The Sun.
London, England, 1828-09-12 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

----
CcePoline Elizabeth Miller was indicted for feloni-
huslYintermarryina with Edward Hogg, her former
William Jones, being then alive.
o
IlAir. Bailey deposed, that he was curate of Wap-
i',ll 1, when the ceremn of marriage tok ace be-
oeett William Jones and Caroline Elizabethtook
Miller,
n the 9th of August, 1825.
fo Sarah Williams deposed, that the prisoner had be-
s}7len married to Joseph Miller, the mate of the
11-anNak, in 1821. Miller sailed in the ship
pr ah".,/, Which was lost, and all the hands perished.
?Prisoner had told her that Miller was droned
"I
itilat vessel, and she went into mourning ford him.
e accompanied the prisoner when again married
t l
Jones, at Wapping. She had then upon her
and the ring with which she was married to her
firSt husband, and the Clergyman told her he could
}an marry her unless she took it off. The prisoner
surd she was a widow, and the Clergyman (Mr.
alley) asked how it was that she had described
herself as spinster. Witness believed, that after the
Prisoner's marriage with .Jones she went by the
Lliktne of Miller, and did not live long with him.
This witness further stated, that the marriage cere-
Illony, at Wapping, was interrupted, and the parties
left the church.

The Clergyman was recalled, and said he had no
recollection of any woman being present at the cere-
tilony, nor did he recollect the interruption spoken of.
,_Mr. LAW here took an objection, under the recent
Marriage Act, to the validity of the marriage at
4PPilig, on the ground of mis-description in the
Bans

NIL Justice GAZELEE saidthe objection was new,
4j4.1 he would take time to consider of it, and in
4 mean time the trial had better proceed.
1!loys Sylvester deposed to taking the prisoner
Ito custody, and on showing her the certificate of
er marriage with Jones, she said that only one
I%;°4lari knew anything of that, and he might find
,:r if he could. The husband, Hogg, applied for a
'lrratit on the Satmrdav, and she was apprehended
°lt the Monday.
I.Elizabeth Bliss, the sister-in-law of the prisoner,
;Posed that she was present when the prisoner
‘'`'l married to Hogg, on the 14th of last October.
I,Cress-exarnined by Mr. LAW.—Did not know
''nes; was married about nine months to the pri-
thaer's brother; knows the
.h.andwriting of Hogg ;
8 Paper produced is his writing; the prisoner had
'l;°l.ne furniture and property belonging to her; her
\pther-iii-law;, has paid the rent of the house in
h nieh Hogg ari:d. the prisoner lived; the prisoner
43 one child bj'ller first husband; has known the
141itioner for three yeats, and never knew any person
,the name of Jones living with her.
lerthe following evitiCne was then called for the
ence
j Anne Bliss is the mother of prisoner, and knew
tones. On the day Jones and her daughter went
ti church, the prisoner returned, and said the mar-
-4'lo was good for nothing. She never lived with
cleg, nor had she ever gone by his name. She con-
illited to reside with witness.
by the JUDGE--Jones came to her house the
b
olght of the marriage, but no one could prove, that
114 V ever slept together. Jones was only about her
b'ttse for two days, arid came afterwards to claim
thin He also said the marriage was good for no-
g, and that the prisoner had no more demand
Peri him than he had upon the prisoner.
hA great number of witnesses were called, who
vve an excellent character to the prisoner, and all
tilthem swore positively that she had never
gone by
e name of Jones.
Mr. Justice GAZELEE said, the case was one of
rat importance, not merely as regarded this mar-
,ige but as the principle upon which it might he
ili6ded would affect a vast number of marriages.—
th'ie case was one which, even if they should find
Prisoner guilty, would not call for any severe
,441%Inent ; and as the question of marriage was
:Ile Purely of law, he could not recommend them to
Suit the prisoner. As the mistake in the banns
,i4l unintentional he could not consider the mar-
-I'o inralid, but he weuld reserve that question for
ttil3.lhrother Judges ; and if they found the prisoner
t,.)„1437, which he would, under the circumstances, re-
Clitnend them to do, he would take her own recog-
IN,
11,t flees to appear next Session to receive the judg-
Nllct of the Court. He said, her own recogni-
et, ts, as she might perhaps not be able to pro-
re bail.
.ib toDERicK, however, assured the Court that
rel., friends were highly respectable, and she WaS
to give any bail that might be required.
bide Te Jury were upwards of twenty minutes con-
Nr,,lng of their verdict, when
dim !r• Justice GAZELEE said he could not see the
for it was entirely a question of law.
or le of the Jury felt a difficulty either to acquit
‘eonvict, tinder the terms of the statute.
~t1:11% Justice GAZELEE said, that in that case it
usual to take the law from the Judge, and in
1,115 opinion the marriage with Jones was valid; but
tilieadthonld not act upon that opinion until the case
been submitted to the Twelve Judges.—
Iky.
Mr •
t JisticeGAZELEE said that the prisoner should.
'it,!luiter much inconvenience from the verdict.
Lie Jury recommended her to mercy.
tio.7r
• Justice GAZELEE said that the recommenda-
wenre was unnecessary, as his feelings upon the case
precisely the same as their own.
Ile prisoner then entered into recognizances to
aPP!ar When culled upon.
0, P, tee Fenn was indicted for forging on the 18th
! uecember last an acceptance to a bill of exchange

for 1511. 10s., of the name of James Lusette, with
intent to defraud S;:rah Cooke.

There was a second (omit fir uttering the same.
Mr. BRODERICK and Mr. BARRY conducted the
case for the prosecution, and Mr. ALLEY appeared
for the prisoner.
John Cooke deposed that he is shopman to his
mother Sarah Cooke, of Holborn Bars. Has.known
the prisoner at the bar for 14. year; and was a pupil
of his when he was a tutor at Kirkman's, at Isling-
ton. The prisoner has discounted bills with wit-
ness on his mother's account. He discounted the
bill in question at five per cent. for his mother, and
the prisoner then said, " My lad, I shall be of ser-
vice to you, and I hope I always shall." He then
ordered 16/. worth of goods, and offered another
bill for 361., and asked for 20/. in money, being
the difference, which, when presented, was not worth
a farthing. His mother afterwards employed Mr.
Vincent, the attorney, and witness went with hint to
Paris in search of Mr. F., but did not find him there.
They afterwards found him at Calais, where he was
in the act of leaving for England. A person named
Millbury was with the prisoner. There were sonic
boxes outside the door of the inn. When witness
saw Mr. Fenn,he was ready to fall upon the earth.
He said, " Oh, God, lam a dead man." He said,
" If I had a hundred necks, I must lose them all."
Cross-examined—Receives a salary, and has no
interest in the business otherwise. Has discounted
many bills for Mr. Fenn, which Mr. Fenn paid, but
they were forgeries.
Mr. ALLEY—Sir, it is a falsehood.
Witness—l can prove it.
Mr. ALLEY—Sir, it is false. We do not prove for-
geries so glibly here.
Witness--I never solicited bills from Mr. Fenn;
the letter is my handwriting.
The letter was here read, and it asked Mr. Fenn
for a nice little bill for 30/. and an acceptance from
Melton for 100/.

This, he said, he asked for in exchange for bills
which Fenn had given him, and which were good
for nothing ; did not discount the bill on his own
acconnt ; they only took five per cent. discount; the
usual way of dealing was to discount the bill first
offered, but there was an understanding that a second
bill was to be given for goods sold; did not share in
the profits.
Mr. George Vincent corroborated the evidence
of the former witness.

Cross-examined by Mr. ALLEY—I am the same
person who was examined yesterday, and who pub-
lished that libel. No, not published it.
William Weaver knows Mr. Lusette, and the ac-
ceptance on the bill was not the writing of that
gentleman.
Cross-examined—Has known Mr. Lusette about
ten months, and has seen him write. _ .

Mr. ALLEY—When did you see him write ?
No answer.

Have you seen kiim write more than once ?—No
answer.

Mr. ALLEY—Upon your oath, if you have seen
him write was it not for the purpose of enabling you
to swear that you had seen him write ?—No, Sir.
When did you see him write ?—No answer.
By the JUDGE.—How often have you seen him
►•rite. No answer.

Mr. Lusette was now called, but
Mr. ALLEY objected to his evidence being re-
ceived, unless he was released by the creditors.
Mr. Justice GAZELEE overruled the objection.
Mr. Lusette then deposed that the acceptance on
the bill was not in his handwriting.
The prisoner then read a defence in substance
similar to that of yesterday.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, but re-
commended to mercy by both prosecutor and jury.

NEWG ATE AND LEA DENHALL MARKETS.
At per stone, by the Carcass.
s. cl. to s. d. s. (1. to s. d.
Beef 2 8 :3 101 Veal 3 2 5 0
Mutton
Lamb -- 4s. Od. to r 3. Od.