The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-21 00:00:00

ATONE V. MAIM! AND ()THERA.

This was an is;niedirectediWilielntiriof Chancery, to ascertain
how far Messrs. Marsh and Son were legally responsible for monies
obtained by the late Mr. Henry Fauntleroy, without their know.
ledge. At the trial, at Guildhall, in the Sittings after last Term,
the Lord-Chief Justice was of opinion that such a question was a
proposition purely of law, and could not be decided by s Jury.
Mr. F. Pot. Lot: IL now moved to set down the case for special ar.
gument, as the Chief Justice had not made any direction to that
effect at the trial.

At one o'clock the Lord-Chief Justice sat at nisi pins and took
Common Jury causes, many of which were undefended, and none
of public interest.
CRIDIINAI. INFORMATION—READING MERCURY.

THE KING V. COWSLADE.

Mr. ATTORXET•GENERAL moved fora Rule, calling upon the
defendant, who is the proprietor of the Reading Mercury news.
paper, to shew cruse why a criminal information should not be tiled
against him.for having published in his newspaper,and in hand-bills,
certain libels upon the character of Mr. Edward Wakefield, sen.
The Learned Counsel observed, that the gentleman on whose be-
half he made this application, was a gentleman residing in London,
the father of Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, who was charged
with the abduction of Miss Ellen Turner, the daughter of Mr.
Turner, of Shrigley Park. Ills client was a gentleman possessed
of considerable influence in the Borough of Reading, for the repre-
sentation of which he was going to put up in the next Parli..ment,
and therefore had sonic political enemies in the borough. When
the account of the abduction of Miss Turner reached Reading, a
report was industriously circulated that Mr. Wakefield, sen. was
an accessory to the offence imputed to his son, anti, therefore, Mr.
Daniel Wakefield, a most respectable Chancery Barrister, the bro-
ther of Mr. E. Wakefield, happening to be at that time at Reading,
published a statement, in which he asserted " that he knew his
brother knew nothing of the abduction," and upon this statement
the defendant published remarks in his paper, asking how Mr.
Daniel Wakefield could know that his brother did not know, &c.,
and intimating that, from a variety of circumstances, it was impos.
able not to come to the conclusion that Mr. E. Wakefield knew
of the intended abduction ; thati it was he who sent to the news-
papers the advertisement announcing the marriage of his son with
Miss Turner ; that be was in the neighbourhood of the scene of the
transaction at the time it occurred ; and that he was also at Calais
about the same period. This was not the oily way in which Mr.
Wakefield's name was introduced into this newspaper, for there
was a letter, purporting to be from their London correspondent,
giving an account of the execution of Sir John Johnstone for ab-
duction, and of the escape of Captain Campbell, the principal, and
stating that it was the intention of Miss Turner's friends to take
every step to bring all the offenders to justice. Those libels were
also published in hand-hills, and circulated very extensively in
Heading, with another hand-bill stating that Mr. Wakefield would
be certain of the suffrages of all the heads of seminaties who had the
care of young ladies under the age of 14 years, and of the heads of
families who bad sons anxious to obtain profitable matrimonial
alliances, &c. In support of his application the Learned Counsel
read the affidavit of Mr. Edward Wakefield, sen., stating that pre.
'loos to the marriage of.his son he did not know of the alleged ab-
duction or marriage ; that the first intimation which he had of the
marriage of his son was by the receipt of a letter from him in
these words : " Carlisle, March 8.
"My dear Father—l write to you instantly after my marriage.
I would, not on any account that you should hear it otherwise than
from me. I shall be in London immediately, but not to stay.
" Your's ever,
" E. G. WAxEFIEI.D."
The receipt of this letter greatly surprised Mr. Wakefield, and in
a day or two afterwards, having seen a letter, in the hand-writing
of his son, directed to his (Mr. W.'s) clerk, he opened it, in order
if possible to obtain an explanation of the former letter. In the
letter directed to the clerk, there was enclosed an advertisement,
announcing the marriage, with a request from Mr. Wakefield,
jun., that the clerk would send the advertisement to the London
Papers for insertion, and in pursuance of this instruction, Mr. W.
sen. sent the advertisement to a newspaper, but he denied positively
that he knew any thing of the circumstances under which the mar-
riage took place.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Does Mr. Wakefield deny he was in
the neighbourhood about the time when the lady was taken away ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, my Lord; I believe he
may have been at or about the time at Macclesfield, where his
wife's relations lived ; but he denies most positively having been at
Calais since the month of February last.
Mr. Juslice BAYLEY—Don't you think, Mr.Attorney-General,
that Mr. Wakefield had better go before the Grand Jury, who
would have an opportunity of examining him relative to the
transaction ?

The ATTORArET•GENEnAt, thnUg!ll Mr. Wakefield had
done every thing that wits required by the rules of the Court, in
cases of this kind, and he therefore, in the name of Mr. NVake.
field, submitted that his client was entitled to the interposition of
their Lordships.
Their Lordships having consulted together for a short time,
The LOAD Cum- JUSTICE said, the Court was of opinion
that the character of the publications was not such as called fur the
interposition of the Court.—Rule refused.

MIDDLESEX ADJOURNED SESSIONS,

TUE KING ON THE PROSECUTION OF DYSON v. UPTON.

The prosecutor in this case is collecting clerk to an iron-founder.
The defendant, an eating-house keeper, was charged with hay-
ing put a quantity of super-sulphate of potau into a glass of ale,
with intent to poison the prosecutor.
The prosecutor, it appeared, was in the habit of dining at Up-
ton's house, in Aylesbury-street, Clerkenwell, and of spending his
evenings there. On the 20th of February he dined there, went to
a public-house in the neighbourhood, became much intoxicated,
and afterwards returned to Upton's, who accompanied him on hie
road home. They drank at several public-houses by the way, and
at length arrived in Shoreditch, and went into the George public.
house, kept by Mr. Perry, within a short distance of Dyson's resi-
dence. A pint of ale was called for by the defendant and token
into the parlour, but Dunn refused to atop, and went away with.
out drinking. The landlord entering the parlour immediately af-
terwards, observed that one of tPe glasses of ale looked thick, and
charged Upton with having played some trick with it. The latter
denied it, and Perry asked his wife if there had been any powder
in the glass, but she declared there had not, for she had shortly%e.
fore washal the glasses and turned them down on the shelf. The
sediment in the gins was afterwards analysed by dlr. Clarke, at
A pothecaries'-hell, who found it to be a ouper-sulphate of potass,
commonly sold as a substitute for oxalic acid.
The prosecutor, on his examination by Mr. PITTI.I.Irs, said he
had about 120 i. of his employer's property about hint, and had
mentioned it at Upton's.
Mr. ADOLPHUS. for the defendant, made a powerful appeal to
the Jury, and contended there was no pretence for charging his
client with such an abominable crime as that of intending to tie.
atroy his best customer, which Dyson in truth was ; but even it he
had such an intention, they had it from the prosecutor himself that
Upton was not out of his sight that evening, and had no oppor-
tunity of procuring the powder. But even if by Rome magic he
had possessed himself of it, was it probable Oyu he would have
gone to the prosecutor's home almost to administer it, when be
might have done so, or might have robbed him, with perfect secresy
at home?

he defendant wu acquitted.
RESURRECTION MEN.
Yesterday, .1. ,Iturray, alias Murphy, of Thames Tents. Bo-
rough, and J. Collins, two notorious traffickers in d'ad bodie4,
were tried on a charge of attempting to steal from the church-yard

of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, the bodies of three grown persons
and two children.
The prosecution was conducted on the part of the parish by Mr.
K. littUTTO,t, their Vestry Clerk, who had engAged Me. BoL.
LAND and Mr. BARRY.
Mr. Anotemus appeared as the advocate for Collins. and Mr.
C. PIIILLIrs for Murray, or Murphy.
John Abseil), a watchman in the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal
Green, deposed that, on the Sunday before the first alas,. month, a
nerticn whom he did not then know, called on him, and took
him to the Cock and Hoop public-house, Mile-end. They after-
' wards went to the residence of Murray, or Murphy, in the Bo-
rough, where he, witness, was promised a pound for every body
that could be conveyed out of the yard on the nights he would be
on duty. IVitnews then mentioned the recent interment of some
children, when Murray said, " Children would not do ;" and wit-
ness received a shilling to drink, adding, that he would be on duty
on the Wednesday night following. That on the Wednesday night
(Ist March) witness relieved a man named Davis, after which the
two prisoners, and another man unknown to witness, mote to the
churchyard, where they raised five bodies. Murray told witness
he had the money for him,. and said they had lifted but three bo.
dies, although he (witnesa) knew they had five. Witness had pre.
viously communicated the circumstance to Gooding, a conductor of
the Bow-street patrol, who had the necessary arrangements made
for the reception of their nocturnal visit.
This witness underwent a long and very ingenious cross-exa-
mination from Mr. Phillips, whose chief attempt appeared to be to
shake his testimony as far as regarded Murray ; and insisted to
know who pointed out the graves. The prisoner, after some re-
luctance, admitted he did.

Gooding, the conductor of the Bow-street patrol, proved, that in
consequence of previous information received from the last
witness, he. with some others, attended on the night in gnestion,
when the prisoners were taken into custody, and brought to the
wateh-house. with some nicks, in which, upon examination,
there appeared to be the dead bodies of three grown persons and
two children, and that another person unknown had effected his
escape.
Thompson, a parish officer, proved the arrest of Murray within
a hundred yards of the church. yard, and produced some screws anti
other instruments, then found on his person, as left no doubt of the
ob;ect of his mission.
Parish and Browne, two of the Bow-street patrol, confirmed the
testimonies of the foregoing witnesses; and Mr. Martin, the
master of the workhouse, Identified the bodies so lifted to have
been but a fe• days before buried, and that they were in the work-
house.

The CHAIRMAN recapitulated the evidence, ar.d left it with the
Jury, who returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners.
They were then sentenced to six months' Imprisonment each.

POLICE.

GUILDHALL

!mac Shire, a well-dressedifirmaniew, a vender of shawls,
&e., was yesterday charged by Alexander Ilirßride, a tailor, in
Fleet-lane, with defrauding him of the sum of ss. 11^ had called
at 31•113ride's shop with his goods, and effected not to undera'and a
word of English, and M'Bride, to get rid of his icportunities, of.
fered him five shillings for one of his most splendid shawl., which
he did, by drawing a line across a half-sovereign, and counting five
on his fingers. The Jew took the money, but having no charge,
left his bundle while he went to procure it. The tailor meanwhile
left the pa.lour where the transaction had taken place, and after
waiting some time for the Jew's return. he became uneasy, and on
going into the parlour again, found the Jew had taken his bundle
away by stealth, but left no change. The shawl was afterwards
ascertained to be worth only 3s.
The prisoner, In defence, stated in tolerably good English, that
he was to have ten shillings for the shawl, and he denied leaving
the bundle while lie went to get change.
Mr. Alderman KEY said the evidence was insufficient to warrant
the prisoner's commitment, and lie was therefore discharged.