Star.
London, England, 1830-08-31 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LANCASTER, Atm. 28.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF JUBSICE4

William Rowbotlom was found guilty, upon the clearest evidence,
of an offence abhorrent to human nature.

The Judge, on receiving the verdict, placed the cap on his headoind
in the usual terms passed sentence of death upon the man. His
lordship remarked, that crimes such as that of which the prisoner
had been found guilty, had been, from the early periods of so-
ciety, punished by cutting off the offender from amongst the
people; such, said his lordship, was the divine law, and such also
had it been found expedient to make the English law ; for where the
passions and appetites were so depraved as to induce an individual to
resort to beastiality to gratify them, it argued that such gratifications
were inconsistent with the good order of society, and demanded signal
punishment. His • Lordship recommended the man to resort to the
spiritual aid which would be afforded him, and by that means to en-
deavour to make his peace with his offended MAKER ere that fate which
certainly awaited him should send him before another tribunal.
The man protested his innocence as he was taken from the dock.
Hugh Moss was arraigned upon a charge of having committed a
rape upon a little child, named Sarah Groves, at Manchester. The
evidence of the child did not bear out the allegations of the indictment,
and the publication of the evidence would serve no useful purpose, but
would rather tend to injure the cause of morality. His Lordship re-
marked, that unless where human life was in jeopardy, upon such a
charge, it was more beneficial to supprtss than to publish the particu-
lan • and coinciding in this opinion, the reporter has done so.
The fellow, before he was discharged, was severely reprimanded
by the Judge, who remarked that no doubt could exist as to his hav-
ing injured, the poor little child most seriously; and also that he had
committed a serious offence in a moral point of view. It was fortu-
nate for him that the age of the infant (13) placed his crime beyond
the pale of the law, or a condign punishment would have attended
him.

Robert Proctor, a butcher, was indicted for stealing a cow. The
evidence against him was that of the owner of the animal, who stated'
that he shut her up in a field with seven others on the 11th of August,l
and on the 12th he missed her ; the prisoner's son was seen driving a
cow, like that missed, into his father's stable at Downham, and the
father was selling very suspicious looking beef on his stall in the
market-place at Downham ; subsequent search produced a skin, which
the prosecutor identified was the same that had clothed the body of his
beast: the Judge questioned him as to the marks by which he knew
the skin, and he replied, that " his cow was an Irishman, and, in
course, much giving to fighting : she'd had a quarrel the day before
with some of her comrades, and received many wounds frum their horns,
the marks of which were visible on her hide, and were those by which
he identified her."

......
The prisoner said he bought the cow at (Allah° fair, of a man whom
he did not know, but a witness proved him to have been on the same
day at a place so far from the fair that it was not possible for him to
have been there. _ _

The Jury found him Guilty.—Sentence of death recorded.
NISI PRIUS.
Before Mr. Justice BAYLEY.
TENOAT V. PAGET.
- -

This was an action to reco;e7;larnageiif;Orn the defendant for slan-
derous words spoken by him, imputing to the plaintiff dishonest pray
tiers as a tradesman.

Mr. Brougham, for the plaintiff, stated to the jury that the injuty
complained of was a most serious one as affecting a tradesman ; for
by attacking his character for honesty, he struck at once at
the root of his creditor. His client was a respectable leather-
dresser at Manchester, and up to the day of this slander he had borne an
unblemished reputation amongst his neighbours ; but he now had to
lament that his character had been injured by charges brought against
him by the defendant as base as they were false. The defendant was
in the same rank with plaintiff; and they, met often at a public-
house, called, from the desultory, noisy, and oftentimes bootless discus.
sions which there occurred, the Parliament-house. The debates of this
forum were not always conducted with the greatest order, nor in the
most good-natured spirit ; it would be shown, that on one occasion of
merrymaking and joviality at this public-house, the defendant had
called the plaintiff a thief, and said be robbed his customers of leather.
This was said, however, mat deliberately, and he (Mr. Brougham)
trusted the jury would teach the defendant that he was not to take away
the character of an English tradesman with impunity.
The words alleged to have bee.% spoken were proved to have been
so by several witnesses who were present.
Mr. POLLOCK, for the defendant, contended that theaction was of
so paltry a nature as to be undeserving of being brought before the pre.
sent tribunal. 'Fite attacks of each party were equally coarse, and all
that the defendant intended to assert was, that the plaintiff did not cut
his leather so liberally as he himself did, and consequently his cus.
tomers were not so well treated by him as the defendant's customers were
by him.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 301.