The National Register.
London, England, 1822-08-11 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

a Monday and market-day, he called at the house of the
deceased. The wife of the deceased had put a piece of
lamb in a quart of water on the fire at ten o'clock, and
went out to market twice. The prisoner followed her the
last time she returned, &L.! told her be had been in the
house in her absence, and that her linsband was then in
an adjoining room. Ile then said that be had read in the
pipets, that persons had been poisoned by water. The
deceased and Lis wife, after havinz partaken of the broth
and lamb, sickened and vomited. The prisoner called
again at four o'clock, and saw them vomiting. He had
never before called more than once im • day. The de-
ceased died at halt past twelve at night. No medical man
was r I lit for. Several neighbours who tasted of the lamb
sickened. The proectitriz observed several pieces of
a broken phial on the hearth ; the prisoner had bought a
phial of laudanum front • cliyniist, which he said was for
ladies at Middleton, but which lie told :he city-mist, after
some suspicious were created, he had still in his posses-
sion. Before he was sent off to prison, lie wrote to his
wife, in which he directed Isis sun to give np the wills,
and then added "'Think no more of me, my chance is
very bad." The deceased was buried four weeks before
the prirmer was charged. A medical man gave Muth,-
Deal to all who tasted of the lamb, and they recognized
the same taste. 'flue medical man was of opinion that the
deceased died of the laudanum in the
Guilty.

WEDNNIDAY, AUG. 7.
Au objection to the indictment was taken into conside-
ration this morning, when the Chief Justice over-ruled it,
and iu the must solem manner sentenced the unhappy con:
•ict to be executed on Fl iday next.

HEREFORD.
BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
1110MA5 P. Hoses.
Mr. Richards stated that this action was brought by David
Thomas agaiiit Anua Jones, for her refusal to marry him accord-
ing to their mutual promises. The damages were laid at 20901.
Mr. Taunton said that he had the honour to represent a gen •
tleinan in a respectable situation of life, who was reduced to
the unpleasant uecessity of seeking damages for the breach of
an engagement rarely violated by the female sex. Miss Anna
Jones, the defendant, was not a thoughtless girl, who had
yielded to an imprudent passion, of which she had repented in
time ; she had arrived at years of discretion, being of the ma-
ture age of 46. (a loud laugh). Mr. Thomas was some years
younger, being about $8 years of age, and enjoyed a freehold
estate of from 2201. to 2501. per annum. The parties, who
resided in the county of Cardigan, were, in 1918, introduced
by a mutual friend, when the plaintiff was smitten by the
charms of Miss Anna Jones; and she, after standing the usual
blandishments (he would not say rigours) of a siege, consented
to take Mr. Thomas for better and for worse as her husband.
The courtship was not clandestine ; but was carried on by
Miss Jones under the 'audio° of her mother, with whom she
resided, and to whom she could have recourse for advice when-
ever it was needed. By her desire, Mr. Thomas expended
no less than 2501. in adapting his house to tier taste, and she
attested her sincerity by finding the timber for the work. She
belonged to a sect of Christians called • Anabaptists," and as
she was desirous of promoting their interests, and of having
a place of worship neat her house, she prevailed on her lover
to grant a lease of some ground adjoining his premises, for the
purpose of building a chapel, which was accordingly erected.
After all this had been done, to the surprise of the plaintiff,
Miss Jones refused to fulfil her engagement, and left him to
bear his expense and mortification as be might. Iler promises
to marry would be proved beyond all doubt, for she had not
only expressed her intention iu words, but had attended at the
°dice of a solicitor at Llandillo, with Mr. Thomas, and had
as-
sented to instructions io writing for her marriage settlement.—
These instructions proved, that a family was expected from the
union ; for they provided for raising portions for younger sons
and daughters. down to the 9th or 10th child. (A general
laugh). It was difficult entirely to preserve gravity on such a
subject ; but the injuries sustained by Mr. 'names were far
from trilling. had been put to great expense by the ex-
pec ations which n.. J defendant had disappointed, and for these
lie was entitled to a fair remuneration. And, without dwelling
much on the injury to his sensibilities, could It be thought that
he now would be as well received by the fair ladies of Cardi-
ganshire when he attempted again to seek a partner for life, as
he would have been before he experienced the scorn of Miss
Anna Jones 1 On the whole, a considerable loss and vexation
had been sustained by Mr. Thomas, for which he bad a right to
expect reasonable and temperate damages,
Witnesses having proved the case as stated by Mr. Taunton,
s. well a subsequent refusal to marry the plaintiff',
Mr. Campbell addressed the jury for the defendant. So ri-
diculous, lie said, was this cause, that his learned friend (Mr.
Taunton), who even at the bar wore by anticipation a judicial
gravity on his countenance, was unable to refrain from bursting
into laughter while be told the sad tale of his client's misfor-
tunes. In truth, a more ludicrous, a more absurd, a more un-
principled action, never was permitted to disgrace a court of
justice. Would the plaintiff be the less pointed at on ascount
of the attempt which lie had made to-day? Might lie not have
worn the willow in silence, or have sought to forget Ids loss
with some other lady, more suited to him, more young, more
suited to satisfy all the purposes of a marriage settlement than
her whom he had lost I Vi lien a woman was deserted by her
lover, when she had wasted the beat years of her life indepen-
dence on his fidelity, alien she had lost her all by his baseness,
there was some excuse for her seeking redress in a court of law.
But what excuse was there fur a man who dragged into public
a woman whom lie had professed to love—who consigned the
object of his delicate, his impassioned, his gentle affections to
the custody of John Doe and Richard Roe ?—(A laugh.)—
In this case, the Jury •wuutd perhaps think that neither
the promise 110( the refusal to marry was proved by wit-
nesses on whom they could rely ; for how could they believe
that witness, fur example, who overheard a conversation while
stopping a gap, in which the defendant admitted a fictitious
expellee of 20001. which happened to be the precise amount of
the damage laid in the declaration, and talked of bonds which
had no existence. But if they believed there had been an en •
gagenient which the defendant had lroken, what claim had the
plamtill' to the damages 1 Of the injury to his feelings, his
counsel had scarcely ventured to speak, lest lie should ruin all
by bursting into laughter. The lady was forty-six ; and though
one of the witnesses said she was beautiful, he (Mr. Campbell)
had her 01411 authority to state that sbe was exceedingly
plain,"—a confession which when made by a lady, was entitled
to implicit credence. She was not veq accomplished t for
she could neither read or write—nor could she be of very
sound understanding, if she heard the instructions fur her set-
tlemiit read over, and sull'ered the anticipation of her nume-
rous family to remain without objection. If the jury gas e him
sixpence fur his wounded feelings, and another sixpence for his
pecuniary losses, they Mould du 111/U mimic II:AU justice.

Mr. Justice Bayley expressed his opinion, that the promise
was fully proved by the instructions for the settlement. The
plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a verdict for something ; but
in estimating the amount of damages, the jury would recollect
the diepropurtiou in the age of the parties ; and, whle they
considered any fair expense really occurred in nontemplation of
the marriage, they would set off against it, the timber provided
by the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 1001.--
The verdict was received with evident surprise and dissatisfac-
tion by the learned Judge and the whole court.
SUSSEX SUMMER ASSIZES.
LEWES, AUGUST s.—The Summer Assizes for this
cfnutty commenced here today, before the Laird Chief
Baron, on the Crown side, and the lion. Mr. Justice
Park, on the Civil side. In the Gaol Calendar there are
35 commitments; and the Cause Paper contains twenty
entries.
CROWN SIDE.
Henry Durrant, alias Henry Hood, was indicted for
assaulting Mary Austen on the King's highway, in the
parish of 'f icehurst, on the 7111 of June, and stealing
from her various articles of grocery, and two pair of
hoots. This case was marked with circumstances of
brutal violence.
Mr. Berens stated the case for the prosecution. The
prosecutrix MPS a widow woman. On the 7th of Jane
she went limit her dwelling at Swilualen to Ticehursi,
to purchase groceries amid other articles. Returning
homewards at seven o'clock in the evening, she was over.
taken by the prisoner, a stout young man of twenty, who
first asked her the way to Saleshutst. She pointed out
the way. He asked her what o'clock it was, and has.
ing told hint, he immediately knocked her down with a
bludgeon. Fur a moment she was insensible, but ion.
mediately recovering, site had an opportunity of obsess.
mug the person of the prisoner, whose face was marked
with a large scar. lie demanded her money. She said
she had none, turned her pockets inside out to convince
him, and begged for mercy. The prisoner struck her
another violent blow on the head, and then ran oft with
a small parcel, containing some tea and sugar, and two
pair of leather boots, which she had bought for herself
and daughter. Violent as the blows were she was per-
fectly sensible ; but in consequence of the loss of blood
she was unable to pursue her way. With difficulty,
however, she crawled to a a neighbouring house, where
she was known. In consequence of her description of
the prisoner lie was apprehended. On his person was
found a dark smock frock stained with blood. The pro.
secutrix swore that the prisoner had worn a dark smock
frock when he attacked her. She had no doubt what-
ever of his identity. When the prisoner was taken up
he gave contradictory accounts of the smock frock. He
said he was at a place called Newich, VS miles distant
from the spot where the robbery was committed, at the
time the offence was alleged to have beets perpetrated.—
As to the marks of blood, he said they were occasioned
by a fight in which he was engaged with another man
about a week before, and that his nose was blooded on
that occasion. These statements of the prisoner were
completely contradicted.
The prisoner said nothing in his defence.
The Lord Chief Baron summed tip the evidence, and
the Jury immediately found the pristine! guilty—death.
The Learned Judge proceeded to pass the awful sen-
tence of the law, and conjured the prisoner to prepare
for its execution, assuring him that he certainly could
hope for tin mercy in this world.
AeGiieT 6.—J. Wiggens was indicted for the wilful murder
of Heury Lilliot, at Brighton, on the 20th of April last.
Mr. Andrews conducted the prosecution. It appeared in
evidence, that on the day mentioned in the indictment the pri-
soner and the deceased hail set two boys to tight on the beach
at Brighton. Some altercation took place as to the merits of
of each combatants ; mutual reproaches followed, and soon as
the boys had done lighting, the prisoner attacked the deceased
and offered to light him. The latter being the lighter man of
the two, after a round, in which he got the worst, declined the
combat, but still continued to jeer the prisoner upon the subject
of a defeat in which be was beaten by some other man in three
rounds, and said, that if lie, the deceased, had more weight
be would be a match for him. After provoking him for some
time in this manner, the prisoner fell upon the deceased, knock-
ed him down, and whilst he was on the ground kicked him two
or three times between the hip and the back. The deceased
being released, he walked home, apparently not much hurt.--
This was on the Saturday. Oa the Monday llollowing lie com-
plained of a psi') in his back, but lie continued to work for six
or seven days afterward& at his business as a bricklayer, when
lie was obliged to lie in bed, from which he never rose again,
and expired on the secoud of May. He web examined after
death by two surgeons, who stated, that there appeared to be
no marks of violence on the body, either externally or inter-
nally, which could produce death. They attributed morlellity
to a fever produced by encitement of the constitution, in con-
sequence of the blows he had received. Between the hip and
the region of the kidneys there was the mark of a slight contu-
sion, but not such as would have produced death. The de-
ceased had been previously in good he.ilthi
The prisoner called two or three witnesses to Rive as account
of the transaction, but their evidence did not differ materially
from that of the wituemes for the Crown.
The Lord Chief Baron charged the Jury, that they must ac-
quit the prisoner of wilful murder, there being no evidence of
any malice aforethought to sustsin that part of the charge. lf,
however, they were of opinion that the prisoner bad occasioned
the death of the deceased, they would be justified in finding
him guilty of manslaughter.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter only, and
the Learned Jndge, after animadverting upon the cowardly
brutality of the prisoner in kicking the deceased whilst cia the
ground, the latter being confemedly no match for hint in self-
defence, sentenced him to six months itoprisoumeat is the

county gaol.
James Tilley and D. Barnett were indicted for burglariously
breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Watson,
at l'etworth, ou the night of the 'nth of April, and stealiug
therein three Chichester and two Arundel bank totes for the
payment of 11. each, two cannisters, containing a quaniuditityet ed
of
tea, and a gun, her property ; and Henry Leggett was
for receiving the gun, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Curwood conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Wortnn
the defeuce. There were circumstances of considerable
atrocity sin this case. The prosectitriz, and elderly maiden
lady, and a female servant of still more advanced years,
resided in a detached house in the parish of Petworth.
Ua
the night of the 'bit' of April. they had finned to bed

about ten o'clock. ➢etween 11 and 12 o'clock Miss Watson
wad alarmed by the screams of bar servant in an adjoiniag
room. She immediately got up, and was approaching the
room, when she was seized by a ruffian, who demanded her
mosey, and on the instant stabbed her in the left arm with an
instrument like a bayonet. Tho' greatly alarmed, she had self
possession enough to observe that is the maid's room there
were two other men, one of whom was lying upon the poor
creature, es if holding her down. The assassins bad candles,
and she could see that her servant twits weltering in her blood.
Her own appearance attracted the ob lion of the other
men. Some scuffling ensued, and the candles went oat. In
the scale the prosecutrix received several blows on the bead
and face. One of the ruffians went down stairs, and procuring
a light, they all proceeded to rifle the house, sad carried oft
the articles mentioned in the indictment. The female servant
deposed, that, between 11 and 12 o'clock, she was awoke out
of her sleep by three men, who rushed into her room with can-
dles in their hands. They were armed with a short sword and
a bayonet. She jumped up in bed, and screamed as loud as
she could. One of them immediately struck her a violent
flow cm the bead with a sword, which inflicted a deep wound,
and then jumped upon her and pressed her down on the bed,
with so much weight, as to break one of her ribs. To prevent
her from screaming be thrust his hued into her mouth, pinched
her tongue, and knocked out one of her teeth. Whilst she
was is this situation her mistress came to the door, and then
they left her without further molestation. Both herself and her
mistress was confined to their beds for a fortnight after. It ap-
.peared that the assailauts had entered the by a back win-
dow, which they had forced. Some days after, a man named G.
Turner, a disbanded soldier, was taken up on suspicion of being
a participator in the outrage, and be confessed the fact, and
implicated the other prisoners, who were immediately taken
sp. The principal witness, therefore, to support the case for
the prosecution was the approver, who deposed that he, Tilly,
and Barnett, had agreed on the 16th of April, to go on the Itith
to Miss Watson's house, and commit the burglary. They ar-
rived at the house at lit o'clock. lie waited in front of the
house, whilst the others broke in the back way, which having
done, they opened the front door and let him in. According to
his statement be took no part in the violence inflicted upon the
maid-servant, but swore that after she had been wounded by
Barnett, he jumped upon the bed to'prevent further violence,
and besought the others not to hurt her any more.
In this respect he was flatly contradicted by the old woman
herself, who deposed, that there was hut one man on the bed.
and that that man, whoever he was, had cut her, broke one of
her ribs, pinched her tongue, and forced out her teeth.
The accomplice denied all this, and said he bad merely inter-
posed from motives of bunzanity. In collateral parts of the
statement, however, the accomplice was confirmed by several
witnesses. The burglars, previously to their entering the house,
hail disguised their features with sonic red and white powder,
to guard against detection. After they had effected the robbery
they met the other prisoner, Henry Leggatt, by previous con-
cert, at about half • mile from the house, with a cart and
horse, and to him they delivered the gun, which was part of
the plunder.
The prisoners strenuously denied their guilt, and insisted
that the accomplice was perjured.
The Lord Chief Justice summed up the whole of the case for
the Jury, pointing out to their atteution the descripancy
the evidence of the female servant and the accomplice,
with respect to the violence committed upon the former, but left
it to them to say whether the rest of his story was entitled to
credit, copiloted as it was in many collateral points by the tes-
timony of many credible whimsies.
Tbe Jury found all the prisoners Guilty—Death.
CIVIL SIDE.
SPECIAL JORY.—TILE KING V. DANIEL.
This was a customs information against the defendant, for
*smelting a custom house officer in the execution of his duty.
The defeudaut pleaded guilty, wad it was poUerstood he would
not be called up for judgment.

JOHN YELLER, ESQ. V. RANDALL.
This was an action of trespass for breaking and entering the
plaintiff's preserves, and destroying Isis game after notice.
The plaintiff' is a gentleman of sumo celebrity, and formerly
had the honour of representing this county in Parliament ; and
the defendant is a gentleman former, residing in the plaintiff's
neighbourhood, in the parish of Dallington. Notice had been
served upon the defendant in December, lta2o, not to trespass
upon the plaintiff's preserves, in consequence of imputed acts
of aggression on previous occasions. Three distinct acts of
trespass were now proved to bare taken place after the notice,
naarely, in October, November, and December, last year. On
one oecasi tttt he had pursued a bare from his own land to that
of the plaintiff, and there bagged his game ; on another he sent
his dogs into the plaintiff's preserves, aed killed a rabbit on a
private road of his own, which traversed the plaintiff's soil ;
and on the third he was with his dogs on the plaintiff 'a land'
but no game was killed.
Mr. Gurney, fur the defendant, contended, that the plaintiff
was entitled merely to nominal damages. The defendant in the
keenness of sport bad accidentally trespassed on the plaintiff's
land, which adjoined his own, and certainly never meant to
insult the &Alma by a wanton trespass, as was very frequently
the practice on sect' occasions. There was therefore no ground
for any thing mere than nominal damages.
Mr. Justice Park charged the Jury, that they mast certainly
fund their verdict fur the plaintiff, but told them that it was only
a case for nominal damages.
The Jury retired for about three quarters of an hour, and
returned their verdict for the plaintilt—Damages 51, costs 4108.
DICKIIiNS AND ANOTHIIIt V. SHAW.

This was an actioa brought by the Lords of the Manor of
rrightlielnistone against the defendant, fur trespassing on the
sea shore between the high and low water mark, and digging
and carrying away the sand and soil therefrom. Tile object of
the action was to try the plaintiff's right, as Lords of the
Manor, to the soil of the beach between high and low water
stark, along the coast, iu the parish of Brigbthebustone.
The plaintiffs rested their case upon evidence to strew that
the Lords of the Manor of Brighton hail, time out of mind, es-
ercised dominion over the soil between high and low water
mark, and had the exclusive ownership thereuf, iu contradie
lion to the ankuowledged rale of law that the manurial rights of
of the fiord donut extend bsyond the high water mark,—the
right to the intervening soil and the low water mark being ge-
ncr Ily in the King. The right of wreck,—of contriving the
removal of sand aid gravel,—the fixing of moving capstans on
the beach, and other incidents of dominion, were insisted upon
as confirming the plaintiff's right. Documentary evidence, on
the Rime of ancient grants, was was also adduced fur the saute

pdrpose.
For the defence it was contended, that the plaintiff's claim
was not made out, by any adequate evidence of enjoyment,
sufficient to contemnl the common law right in all the King's
an tjects, to the soil betw.:.en high and low water mark, more
particularly as there was no distinct evidence of any interrup.
ti Ai of this rigl t, from time beyond the memory of wan.