment before his depar ture hither, nor until his arrival at a very late hour last night, to hie surprise, found only two depositions had been returned by the 3lagistrates; and at the moment he was addressing the Grand Jury, only twenty.eight depositions had been returned out of a calendar of fifty-six prisoners. Even yet, no depositions had been received by his Lordship in two most serious cases, namely, charges of rape. Gross negligence must have existed in some quarter, it was most manifest. His Lordship had so often addressed threw who heard hint on this subject, without ary good result. that he supposed it was quite imp. ssible for the Magistracy of the county 'to consider one moment the importance of this subject. Although he did rot complain of this neglect. yet it was his duty to remind them of the penalty about to be enforced for the neglect of the per formance of a duty so important as an early return of the deposi tions, in all cases, to the Judges of Assize. His lordship here wok occasion to pass the highest encomiums on the active exertions of Mr. Peel, the present Secretary for the flume Department, l'or ' his useful and important changes in the criminal code of the nation; ' and hoping that on no future occasion he should be conetraitted to reiterate his present complaints, he dismiesed the Grand Jury to the performance of their important labour. William Steward, aged 38, was indicted for feloniously stealing nine sheep, the property of George Cooper, of Sutton Culdlield, in this county. 31r. RYAN stated the case to the Jury, and then adduced evi dence, front which it appeared that on the 17th of April last the prosecutor's flock, consia.ing of more dm a hundred sheep, were all safe in his field, and on the next day he missed the efieep in question, which were purchased front the prisoner by a butcher. Guilty-1 /cat'. STAFFORD, JULY 15. MANSLAUGHTER. Sampson Let was indicted tor feloniously killing and slaying William, Baddeley, oa tt.e 25th ut' 3181, at the parish of New castle, In this county. Mr. Slate opened the case for the prosecution, and then called the following witnesses Joseph Baddeley—l am brother of the deceased. I live at New castle, in this county. On the 25th 'of May last, I was drinking in the Unicorn Inn, at Newcastle, with my brother, who is a brushmaker. The prisoner is in the same line of business. The deceased said to the prisoner that he had no right to come and sell his brushes in Newcastle. The prisoner said lie had ; on which 'the deceased struck him while he was sitting down, and he was obliged to stand up and defend himself. They then fought ; and with the second blow the prisoner struck the deceased under tits ear; he instantly fell dead. This was all the evidence. . _ _ Mr. Baron ( L '.naow charged the Jury, that although the death of the deceased arose entirely from his own misconduct, still it was manslaughter. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to ten days further imprisonment. Mary Longrhaw, aged 33, was indicted for feloniously stealing two pieces of printed calico, the property of Thomas Cox, of Hanley, in this county. Mr. C. PHILL rs conducted the prosecution, and stated the facts of the case ; after which he called witnesses, who proved that the prisoner having tome into the prosecutor's shop, thrust the two two pieces of printed cotton in question under her shawl. She was immediately taken into custody with the property upon her. The Juty found her Guilty. Mr. Baron °ARROW then called up Mr. Cox, the prosecutor, previous to passing sentence, and asked him what he knew concern ing the prisoner's character? Mr. Cox replied that lie knew nothing against her; but added that he really believed the pangs of hunger, and a mother's soli citude to teed her fatherless children. induced her to commit the act of which site had been now convicted, and for which lie would not have prosecuted her tiniest' lie had been bound over. Several witnesses then attested the good character of the prisoner. Mr. Ctiant.es PHILLIPS said, on the part of the prosecutor, that lie wished to recommend her to mercy. Mr. Baron Gminow remarked to the prisoner how truly ad vantageous it was to have a good character, because in the time of distress, and in the exigencies of misery, good reputation always • was beneficial, and made the lot of the unfortunate much lighter than it might otherwise deservedly In. Mr. Cox, the prosecutor upon the present occasion, bad shewn triniself to be a splendid specimen of the trite Etiglisitnian. He had no doubt correctly stated, when asked, that he knew nothing formerly disreputable to the character of the prisoner, but in the disingenuousness of his heart, he voluntarily added that which his humanity suggested, and the characteristics of his national character fulfilled, namely, what he knew creditable, and stated that the prisoner bore an un spotted character, and distress alone made her commit the crime. His Lordship believed he was tiniug justice while lie tempered it' with the attribute of mercy, and sentenced the prisoner to pay a tine of a shilling, and then to he discharged. The unfortunate prisoner, before paralysed with the shame of being arraigned tor a crime, sunk on a seat when she heard the le niency of her sentence ; and Mr. Brutton, the Governor of the gaol, with that humanity which characterizes his acts towards the prisoners in his charge, immediately paid her fine. A entail sub eription was raised for her, and she was restored to the friends who had given such good testimonials of her reputation. William W Cminor was next indicted for shoplifting in the same prosecutor's warehouse. The case was completely proved against him. The only remarkable circumstance in his ease was that on the first witness being called, and having given his evidence, Mr. Baron Barrow asked the prisoner whether he had any questions to put. The prisoner seemed 10 misundengand the question of the Learned Judge. Mr. Baron Gannow—Don't you understand me? Prisoner-:-Oh yes, I untherstand ye very well, but devil a bit did hear what ye said. (Laughter.) Every one present irmitediately suspected that the poor prisoner was an Irishman. The Jury found him guilty of the offence imputed to him, and as he was a very old offender, he wu sentenced to transportation for teen years. NORTIIERN CIRCUIT. You l, JULY 14. CROWN SIDE. Before Mr. Boron Iltru.oen.] MURDER. Leonard Wilkinson was indicted fur the wilful murder of Nicholas Caner, at Sedate. Mr. Jos E 8 stated the case to the Jury, and detailed the chain of circumstantial evidence by which the guilt of the prisoner was sub stantiated. William irate sworn.—l am a clerk in the bank of Messrs. Hut ton, at Lcyhurn. I knew the deceased ; he was in the habit of coming to our hank ow Fridays. On Friday, the 19th of !Hay, he came about two in the afternoon. Ile wanted a bill of between 201. and XL 1 save him • hill for '46/. and he gave me country notes. He exchanged 'some other mites for notes of our bank. He got three M. notes. He had a great many other notes ; lie had a can vas purse with two divisions. A .n Itnyce proved that on the 19th of May she paid Nicholas Carter the Num of His. t•he paid it in one half sovereign and two half crowns. This was at. twenty minutes after four o'clock. Williain Plews--I live at Criskeliall, and am a corn-dealer. I ' attend Levburn market ; on the 19.11 of May the deceased and I attended Le yborn market; I left him elate a little after three o'clock. I know a gate called Dent's Date, and when I went through it my horse took fright; I then saw .he deceased's horse grazing iti a lane adjoining, and the deceased lying on the side of the road ; hat was shout half a yard from his head ; there was a rail between his legs, with the small end down to the ground; the rail was broke ; the other piece was about a yard off. I shouted the name of the deceased several times, and, receiving no answer, I called nut to Alice Dent for assistance. When Alice came up I went to Richard Atkinson's for assistance ; Atktnacm's is about a quarter of a mile from the place. When I returned, I observed that the right side breeches pocket of the deceased was turned out ; I found his memorandum-book in his left-hand pocket. He had two severe cuts on the back part of his head, and was nearly dead at the time. I went or. to Crakehall. This must have been about half.gpist four or 29 minutes tollve o'clock. Af!`ce Dent corroborated the account of the last witness, as to the manner In which deceased was found. Witness's house is about two hundred aid forty yards frcm the place where deceased was found. ... John hemmer-1 live at Crakehall. On thel9th of May last I met William Mews, and in consequence of what he told me I went forward and saw the deceased.' lie then appeared to be dying. [This witness produced the hat of the deceased, and a part of the rail found near him. The rail had a little hair upon it.l Mr. A. Campbell, snrgeon—l examined the head of the de. ceased. It was wounded in two places. I trepanned the deceased, and he died a short time afterwards. The whole of the right side of the head was fractured. The wound was inflicted with a. blunt instrument. A rail, like that now I reduced, might have caused the fracture. The wounds on the head were the cause of the de. ceased's death. They could not have been produced by a fall from his horse. His horse was a very small one. John Allen—On the lirth of Nay last I met the prisoner going toward. beybum. I went on to Burton. and stopped at a public belie there to take some ale. The deceased came up in the man. time, and he and I, and another person, went on to Burton Brink. I then turned 4 to Burton Ball; Robinson, the other person went on another way, and the deceased went forward alone towards Crakehall. I think it was about a quarter put three when I met the prisoner. 1V illiam Cooper—l am a shoemaker residing at Constable Bur ton. I saw the last witness. Allen, pant there on the afternoon of the 19th May. At about ten minutes after four o'clock, I saw the prisoner pass as if coming from Leyburn. I knew the time, because a customer had just asked me, and I had looked at my master's watch. . _ . . John lleait;ck—l am a blacksmith at Burton. I saw the pri- PODer pass toy shop about four o'clock in the afternoon of the 19th May, as jibe was coming from Leyburn. Ile wore a pepper and salt coloured coat. Hannah Bill stated that on the afternoon of elm 19th of May, she was in the fields near Burton. Saw a man pass between t h e place where the body of the deceased was found and the shop of the last witness. The man was dressed in a mixture coloured coat. She had known the prisoner when he was a boy, and she believed him to have been the man. It was proved by other witnesses that the prisoner was seen near the same place at the same time. William Illingworth proved that on the afternoon of the 19th May lie saw the prisoner pass very quickly over a field near the place where the body was hiund. Witness afterwards examined the toot-marks in the field, and found thst the right foot had left marks of a gaiter -strap, whilst the left had no such mark. Thomas Scott, the constable of Burton, proved that lie saw the prisoner fn the field at the tnne mentioned by the last witness. Christiana Day-1 am the wife of John Day, who keeps a public-keine at Thornton Simi - aril. About six o'clock in the evening film day in question, the prisoner came into our house. Ile was dressed in a mixture-coloured coat. He had two pints of ale. and then he asked me if he did not owe tne a bill. I told hint that he owed me 3s. Id. which had been owing since last November. Ile asked me to change a rote, and 1 did so, retaining 3s. Gd. for the bill and the ale. The :tote was of the Leyburn Bank. Robinson Mortor—l am a publican at Michlleham. About eight o'clock in the evening of 19th May, the prisoner came into my house and had a pint cf ale and his supper. Ile went out for a few minutes whilst his sapper was preparing. Ile slept at my house that night. The following morning he went away after he hail breakfasted. lie molt a handful of silver out of his pocket and paid we my bill and Gal. which he had owed me for some time. My house is about 50 yards from William Clarkson's. Willsam Clarkson proved that the prisoner came to his shop on the night in question, and paid for a hat. lie paid three half-crown pieces. William Robertson proved that the prisoner came to his shop, at Leyburo, on the 211th of ay. and bought 2 gold ring for 10s. He paid for it with a half sovereign. lie also briught some oilier ar ticles, for which he paid, besides paying two shillings which he had owed to witness for some time. Thomas IVestiartli proredthat, on the 13th of May. prisoner psi') him a sovereign as part of a bill which he owed. The rest of the debt lie could nut pay. Edward Mason stated thst, on the 20th of 31ay, the prisoner came to him in his master's pluughing-lithl, and paid him 225. which the prisoner owed to him. Prisoner also gave him Is. 6d. for the last witness. Prisoner pulled several notes out of his pocket, and °Ward witness a Leybum note, saying if that would not do he would give him a Richmond note. Witness took the Leyburn note. John Winsley received from the prisoner, on the 20th of May, the sum of one pound, which prisoner had previously borrowed. A number of other witnesses proved that the prisoner had paid them different sums of money which had been owing for some time previously. on the Jay after the d.'ath of the deceased. alartnaduke Wyvill; am a Magistrate. I pursued the prisoner on Sunday, the 21st of Bitty ; alien I had seized him I searched hint, and found in his pocket a key, which I gave to Jo nathan Jacques. Jonaths(n Jacques—l am a constable at Fingal. I searched the prisoner, by the order of Mr. Wyvill. 1 found on him a silver watch, two pound notes, a gold ring, and ten shillings. I received a key from Mr. Wyvill, and with it I opened the prisoner's box.— There were several articles of wearing apparel in the box, and there was a pair of drab cloth gaiters. The right leg gaiter had a strap on it, the left had none. Mr. Dimsdale—l am one of the Coroners of this county. The prisoner was brought before me on the 26th of May, and then, after a particular'caution from me; he made a statement, which I reduced to writing, and he signed. The statement made by the prisoner was then read. It stated that another man. whose name was not known to him, proposed to him to waylay and rob the deceased ; that he refused, but said if the man would do it, lie (prisoner) would meet him ; that the man did it, and gave him W. and some odd money. James Lion-1 am a police-officer of Northallerton. I had the prisoner in my custody. When I brought him to York I told him that it was my opinion that he had had no accomplice, and that lie had hid the money. I also told him that he should think of the children when he had made fatherless and that he should letthem have what remained. The Prisoner did not answer until we got to the gates of York Cas le, when he said to me, "James. I had better tell thee," and he then told me that he lied hid the money in a place which be described. I went to the plate two days after wards, accompanied by another person. We found nine 51. notes ; they were concealed in a small hollow tree. They were in a purse witness produced. Jane Carter, the widow of the deceased. identified the purse pro , duced by last witness, as the property of deceased. She had made time purse herself, and marked it with her husband's initials. The prisoner, in his defeace; merely asserted his innocence. Two witnesses In whose service the prisoner had hired for the hest five years, gave him a good character. 31r. Baron fIuaLOCK carefully summed up the case. The Jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty. Mr. Itaron Iluat.oex then proceeded to pass the sentence of the law. His Lordship was much affected, and earnestly exhorted the prisoner to lose no time in pursing himself for the important change which he was about to undergo. The prisoner was then ordered to be executed on Monday next. The unfortunate man is only 22 years of age. He is a very strong and athletic man, and possesses rather a mild countenance. He preserved a remarkable composure during the trial, nor did he scent much affected when the verdict was returned. RIOTING. lfrillidui Wanda and llortleg Byer-oft were charged with a mis . . demeanor, in having, un the :7th day of April last, with divers other persons, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously a.scntbled together, at therrish of Addingham, in the West Riding. The prisoner Vahan refused to plead, and a Jury was impan nellcd to try whether he stood mute through malice or the visita tion of God. Mr. Shepherd, the gaoler of York Castle, gave evidence that, since the prisoner had been under his care, he had been decidedly insane. The Jury therefore returned a verdict that the prisoner stood mute by the visitation of God: Mr. BLACK elf its then stated the case to the Jury. E. C. Lester, Esq. stated, that on the 21hh April there had been a very violent attack on the mills at Addingham. On the following day, witness and other Magistrates attended at the mill. There were about a dozen soldiers. The molt assembled early on the following day. They appeared to witness to march in order. They were armed with bludgeons and fire arms. A pistol was occasion ally tired front the different parties as a signal. They did not, however, on that day venture to attack the mill. A Sergeant, who had commanded the cavalry employed in the defence of die mill, stated that he hat/apprehended the prisoners. They were in company with a small number more, in a lane. Witness's party approached them at a sharp canter, and they dis persed in various directions. Witness saw the two prisoners get over a gate. The prisoner Walton dropped a large home pistol, which witness produced. In his cross-examination, witness said ihat %he crowd was not large at first; but it increiesed after the soldiers showed themselves. Mr. Doses, for thoprisoners, addressed the Jury. Ile observed that, without wishing to palliate in the slightest degree the guilt of those who had actually been engaged in rioting, he did think that this prosecution was carrying the matter a little too far. What had the prisoner. Rycroft done, for it was to Itycroft alone that they must now direct their attention. Ile had been in company with ten or a dozen more. Ile got out of the way when the soldiers gallopped up to the place where he was standing. How the Jury would behave on such an occasion he could not tell ; but he knew that if he were standing in a lane, and saw a body of cavalry gallopping towaids him, his first itlea would be to get as fast as posaitle out of their way. It was obvious, too, from the evidence of the sergeant, that the crowd had collected from curiosity; for that witness had stated that the crowd hail match increased after the arrival of the soldiers. Doubtless it had ; every man, and especially every woman in the neighbourhood, would go out to see, dressed in militate y attire, twelve such smart fellows as the witness. The _Learned Counsel concluded by hoping that the Jury would find the prisoners not guilty. Mr. Baron lII , LLOCK summed up, and the Jury immediately acquitted both the prisoners. JULY I b. CROWN SIDE. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. Henry Otley was indicted for maliciously and ittliwfully insti. gating and procuring one Ann Croft to swear a bastard child to one John Moat. • Mr. fiaariv atated the case for the prosecution. Ile admitted that his principal witness came before them under the imputation of perjury, but he shush' not ask the Jury to convict on her testi mony, unless they found it confirmed in material points by the evi. dence of others. Ann Croft sworn.--I became the mother of a child on the 28th of November last. In the summer before I lived In sertice at Mr. Haigh's. Mr. Haigh married the mother of the defendant. In July last I told the deftntlant that I was pregnant. Defendant said that he knew I was, and that the child was his. Soon after I re moved to my prrents' house at Everton, which is eight miles from Wackstone, %here tbeilefendant lives. In about two months the defendant fetched me back to Blackstone. I did not go to M r . Haigh's, but I lodged with a person of the name of Taylor. The defends:it paid for mil lodgings, and furnished me with money; Defendant asked me if I would swear the child to John Moat, a gamekeeper of Mr. Brodriers. I said I would not, because Moat was not the father. The defendant said if I would neither I nor the child should ever want; I then consented. Defendant went with me to Mr. Wood, the overseer of Blackstone. Mr. Wood directed me to go to Doncaster. Defendant accompanied me to Doncaster to a public-house, opposite the Mansion house. When Mr. Wood came we wcot before the Mayor. Defendant did not go with us before the Mayor. I then swore the child to John Most. I then returned to the defendant actin public•htatse. We remained there about an hour. After the child was born I again went to Mr. Wood. Cross•examined—lt was about nine weeks after the child was born that I said it was not Moat's child. During part of that time I lived at home. I told niv mother that Most was the father of the child. It was after I had been at Doncaster that I went to lodge with Mary Taylor. I left Mrs. 11 tigh's because she found out that I was pregnant. lI did not tell her that her son was the father. Moat lived about a piarter of a mile from Mr. Haigh's. I used to talk with hint sometimes in the milking field. .1 know Deorge IVilkinaon ;he lived Servant with Mr. Haigh. I never said to him, before I swore the child. that Moat was the father; I did after. I know IVilliatn Hutchinson. Before I swore the child I never told him that I was going to he married to Moat. I know Matilda 'ryas; she has seen me talking to Moat. I once told her, in nonsense that I was going to be m arr ied to Moat. .1 first told my sister that Moat was not the Etcher ; it was about twenty weeks after I swore the child. I have never seen Moat since I swore the child to him. I was at York last Asaizes; I did not see Moat there. I never got any money from Moat, nor did I get money from the parish until after I had been at last York i kssizes. Mr. John Knowlson ' a clerk in the Mayor's o ffi ce at Doncaster, proved that on the 12th September, 1825, the last witness swore her child to John Moat. Mary Taylor proved that in August, 1825, the defendant took lodgings at her house for Ann Croft; he brought her there in Sep. tember. Witness would not allow defendant to visit Ann Croft at her house. Matthias Wood stated that he was overseer of Blackstone last year. Witness sent Ann Croft to Doncastir, and followed her there. When he got there he thought, from their appearance, that they had mode a fool of hint, and that they were going to be mar ried. Witness told them so, and defendant said it would not be a marriage that day. Witness had a conversation on this subject with defendant on Monday last. Defendant wished to make up the matter, and offered to pay a sum of money for the maintenance of the child, if the parish would pay their own law expenses. Twenty pounds was the UM offered. It was refused. Croas-exainined—The parish offered, before the business came to York, that if defendant would pay 501. the prosecution should drop. Mr. Brodrick was not present when the offer was made. Never heard Mr. Brodrick say that he would spend lOU to punish the defendant. This was the case fur the prosecution. • Mr. Bt.aca Bunt; submitted, on behalf of the defendant, that it was necessary, in a trial for subornation of perjury, for the prosecutor to prove the perjury in exactly the same way as if the defendant hail been indicted for perjury. Now it was necessary, in every trial for perjury, to prove the offence by two witnesses; whereas, in this case, the inlputed perjury had only been proved by one. Mr. Baron Hu td.ocx said that it was not necessary to have two witnesses to speak to the precise act of perjury. He thought that there was a case to go to toe J ury. Mt. BLACKBURN . then addressed the itiry for the defendant. He agreed that, if the defendant had actually committed the otfenie imputed to him, no punishment could be too severe; but be thought that the Jury would have some difficulty in coining to a conclusion of guilt, when they found the charge supported solely on the evidence of a witness who began her story by telling them that she had committed perjury herself. But even if that witness had come before them with the fairest character in the world, still the improbability of her story was such as to entitle him to call upon them not to entertain it for a moment. The Learned Coun sel commented upon the evidence. and concluded by expressing a confident hope that his client would be acqUitted. 31r. Baron Hnt.t.ocK summed up the case, and observed that in his opinion it had completely failed. Every part of the evidence went to edablish a presumption that the female witness had sworn the truth when she affiliated the child, and that Moat had actually been the father. It was clearly established that he had had daily opportunities of indulging in that gm:nes of intercourse which was likely to lead to such a result. The Jury immediately returned a verdict of " Not Guilty." POLICE. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. LIABILITY 0Y A case, of much consequence to families employing laundresses was heard at this office on Sa turday, and was settled in a manner the most satisfactory to the feelings of those reluctant to prosecute to conviction. It is a well known practice with laundresses, when they want to " raise the wind," to pawn portions of the linen of diarent persons, and make the excusable apology of unfavoarable weather or the acci dent of fire or water. The following week the deficiency is made up, and the family is satisfied ; but to accomplish this end, the linen of some other family has been pawned for the redemption of the first, and the excuse transferred I.> the family of the second de ficiency. Nor is this practice unknown to the pawnbrokers.— Laundresses have but the appearance of laundresses, and cannot be mistaken for servants or tradesmen's wives, nor are the goods, varied and exchanged as they weekly are, such as the necessitous poor are accustomed to pawn. Besides the pawnbroker, when pushed to the answer on his oath, insatiably admits the prisoner is well known to him, is a regular pawner at his shop, and that her pawn. ings consist of linen, with different marks, and of expensive quality. Can any evidence be more conclusive of the pawnbroker's know ledge of an illegal pawning? And, if so, the Pawnbroker's Act inflicts a heavy penalty on the pawnbroker, and compels his .return of the property to the person sustaining the loss. Another repre hensible practice by pawnbrokers was extiostal on Saturday. the tendency of which has the artful contrivance of defeating the' ends of justice, giving trouble and expense to the duped, and putting money into the till of the pawnbroker. When servants are detected with pawnbrokers' duplicates, it is impossible for the person to say whether the tickets have reference to hits goods unless he see the ar ticles at the pawnbrokers. The sight is refused the applicant, un less he t aya the interest; a fresh ticket is then made out by the pawnbroker in the name of the applicant. On this new ticket an action cannot be sustained. The evidence must be the original ticket given to the original pawner. This trick was exposed on Saturday, and the pawnbroker's excuse for not prodycing the ori ginal ticket was, that lie tiled them to tally with the first entry. Mr. DYER severely reprehended him. Lord 3lontford wi s present, and took part in the investigatiot. Sarah Craddock, a laundress, at Chelsea, was brought up on Friday and remanded till Saturday, on the charge of illegally pawn ing the linen enttuated to her to wash, of 3lr. Nathan Lewis, 33, St, James's-street. There was another cl.ari e of the erne narure by a Mr. and Mrs. Sandon, friends of Mr. Lewis. The feelings of Mrs. S. were so distressed that her husband begged to state the case for her. Mrs. Sarah Lewis stated that she employed the prisoner as her laundress, who, for the tirat few weeks, gave her perfect satisfac tion by a regular return of the linen ; but she latterly had been in the habit of omitting some of the things enumerated in the washing bill, making excuses in her next appearance, or sending her sister who professed to know nothing about the deficiency. Finding the evil getting to an unendurable extent, she mentioned it to her husband. who determined to put a stop to it. The articles not returned were three sheets, a large Marseilles counterpane, a pair of silk stockings, three towels, two napkins, and some other things, altogether in value 71. The shopmen of Mr. Duplex, Mr. Kimber, and Mr. Perkins, pawnbrokers in Cheasea and Knightsbridge, produced various bags of property belonging to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Sandon, which was identified by the ladies of the two families. The pawnbrokers could not swear who pawned the things ; it was either the prisoner or her sister. The duplicates bore date chiefly about the 6th of July. Mr. DYES, to the pawnbroker—Did you ask her whose property the things were Pawnbroker—Yes ; they always say it is their own property, of course. _ _ Mr. Drys—Of course ! You must know that such things were not likely to be the property of the pri•oner. Pawnbroker—They are such things as such a person is likely to possess. Mr. DYER—There is a special clause In the Act for punishing pawnbrokers who take in unliniAed work, or articles intrusted to servants to clean or scour. Mr. Lewis—All my things are marked, in Roman letters, "N. L." There is not one or the tickets with a name answering to the initials. Pawnbroker—We frequently sell things with marks on them, which are afterwards brought to us to be pawned; Mr. Kimber hus a variety of things now for sale with marks upon them. Lord 31ontford—But you know the profession in life of the prisoner. Pawnbroker She did not pawn the things with us. Mr. Lewis—lf it costs me a hut,dred guineas I am determined to prosecute the pawnbrokers. I consider them the snore guilty. They could not take in these pledges without knowing that the prisoner was pawning the goods of another. I have no wish to press the case against the prisoner. I have inquired into her cha racter, and find it a good one. Her husband is in a gentleman's family, and she has three children. If my things are restored to inc without paying for their redemption, I shall drop the prosecu tion against the pawnbrokers, on the clause imposing the penalty. After a little hesitation, the pawnbrokers consented to restore the things to Mr. Lewis. Mr. Sandon made his complaint against the prisoner, identified his property, and threatened a similar procedure to that of Mr. Lewis, unless the things were restored to him without cost. This was also acceded to by the pawnbrokers. Mr. Sandon said he had been refused the inspection of his things unless the interest was first paid, which he did, but the money was returned to him in the evening. The prisoner was convicted in the penalty of it. and fined Ns., but was to be liberated. A»n Davenport, the old woman detected with 19 Britannia metal spoons, two of Which she was exchanging with a coster monger for an apron full of beans, was fully committed for trial for stealing the spoons and a coat. belonging to a waiter at die King's Arms, St. James's-street, which she had pawned at 91r. Rochfort's for 12s. To evade detection, the prisoner gave the officer an infinity of trouble to trace her residence, to ascertain the truth of her story as to her having a husband, and that he was an occasional waiter at the Royal Hotel, in St. James's-street. Sh ;is an old widow, and well known. Woor LEN MANUFACTURE.—The manufacture of fine woollen cloths has been brought to' great perfection in this neighbourhood. We have seen two pieces, manufactured at fiaddleworth, by Mess's. Lees, which,. for texture aid colour are equal to any ever produce 4 in,the West 9f Pig.; anti. —Manchester Gazette. LAW NOTICES. COURT OF CHANCERY. ASIOAS TRI bORDCHANCILLOR. IN LINCOLN'S INN HALL, T., b*, AT TAN. Appeals. Pitt v. Dods, appeal Lord Crewe v. Frowd, Toake v. Harvey, ~.., part beard per order order Darla v. Pitt, do. Braddick v. Mattock, Bacon v. pr,,,, t Attorney-(general v. appeal 'Will Mayor of Exeter, ea- Knatelabull v. Harvey, .ceptlopv, further dr. do. reCtluns, part heard I VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. ■IPOIN Tilt %ICII-LNANCRLLOK, IN LINCOLN'S PEN, TAU DAV HALF-PART TEN. Exceptions and farther Directions. Remaining Motions. Cousins ..Schroder, do. Sutton v. Deere,excep tions and further di rections, part heat d Cooke T. Tomlinson, Simpkins v. Poulett, further directions, to be spoke to In re Nrad.haw, bank rupt petitions, to be spoke to ID re Wakefield, bank rupt petit. per order Rowland v. Swale, fur ther direct. per order Ditto v. Carless, do. Tbsekray v. Hardin)+, ditto Chapman v. Schroder, Anther directions, part heard poration of H o ,. don, ex c .. •: 4 .. petition Napier v. Nam eeptions Spray v. Ro r k e " , her dlr. aid top, Jamey v. Sharp. Pinder v. Smith, d o . Blaelachlan v. c bell, do. 2 ~,..t 1 . 1 ) dir ectlonsand cosh . Hawley v. Itop. d, , Cita •ea, escep t b„ ., and unix Nuck v. Cooke, do. Grant v. Lindsay, fur. ther directlonv and costs, per order Grant V. Abbott, dn. Want v. Goddeo, d.i. Avery v. Wiserll, far. ther directions, per order Attonmy-Gen. v. Cur- ROLLS ( Robinson v. lelliutt, further direct., judg• mcnt OURT.—Tnts Pvaarlfro Price v. Rallies, twitter directions, and Costs Harris v. D.Tastet, do. Conrand v. Bp. of Lin colt); eiceptlons Tomlinson v. Lachlan, . further direction*, & coat* WWI v. llall, fo r u direction., and Dill v. Ctne.nell , eu tions Same v. Same, do Mao y. Agaanit Macdougall t. Pardh, Bartlett e. tallazd Wragg V. Hall Duri.CcM v. Appold, Judgment Green v. Ward, do. Fort v. Clarke, exeep. lion*, further direc tions, judgment Williams v. Walton Urewrey T. Borges LAW INTELLICii*CE. COURT Of CHANCERY, JULY 15. CIAWSHAY V. COLLINS. The Loan CHANCELLOR went through all the particulars °fai l ecs: viday, with • view to decide the doctrines of law applying ton; and, from the cireumstancesof it, came to the result that it was to be outside , ed a continuing partnership. One of the parties in this case, a Mr. Noble, became a bankrupt, which, of course, dissol ve d the partnership. Accounts were not immediately taken ; but in abu t • year after the bankruptcy, Mr. Collins, the continuing partner, said he was willing to close the accounts, taki ng t h e b ankrupt .; share in the profits to cease at the time the bankruptcy happeu e l The assignees would not consent to that, but insisted on banns profits up to the time of taking the accounts, namely, during ,b e rear after the bankruptcy. Mr. Collins then said, the Courts( Chancery should set , le it. It has now been here for abort tzsca ly years. It appeared that if the accounts had been taken when the bankruptcy happened, ants all demands due to the partnership from Mr. Noble had been paid, there would have been a win wharf been paid to him ; and whether that had been so or not, the, as was, that a continuing partner should not have the libeity to 'can, on a trade with a retiring partner's property, and then refuse tow. count for tie profits. n was to be looked upon as Mr. Colasis misfortune that lie had refused to account for the profits, as the 's. signers at first desired, because the Court could now see no paw at which the taking of the accounts could be ordered to stop illOrt af the presenkmoment. The Court would, th erefore, hear on W e d. nesday, at , claims Mr. Collins might be advised to make for jo: allowance, on the ground of additional money advanced, personal labour, &c. This trade was carried on in this case for a considers. ble time after the bankruptcy had happened, and subsequently, I large sum of money was ordered to be paid into Court. His Lord. ship desired, in the strongest terms lie could utter, to impress on the minds of all commercial men, entering into partnerships, the very great and imperative necessity of having it distinctly stated is writing how the partnerships were to he wound up at the thasolu. lion, by whatever event the dissolution might happen. IN RE `4IR 0. P. TURNER. Nlr. P/II L L Mon E applied, on die /part of Sir Henry Dryden, who had been appointed one of the Committsigs of the estate aid person of the lunatic, for a confirmation of tbrr Minter's .report, pronounced so long ago as December last. Previous to the trial of thr traverse, Mr. Corbett had lodged I caveat against all proceedings uotil the question was decided. The trial having now taken place. Sir H. Dryden was desirous of re. leasing the lunatic from his unpleasant situation. It was theretort prayed that the Master's report be confirmed. 31r. Il EAL appeared - and consented, and the prayer of the pc: tion was allowed., The judgment in Brown v. De Taste was postponed until l'ut. nesday, It being understood that nothing more should be said :f Counsel on either side. THE MARQUIS OF BCTE . V. CENINGHAME. The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed a decided opinion in this ai.• peal. that the annuity of 60W. ought to be paid out of the renis mt profits of the cutleries ; and dismissed the appeal. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jr;Ll' 13. PADDLEH CILST AND HOL ME a•. THOMPSON AND WIPP. The parties in this cause are executors to the will of the late W. ham !lane, a cotton manufacturer, of Rochdale, in Lancashire. It appeared that the testator made a will upon his marriage, t. which he left to his wife, one of the present plaintiffs, the sum c: 6,1000/„ and to his sister, the wife of Thompson, his clerk and ter. nager, 3,11001., with other advantages fro:u the disposition of the residue of his property—appointing a 31r. Saddlehurst, lir.. Holine, his wife, and Thompson, his brother-in-law, executers the will. On the day before his death he, however, added a asf . cil to that will, by which he revoked the gift of 6.0001. or his Lie. and bequeathed her 10,000/. absolutely, with 10,0001. more to h held by sureties for her benefit, and a power to leave it at her dot', to any member of tl.e liolme family she pleased. This codicil .A regularly read after the funeral in the presence of the Tlionipsen, but had never since been found ; and it was now alleged that oil Thompson' had destroyed it, in consequence of its being prija. dal to their expectations. It was further alleged, that they sad opposed, by every means in their power,the proof of the will or code. eil in the Ecclesiastical Court ; and that Thompson had, in ha character of one of the executors of the will, retained possession of all the property, in opposition to the equal right of the widow oad Saddlehurst, the other executors ; that he had injured that pro. perty considerably, by stopping the working of the cotton-mill, which formed the greater proportion of its value ; and that he he, in various other ways, shown a disposition to exercise his emboli ! in defiance of the other executors, and to the very great preju.!ice ci the mitate. 111 r. fl EALD now appeared for the plaintiff* ; and, after wading several affidavits in support of the claim of the widow, and in prom of the opposition of Thompson, moved his Honour to reetzair Thompson from any further control over the property, and to sp. point a Receiver, to take the management hnd receive the dell' and profits, until probate hail been regularly obtained upon the will of the testator. Mr. AGAR, for the defendants, opposed this application. ad contended that Thompson had been received by his brother•in.ias• as a partner, more than a year befitre his death, and, that beth ;:t his capacity of surviving partner and of executor, he was ju , tit:Cl in taking whatever ...steps, with regned to the property, be nl ; .:t,: tinsmithr most advantageous. He denied that the testator was is sound mind when he made the codicil in question, and asserted ha client's determination to oppose that part of the testator's die*. tion ; but declared that lie now was, and always had been, wiling to join with the other executors in taking out probate upon the will itself. The Learned Counsel at the same time suggested, that it was not usual in such a case for that Court to interfere, by appoint• ing a receiver, when the executor was managing the property 10 the beat advantage. Several affidavits were read in support of Unit statements; but The VICE-CHANCELLon considered the proof as completely on the other aide, and that, while Thompson had failed to prove self a partner, he was not at liberty to act in defiance of the other executors. fle, therefore, pronounced an order for the appointment of a receiver; allowing Mr. Thompson to offer himself as a fit and proper person fur that office. In the case of Mackey r. Robertson, which involves a question() piracy, with respect to a magazine, the parties obtained leave to pu off any further proceedings until the next Seal. Affidavits in the mean time to be furnished to the plaintiff; and the publication of the piratical work to be tliKontinueil. . , MEETINGS OF CREDITORS. LONDON LlST.—[Prom the London Gezette.l AT TeX COVET OF COMUISSIONURS OP OASIVSUFTS, SILSINCIPALL. STROUT, 04 WU/MUSE/AY S*XT. a. Ainsworth, E., Rochdale. woollen-manufacturer (petit. cr. costal a Brinley, J. S. llWhits-lane, ship-broker (lease of house) II Ilivhop, E., Sheerness, banker (sell furniture)._ ...... ..... II Strombom, T., Austin-Man., merchant (bankrupt's • Is Williams, T., Nest Smithfield and Union-street, cutler (sell lease.) COUNTRY LIST. Bertlett, J., Hove, Sussex., builder, at New Inn, Brighton (lA, ati . Burton, J. and 31., Charletworth, eot.-spin. Mr. Lon:Wale's, liana..v. . . . 11 ter (sell machine) Cavenagh and Co., Bath, banker., Bush, Bristol (proof of debts) Cooke, G. E. Jenin-street, London, jeweller, Union, Birmln. ;Ist ea ) 4 Crossley, J. Stockport, provit..orercht. ' Stnr, Neachester (Ist es. , .! Macben, W. Brighton, stable keeper , New Inn, Brighton (sp. J.' • 1 ; Osborn and Cu., Northampton, bankers, Gulldboll, Northamp, (dir 1 I, BIRTHS. On the 13th inst., at Nottingham, the lady of Colonel Sherlock of a son. At Bonehill, in Staffordshire, on Thursday last, ladv hre Peel, of a daughter. At Denham, on the 13th inst., the lady of the Rev. John Light. foot, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 14th inst.. at the church of St. Andrew's, MIN)" Liam DAVIN. Esq. of East Chickerell, in Dorsetshire, to Ehaabedl , the daughter of Anthony Robinson, Esq. of Dation. OWED. On the 13th inst., at Oakley, in Staffirnishire, Early Het Cnetwode,,eldestaiaser to the Earl of Stamford and Warrington. , On Saturday, at ;Wareham-le-Fen, 111 r. James Roberts, ogt“ 74. ale. R. was, we believe, the last survivor of those *ho tr• eampanied Captain Cook in his firsti 'alitLiacToeN.,, No. 181 !AT SIX, ~t F w