The National Register.
London, England, 1823-04-27 00:00:00

nnurable to the literature of the country. It was, hoot v. r,
not the duty of this court to criticise or examine Acts of Par-
irm. tut with regard to their literary or critical compositism ;
hut they were bound to interpret the intentious of die legisla-
ture, and to eaesoite those intentions as well us they (the
Judges) could understand them,
The rest o the Bench, alter a minute recital of the several
statutes, concurred with the Chief Justice, upon which a ver-
dict was entered fur the defendant.
shnticTlON.•—Dßew e. GREEN.
Mr. Williams, on time• part of the defendant, moved for a
rule to ►hew moist why a third new tricilehould nut be granted.
The seduction for which-damages were sou lit, was an alleged
forcible violation of the pleititill's slaughter. The defendant
lived next door to the plaintiff at Winchester; and there. was
but one room in his house, in which the daughter swore the Rot
was committed, in tae middle of tbe day, between eleven and
twelve o'clock, within twelve feet of the High street, and not
more than twenty feet from her mother's residence, to whom
she said nothing about it, on her immediate return to her home.
At the first trial she fired the time in the middle of December,
and before Christmas , but on Mr. Williams obtaining a new
trial, by proving that the defendant had the sheriff's officers io
the linear for 20 days, et that period, and also by the time of
the birth of the child; that it could not have been then, she,
at the second trial stated, doe b d forgotten that eiroumstruce
at the find trial, and that it must hare been in the middle of
January and 'het '21'614u-es, th-t the violation took place.
Mr. Williams lied now rfil.avits to prove that, from the
early part of Jammu to the NI of February, Mrs. Green was
in the shop every day ; and besides that, be had the solemn
oath or the defendant, that be never hale any criminal know-
ledge whatever of the girl, though be was aware be could not
make use of that testimony. He could also prove that the de-
fendant had been seen in familar conversation with her sine
die tim• sworn to, although. to account fee her not hav'e.g told
him of ber situation, she swore she had never spoken to him
Mace. The damages given were GUI.
The court, after a short consultation, granted the rule.
FRIDAY, APR 11.25.
CLAUGGTON V. LEE.
Mr. Abraham stated, that a commission of bankrupt- lad
been issued against the defendant in this case, aid while under
examination before the commissioners he had been surrendered
by his bail, and was now confined in the King's Detach prison,
where a detainer was lodged against him by Mr Claaghlon,
M.P. the plaintiff, for a sum of lo,oool.—he now moved that
the defendant bee be forthwith discharged from custody, ender
the set of Parliament, which enacted ehat a bankaapt shall he
privileged from arrest for dll days prior to his final examine.
Dom The esmatilsaioners had granted him their protection from
arrest, and bad extended tie time of final easutination until
the 3d of May next. This detainer was kid its contempt of
their authority; and contrary to act of Parliament.
The wart granted* rule to show-caws.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
DELLUW O. WHITE.
Sergeant Pell slated that this was an action brought to us
cover the sum of 601. under the following singular eitcuen-
stances :—The defendant, and two other persons, became
sureties to a large amount to the Alarshal of the King's Beach
prison, for the appearance of a bankrupt named Hawley, at
order to obtain the rides of the prison for the bankrupt, whe
was then in the Mar►hal's r ustorly. howreer, Hawley
got the rules he broke them and run away, by which conduct.
he placed his sureties in jeapardy. The defendant promised
to pay the plaintiff the sum of but. and say empences that he
'night incur, if he would give such information or render such
usistanoe as would lead to the reception of die bankrupt.—
Thepleiritill* gained the necessary isformatiun, and comniuui-
cited it to the defendant, who, in consequence of each assist-
ance, 'succeeded in accomplishing tbe arrest of the bankrupt.
This circumstance of course released all the emetics. The
defendant, however., forgot that he had promised bOl. for the
service rendered to bite, and this action wu brought to com-
pel him to perform it.
Tile first witness called was T. A. Clarke.—He proved Om
hand-writing of the defendant to the promise, which was dated
the 7th of :':.ovember, 1820. He knew Hew ley, who was then
in the King's Bench prison. Witness, defendant, and a man
named Starnes hailed hint, and he obtained the rules. After
Hawley's escape the defendant came to the witness, and said
that by means t•f the,plaintiff he bad obtained information of •
the road Hawley had taken, and that he meant to follow hits.
Hawley was subsequently apprehended. The defendaot then
told the witness that lie had agreed to the expences, which
amounted to 631. and to give the plaintiff 301 ; but that be
thought the plaintiff would take less.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Vrighan.—llad fallen out with
the defendant beesase the defendant wanted him to pay roe-
half of the expences. Witness would only pay one-third as his
share. The plaintiff was the brother of Mrs. Hawley. Wit-
ness had heard the plaintiff say that he had assisted Hawley in
making his escape. Plaintiff bed repeatedly acknowledged
this in witness's house.
Sergeant Pell here acknowledged that this was a good an-
swer to the action, and that the plaintiff must be nonsnited.
Sergeantirsuglion.—,. IL could go further, bat this is candid
of you."
Sergeant Pell obserred that there was no oanduur in giving
op the cause when he found that be could not possibly succeed
iu it.
The plaintiff was 'seasoned.

A County Meeting is about to be held at Bedford,
to consider of petitioning Parliament on the subject
of widows burning themselves in India.
Mu it DER.•••••1:41 tile particulars relator to the late hor-
rid murder perpetrated at Deal, we have now to add,
that Joseph Ben, the only son of the deceased, a your"
just tinned 18 eLirs of age, has made a full confession of
his guilt. By his own statement, it appears that on
Sunday er ghe conceactd the horrid intention of
taking the life of his father, and intended to have Ann-
ni,tered poison in his food; not bring able, hcrwerer, to
obtain the poison, he purchased a gum of another yowl,.
and about unie o'clock in the etching
at the back of the house. and deliberately fired throngii
the window of the room where Ins fa O'er and r
were sitting by the lire side, and he took his statioli
his father, wk,"
ti tered but one groan, the shot passing through his bo
After having committed this horrid art, lie threw the
gun into a ditch, and joined two other young melt, and
spent the night in dissipation, then returned to his la-
, ther's house in the morning, apparently as though tin-
thing had happened; suspicion, howeter, falling urn
him, he was taken into Custody, with his two couipj•