The Sun.
London, England, 1803-01-20 00:00:00

tiara 'that she 'would etiter into a bon& with sure.
ties, that he'wonld use her well. To this he con.
sented, and the bond wasvrepared ; hut having
more affeaion, for the little finger of a Lady with
whom he lived, than the whole body of hli wife, he
refused cosign it, and desired, that instead of it, a
deed of separation might be prepared. Her sepa.
rate maintenance being fixed, this was dra‘Vn out ;
'but he refused to sign it. He had paid for her board
up to April last, and the present anion was for board
at the same. rate, of 11. iis 64 per week' for the
wife and child ; for shoes and, other articles of
clothing ; and also the 'attorneot3 bill for preparing
the deeds, which he had desired might be drawn up
—amounting in the whole to 651. 73.
A young Gentleman of the name of Bishop, prov.
ed the wile being at the house of the Plaintiff.;
that he had. frequently seen the Defendant there ;
that he was about 2+ years of age, and appeared to
be a man in good circumstances.
The Shoemaker proved his demand for shoes ; and
the Attorney for the Plaintiff proved, that the De.
fendant had promised to pay all the items in the ac..
count, except the board and the shoes. He proved
also the meetings which had taken place, and the
orders for the deeds, &c.

'Mr. PLUME R addressed the Jury, He said he
should not enter into those extraneous 'topics.on
which his Learned Friend had enlarged, or he might
tell As hard a talc on his part. They might be fit
sabjeets for discussion in a Court of a different kind.
He hoped the Jury would think with him, that the
present demand was enormous, and would give only
what they saw was justly due.
Lord Chief Baron .MACDO-NALD, in summing up,
remarked that the law had thrown on the husband
the maintenance of his wife ; and that the genero-
sity with which the Plaintiff had aeled towards his
niece was no .excuse for him. He had shaineftilly
'deserted her, but must pay for the necessary articles
with which she had been -furnished. ' It appeared
to- his Lordship the demand was very moderate;
.and he was only surprized) if the circumstance stated
by Mr. Dauncey was true, that instead of a pro-
We,ding to set aside the marriage, Mesnard and
hite had not been indieled far a conspiracy.
The Jury found a Verdict for the Plaintiff.—
Damages 651. 7s.

OLD

StVWNTH DAY--WEDNESDAY, .JAN. 19.

'obis Warner, a boy about' t. 2. years of age! •wal
charged with stealing• on the 7th. of December,
two books, the property of John Eckfuro.

The Prosecutor, it appeared, keep 3 a Book-shop'
and stall in one of.. the courts branching from ,
ilishopsgate-streit ; that on the above dayt .about
eleven in the forenoon, be obsetved from the shop.
window, the Prisoner eyeing the books on the stall ;
at length, he took up the books in question, and
made off with them. The Prosecutor. ran after,
and came up with him about twenty yards from
the shop. The Prisoner at the moment, drops the
books—but Mr. Lckford gave him in charge to
an Ohm,
The, Prisoner in his defence asserted (hat he had
never seen the books.

Four or five respeetabie, Witnesscs apjieared to
his charatter ; two of these %vete Book-binders:in
whose service the Prisoner had recently been, and
said they would willingly employ him +again.
Verdiet—Guilty.

jeonies Horton was .charged 'with stealing ft.*
the person of William 'Browne, three shillings and
sixpence, and ten pennyworth of nalfpence, his
property.
The circumstances on which this charge were
founded, were rather curious; this ProseCutor;
discharged Soldier from the 35th- Regiment, and
the Prisoner, a young lad, it appeared, were locked
up together on different charges, on the night of
the 4th of December, in St. Martin's' watch.
house ; the Prosecutor was considerably intoxi-
cated at the time; but a female companion of
his, and who came forward in the present instance,
informed the Constable.of. the Night and his myr-
midOns',':-that he had ' received . 155.' that day, of
which he had spent some part. On the next morn.
ing inquiry was made, but it appeared Browne had
no money about him,. The Prisoner was questioned
as, to his. conduft with respea to the Prosecutor
during the night.; when he declared that he had
tsdcen.nothing' from the Prosecutor; however, on
searching him, the money laid in the indiament
was found in one of his shoes ; some of the silver
was dirty, and for which a reason 'was given at the
time ; the Case was pretty nearly made out against
the Prisoner, but the Prosecutordid not appear, and
the' Court' were of opinion that his evidence in such
a case was indispensible ; of course, the Jury were
Constrained to acquit the Prisoner,

James Phinkeit was indided for stealing on the
loth of January, a silver watch, value• thirty shit.
lings, the goods of George Higgins.
The parties, it appeared, were employed in a
public house in Judd Place, Somer'i Town, in the
two.fold charaders of waiters and pot.blys. On
the above day the Prosecutor laid his watch on the
bed while he was. changing his linen : he was. not
long absent, when, on his return, he missed the
watch. The Prisoner, it appeared, bad leave to
.go to town that days; and it was proved, that in the
'course of it he pawned the watch at a pawn.brolteco
at the cotnetof Shng.lane, for 11. These fads be_
ing dearly proved, and the Prisoner's defence,
though circumstantial, not being satibfadorb the
Jury pronounced him Guilty.