The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-12 00:00:00

PROSECUTIONS FOR BIOAIIIK.

Phrrbc ilorpr;, an elderly woman, of respectable ape I
was indicted for marrying one Jonathan Puxtone, her former
barb-god. William Hooper, being alive.
Mr. BINGHAM conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Boxesss
appeared for the prisoner.
Thomas Watts sworn—Produced an examined copy of a register
of Immrisee between Plice'te Holloway and William Hooper, on
the 2241 November, 1819, at the church of St. James, in Bath. The
register was signed in the usual way, by the officiating clergyman.
Richard Treheme and George Smith were described as the w.tnessrs
to the marriage. The wetness also produced a copy from the re-
gister of Bedminster parish. It certified that Jonathan Puxtone,
of that pariah, widower, and Phmbe Hooper, of that parish,
widow, were married by banns on the sth of April, 1826, by
Thomas Jennings, minister.
Richard Treheme sworn—Was present at a marriage between a
woman named Holloway and a man named Hooper, at Bath, in
1819. Witness could not swear positively that the prisoner
was the person he had seen married, as she was much altered.
Benjamin John Room knew the prisoner at the bar, and was
present on the 5,11 of April last, when the was married at Bed- '
mlnater church, to Jonathan Pustone. Wi.ness is the parish clerk.
. He had seen the prisoner bAbre the marriage, and subsequently.
Ile had seen htr in church, and at the house of a Mr. 'fully, in
Bedminster. He knew her husband. He had given his name in
as Jonathan Puxtone.
Robert Massy knows the prisoner at the bar. Saw her in June
last at Norton St. Philip's. IVithout his holding nut any th►eat or
inducement, she told him that there was a legal agreement between
her anti Hooper, that he should tint molest her. This conversation
occurred when witness told her that he had a warrant to apprehend
her for marrying Puxtone.
The Juno E conceived the evidence was too entre, and that the
identity of the prisoner was not sufficiently proved.
Under his Lordship's directice the prisoner was acquitted.

Sarah Webbtr, an interesting-leoking young woman, with a baby
in her amity, was put to the bar, on a chArge of havirg felonious!.
intermarried with William Greendale, whilst her first husbar.d,
John Webber, was still alive. . . .

---eweese---.
Genvecewelle Awe. 10.
SMITH V. HODOETTII AND OTHERIL
Tnia morning. at the sitting of the Court. Mr. Joule. Bug-
ROUGH proceeded to charge the Jury. His Lordship said, that
when last night he had thought it right to adjeurn, from the late-
nese of the hour. it was also with a SAW to look over Heaton mod
collect the material point) or the aloe. Hie Lordslifp be eyed he
had Paved the Jury many hours of useless dell), by adopting that
course, and he believed it was quite unnecessary to trouble the
Jury with reading the evidence over. The questions for their con-
sideration were—first, whether the defendants printed and rub-
fished the Miele in question. Upon tint his Lordship had no
doubt. Secondly, whether the publications were libels, and upon
that his Lordship was bound to give the Jury his opihion' which
was in the affirmative. Thirdly, whether they were libels of and
concerning the plaintiff. As to that his Lordship had no hesita-
tion in staying he thought there could be no doubt. The confider.
anon that would then arise was, whether the juetificetiona had
been made oat, and lupon that subject he had to state to the Jury
that a proof only of the truth of part would not avail the defendants.
When they undertook to justify a libel such as this, they were
bound to move the truth of the whole of it, in which they heel ut-
terly failed. His Lordship then read over the libel., passage by
passage, making comments to show that they were not true, add-
ing some animadversions on the liberty of the press, and without
nailing any of the evidence either for the plaietiff, or for the de-
fendants in support of the justification, Left it to the Jury as a
question of damages. The Jury consulted in their box fur about
a quarter of an hour, they then retired for half an hour, and on
coming into Court, at eleven o'clock, found a verdict for the plat rt-
tiff—Demeges 4001.
Shortly after the case was over, the Foreman of the July ap-
peared in the witness Lox, to make a complaint against we of the
defendants, which was taken on oath, and was In substance this.
As he was lcavirg the Court, the defendapt mentioned came up to
him, and thanked him for the verdict he had given, saving he
hoped it was a conscientious one.. He then asked the deponent
whether he had not been seen walking into Court with Mrs. Flint,
the wife of the plaintiff's at•ornt et, on his arm, which he denied.
After that he proceeeled to make other rematke, and expressed a
hope that he would find the ferns of George Smith, the idiot, at his
pillow this night.
dlr. Justice BURROW: HI called for the defendant who had thus
acted, highlyireprehended his conduct, and threatened to comm t
him to gaol unless he apologized to the Foreman of the Jury.
The defendant instantly cemplied with the terms his Lordship
imposed on him, and so the matter dropped.
A new Jury was then intrttlelltd.
SMITH V. EDDOWEa.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the Proprie-
tor of the Safopiau J'ontarat, for printing and publishing the libel
tiro mentiotted in the last case.
Mr. CAMPBELL, in setting the Mt, thought pram to advert
to the former verdict, end to the circumstance of the attack made
upon the Foreman of the former Jury.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, with scone warmth, objected to this cone CIVIL SIDE.
duct, and the Cele t held the objections to be well founded. (Before Mr. Justice GASELEE.I
The printing and publiehis g of the libel in question was admit-
M OWICTIIER v. BROWN.
ro
r. JF.BEMY stated. that this was an action bought by the
led. and
Mr. CA larart. L then called an attorney, who formerly acted for master of a vessel to recover the wages to which he was entitled in
the plaintiff, who swore that he believed, the person Lucent in the that situation from the owner. It would appear that the defendant
libel was William Smith. I gips the owner of a brig culled the •• Maria," trailing between
Mr. CASIPBEL 5. watt then abnot to .n.tie evidence ad. ' Swansea and Bridgwater. Time plaintiff had made several voyages
duped on the former Ord, but it was netuMettellotelrothy Meeelett that vessel se the master, giving directions, making payments,
Justice Burrough. ' • ' , settee . and commanding the vessel, as it was usual for s master to do.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS then wile a powerful appeairto the Jury, lie feared he should not be able satisfactorily to prove the entire of
justifying the libel from beginning to end, and contending, that the plaintiff's claim, because sailors were his only witnesses, and,
unless clear malice could be brought home to the defendant, be unfortunately, it wee not easy to bring up a number of theme per-
ought to have a verdict In his favour. sons as witnesses. Ile felt utterly at a loss to conceive what the
With the aselatance of Mr. GODSON. the hemmed Counsel then defence would be which his Learned Frieeds meant to set up, un-
called all the witnesses who appeared for the defence in the last less it was meant to be contended that the plaitaiff had not engaged
case, and they gave similar testimony, They ,a,,, proved theewill ,to the owner of the vessel, but to the Captain ; such a defence, he
of Isaac Smith, by which the idiot had M. a-peat for life. '' i ' Submitted, ought not to induce the Cuutt to decide against the
Mr. CAMPBELL then replied at considerable length. '' I et plaintiff, who only applied for his wailer.
Mr. Justice Boueotton, we believe, summed up the Maid* Several witnesses were then called, and proved, that in the !de-
but it was utterly impossible to hear or understand him in the plate Renee of Mr. Imo, the Captain of the brig, the plaintiff had per-
which our reporter occupied. formed all the duties of master. Evidence was else given as to the
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 1004 trend wages of masters of this class of vessels.
CROWN COURT. Mr. Sergeant WI Leto (with whom was Mr. Cor.onenne), for
said, the defendant liad never known nor recogitizei
Mr. Baron GIATROW bid-hid the Crittitnal huslnen yewterciny
the
defendant,
the plaintiff ne the roaster of the reasel. Mr. Brown had engaged
and hats left two culprits for execution. They are Thomas Gardner
with a Mr. Inam, who was the real master, and the agreement was
and Wm. Mile, who, though young, were the meet active leaders of
that Brown, as owner, was to receive one-third of the gross profits,
the extensive gang which has infested a considerable tract of country
I and loam the remaining two-thirde, paying all the expenses of the
on the road between Gloucester and Bristol. Sixteen of this gang
were yesterday . vessel- It so happened that Mr. loam fell sick, and thought pro.
tried ard convicted. Thirty bills were found by the
ere', sixteen per, for his own convenience and on his own responsibility, to em-
Grand Jury (chiefly for burglary) against Gardner,
against Mills. ploy the plaintiff. To Intro, therefore, who bad the entire ma-
nagement of the vetted, should the plaintiff have applied, end not
The whole of the convicts were brought into the dock before the
were senteneeat
above two individuals m be present at so impreee to Mr. Brown, who had entered into no engagement with him. To
sire a scene. the contract between Inam and the plaintiff', under vehicle the latter
came to have the management of the ship, the owner was not a
Mr. Baron ()miaow. after putting on the block septet the :Wrenn
emblem of his office, proeeedeil 'to pette the awful ce of the Porte. and of course he was not hound by it.
The Captain (Inam) was then called to prove the facts. He
law upon Checker and Mills. He said that the countleve crimes of
stated that he had made an engagement with the plaintiff to manage
which they'
,aeen found guilty, are their leadership in this des-
the vessel during his illness. Under this contract the plaintiff took
eters•e rane bad pointed them curt as lit examples for the offended
the command oh time ship, and mule the lest two voyages as master.
laws of their country. The painful duty of selection front convict-
He was to here n proportion of the profits. The witness was the
ed criminals rested upon the Judie, and in nt irking these two out
person bound to pay all the expenses of the vessel, and to discharge
for eiemil puniehment, there could be but one opinioa upan the I
the wages of theil agreement was to give one-third of the
propriety and necessity of the selection. He warned them, in the I
r a nrolits to Brown eho had nothing to do situ, the manage-
ment earnest anti impressive language, against the delusion of hope. g-"- •
mint of the ship. The'delendant on one occasion told plaintiff to
for ere the round of a few days had revolved, they would into
eternity by tin ignominious death. Mercy was clued upon them
piece of
Verdict for the defendant.
on earth ; the world. and its pleasures and attractions, had now for remember that he was no set ma of his.
ever passed from before them ; 'lit mercy, continued his Lord- steene AND OTHERS V. WILCOCK:I.
their beeeficent
ship., though denied to them their empire, was vet open This was an action of ejectment, hrougto by the Commissioner
to them' from /Wormer. He besought them to of \Vomit: and Forests, to recover pos.eeesion of n smell
approaeh him whimt delay in 'the supplicating attitude of 'nisi- ground situated in
the the
defendantm by the tuwo id Taunton, and w
lehich th
O e tfideline tipoffst of
al-
tepee and prayer. They would have the cot:whew,. aid of hoy : tested was Fold to for filf. n e
and pious men, who weuld guide them 10 comfort and te4Sendoll ; ' ground had fen merle' steed an inn, called The Whole Fall Moon,

John Fry produced an examined copy of the register of the mar-
riage of Sarah Parkwann with John Webber, on the lath October,
1818, at the parish church of Bathes-son, in this county. He also
produced a copy from the register of the marriage of one Sarah
l'arkman, in the church of Tiverton, in Devonshire, with Will-
, ham fireendale, on the 21st of February, 1825.
Joseph Webber stated, that he was the brother of the prisoner's
heat husband; her maiden name was Parkman. Witness was
present at their first marriage, in the charch of Ratheaston, about
seven years ago. The prisoner and her first huaba ,t 1 lived on very
had terms. Witness saw him so recently as the 7th of Jane last ;
he was then alive and well.
Another witness proved that he was present at Tiverton when
the prisoner was married to Greend ; the marriaee was so•
lenintzed by the Reverend Mr. Pittman. John Webber is still
alive.
For the defence, the prisoner had two witnesses called, who
swore that she and Webber had lived most unhappily together.
IFebber,on one occasion, took away the prisoner's clothes, and left
her quite destitute. He frequently threatened to kill her and her
child: and, on one occasion, actually prucceded so far as to burn
the child's legs.
Mr. Justice LTITLEDALE said it was an unfortunate thing that
the prisoner and her first husband had lived together so unhappily ;
but that wan no excuse for the prisoner's having offended against the
laws of the land.
She was found Guilty ; but, under the circumstances, the Jury
recommended her to nt. rey. and
The Learned JCDOE only sentenced her to be confined for two
months. _ _ _