The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-07 00:00:00

CROWN sinE.

(Before Mr. Justice II n vm.)
Morris Itfurphy, aged 27, was indicted for violating the person
of Jane Barton, a girl twelve years of age, at Strood, on the 23d
of June last.
This case excited tonsiderable interest, and the trial occupied the
greater portion of the day.
31r. LAN conducted the prosecution.
The prisoner was defended by Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ADOLPHUS,
and Mr. Dow LI NC..
It is impossible to enter into a minute detail of the evidence in a
case of this description. The prisoner, a London bricklayer, had
come down to Strood, near Rochester, to perform a job in building
the house of a Mr. Jaquier, and had taken lodgings in the house
of the prosecutrix's father, ;Ito resided in a narrow court at Strood.
He had lodged in the house about two months at the time the
transaction in question happened. On the 23d June, in the after-
noon, about five o'clock, the prosecutrix, a girl of prepossessing
appeantnce, was at home, having the care of a little sister, and an
infant brother in a cradle, when the prisbner came in. Her father
mid mother were absent at their daily labour. The prisoner turned
the little sister out of the house, and then proceeded to commit the
violence alleged, which he effected under circumstances of the
greatest barbarity. After he had accomplished his purpose, the!
prosecutrix, faint and exhausted, left the house, and complained
immediately to a neighbour of the injury she had suffered. The
prisoner absconded, and in five days afterwards was taken in Hol.
born, where he was working at his trade in repairing a house. He
appeared very much alarmed, but made no resistance. The prose-
cutrix underwent a strict cross.examination, and the only circum-
stance elicited, tending to affect her testimony, Was, that five days
beline the prisoner had taken some liberties with her, which site did
not complain of to her parents until after the offence complained of
had been perpetrated. She stated distinctly that the transaction
took place without her concurrence, and in defiance of her screams
and struggles. The neighbour to whom she immedirtely com-
plained, confirmed her testimony. It was also proved by the sur-
geon called in afterwards, that the violation had been completed.
The prisoner, in his defence, said, that the intercourse took place
with the consent of the girl.
Mr. Justice flotanYer, in a most elaborate summing up to the
Jury, left them to determine whether the injury complained of took
place against the consent of the prosectttrix ; telling them, that in
such a case the most serious consequences must result to the pro
soner, in the event of conviction,
The Jury deliberated a few minutes, and found the prisoner--
Not Guilty.
CIVIL SIDE.
[Before Mr.:Sergcant !AWES, sitting for Mr. Baron GRAIIAII.I
DAYCOC& V. OLIVER.
This was an action for a trespass, in breaking and entering the
plaintiff's dwelling house. Picas—let. Not guilty ; and, 2d. Leave
and license.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. BRODERICK conducted the plaintifra
cese; and Mr. ADoLencs and Mr. IIUTCHINtION the de-
fendant's.
The plaintiff was a silk weaver, residing in Union-place. Green-
wich ; and the defendant was a wholesale silk weaver, resitlinu in
London. In the evening of the 17th December last, the defendant
and three other persons went to the house of the plaintiff; who was
from home, for the purpose of searching for goods, which the de-
fendant was supposed to have lost by felonious means. The plain-
tiff's wife, servant, and three children only were in the house, and
in consequence of a violent knocking at the door, the defendant
and his friends gained admittance, and searched every part of the
house, and finding nothing to justify eusnicion, went away. In
about an hour they returned again, and made a similar search. but
with the same result, and at the same time insinuated, in broad
terms, that the plaintiff was justly suspected of felony.
The defence set up was, that the trespass was committed with the
leave and license of the plaintiff; by means of his wile as his agent.
The plaintiff's servant negatived the Content of her mistress that

the defender t should enter the house, and stated that it took place
against her wilt, and by means t f terror. Three witnesses were,
called for the defendant, to chow that the house was entered anal
searched with the consent of the plaintiffs wife.
kir. Sergeant LAW Ea ruled, in point of law, that supposdng the
plaintiff s wife to have consented, still ahe was not competent to
bind her husband in the forcible entrance of Ilia Irmse. It appeared
to hint, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to a reeikt at alb
eve! t. 4.. _ _ _

The Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—D=ll,es 10'.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.

BODMIN, AUGUST S.
[Before Mr. Justice (IASELEF: and a Special Jury.)
BEARD. GENT. v. ARUNDELL, ESQ.
Mr. flar.ctocux opened the pleadings. ft was an tertian of
libel. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was an attorney,
and had always nrtlntsined an honourable character. The libel
set forth in the declaration was contained in a letter addressed by
the defendant to Mr. Johns, an attorney, and was as follows
•' I have received another of his (meaning the plaintiff's) threat-
ening and libellous compositions. Money he shall never hays
front me. Ile is continually sending me threatening letters to ex-
tort money. Motu of them I have returned as quickly as they
came, but this, containing eight pages, 1 shall keep, as it contains
a libel and threat in every sentence.' The defendant pleaded not
guilty, and afterwards a justification, pleading that the words
1 the libel were true.

Mr. Sergeant VI Liar: then proceeded to state the plaintiff's case.
Ile regretted the duty which had fallen on him in opening this
case. His client had found it necessary to bring the present action,
because charges had been read against him which no man could
or ought to submit to, unless they were deserved. Actions of this
description necessarily depended upon the nature of the charges
made, and the station of the individual by whom those charges
were made. If charges were made against a respectable man by a
person without rank and influence, it mattered little, and such
charges might be passed over, if not without injury, at least with-
out discredit. In the preient instance, however, the charges were
made by a gentleman of great fortune and dtatinction, and one
who filled a cmsideratile space in the public eye, having served the
honourable office of High Sherif/for the county. In such a c.. r,
and front such a person, charges like these made against the plain.
tiff could no, be passed over in silence, without calling down con-
tempt on the individual who submitted to then:. In fact, no man
who valued character could blame his client flit giving the defend.
ant the opportunity lie now had of proving the charges it .d•
against the plaintiff: It would appear to the Jury that the deter.d-
ant was the uncle of the plaintiff.
31r. Justice Gasehre here interrupted the Learned Sergeant.
He hoped lie did not improperly Interpol*, but having heard it
stated that the parties were so nearly related, he did think the
matter might be better settled out of Court. lie strongly teem:
mended tile. parties to come to a private arrangement.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS (with whom was Mr. MEREWETIIER)
—My Lord, I see nothing to 'prevent an arrangement between the
parties. My client is tidy anxious to thew the feelings under
which he wrote the letter in question. It was written in a moment
of irritation, which he very much regrets.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—My Lord, the last expression used by
Mr. Williams is all I think that my client can wish. He admits
that he has received many favours from the defendant, and that it
was an application for the realization of expectations which had
been held out, that induced him to write to the defendant in the
manner which led to the defendant's writing the alleged libel.
A long consultation then took place between the Counsel st both
side , and at length an arrangement was effected, and it was
agreed that a juror should be withdrawn; which was accordingly
done.

EARL OF FALSIOUTIT v. PENROSE AND OTHERS.
This was an action to try the right of the plaintiff to a toll of ti.
second-best this and the worst tisk from all fishing boats, dis-
charging their cargoes at Lincon Cove.
It appeared that for many years it was the practice of the fisher-
men unloading in Linnon Cove to send the second-hest fish to the
proprietor of Penrose, an estate of which the noble plaintiff' Is now
the possessor. For some few years past, however, this toll had
been discontinued, and the fishermen contended that it had never
been given or received as a right, or consideration, for the permis-
sion to fish or unload in Linnon Cove ; but only as a return for a
rope, which the proprietors of Penrose had kept for a series of years
across the mouth of the cove, for the convenience of the fishermen,
who were used to attach their boats to it. It appeared that the rope
was affixed to a capstan, which Lord Falmouth and his predeces-
sors were proved to have kept in repair. On the part of the defen-
dant., it was urged, that the fish was only presented as a voluntary
tribute to the owner of Penrose, and that when he failed to keep up
the rope for the accommodation of the fishermen, they discontinued
sending him the fish.
The testimony was exclusively oral, and was directed to tI e
question, whether theta was or was not an immemorial usAg f.
After an investigation which occupied several hours, the Jury
retired, and remained in deliberation until an advanced hour in the
evening, when they returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, thus
confirming Lord Falmouth's right to the toll.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice LITT LEDALE.)
CHILD MURDER.
Honour Trebel!, a miserable and ill-favoured looking woman,
apparently about 25 years of age. was put to the bar, charged with
the murder of a male infant. The case for the prosecution was
conducted by Mr. ERSKINE, with whom was Mr. ItooEas. The
prisoner had no Counsel, and preserved a sullen and pertinacious
silence during the trial. She was humanely accommodated with a
seat, but did not appear sensible of the awful situation in whim
she was placed.
William Treverton sworn deposed as follows-1 live at Breage,
in this county. In May last I was passing through an orchard.
and observing a little new earth, I kicked it and removed some.
Beneath I discovered a petticoat, with a strap att .ched to it. • I
pulled the strap and perceived the feet of an infant. I then left
it and called Ann Hinch, with whom I returned to the orchard.
We took up the child, which was wrapped in an old petticoat.
Ann Hinch carried it to her own house. The prisoner was then
living with a alf. Key, at Beddalick.
Ann Hinch swore that Tiverton came to her on the 26th May.
She accompanied him to the orchard. and found a child lying quite
dead ; it was wrapped up in a dark shirr. Witness took it to her
own house, and sent for Mr. Key's family, who came, accompae
nied by a starg,on.
Wnt. Tickle, surgeon, stated that he lived near Breage, and
was called on to examine a male child. at the house of Ann Hinch.
It was wrapped up in a petticoat, and had been burn, apparerrly.
about three days ; it was full grown, and had a string attached to
the neck ; the string went twice round the neck ; the face and neck
of the infant were much swollen, as if the neck had been wrung.
Witness opened the chest of the child, and found a quantity of
coagulated blood. He then detached the lungs and placed them
in a vessel of water, when they floated. Subsequently he opened the
head and examined the vessels; they were distended with blood; but
it was witness's opinion that the child was born alive. The apparent
cause of its death was strangulation and apoplexy, or more pro.
petty apoplexy, caused by strangulation; in his judgment the
siring round the throat of the child was sufficient to occasion the
app_arances described, and had. occasioned them ; there were no
appearances about the child by which he could trace its death to any
other cause. Ile afterwards went to Mr. Key's house and saw the
prisoner; it was the evening of the day on which he had examined
the child. Witness addressed prisoner, saying, "Do you know
why we have met ?" Prisoner seemed agitated, and answere I
" No." He then said a child had been found on the premises,
and that she was suspected of being its mother. The eri-
toner denied it. Witness then told her it was his duty
to examine whether she had been recently delivered.—
[The witness then described the sympions, which he observed
about the prisoner, and which were those that uniformly follow
delivery.) Witness thinks she must have been delivered within
three or tour days. On the following day a Coroner's inquest was
held on the body of the child. Witness attended the inquest, but
before going there, again saw the prisoner. She said, " I can
confess nothing more to you, Mr. Tickle, than I have done already
to Ann flinch." Witness then asked her how she felt, and she
said " poorly, but not so badly as when I had the child." Xi-k-
-nees s tad, " when had you the child ?" anti she answered, " Oa
the Sunday morning. I was taken poorly about four o'clock in the
morning, and got up, and went down stairs, and in half an hour
I was delivered, behind the stable wall."• She further said, " tie
child cried, I did nat know what do with it, so I threw my petti-
coat over it, and left it for half an hour, and when I returned it was
demi." She then stated that she had taken the body up stairs, but
denied any knowledge of the cord that was aitaebed to it. Shetail
she had buried the child in the orchard. if the string round II e
child's neck was placed there after its death, it would not have 0..
rationed the appearances witness described, unless the child had
previously died of apoplexy. %When the string was removed in •
skin was marked underneath. It was just possible that there ntigt t
have been such an appearance if the string was placed round ti.t
child's neck after its birth. Witness pat the lungs in water, an t
they floated, which some persons conceive is an evidence that t:.e
child was born alive. but this is a test on which the opinions of
medical men are divided.
Ann flinch re-examined—Knows the prisoner about four months,
observed that her size was increasing, and said to her that peoe:e
said she was with child. Prisoner said she was not with chili,
but that she was dropsical. [The witness here stated the confes-
sion made by the prisoner nearly in the same words as it was et.
lated by Mr. Tickle, but she told witness the child was still.born. I
Mrs. Key, in whose service the prisoner hved, stated that tt•e
unfortunate woman had done her business the day after her tie
livery as if nothing had occurred. It appeared that she was rs
unmarried woman.
At the conclusion of the trial the prisoner seemed to break frci,
the state of stupid reservation which she had imposed on herself, an,l
stated that 'boat five weeks before her delivery she had fallen over
some steps, and was taken extremely ill. She further stated that
thin fact was known to her mistress, and to Mr. Tickle, whom shut
had consulted after the fall. Mrs. Key and Mr. Tickle were then
called up. and corroborated the prisoner's statement' in this part •-
cular. The prisoner also declared she had never said the cis:.:
cried.
Jane Bunney was then called, and stated that she had known the
prisoner from her childhood. and never heard of any thing preju-
dicial to her c'..areeter. Her parents are decent and intiustrica-s
poor people.
Several other witnesses were sworn, and stated, that they bad •
always considered the prisoner a humane woman. She was never
before caarged with any act of cruelty. She is the parent of another
child, whom she has always appeared to treat with great tenderness.
It did not appear on the trial, by shout it was that thy prima