The Sun.
London, England, 1803-02-21 00:00:00

'loge of being afterwards-matte thib victim of it, then
such person shall not, after being the Tempter, be
heard as' the' Accuser of such person. But if .the
accused person is in thecourse of committing crimes,
and they were kept concealed from the Public, al.
though they were well knuwn to exist, and then,
to induce an open disclosure of that which a guilty
person was in the habit of committing, the means
which led to the detedion of, and which tended to
prevent the future commission of such crimes, was,
in itself, no crime ; but, on the contrary, a benefit
to Society. Such was the case here. .is Lord.
ship observed, it appeared to him necessary 1w
should say thus much, and he trusted the Jury would
think he need not say innre.—Guilty.

THE utip.V. ANN, THE WIFE OF JAMES,.AITKIN

This was a Prosecution for the same offence as
the last. The Defendant is the wife of a person who
is now in confinement for this misdemeanour, and
that upon a second convietioo. The account of the
publications in question, are too shocking to be de.
scribed. One of the Honourable Members of the
Society himself saw them at the Defendant's House.

The Prisoner was informed that she must turn.
'herself to a better coarse of life, for the Law would'
not permit her to support herself, or her family, by,
such means as these. There were 'other Inditfitnents:
againSt her, which were not.tried;

CREAVES v. I,NIZOCENT.

This was an ;talon for a Breach of promise,' of
Marriage. The Plaintiff is a young woman in the
service of a very respectable Lady of the name of
Smith, at Stratford, where she has lived for many
years, and where she has saved about 2001. and
bears a perfedly irreproachable chars ter. The
Defendant was described-by the Plaintiff's Counsel
as a goldsmith and jeweller, and also a dealer in
curiosities ; but he turned nut to be a person who
kept a little shop at the cornet of Cranbourn Alley,
leading to Little Newport-street, Newport Market,
where there are a few trinkets: His family and
that of the Plaintiff were acquainted, and the p.lr.
tie; had known each other from their infancy. He
paid his Addresses to the Plaintiff last Autumn,
and by a' letter propme.d to marry her, in conse.
quence'of which she gave her mistress warning; anti
provided dresses, &c, for the marriage, at ihe ex-
press desire of the Defendant, and every preparaL
tion was made for the wedding, when, on a SUCL
den, the Defendant wrote, as letter to the
aunt, declining the match; alledging as reason for
it, titat he was nailed to his proposal too soon, and
that the Plaintiff had treated him With lukewarm-
ness, which appeared as if she wanted only to pro.
vide a home fur herself, acid which did not afford
him a prosped of the happiness which be expeded
in the married state, &c. Both parties are 39 years
of age. But here was no Seduelion of the Plaintiff
—no attempt to traduce her charader ; nor had the
Defendam flurried another from avarice, &c. which
are the usual topics of aggravations in these cases.
After a full, trial of the cause, and a very im.
pacltial charge from the Chief Justice, the Jury
found a verdid for the ,Plaintiff, damages tool.