The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-08 00:00:00

a barn, filled with firewood, was also consumed.
What leads to the supposition► that this was also the
ct of an incendiary is, that Mr. Edmonstone, the
gentleman to whom the property belonged, is a
Magistrate who distinguished himself by his activity
in apprehending some of the parties engaged in the
late riots in this county.

James Lane, Charles Davis, John Rose, Henry
Rose, Giford North, John Romaine, Thomas His-
co ck, James Borden, William Rivers, James Love,
Isaac Pavel!, Charles Cooke, Thomas Gilbert, and
Joseph Marchment, were indicted for wounding
Robert Pyle, with intent to kill and murder him.
In a second count, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm.—Acquitted.
Wird North, James Lane, John Rose, henry
Rose, Joseph Marehment, Charles Davis, George
Smith, Thomas Hiseocks. Win. Rivers, Isaac Pavel!,
John Romaine, George Etnens, James Burden, and
Charles Cooke, were indicted for having feloniondy
robbed Miss Mary Pyle, on the 22d of November,
of a 10/. note, her property.
The prisoners were part of the mob concerned in
the outrages before mentioned, and Miis Pyle stated
that the mob said they would kill her brother, and
that they would beat the house down as well, unles,
she gave them money. Finding they were determined
to have money, and fearing they would again ill-
treat her brother, she gave Gifford North a 10/.
Bank note, upon which the mob quitted the pre-
mises. Miss Pyle identified North, Lane, Dtivis,
John Rose, Henry Rose, Rivers, and George
Smith, as having been sorae of those who hud been
in the house when the money was extorted from her.
A labourer, who was acquainted with North,
stated that North told him Miss Pyle had given
him a 101. note, and that he was the first who en-
tered the house.

Several witnesses corroborated the testimony of
Miss Pyle, and identified the prisoners. They also
proved that the mob effected their entrance into the
house by breaking open the door.
En the course of the trial,

Mr. H ALCOMB submitted that there was not suf-
ficient proof as to the description of the note, and
therefore that there was no case to go to the Jury
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN-Mr. Attorney, there is no
evidence ►which touches Marchmenr, Cooke, Pavell,
Burden, Hiscock, and Romaine : there is no case
against them.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (after a little considera-
tion, and an examination of the evidence.)—My
Lord, I must consent to the acquittal of those parties.
They were then acquitted, and removed from
the bar.

Mr. Baron VAUGHAN then summed up the evi-
dence, asit affected the seven prisoners who remained.
The Jury found Gifford North Guilty, and ac-
quitted all the rest of the prisoners.
The Court adjourned at seven o'clock to nine
to-morrow.

At the sitting of this Court this morning,
Mr. Justice ALDERSON, adverting to the circum-
stances which were stated to the Court after the
conviction of Looker yesterday, (for sending a
threatening letter), obser►ed, that on considering
all the circumstances, he thought it right that the
prisoner should be put on his trial on the other in-
dictment for a similar offence, and then he would
have an opportunity of putting forward his son or
any other evidence he might have withheld on the
trial yesterday. Ile (Mr. Justice Alderson) would
not try the case. It would be taken by one of his
learned brothers in the other Court.

Robert Stokes, aged 30, Robert Willoughby, aged
28, and Anzinadab Smith, aged 35, wt re put to the
bar, charged with destroying a threshing-machine,
the property of Wm. Smith, of Highworth. The
prisoners were acquitted.
Elias Kettle, Charles Lane, Joseph Chubb, alias
Harvey, George Green, William Every, Levi Aid-
lard, William Pottle, Thomas New, Elias Thorn,
and Samuel Riemond, were next put to the bar,
charged with having riotously and tumultuously de-
stroyed a threshing. machine, the property of Charles
Lane, on the 24th of November.
The prisoners made no defence. They were all
found Guilty.
A record of the conviction of the prisoner Ket-
tle, for felony, for which he had been sentenced to
twelve months' imprisonment, was put In and read.
J. Chubb and T. Foote were again put to the
bar, charged with having destroyed a threshing-'
machine, the property of George Woolridge, on the
same day as in the former indictment.—The Jury
found both prisoners Guilty.
Charles Kimmer, aged 24, was indicted for as-
saulting James Self.
The prisoner was found Guilty.
Jeremiah West, Uriah West, and George Coombs,
were indicted for breaking a threshing-machine at
Broad Chalk, on the 24th of November.
Jesse Rumbold is a farmer, and had part of a
threshing-machine, which had been taken to pieces
from alarm. The water-wheel was put under water,
and the cast-iron concealed in a field. The mob
came, and the prisoners were amongst them. Saw
the prisoners in the field, and the mob broke all that
remained of it. The roof had been broken in taking
it down. Had broken the wheel before they came,
for fear of having it set on fire and endangering his
premises, and without the wheel the engine could
not be worked.
The prisoners were acquitted, on the ground that
this was not a threshing-machine at the time of the
breaking.
Adjourned at seven o'clock to nine to-morrow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CONSISTORY COURT, JAN. 6.
TOMLINSON V. TOMLINSON.

This was a proceeding for divorce, instituted by
Georgiuna, the wife of Mr. John Tomlinson, of St.
Marylebone, against hits, on the ground of cruelty
and adultery.
Sir HERBERT JENNER (with whom was Dr.
Adslams) stated the marriage between the parties
to have taken place on the 10th of September, 1818.
Adverting to the proof of adultery, the Learned
Counsel submittei, not only that it was completely
established by the evidence before the Court, but
that it constituted a case of the grossest profligacy
on the part of the husband. Feeling that the parti-
culars were not fit to be laid before the public, he
should abstain from entering into any detail of the
evidence, unless the Court should consider that any
part of it called for observation from him, and I,e
was induced to take this course, not from any deli-
cacy towards Mr. Tomlinson, whose conduct had
been so flagrant, but to avoid the possibility of in-
jury to the aggrieved party. He (Sir H. ,leaner)
also considered that the charge of cruelty, though of
a less aggravated character, was sufficiently proved,
and that Mrs. Tomlinson was amply entitled to the
remedy or divorce she prayed.
No Counsel appeared on behalf of the husband.
The COURT (Dr. Lushington) fully concurred in
the opinion that the proof of the adultery was clear
and undoubted. The counsel for Mrs. Tomlinson
had abstained from entering into the details of this
most flagitious transaction, from respect to the feel-
ings of those who were injured by the guilt of the
husband, and the same motive would operate to
wishi to save
un-
derstood that it did this, not from ally
disgrace he de-
served. de-
tericotl
ahree
. CourtT hefrom
Court,advertinghowever,
wishedfu l
tto t
o theh par
Me. Tomlinson from any part of
1atold:
theread'at
rhte
hisolfY chi Ool: Tomlinson) to the andwitneises,.
evidenceofon cruelty
that
pointstood
lthe crime of which
say, that he felt bound to
but, taken in conjulic-
aggrava
e
l
o
ces of the case, he
Sodefur
ctv:ltel
tnitt eiltirirrieeto:(o:Diitiory;
greatlyi
did
Lushington)atd rye fsa t
palliate
he
alone
migh
were sufficiently tconsi:ldte,htibritiaeleevidees:uhbtghteenuaectinoil
ettybqnho.ctelytrehslotc-licfioaricidltiauahrtbneg!‘:
charges
st chargev
sus-
tainedtion
in evidence, and he therefore pronounced for
the divorce as prayed.
The question of permanent alimony was, after
some little discussion, directed to stand over till the
next court.