The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-03 00:00:00

SKCON-11 MNSTINOB.

Copp, R. T. Int* of IR. Dunstan's-bill, strip and insurance-broker....
Congreve, Wand Hill, R. jou, Bedworth, Coventry, and Wuml-street,
silk and ribbon-manufacturers .....................
Cuurtoys, C. L. Rruxbourne Mills, Hera, miller
Lesanges, C. 8. late of 12, Queen Charlutte-row, New-road, general-
dealer
llogatleslt, J. Tuttealiam-court-rood, grocer
Maine, W. Clifton.etrect, Finsbury, currier..
Sprinks, T. Alertun, Surrey, builder
Waugh, T. C. Turnwheel.iane, Cannon-street, soirdisel.
-

11149 T 118 RTINGS.
Ansley, J. Star-court, Bread-street, merchant
Bell, W. Fenchurch. street, merchant
Ellis, T. and J. Blackman-greet, Southwark, barna:A-makers
Franck, A. Hlllb Holborn, linen-draper .
King, W. and E. L,:n•cr Thames-street, chec.emonger
Bolls, S. P. Old ?kb-greet, Ironmonger ....... .... .....
Schwleger, O. E.F. and Buchanan, J Itudiford-court, Fenchurcb-

street; Merchants ................................... .: . .. .. .....
Turner, M. J. Clonneell, Ireland, and of London-wall, London, mer-
chant
Wetherell, J. Litchfield-street, hat kla)er
Wood, J. Nelson-aquae, Surrey, jew:Per
DIVIDENDS.
Clarke, 8. Castle-street, Hodborn, tailor...
Holt, H. F. Cannon-row, Wectruiniteworgeon
Hutchinson, J. Lane St. Thomas AposMe, bane-factor
Kimald, J. Spital-square, Norton.falgate, silk-man
Mffitt, R. Pickering, Yorkshire, currier

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—MAIDirroxe, Aram 1.

iroks Ashbee. a young man of reepectable appearance, Put In-
dicted fora burglary and rohhery in the dwelling-house of John
Csek. et Steplehuret on the 23d Much.
Mr. CLARKSON conducted the prosecution, end 31r. WALSII
the defence.

it appeared in evidence that the prosecutor and the prisoner were
brethers.in-law, the former having married the sister of the latter.
The prisoner's father having fallen from comparative aiguenee into
decayed circumstances, the prosecutor took him and his family, In-
cluding the prisoner. Into his house. where they timid a rasp.
tonahle asylum. Early on the morning of the 23d of lllarekdr
prosecutor was roused from his slumbers by the prisoner, Yoko t 4.
pumping his fears that the house had been broken Inm and robbed,
directed his attention to a back window on the first ttnor, where
he found that a ladder hail been placed against the casement,
which was lying, open, and one of the penes of glass broken.
The prosecutor then searched the apartment adjoining, in which
he kept his cash-box, and on opening the latter he found
its contents, consisting of about six pounds, chiefly in ail.
'FCr money, gone. No suspicion tell upon the prisoner un-
til the following morning. when in consequence of having ob-
served some marks at the snot where the ladder had stood,
1 which resembled the size of the prisoner's feet, the prosecutor
was Induced to compare the shoes worn by the prisoner on the pre.
'Joua day with the traces, and he found them to correspond exactly.
In the interval he had taken out a search warrant to examine the
house of another suspected person, against whom, however, the
suspicion appeared to be unfounded. On the sacond day after the
robbery the prosecutor, with the assistance of a neighbour, deter-
mined to make a more accurate observation of the footsteps. The
prisoner's shoes were right and left, and nailed in a very peculiar
manner. On the day previously to the burglary the earth under the
window where the entrance was effected had been dug for the put.
pose of sowing a crop of turnips, and some rain having fallen in
the course of the following night, the ground received perfect im-
pressions from the shoes. The traces were followed backwards and
forwards to and from the window, across the garden, over the wall,
and thence into some fresh ploughed arable land, to the distance of
nearly it mile, when they were lost at he edge of a small riatalet.
They were found to tally a ith remarkable precision with the pri.
miner's shoes. hilst in the act of making this comparison, the
prisoner came up to the prosecutor, and claimed the shoes as his
property, and insisted that they should be delivered up to hit&
This was refused, and a constable having come up at the moment.
the prisoner was taken into custody. His boxes were searched, and
in one of them were found four sovereigns and a quantity of half-
crowns aml shillings. amounting to nearly the sum which the pro-
secutor had lost. Previously to this time the prisoner had been in
great distress, and was known to be destitute of money. The Ma-
gistrates, under the circumstances stated, bound over the prose.
eutor to appear against the prisoner at the Assizes, which, as stated
by his Counsel, he now did, with extreme reluctance, on account
of his near affinity to the accused.
The prisoner positively denied tlle charge.
The duty, however, under the Learned Judge's directions, found
him Grii/fy, but strongly recommended him to mercy, in which
recommendation the prosecutor most urgently joined. Sentence at
Dcalh was recorded.

John Reif was indicted for stealing. at Crayford, on the 12th
March, a horse, the property of Thomas Buck.
Mr. Davis conducted the prosecution, and Mr. DOWLING the
defence.

The prosecutor. a butcher at Crayford, lost a horse in the night
of the I2th March. On the 14th of the same month the prisoner.
who was the son of a tradesman at rrsyford, WAS found offering
the animal for sale at 3lann's_livery-stables, Blackman street

Borough. The horse was worth 201.. and the 'prisoner asked only
4/. for it. This exciting suspicion, he was asked whose horse it
was. lie replied that it brlonged to a clergyman at Crayford, in
whose service he was, and who had desired hint to take it to Lon-
don for sale. This statement being discredited, the prisoner and
the horse were detained, and on inquiry at Crayford Mr. Buck, the
prosecutor, was discovered to be the owner.
The prisoner said in his defence, that he had been employed by
another man to effect a sale of the horse, but he called no witnesses
to prove the fact.

The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and sentence of Death was
recorded.

The busineas on the Crown side ended on Saturday evening;
and but for the assistance of Mr. Sergeant D'Orr.EY, who sat two
days in a school-room for the trial of minor offenders, probably
the Assizes would have lasted until Tuesday. None of the capital
convicts were left for mew ion.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLorcrstEn, 31ancii 30, MG.
The assizes commenced here this *lay, and nothing of any im-
portance occurred on either side. There were 120 prisoner. For
trial on the Crown side, and 42 causes were entered on the Civil
side.

CIVIL SIDE, MARcur 31.
WAKEFIELD r. SAUNDERS.

This was an action against a stakeholder, to recover the amount
of a wager, laid between the plaintiff and • man of the name of
Leonard.

Mr. Tattwyrrti opened the easefor the plaintiff, and said that
the Jury were aware wagers founded upon gambling transactions
generally were illegal, and therefore could not become subjects for
investigation in a court of law ; but where they originated in fair
dealing, without any deception being employed, courts of justice
would listen to them. The present action, however, was not
btought by one party to a wager against another, but was an action
against a stakeholder to recover M. which had been lodged with the
defendant, upon a wager that had never yet been fairly decided.
The plaintiff was the landlord of the Lamb Inn at t'troud, and on
his way home, in the month of October last, through the town of
Hailsworth, he stopped with his father at the George Inn until the
Bristol coach came up, by which he was going home. He then
laid a wager with a person of the name of Leonard that he could
riddle more wheat through a bushel sieve into a bushel measure
than anv other man present. Leonard took up that challenge, anti
batted five pounds he could not. Accordingly, the wager was laid,
and both parties deposited their five pounds each in the hands of
the defendant, who was present, and agreed upon as a stakeholder.
It would naturally occur to the'Jury that this was a wager which
could not be determined in the absence of the plaintiff, who said he
could not attend to see it decided for some time, as his wife was
about to be put to bed, and he had a large party coming to his
house on the Monday following, the day proposed for the decision.
The defendant, however, pretended now that the wager had teen
decided: and said that lie bad paid over the money to the winner.

The Learned Counsel called witnesses to prove the case stated.
Mr. CA MPIIELL, for the defence, submitted to the Jury, that
the wager laid was of a description quite different to that stated on
the part of the plaintiff Ruth parties perhaps thought they had
imbibed some of the new lights shed by the Mechanics' Institute
in the metropolis, and upon a question of natural philosophy they
differed as to the quantity in weight that a bushel measure was Ca-
pable of containing. They laid a wager on the subject, which was
fairly determined, and it was lost by the plaintiff. In consequence
of this, the money was paid over by the defendant to Jr. Leonard,
and was spent in a handsome dinner and other refresbni!tas.
The Learned Counsel then called witnesses to prove the wager
was that a bushel of wheat of eight gallons, ried or riddled into the
measure, as high as a man could hold it up to the ceiling, would
not contain any more by being struck or shaken. After notice given
to the plaintiff, Leonard and the defendant met with other persons
to try the experiment. A bushel of wheat was then weighed and
measured. Mr. Leonard then added to it, by striking and shaking,
a quarter of a pound and the weight of five halfpence more, which
the bushel measure easily contained. After this, the pl timitra
five pounds were paid over by the defendant to Leonard, as the
winner of the wager, and the whole ten pounds were expended in a
handsome dinner and plenty of drinkable. for the company present.
Mr. Justice PARK, in charging the Jury, observed, that he was
extremely sorry his Majesty's Justices of Assize and a Jury of
the county of Gloueeriter should ever be called upon to attend for
four hours to the decision of a wager betwen two low vulgar fel-
laws, who had thought fit to amuse themselves with a silly bet.
TbeJury however had beard the conflicting testimony on both sides,
and they would decide for themselves on which side the truth
The Jury found for the defendant.

CROWN SIDE.
Before Mr. Baron ()ARROW.
HORsE STEALING.

Samuel Pitman was fridieted for feloniously stealing, on the 23d
of March, a dark brown. mare, value 201., the property of Mr.
Jonathan Blanch, a fanner residing at Sodbury, in this county.
Mr. JesTicr, in opening the case for the prosecution, said that
the circumstances he had to lay before the Jury were rather of a
novel description, and upon them a question might arise ter the
decision of his Lordship, whether the prisoner lied such sufficient
possession of the animal in question as would constitute a felony.
The Learned Counsel then produced the followirg testimony ;
Thomas Pulling said that he was the hostler at the Swan Inn,
Sodbury. On the evening of the 23t1 of March last the prisoner
came into the yard of that inn about half-past seven o'clock in the
evening. He said to the witness, " Hostler, I want my horse."
The witness replied, th►t there was no horse of his in that yard.
The prisoner inquired then where the George inn was, to which wit.
ness directed him. The prisoner then left the yard, and went to.
wards the George inn.
Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON—The 22d of March wns
fair day at Sodbury. The prisoner appeared to be in liquor, anti
he remained in witness's yard three or four minutes, contending
that his horse must be there:
Thomas Robins was the hostler at the George inn, Sodbury.
The prisoner came to that inn on the night of the tad of March, and
told the witness that he wanted his horse. Witness, after asking
the prisoner what sort of a horse his was, took a candle and went
into the stable, followed by the prisoner, who pointed out a horse,
and said, "that is my horse—put on the bridle." The witness
then asked the prisoner to pay sixpence for the hay the horse had
eaten, and the prisoner paid it accordingly. At that time there was
a fiddler playing in the kitchen adjoining the yard. and as the pri-
soner tried to mount the horse it became restive. The witness then

advised the prisoner to take the horse into the street, and mount it
there, for fear of any accident. Another person then happening to
come into the yard, said to the prisoner, " Farmer, you had better
take your mare out of the yard, and I will assist you in mounting
het." The prisoner and this person then went away, and witness
did not see any more of them.
Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—The prisoner appeared to
have some beer in him, but not so much as to render him incapable
of knowing what he was about.
Examined by Mr. Baron GARROW—The prisoner was perfectly
capable of riding the mare, if he got on her; and he was sensible

I enough to distinguish his own home, if he kid one, hum the horse
of any other person.
George Wilson was the next witness callest—lfesaid that he wen
into the George yerd end led out the mare for the ;stigma, wh..
cried out after him, and asked flint to step. Farmer Holly thee
came up to the witness and the prisoner' and said " Whose beset
Live you there ?" The prisoner said, "Why, it is mire." Far.
mer flatly then said, " I think it is farmer Blanch's; bet if It is
or not, 1 will soon tell yos ; for if it is hie, it ir stone blind." He
then put his hand op before each of her eye* sod she was Wiwi.
Farmer fla then told the witness to hold the mate until he wert
fer farmer Blanch. The prisoner then ran off; on which Halls
ran after him, brought him back, and the witness held him rota
Farmer Blanch was fetched. The prisoner in the ;sterim offered the
whin at half a crown if he would let him go; but the witness re-
. fused to do so on any account.
Farmer Blanch, the pre secutor, stated that the mare in question
was his property, and that the prisoner told him he had been sent
by a farmer named Cox, to fetch his horse, and he took the prom.
tutor's by mistake.
hirWarsow, for the defence. submitted upon this °videos:that
there was no proof of a felonious taking by the prisoner, for fie had
not even so much as taken the metre by the bridle.
air. Baron Gannow was of opinion, that in such acme an
actual possession taken by the prisoner was ann.:amity. If by
the procuration of another person's asnistance the horse was led out
of the yard, by the direction of the prisoner, he having a felonious
intent (which was a question for the Jury), then a felony had
clearly been committed. Ills Lordship then summed up the evi.
dence to the Jury, and left the question of felonious intention en-
tirely for their decision. He said, that if the Jury should be of
opinion that the prisoner was too mach in liquor to know wbat he
was about, they, they would acquit him of the present charge, which
affected his life. If, on the contrary, thr# thought tie was In the frill
possession of his 'tenant, and knew perfectly well what hewaaabout.
they would find him guilty.
The Jury deliberated for seine time, as if in doubt, and then
found the prisoner Not Guilty.
Mr. Baron Gankow then told him, be was a very lucky fellow
to escape so narrowly, and advised him to bear his present acquittal
in mind, as a wareng spinet the future tommisaion of crime.
GLOIJCZEITER, ANitt. 1.
CIVIL SIDE.
Several cases were tried this day, of no public importance.
YOUNG V. WILKiNS.

This WU an action to recover the amount of a wager, being tti.
ft was a bet laid by the plaintiffel lgl. agafitst the defendant's Ik.,
that the latter, who *as a carpenter, would not contottret two four.
panel doors, according to certain dimensions, in twel►e hours.
These terms were reduced to writing, but the declaration averring
that the time allowed for the work was twel►e hairs. between a s
o'clock in the morning and six at night, Mr. Justice Park was of
opinion that the variance was fatal, and nonsuited the piaintit£

CROWN SIDE.
RIGA 51 Y.
Richd. Miatrd, a very decent lookinc man, aged 13, was Indic/eel
for that he, nn the lith of January, 1819, feloniously intermarried
with Mary Anne Holdir, his former wife, Jane Milkrd, being
then alive.

Mr. RYAN appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. MatmE was for
the defence.

Eliribeth Spurrier deposed, that she *as the sister of the pri.
loner's first wife, whose maiden name was Jane Giddings. She
saw them both married together on the 31st of January, 1811, at
the parish church of St. Cuthbert's, at Wells. The prisoner was a
respectable farmer, and *itness taw her sister, who was his wife,
on Sunday last. alive.
Cross-examiifed by Mi. Kattrat—The pritioner and the wit-
ness's sister lived together for the first six years after their marriage,
but after that they did not cohabit together.
Ann Watts knew the prisoner. She was at St. James's church,
Bristol, on the 17th of January, 1819, when he was n:arried to Ann
Holder. Ann Holder is a girl about 20 years of age now.
Cross-esamined—Witness ktleir Ann Holder ever since she was
• child ; she lived with a family at the Mall in Clifton. The pri-
soner formerly lived with Sir John Smith. Ann Holder, at the
time of her marriage, knew that the prisoner had been married
before, and that he hid separated from his wife.
James Fox Thomas proved that he had examined the parish
register of the church of St. Cuthbert, in the city of Wells, and
therein he found an entry of the prisoner's first marriage with
Jane Giddings.
(The witness here produced an attested copy of the entry above
alluded to. and also an attested copy of the register of the prisoner's
second marriage with Ann Holder, taken from the parish register
of St. James's Church, Bristol.)
The prisoner in his defence said, that his first wife having left
him, and taken Up 'HI another min, she wrote him a letter stating
the fact, and setting him at liberty to do as he liked. He then
told Ann Holder of this fact, and the consented to marry him.
Previous to the ceremony he consulted an attorney, to ascertain
whether he had a right to do so. tinder all the circumstances of the
case, and the attorney advised him that he would be warranted its
taking a second wife.
Neither of the prisoner's wistit appeared against the prisoner, and
good reasons were supposed to exist establishing the truth of the
prisoner's defence.
The Jury NiEd him Guilty, but recommended him to mere)' on
the account that his first wife was the first aggressor.
31r. Baron GARROW, in passing sentence, told the prisoner that
the infidelity of his first wife was no excuse for the offence he had
committed against law and morality. His case, however, was not
charaeterized by that baseness which distinguished Rome others o:
the same desuiption, and therefore his Lordship would only in-
flint a lenient sentence. It appeared among the circumstances in
his favour, that he had not deserted his first wife, though she had
deserted him, and he had subsequently behaved with affection and
kindness towards the girl that he afterwards married. His Lord-
ship felt himself warranted in sentencing the prisoner to one
week's imprisonment only.
MA NSL ALIG 11TER,

William Williams, a lad aged only seventeen, wits indict,' Ur
killing and slaying George Pierce, at the parish of St. George, in
this county.
Mr. Cannixorox conducted the prosecution.
From the testimony of the witnesses whom the Learned Counsel
examined, it appeared that the prisoner and the deceased, both
youths of about the same age, were in the service of Mewed.
Castle and Co.. who are the owners of a colliery about fbur miles
from Bristol. They proceeded together to their work at the col-
liery on the morning stated in the indictment, but the steam engine
at the time being out of order they were about to return home.
The prisoner had a candle in his hand, and such a candlestick as .3
usually employed in mines, with a projecting piece of steel from it,
capable of being inserted in the wall of a mine. The deceased
wished to get possession of the candle, in consequence of which a
scuffle ensued. The deceased then stooped down to pick up
stone to throw at the prisoner, and the prisoner, after exclaiming.
" are you going to throw stones at me ?" indicted such wounds
upon the deceased with the candlestick as caused his death.
The Jury, after some short deliberation, returned a verdict of
"Guilty through accident."
Mr. Baron Gant ow obserted, that if the Jury were of opinion
that the prisoner killed the deceased by accident they ought to lie-
quit him:
The Jury reconsidered the case twice, but persisted in the same
snecial conduct, notwithanding the elaborate explanations of dlr.
Baron Darrow.

Dante/ liner, a fine boy, only fifteen years of age. was indicted
under Lord Ellenborough's Act, for cutting and maiming Robert
Thomas.

The facts of the case, as detailed in evidence, were these. The
prisoner had been apprehended upon the charge of stealing a hand.
kerchief, at Stroud, for which offence he was fully committed for
trial to the gaol of this city. The warrant of commitment having
been made out, it Was placed in the hands of the chief constable, to
he carried into effect. He placed it in the hands of the prosecutor,
Robert Thomas, to whom he confided the safe conveyance of the
prisoner to Gloucester Gaol. The prosecutor ►et out with the
prisoner, on the day stated in the indictment ; and as they pro-
ceeded along the high road, the prisoner intimated to the prosecu.
tot that he wished to leave the high road, and go through the fields
to Gloucester. The prosecutor kindly gratified his wish, in taking
to the next field which would lead to Gloucester. As they pro-
ceeded across the field, the prosecutor being at the time close to the
prisoner's side (without a word being said, or any alteration of his .
attitude) he suddenly felt a wound had been inflicted on his groin,
lion which the blood flowed rapidly. On looking round he saw tha
prisoner withdrawing his hand, which had a knife in it, and he was
about aiming &second blow, when the prosecutor tripped him up.
and threw him to the ground. lie then knelt ui m his body, and
disarmed him of the knife, which he laid aside, and conveyed him
after a short struggle to gaol.
The prisoner in his defence denied that he had any intent to stab
the prosecutor.
Mr. Baron GARRow summed up the case to the Jury, and ob-
served. that if the Jury were of opinion that the prisoner intended
to do the prosecutor any grievous bodily harm, so that he might
thereby make his escape, they would find him guilty.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and recommended him to
mercy on account of his extreme youth.
The prosecutor recommended him to mercy on the same ground.
Mr. Baron GARROW said that, as tar as he was concerned. he'
could hold out no hope of mercy to the prisoner; he would, how.
ever, represent to his Majesty the kind and humane recommenda-
tion of the Jury ; the prisoner, however, would do well in preparing
himself kr the worst.

NORTIIERN CIRCUIT—Yozi, MANCH 31.

DOTSWORTH, HART. V. HAIGH.

The following is the verdict in this case:-
Ist. We find there was a soke at all the townships In the districts
of the soke.

21. That the township of Al
F o k e.
31. That Sandal' Mill is only an auxiliary mill.
4th. That the three:mills posaess sufficient power without the
fourth, which it is supposed will give rise to proceedings again 41
the Duchy Court.
Mr. Baron lint.Locx left York tbis morning for Barnard
Castle.

is in the

Mr. Justice BAYLEY SW, be will make none of the causes re..
mailers.
Allinson, for hone-stealing, is reprieved. Little sod Lee arc
left for the law to take its coarse.

SATURDAY, APRIL 1.
COVENANT.
ABBOTT T. THE HOW. LADY HORTON.
.1111111. SCARLET?, TINDALL, sad ALEIANDTR, fOr die