The National Register.
London, England, 1811-03-24 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL

turned and walked towards the town, and they went forward
arid milked the cows ; they might be employed about a quarter
of an hour`, On their return home they met the prisoner a short
distance from the close ; he spoke to her aunt and requested her
to leave the witness with him, saying, he wanted to have some
talk .with her. This her aunt declined; and the prisoner, with
an oath, said he did not care for her. He then, turning himself
round, stood before them and said " Stop," and drew a knife
from his pocket, and opened it; on which witness and her aunt
set up a loud cry, and she was so much frightened as to let fall
the milk-pail. She then stepped back two or three paces, and
the prisoner advancing, caught her in his armshnd threw her on
the ground,falling with her. 'He then attempted to cut her
throat; after hating wounded her severely ih the neck, she
wrenched the knife out of his hand, throwing it over the hedge,
and while he was seeking the knife, supposing that she had
dropped it near the spot, she extricated herself from him and
ran away, the prisoner pursuing her. She soon after met Isaac
Ellard, who took her under his protection.
Mr. John Man, surgeon, described the wound which he was
called in to examine, to be an incision in the neck and three and
a half inches in length, and a quarter of s.n inch in derh, a
little above the trachea ; he also described several of her lisigt rs
to be much cut.
• On the part of the prisoner, Mr. Robert Stubbint the partner
of Mr. Brown before referred to, stated, that during the time
the prisoner lived with them, which was about nine months, he
conducted himself with propriety, and seemed to be of a hu-
mane disposition and good temper.
• The Learned Judge, after recapitulating the evidence, ob-
served, that it was probable the prisoner was much at' ached to
• the young woman, who he suspected of a coldness towards him ;
and that under the ic.fitience of these feelings, he wrought him-
self into a violent phrenzy of passion; but his Lordship observed,
that the violence of passion would not justify or extenuate an
act that deliberately aimed at the life of a fellow creature; if so,
a door would he opened to all the excesses and crimes which
persons, under the impulse of such passions, might be disposed
to commit; and no evidence had been given to induce the Jury
to think that the prisoner was not in a sane state of mind at the
time this act was perpetrated. The Jury, without leaving the
box, found the prisoner—Guilty, but recommended him to
mercy on account of his good character.—The prisoner, on be-
ing removed from the bar, said, in an audible voice, " May
Crud be toe comfort of my prosecutrix."

BEDFORD.

WARDON V. BAILEY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a gerjeant In the
First Bedfordshire Local Militia, cemmanded by Mr. Whit-
bread, against the defendant, a Lieutenant aid Adjutant in the
same regiment, fur an alleged false imprisonment, in Decem-
ber, 1809. A charge having been made against the plaintiff,
that he had used expressions, tending to excite disobedience and
mutiny, he was committed to prison by the defendant, and
afterwards tried by a General Court Martial, and acquitted.—
The damages were laid at 5001.
Mr. Serjeant FR F.RE opened the case for the plaintiff, in a
speech which lasted upwards of three hours, the principal part
of which time he was occupied in making observations on Mr.
Whitbread, complimenting him upon his industry and activity
—but descanting fully and freely, In terms serious and serio-
comic. upon him as a Member of Parliament generally, and as
Member for Iledi ird particularly, in which place he described
him to be in the centre of his fame and power. He remarked
upon his general political principles and conductl—ridicided the
plans he protxpied to Parliament for the akenition of the Poor
Laws, and the general education of the people, and the plan of
establishing a school In his regiment, for teaciting the non-com-
• missioned °facers and drummers to read and write—declared
that obedience could not be claimed by an.officer to a command
to attend school for the purpose of Instruction--that an unjus-
tifiable deduction had been made from the pay of the men, for
the purpose of making a job for the, Serjeant-Major—in short,
lie set forth 4 case of great oppression against the defendant,
Bailey, with the concurrence of Mr. Whitbread; but acquitted
them both of any intentional malice, or wish to oppress the
plaintiff, Wardon. Upon the cross-examination of one of the
`plaintiff,
for the plaintiff by Mr. best, the following questions
were asked, and answers made :
Q. Have you not ateeme time, said to Mr. Bedford, a respect-
able inhabitant of this town, that very handsome offers had
been made from the fountain head, Mr. Whitbread, to compro-
mise .the matter P—A. I might have said so; I don't know whe-
... ther I did or not. •
Q. Did you, or did you not say so ?—A. I did
.say so ; but it
was only, in jest. • ' •
• Q.
,Was what you said true or false I told Mr. Bailey si

A/4;3

•
in the presence of Mr. Bedford, some days afterwards, that it
was all wrong.
Q. Do you mdan by wrong, falsel.—A; I do mean it was
false; but 1 only said it in joke.
Q. Did you not say that your brother would be backed by as
great men as were on the other sidel.:.-01. I did; but only meant
we should have as good lawyers.-
Ihree or four non-commissioned officers of the regiment
were examined, who had refused or neglected to attend the
school. They were all asked in cross-examination whetler,
when they had beets told of the establishment of the school,
and of the intention of making a deduction froinstheir pay for
the support of it, any one of them had remonsrated or refused,
or expressed any dissatisfaction at 411? To which they all
answered no. '1 hey were asked win.rher any deduction had
ever been made from their pay, or any payment demanded
from thcni on that account ? to which they likewise answered
uo.—The plaintiff's case being closed,
Mr. S...rjeant SELLON addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and shewed the expressions used by the plaintiff to have been
in the highest degree mutinous, and that to have passed over
such an offence would have been greatly blameable. Under tie
direction of the Judge, the plaintiff was non-suited.