The Sun.
London, England, 1826-03-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE•

HOME CIRCUIT.---HORSHAS, MARCH 23.
LIBEL--GREGORY V. rLEET.
This was an action against the proprietor and publisher of
the Brighton Herald for an alleged libel on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Mr. Barnard Gregory, who is a Banker at
Brighton, had built a place of divine worship in that town, •
called St. Margaret's Chapel. Some misunderstanding having
arisen between ,him and a Mr. Hewlett, a tradesman of the
town, as to the right of sitting in the chapel, a letter was pub.
lisped in the Brighton Herald, addressed to the editor, and
signed with the name of Hewlett, in which the writer com-
plained of the plaintiff' in Hying given orders to two constables
to turn him ( Mr. Hewlett), out of the chapel when he presented
himself to take a seat. in making public the statement of facts
therein contained, the writer declared that his only object was
to vindicate his character from the imputation, which such con..
duct on the part of the plaintid`wati calculated to IS Ilk upon his
reputation. in the same newspaper was contained it supposed
defence of the plaintiff's proceedings in exercising the right of
excluding what persons he pleased from his own private chapel,
which had not then been consecrated to public worship. The
article contained a fulsome eulogium on the plaintitre piety
and seal for the welfare of his townsmen. This eulogium was
charged by the plaintiff to be satiracal and ironical, and there•
fore libellous; and for the stigma which these two publications
were calculated to bring upon his character the present action
was brought.
Mr. Al a aIiVATT submitted to the Jury that the first publica-
tion complained of Was perfectly justifiable under the circum-
stances, and that there was nothing in the second which was in
any degree libellous.
Mr. Baron GRAB AM left the Jury to pronounce their opinion
upon the tendency of the alleged libels.
The Jury ldund for the defendant.
John Christmas and George Earle were indicted for a bur-
glary and robbery in the dwelling house of Messrs. Swan and
Baker, as Littlehampton, In the night of the 14th September.
The' Jury found both prisoners guilty of a larceny in the
dwelling-house to the amount of 405.!
The prisoner, George Earle, and his father, Charles Earle,
were then indicted for a burglary and robbery in the dwelling-
house of Benjamin Challen, at retworth, in the night of the
11th January.
The Jury, under the hearneiLjtelge`ii directions, Acquitted
• Charles Earle (the father), but found the other prisoner °tatty.
The LORD CHIEF -ißanox passechsent erica of Death upon
; John Christmas and Georges Eat le, and told them that it was
necessary to make a dreadful exaniple, in order to check, if'
the.erime of burglary, which had of late beetecom.
nutted in this county to an alarming extent.—These unhappy!
men were left for execution.
The Assizes ended on Thursdny evening.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—lienteroen. Manor 22.
Bonet &iceLiwo.—Janteit Call was indicted for felo-
niously stealing. on the 14th of December last, rt Ledbury, in
this county, a chestnut snare, 'value MI, the property' of 00.
Sexty, Esq. The prisoner is very reepectattly rotated in this
county, and his ease occasioned much interest.
Air. Powst.t. mated the case for the proseention, and then
called the following witnesses r---
Mr. George Sexty. stated that ha had ft &motet mare on the,
14th of December last, which was turned out to graze in one of
his fields. On the Utth, in consequence of some intimation
which he received, he went to the field and missed the mare
He traced her by her front marks through two gardens and a
ploughed field,
Into the turnpike-road leading from Ledbury to
Hereford, from thence into a lane leading into the ‘Voreester-
road, and by other accompanying tracks to Worcester. When
he got to Worcester, he rnqiiirett for a police °Ricer named
Orchard, who had gone after some horses that had been stolen,
to Birmingham. The witness, from information :he had re-
ceived, then proceeded to join Orchard. at hire tiegbam. where
be SAW him, and i was taken by Orchard to the stables of the
New Hotel, where he found his mare and saw the prisoner,
who was in Orchard's custody for stealing two other mare..
The facts were also proved by several other witnesses. The
prisoner made no defence.
111 r. BATOA GATIROW auninwel up the evidence at length,
and the Jury found the prisoner CPU!!!, but recommended him
to mercy. • The prosecutor joined in this rec.ofumendetime
Ur. Baran 0 ARROW 040 that however happy he was to at.
tend to recomMendations of mercy when they came front such
quarters, yet he was extremely sorry to say that here he could
not attend to them. The duty he had to discharge in reference
to die justice of the country required him to pass sentence of
death upon the prisoner, anti leave him for execution. The
ease against the prisoner was fully substantiated, and offences
such ,toi his were so frequent in occurrence that they must be
put an end to by example. His Lordship then passed sentence
of death on the prisoner, and gave him no hope of merry.

VO R . T ti unto Alt, hl Al' is 23.
(Beibrc Mr. instiee Day LEA%)
CIVIL fiTDV.--.IIIMII.AND
This wtisaii action turnover a-comlignsa4iols in damages for
A pfta.kcit pat) st E int stAttn Ati v.
.1"r• PARK opened the pleadings.
Mr. Bstouutrast stated the ease tei the Jury. The plain-
tiff, Miss Harlatul, brought this action to-recover a cotriperurt
titin in thin age* for ono of the roost Rerious injuries. a young
woman could postibiy sustain. Ile did not intend to represent
cid:el beret the defendant as persons uteving in a very ex: toed

station of society. They belonged to the middle ,clams.--that
class which Wag not only the most numerous, bitt perhaps the
most respectable in the country. The plaintiff kept a confec-
tioner's shop in the town of Richmond, in Yorkshire. and the
defendant was in every respect a suitable matclefor her, being
a clothier residing in the vicinity of Huddersfield. The de-
fendant was in the habit of attending Richmtind market,
and it was on a visit of that description that he had been in-
troduced to the plaintiff: Their intimacy at length tehninated
in a promise ot' Marriage, and they had. associated together
on those terms which are generally permitted to persons in that
situation. What circumstances had occurred, to prevent that
event he (Mr. Brougham) could only conjecture; but he
trusted that the defendant would not urge as a palliation of his
conduct, an occurrence which he did not mean to mention
in aggravation—vm that the plaintiff had unfortunately suf.
fered herself to be seduced, anti had heroine the mother of an
illegitimate child. This was the short case fur the plaintiff, and
when it had been proved in the evidence that would be pro.
diced to the Jury, it would then be for Mr. Hepworth' to show
what had taken place in the conduct at' the plaintif that could
justify him in refusing to fulfil his promise, e•Acept In that par-
ticular transaction with himself. Ile should therefore leave the
case in the hands.of the Jury, convinced that tho would give
the plaintiff such damages as they would consi.kr a gclifie-
woman titular. such circumstances would be entitled to. .

Bliaabeth Bowes, .dressmaker, at. Itiehmontl, had
known the plaintiff' five years, She lived 200 yards from her, ;
and kept a confectioner'tt shop. I ant itequeinted with the tie-
fentient, who is a clothier frequenting Richmonthmerket;
he resides near Huddersfield ; generally sPokaig, he came
three or four Saturdays together, and !omit till nil-Iday.. The
plaintiff and defendant became acquainted in November, lON..
I had seen them before that at my brother's, in July
It appeared to me front their manner that there WWI an attach-
ment between them. In the January following I saw them
together, and had snme conversation with him on the subject of
their marriage. I told him I thought it never would be a vitareiage
between them. He said it was as likely to be as any could he.
In the March following I saw the defendant, and he wished
me to introduce him to Miss Harland egitin-, as there had been
a few words, and he said he was determined to make her his
wife, if he possibly could. I went with him to Mies Ilarland's
and they were reconciled.. After this, I had another 'comae.
?nion with them both on the subject of their marriage, and I
was engaged as bride's-maid. In July lain, I asked the de-
fendant when the marriage was to take place, itemise she
wanted to get her clothes ready. Defendant then appointed
that day month. The day named arrived, but the defendant
did not attend. Miss Harland has been since coolined. Site
is about twenty-eight or twenty.-nine years of Nee, and the dee
fendant about thirty-five.
Croes.examined by Mr. SCAR LETT.—The plaintirthad
been a witness here in a trial et the last assizes, and had been
ernes-examined by Mr. Brougham. lie had made 'rare Inn
of her then, hut had admired her very mech. Witness never
claimed any interest in Hepworth herself ; he had never been
her sweetheart ; and had never heard the plaintiff' any she had,
two strings to her bow. Had seen a yoUng man of the name
of Dimeeek at 111 lee Harland's; ; but never after the defend-
ant commenced paying his addresses to her. . The defendant
hid been at the plaintiff's as late as eight nit nine o'clock in
the evening ; never saw him there so lute as eleven. '.lllaintiff
first met the defendant in the street ut the door of witness's
house, end does not know how the acquaintance first coat-
menced, except by that meeting.
Isabella Harland, sister-in-law to the plaintiff, never saw the
plaintiff and defendant together until a month after Miss
Harland's confinement; she then met defendant and an, old
gentleman whose 'name was Hepworth in the plaintiff's bed.'
room. Old Mr. Hepworth asked the defendant what he
meant to do.. Defendant said " What cam I do ? squire.
Hick wants to force. me to marry the girl whether I will or no ;
but I'll tot be forced either by law or money t I care no more
for a few hundred pounds than I do for the dirt beneath my
feet." Defending added, "As they hive begun with law, I'll
try my luck-in it, anti then please my pelf after all."
liammerton proved hat the difendant had purchased an
estate from him flt or 600/. Watt conveyed to hint, but witness
did not know where. he got the money to.pey toe it.
Mr. Sceent.ETT addressed the Jury for the defendant. This
was not is caste of a young and inexperienced female, who, after
long temptation, had yielded her'. honour to . an-artful and de-
signing men, and who, might therefore confidently appeal to
the Jury thedeniagem. The fact wee, the Plaintiff imei lived in
Manchester—one of the best places in the world for a pretty
confectioner—end thence removed to IRchroottd, to exert those
abilities which she had acquired at Manchester. She had
become acquainted with the defendant on the public istreet,
who had been captivated with her showy appearance; and no
wonder that he had been so, for it was probable that
in all his life he had never met with such an object before.

If the plaintiff WM at this moment in Cotirt attired in the
splendid dress which had last Assizes attracted the atitnint.
two of Mr. Brougham, the Jury would not be surprised that
such a lady should occasion 'such sensations at Richmond.
The progress the defendant had merle in the good graces of
the plaintiff' bad been rather too rapid t he first saw her in the
street: at the next interview he was in her house, sad before
long, became the father of her child. The Jury would there»
fore take those circumstances into their consideration, in
assessing the damages, should they feel called upon to give'
any. There were, therefore, two questions, to which he (.air.Searlett) would call their attention—first, was` there any pro.
raise of marriage; and if so, the next question would be the
summit the plaintiff would be entitled to receive at their hands.
The Jury, after an absence of half an hour, returned with a
verdict for the plaintiff.--Damages