The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-15 00:00:00

we parted, we met James Mumford. I thought it was Mr.
Pallett, and I ran after him and said, " Mr. Pallet ;" and he
said, "It is not Pallet." I said, "It -is Jem Mumford."
The prisoner after this asked me to lend him a knife. I told
him, after I gave him the knife, that it was Jem Mumford
that was re down the lane. I slid not tell prisoner to cut a
gibbet; did not give me back my knife, and we parted. I
saw no more of him. Mr. James Mumford had gone on: his
`way.
The prisoner was not quite sober. (The knife was pia-
duced.) That is my knife. (It was found in the prisoner's

breeches pocket.
Mr. Justice PAnx now addressed the prisoner, and asked
him if he wished to say thing for himself?
Prisoner.—No, my Lord ; leave it to my Counsel.
11r. JEssop said he had no witnesses to call.
- Mr. Justice PARK then proceeded to charge the Jury. He
commenced by observing, that when making an inquisition for
blood, it was their duty to give all the circumstances of the case
the most minute attention. They should not suffer passion or
prejudice, or any other feeling, to operate upon their minds.
All they had to do was to administer justice faithfully and
carefully, and he was quite sure, after what he had already
said that morning, that nothing which they might have heard
out of 'doors would have the slightest influence on their de-
cision. The remarks he had made arose from no personal
feelings of his own, but from' compassion to those unfortunate
persons who might be placed upon their deliverance. He re-
peated, that he was quite satisfied that they (the Jury) would
banish from their recollection all they had heard before they
were enclosed in that box and solemnly sworn, and form their
judgement solely on the evidence which had been . submitted
to them. His Lordship then proceeded to recapitulate the tes-
timony, of the different witnesses, and to comment upon those
parts which bore more immediately upon the crime imputed to
the prisoner.
The .fury, after a few moments' hesitation, found the pri-
soner—Guilty.
The wretched criminal was immediately called up to receive'udgment. He stood up at the bar, supporting the irons in
his hand, and still held his head down, as if ashamed to meet
the eyes of the auditors, He did not, however, betray much
emotion.
Mr. Justice PARK then proceeded to pass the awful sentence
of the law in the following terms :—James Pallet, after a very
.;
full, patient, and, as far as I could procure itier you, an impar-
tial hearing, a Jury of your country have, without the least
possible hesitation, ,found you guilty of that dreadful crime with
which you stood cnarged ; and no man living who has heard
the account of this transaction can possibly entertain a single
doubt but that you are now a convicted in urderer; convicted upon
clear and indisputable testimony of a crime of the most horrid
nature—a crime committed without any thing like a sufficient
provocation that can be discovered—committed in the foulest
temper that can be conceived, for it is clear that you had been
harbouring malice against this unfortunate gentleman for three
or four weeks before this time, and watching the moment when
you could pounce on your prey to bring hitn to destruction. It
is a foul and enormous crime,f or which you must shortly answer
tattle bar of God. Ido not wish to aggravate the circumstances
of it, indeed it is impossible to do so ; the words of Con cry
aloud against you ; and human justice requires that the blood of
this young man should have some compensation made on earth;
for the voice of GOD himself declares, that the land can only be
cleansed of blood by the blood of him who sheds it. You have
a short time to live ; but much longer than your wickedness
gave to that unfbrtunate gentleman now no more. If he had
any sins to answer for, you gave him notitne to makeup his ac-
count, and you have but a short time to make a much more
dreadful one than, I trust, be had. The gate of ileaven'smercy,
if duly sought, is always open. Larne, therefore, young man,
earnestly conjure you, in all the spirit of Christian charity and
affection, immediately to betake yourself to find it—to apply
earnestly to the Reverend Gentleman who will be set over you,
to direct you—to seek of him, though late, the true wart° sal-
vation ; for it may be obtained for you by your Saviour's merits,
and fur. aught I know your petition may be accepted. The
sentence of the law is, that you John Pallett be taken hence to
the place from whence you came, and on Monday next to the
; place of execution, and that you be there hanged by the neck
until, you are dead, and that your body he afterwards taken
down to be delivered to the surgeons to be dissected and ana-
tomised, pursuant to the statute, and. may Clod have mercy on
your most guilty soul !
The Learned Judge was greatly affected during this awful
ceremony.
The prisoner was immediately taken from the bar, and re.
conducted to prison, where he will receive every humane atten-
tion till the henr of his death. In the course of the morning,
be said he should not mind dying, if Kidman were to die with
him.

LIEEL.—THE ZANG v. TITOMAS ESQ.
This was an indictment against the defendant for alibel pub.
ished of and concerning Peter Wright, Esq., of Hatfield Priory,
in this county. This' case excited considerable interest in the
county.
The case was in substance thist—The prosecutor is a gentle-
man of fortune, who,. in 11118, was an unsuccesstid candidate
as a representative in Parliament for, the Borough of Col-
chester. The defendant is a Lieutenant in the Royal Artil-
lery. The prosecutor and the defendant':; father are brothers,
the latter being the eldest grandsons of Mr. John Wright,
formerly proprietor ,of Hatfield Priory estate, of considerable
value in this county. In early life the defendant's father
was the favourite grandson of Mr. John Wright, and was
expected to be the heir of his large possessions. He went
to India, anti, after a long absence, he returned to England,
and found that his grandfather had died, leaving Mr. Pe
Luard, the prosecutor, heir, by will, to all his propert ter
y. The
prosecutor, upon the death of his grandfather, assumed the
name of Wright, and has ever since been in the possession of
his grandfather's estate. This unexpected reverse in the for-
tunes of the defendant's father produced considerable dis-
satisfaction ; but the prosecutor allowed the defendant's father
to remain for a considerable time in possession of one of the
family mansions rent-free, and had let to him a large farm
considerably below its value, upon an agreement for a lease,
which did not appear to have been executed. The prose-
cutor's family and that of the defendant's father grew up,
and in consequence of mutual misunderstandings, great dis-
sensions appeared to have prevailed. The defendant was sent
to India as a ca4et, and became a Lieutenant in the Royal
Artillery. Whilst, at the Mauritius, in 1820, he heard of
some alleged indignities offered by the prosecutor to his father,
anti in the beat of filial indignation at the manner in which
he believed the prosecutOr to have behaved towards his parent,
wrote an intemperate letter to the prosecutor, reproaching
him with cruelty and persecution towards his father, alluded to
the unfavourable disposition of the grandfather's property, by
which a younger brother was placed in affluence whilst the elder
was kept in comparative penury, and insinuated that unfair
means had been adopted to influence the grandfather in the dis.
position of the property. This letter had been read by the prose-
cutor to several of his friends. Upon the return of the defendant to
England, in March 1822, he wrote a respectful letter to the pro-
secutor, apologizing for thatwhich he had written from the Mau-
ritius, and expressing his regret, in dutiful language, for the in-
temperance into which be had been betrayed ; and asked forgive-
ness for the youthful heat he had shown iu the caused his father;
being sensible, upon reflection, that whatever injuries his father.
might have received, still he had exceeded the bounds of dis-
cretion. The prosecutor took no notice of this letter. Pre-
vious to the defendant's going to the East Indies, he had left in
the 'possession of the prosecutors eldest son a pointer dog, upon
condition that if he returned, and the dog was alive, it sLould be
restored, and if dead, another dog was to be given in its stead.
No answerintying been, gieen te the letter last mentioned, the
defendant wrote to the prosecutor's sou in cold but civil terms,
requesting that the slog,: which he understood was alive, might
be returned. This request was treated with silent contempt;
upon which the defendant wrote a letter to the prosecutor, stet-
ing the breach otitis sows promise, and requesting his interference
for the peaceable restoration of the , dog. In this letter were
contained sonic angry imputations respecting the conduct of the
prosecutor's son, In 'keeping the dog, after the solemn engage-
ment above referred to. engage-
' s letter received no answer; but
the prosecutor hinnediately indicted the defendant for the first,
third, and fourth letters above mentioned. The first was al-
leged to be libellous of the prosecutor, and the third and fourth
were charged as intending to provoke the prosecutor and his son
to fight a duel with the defendant. The defendant had been
roused from his bed without any previous notice, and taken into
custody for the purpose of pleading 'to the indictment, and
having pleaded, andbeing admitted to bail, the case was now
brought to trial.
Mr. Justice Paniemade two or three attempts in the early
part of the case to induce the parties to conic to some arrange-
ment of their difference, the matter being entirely of a family
and domestic nature. These suggestions had not the desired
effect, and the case proceeded.
The prosecutor was examined, and proved that toe letters in
question had reached him. lie denied certain acts of unkind-
nets, suggested as proceeding from him towards hie brother, the
defendant's father ; and declared that be had no uneind mo-
tives for this prosecution. He admitted that he had shown the
letters in question to several family friends, but .denied that he
had given copies of them to anybody.
Mr, littonnrcx contended, first, that supposing the first
letter to be libellOus, it was private and conkdential, and had
only become injurious to the prosecutor, in consequence of his
own Imprudence in publishing its contents to the world e and,
second, that neither of the other letters could be construed into
an intention on the part of the defendant to challenge either the
prosecutor or his son to fight a duel.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up the case for the jury, and
gave it as his opinion that the letters were all libellous, and
calculated to provoke the prosecutor or his son to commit a
breach of the peace.
The jury immediately found the defendant Guilty, and he