The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-03 00:00:00

WORCESTER, AUGUST 1.

John Bowzard and Benjamin Ball, convicted yes-
terday of burglary in the house of Wm. Tibbots,
were this morning placed at the bar, and received
sentence of transportation for life.
Sarah Baylis was indicted, charged with the
wilful murder of her male bastard child, at the parish
of Shrawly, in this county, in the month of March
last. _ _

The prisoner, an ill-looking woman, aged 40, and
who, it was understood, had previously given birth
to eight illegitimate children, had been delivered of
the child in question after taking some medicine,
which was supposed to have produced premature
delivery.
Mr. Watson, a surgeon, of Shrawley, stated that
in consequence of information he had received, he
went to the house where the prisoner lived, and on
examination was convrinced that the prisoner had re-
cently undergone the pains of parturitiCin. She
begged that the witness would not mention the case
to the parish officers, but he said he must do what
he thought right. He was going down stairs when
she called him back, and repeated the same.requeSt.
She then said that on the previous. Thursday she
was going through the fields towards her own home,
and was prematurely delivered of the child in ques-
tion. The witness communicated these facts to the
parish.officers, and requested, whenever the body of
the child was found, he might be informed of it.
The following day he was called on by the •parish-
officers to examine the body of the child, when he
discovered that it must have been brought into the
world before the expiration of the natural period of
'gestation.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cuawoon—The lungs
bad never. been expanded by atmospheric- air, and
that. was a sure sign that the child had not come
into the world alive.

Mr. CUItiVOOD here submitted that the charge of
murder had not been substantiated, because it was
not proved that the child was born alive. '
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE was clearly of opinion
that the murder was not proved, inasmuch as the
infant had never been alive.

The prosecution then proceeded against the pri-
soner for the concealment of the birth of the child,
contrary to the statute of Elizabeth.
The Jury found the prisoner " Guilty of conceal-
ing the birth of the child."
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE--The sentence of the
Court is, that you be imprisoned for one year in
the House of Correction. ' "

James Hall was indicted for killing and slaying
Edward Barnsley--quilly of Manslaughter.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, after a suitable admo-
nition, and remarking that it appeared the prisoner
was not the aggressor, ordered that he should be
fined Is. and discharged.

THE KING V, SAMUEL COOK.
This was a❑ indictment charging the defendant
with having written and published, at Dudley, in
this county, four several inflammatory and seditious
libels,.tending to inflame the minds and alienate the
affections of the people from his Majesty, and bring
his late Ministers into hatred and contempt.

--•
Mr. WHATELY (in the absence of Mr. Sergeant
RUSSELL, engaged in the Civil Court) conducted
the case on.the part of the prosecution, and detailed
the . facts to the Jury. ,The defendant, a linen-
draper at Dudley, bad thought fit to post up in his
shop window the libels now the subject of the pre-
sent indictment, which had at the time created enn-
siderable excitement in the minds .of some of the .
in-
habitants, and alarm in the minds of others.
The publication of the libels having been proved.
The following were the 'contents, and were read in
paragraphs, as they appeared :
" What was Pitt paid his salary for ?"---‘6 What is Li-
verpool paid his salary for?"—" What is Bathurst paid his
salary for?"—" What is Canning 'paid his salary
for ?"—" What is" Huskisson paid his salary for ?"
—" What is Robinson paid his salary for?"—And "What
is Peel and many others paid his salary for ?"—" What !
to bring starvation on the people ? Oh, England ! Eng-
land ! England ! Thou who bast been the envy of sur-
rounding nation's, and the 'admiration-of the world, how art
thou'fallen, and how is -thy glOry become dim. Ah, there
is no impeachment awaits thy Ministers of State. Let a
Minister's head suffer upon Tower-kill for every man or
woman that dies of starvation, and we shall soon have an
improvement of trade ! Talk of distress ! ! bow can there
be any !I when 300,0001. are expending upon Windsor
Castle, and a million and a half in the erection of new
churches? Starvation? It is that confounded thing called
an Englishman's loyalty that haa brought distress and star-
vation on the labouring classes of England :" and in other
parts of the sai4 libel are contained divers other false, sedi-
tious, scandalous, and malicious mntters, aCcording to the
tenour following, to wit—" The divine right of kings;
what fun ! The divine right of tithes ; what fun ! The
divine right of Episcopacy; what fun ! Which are tilt
hest for a people, cheap kings or dear kings ? Do kings
come into the world with-crowns upon their heads? While

. •
the tax producers are starving, the tax eaters are rioting (in
abundance :" to the evil example of all others in the like
caste offending ; and against the peace of our Lord the
King, his crown and dignity."
Information on oath having been lodged with one
of the magistrates of this county, the defendant was
apprehended, and on refusing to give bail, commit-
ted to prison. Proof was then tendered that the
different individuals alluded to as his Majesty's Mi-
nisters had received their letters-patent appointing
them. The several, appointments enclosed in the
usual red morocco boxes were produced in court,
but were not read, as they were admitted by the
counsel for the defendant.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE having charged the
jury at great length, after a short consultation they
found the defendant Guilty.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, in addressing the de-
fendant, observed, that as the state of the country
did not at present require that the offence of which
the prisoner had been found guilty should be visited
with any severe punishment,lie,(the Learned Judge)
should merely pronounce the nominal sentence, that
the defendant should enter into his own recognizan-
ces for 1001. with two sureties of 50/. each, to ap-
pear and receive the judgment of the Court when
called upon.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-YORK, AuG. 1.

GREY AGAINST STORES•

The plaintiff was a tailor, and the defendant a
shipowner, at Scarborough. The action was to
recover 21. 4s. 9d., the price of clothes furnished to
the apprentice of the defendant. Mr. Holt stated
the case.—ln March, 1824 John Normanby was
hound apprentice for seven years to the defendant,
who was to allow him 401. for his. services, and out
of this money he was to be clothed. The parents
of the apprentice were paupers, and the defendant
at the time the indentures were executed gave the
Mother .50s. in advance, which she laid out for her
sen in clothes. In January following; the apprenz
ice wanted more clothes., and applied to the plaintiff
who made him a suit such as would befit a sea=
faring boy. The defendant used to board his apt
prentice when he was not on a voyage at his mother's
house, and paid her 6s. a week. When the mother
went to the defendant for this money, she told him
her son had got some clothes of the plaintiff, and
gave him the bill. The defendant looked at it, and
said that they were charged too high ; the mother
said, she thought they were reasonable. On which
the defendant said, the tailor must wait : it did not
suit him to pay for them then. Mr. Holt submitted
that this made the defendant liable.

Mr. Sergeant JONES.—The defendant, who was a

;hip-owner, was also a man of property, and he would
lever have defended so trifling an action had he not
Felt it improper to yield to collusions between trades-
men and his apprentices. There was no provision

n the cancelled indentures that the master Was to

provide his apprentice with clothes; and any obset-
t-ation that he might have made, such as that the
clothes were too dear, or that the tailor must wait,

only showed that he took some interest in the boy's
welfare, but was far from constituting a promise.
The defendant had no just reason to be pleased with
the boy's conduct; be bad not ordered the clothes,
and was ,therefore not liable to pay for them ; and
the plaintiff, who was very blameable for taking the
order from the apprentice without acquainting his
master with it, must put up with'thii loss.
John Skelton proved that the plaintiff and de-

fendant were strangers to each Other until last
December, when heintrodneed the defendant to the
plaintiff. Witness put the indentures into the fire
After they were caicelted. They specified 40/. as
the sum to be given to the apprentice for his wages
during the seven years, but ; made no mention of
clothes. Mr. Armstrong wee the'delendant's
and used to make clothes for his apprentices.
Mr. HOLT said it did not appear that the de-
fendant had paid the apprentice more than 31. Ios.,
whilst the amount of his wages for the 18 months
he served was above 8/., and the difference was more
than the price of the clothes. It was proved that
the defendant' was in want of the clothes, and that
they were used in his master's service ; but the de-
fendant endeavoured to avail himself of the ap-
prentice's having ordered them withnitt.his authority.
It Ives preposterous to suppose that the plaintiff
svould have furnished them upon the credit of a poor
boy of 14, cittif his pauper parents--it was deal
they were absolutely necessary for the boy, and the
whole amount of the plaintiff's demand would not,
with the.moneY the defendant had paic., make up the
sum due from the defendant for the 18 months'
services.

Mr. justice BAYLEY said the defendant was not
liable unless he gave authority .to the apprentice to
order the clothes, or unless he afterwards bound
himself to pay for them. It might be of material
importance that apprentices should not have the
power of ordering their clothes without the specific
direction's of their masters, who ought to have some
control over them; and tradesmen have no just
cause to complain that master . refuse to pay them,
when they execute such orders. If the master had

engaged to furnish his apprentice with clothes, he
would at least have had a right to have given direc-
tions about them, and who was to supply them.
Verdict for the defendant.

111 r. Justice BATLEY said, if the Jury had found
otherwise, it world have made a da rout prece-
dent. Tradesmen ought to take care who they trust.

Charles Langstaff; a lad of l I years old, was in-
,licted for the manslaughter of 'William Green, at
Wakefield, on the 20th of April.
Mr. MILNER stated the case for the prosecution,
and called—

John Laycock.—Witness was journeyman to
Thomas Layeeck; of Wakefield, cooper ; the de-
ceased was his fellow-Workman ; the prisoner's fa-
ther was a hairdresser opposite ; the prisonei
sisted, his father: he was s sharp boy. lie often
came for chips and shavings. The deceased told
him he 'should not take them. At about five o'clock
in the afternoon'Of the 20th of April, the prisoner
came over for some chips. Witness and the de-
ceased were togetherin the shop; no one else was
in it. The deceased said to the prisoner, "Do you
remember what I told you in, the morning ?" and
Tread out his arms to stop him, but did not touch
him. Witness did not hear the prisoner make any
answer, but almost immediately afterwards the de-
ceased cried out, " Charles has, stabbed me." 'Wit-
ness looked up and sawthe deceased drawing a
whittle out of his side. The whittle was a large
knife that coopers use. The prisoner ran away.—
Witness called out ,for his master, and they put the
deceased to bed, and sent for a surgeon,'but he died
before five o'clock in the morning.
The prisoner said nchhifig in his defence.—Guilty.
His Lordship postponed'giving sentence.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—CAMBRIDGE, Auausr 1-
THE DUKE OF PORTLAND P. dialer! irAwAngs, ESQ.