The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-31 00:00:00

GEORGE HARRISON.

This was an information, by the Master of the Crown
Office, in the nature of a quo warranto, relating to the
city of Chester, and was directed, by the Court of King's
Bench, to be tried in the county of Salop, as the county
next adjoining to Cheshire.
The whole day was occupied in hearing the defendant's
case, which in proceedings by quo warranto is first gor.c into.
Mr. Baron GAS.Row, having tried all the prisoners, set
out, in the middle of the day, for London.

WESTERN CIRCUIT-EXETER, IllAitui 27.

‘, 311J111)Elt.

Thomas Friend was indicted, first, for the murder of
Elizabeth Glass, on the 19th inst., at Ashbury ; secondly,
for the murder of Edward Glass, at the same time and
place. He was charged also with both murders on the
Coroner's Inquisition. On the first indictment only he
was tried.

Mr. SmiteNs stated the case for the prosecution.
Abraham Pincombe knew Friend ; had told Miss Glass
that he observed something particul.ar in the prisoner.
The Junar. asked if the prisoner heard it ?
Witness said no. I saw Friend on the 19th of March ;
when he came in from work he washed his hands ; it was
between five and six o'clock ; I did not see him that night
again ; I saw Mrs. Glass on her return about ten o'clock ;
I knew where she had been, and that the daughter and
Edward had gone to meet her ; Miss Glass took a lantern
and cloak with her; I took a lantern after Mrs. Glass came
home, and went towards the Down to meet them ; I called
three times very loud, and finding no answer made, I con-
cluded they were gone to the brother's, and returned ; it
was about a mile from where the bodies lay. Friend used
to kill the sheep and pigs for the house ; he used a butcher's
knife; (looking at it), I believe that is the knife which he
used. I.was en the Down next morning; I never saw
Friend afte►wards until Friday morning, when he was
found; I was at the cow;.house two minutes after •he was
found ; William Weeks called me ; prisoner was in a very
dogged state, and could not look tip ; I said, " Tom, what
have you done?" He said he kiaowed his doom, but said
nothing more, and went away.—(At this moment the pri-
soner sank down and fahatOd; a chair was brought for him,
and salts applied to his nostrils.)

Edward- Glass examined—l am brother to Sarah Glass
the deceased; I remember Edward Weeks coming to me;
I was in bed ; I went to the linhay ; I saw Friend there ;
Abraham Pincombe, his wife, and W. Weeks were there ;
I was in a great fright ; as soon as I could speak, I said he
had ruined my family and his own faMily, and particu-
larly my aged mother ; Its said nothing ; first I inquired
where he had been since he left the house; he told he
had been in it furze-brake about twenty yards ,'r ern the
house, for two days and two nights ; after that, he came
into the hay-loft, where he concealed himself for a night
and day. In the evening of that day he went into &wheat-
field on the farm, where he lay down for some time; after
that he came to the hnhay, where he was found. I was
very anxious to know the sufferings of my sister and
nephew; I asked him which he killed first; he said the
female; I asked, " how did he get hold of her ?" he said,
" I was standing behind some faggots, which were a fence
for wheat; then I leant out and seized her by the clothes ;
I had seen her coming with a lantern ; I had a Mind to
resist-the temptation once or twice; hilt on her approach
I jumped out and caught hold of her by her clothes ; then
rthrew her on the ground, and cut Ler throat with the
knife. He did not say why he did it ; I asked him if he
had any envy against any of the family ; he said " No."
I asked him what she said, and he said she cried " Don't
kill me." I asked if she stithred much ; he said " No',
the time. 'Was very Short." He said, that afterwards he
Iveneback to the gate, and took nP a cloak, cap, and bon-
net, whieh he placed near the body of my sister; in doing
so he lost his knife. I had been living with my mother,
excepting six months, all the time prisoner did. I went
to my mother's house as soon as I could, and I never saw
him from the time I heard of the murder, until he was ap-
prehended.—(Knife shown him.)—l have had it in my
hand many times ; I believe it is the same he used to kill
the pigs with ; I saw it by my sister's side on the down.

Sarah Brock was servant to Mrs. Glass till about a year
ago; the prisoner had " a kind of kindness" for Miss
Glass, but I never saw him touch her nor speak to her.
I know the handkerchief, it is Tom Friend's ; Dame
hemmed it with her left hand. That knife I believe to be
the same he used to kill pigs with.
John Gardiner, turnkey of the gaol, produced a jacket
taken from the prisoner's back on the 2.3 d of March ;
there was blood on it ; some other marks appeared as if
blood had been washed out.

Thomas Wood produced the clothes which as constable he
took off prisoner's back when he was first apprehended, in
there is a little bloodurybrewhous on the
e, at Mr.
small-clothes.Woolcombeis the Magistrate ;

of Fnish
March to ,adciar, surgeon
nd_dn atot
etch rliaeryy,
Glass wentoan b the
body'.
2. 0 tiht
was lying on the ground on the back ; there was a large
cut from the centre of the neck to the ear, on the right
side, it was down to the spine ; there was a wound in the
middle of the left hand ; the cut must have caused instant
unquestionablyhmeconauutrsileed clerkphr iesrotnodeeAra
~.aswTeoxohiaecornwininobeedun,ditointtagi•aFstttirdhaart;ee:
death ; all the vessels on right side were divided ; that
inches long,by two deep.
wthaseC2hlLesl'oeinMtSevay'rch ; the examination was taken in writing ;
the prisoner was neither threatened nor promised ; it was
' read over to him afterwards ; the prisoner put his mark to
it in Mr. Woolcombe's presence, and it was signed by him.
That is Mr. Wooleombe's writing. The prisoner's con-
fession, on his examination, was as follows :
" That on Monday night last, the 19th inst. I left my
mistress's house, called Weeks in the Moor, its Beaworthy
iprihtshe,
wanayd
iwnelnythiacwy acreshapeopleote corner
fhthehauseof Venn Down,
in
I then came up to Wadland-down, up to the gate against
the inner moor, close to the corner of the wheat field, in
the parish of .Aslabury. I knew they (Miss Glass and the
boy) were coming that way, if they went they were going
against their mother. The mother went away to North
Yeo, to her son's, before us went to dinner. When I Was
up at the gate by the wheat field, when I saw a candle and
stopped till they came forward ; when they came forward
bwehgearae It was,throw tookl
to nII7. Miss i s
as
nGd latssbebiy the clothes.
my.shes Thencreechedosultie.
She said I should not kill her. I made no answer. Then
I got the knife and cut Miss Glass's throat; then I went to
the boy Edward and cut his throat with the same knife.
I had no other. I drew the body of Miss Glass some way
further down from t
the haylu-itdr the place where she fell. I then took up
the bonnet and cloak, and carried it a little further down by
the hedge, I
,then came homewards. I went a little above-
side the hoose into a furze-brake. I stayed there in the brake
2 days
the
Moor. I stayed there one night and one day. I went
and came away into
the
the trenet in the evening, and went away up in a
e2llleiti,llllllngTinhgentlocatmhee otr'm of Weeks on
linhay adjoining a field, and there I stayed last night--
there I stayed till morning, when they carne to meet the
cattle.
Wtn, Weeks came up to me at the cattle ;
asked him if Mr. Glass and (they) his brother Thomas was
in, for I wanted to speak with them. Then Abraham
Pincombe came. Then William Weeks went in to tell Mr.
Glass of it. Then he came up when I was there ; we
Caine off for Aslibury. I have had nothing to eat since
Monday
night, until this morning. I seem 1 could not be
easy, but that I must come in for the purpose of being
taken, as I thought 'twas as well to come first as last. I
have had no promise of favour, so as to induce Inc to make
this eo„fe.sion, „ I was sure to be taken, and did not ex-
pect any other thing.
The Mark >,l of THOMAS FRIEND."
This was the case for the prosecution.
The JUDGZ then asked the prisoner if he bad any wit-
nesses to call, or defence to make ? He said, in a low
tone, No..
The hi= recapitulated the evidence to the Jury. In
about a minute they returned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Justice Buitaotion pronounced sentence on the pri,
goner. Tiesecond been as mach as possible
kept out ofview murder
; but what had
teould have led the prisoner to
commit these horrid murders, he could not conceive. It
was some satisfaction, however, to find that he had con-
ducted himself with great propriety in prison, and that his
hours had been employed in reflection and prayer. The
murder itself appeared to be one of the most malicious,
prouidated, and voluntary acts of atrocity, ever heard' of.
There could be no hope of mercy, and the only course for

the prisoner now to take, was to apply himself to a prepa-
ration by repentance and prayer for another world. It had
been intended to postpone the trial to Saturday, and to or-
der the execution for Monday, and the prisoner having
expected that, he (the Judge) would exercise the discretion
given him by the statute, and respite him until Monday.—
The Learned Judge then passed sentence in the usual form.
The prisoner seemed almost motionless as he was removed
from the dock.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, 111Aacn 29.

CIVIL SIDE.

THOMPSON AND ANOTHER V. HUNTER ♦ND OTHERS.
Mr. PARKE opened the pleadings. The action was
brought npon 'a policy of insurance.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case. The plaintiffs were
merchants at Hull, and the defendant was the secretary of
the St. Patrick Assurance Company. The action was
founded on a policy of assurance effected on a ship called
the Jfary, the property of the plaintiffs, then on a voyage
from Petersburgh to Hull. The ship had got aground at
the mouth of the Humber, and sustained considerable
damage, and the question now was, to what amount the
liability of the defendants extended. There was no ques-
tion on the policy—none as to the liability of the defend-
ants to par sores damages, but he understonit that the de-
fence set up would be, that a rule existed, that when
damage to a ship was repaired by the underwriter, a de-
duction of one-third of the amount should be made as an
allowance for the difference between old and new materials.
He (Mr. Brougham) did not deny that in some cases it
WAS proper to make some deduction in favour of the un-
derwriter,—the contract of the underwriter was to put the
assured in as good a situation as he had been before the
damage was done, and if he placed him in a better situa-
tion, he certainly onght to receive some allowance. He
believed that they would be told by the Counsel for the de-
fendants, that the rule that prevailed in the river Thames
was to allow a deduction of one-third hi all cases except
when vessels were on their first voyage. The rule was, as
it appeared to him, most irrational.
The policy of insurance was proved by the agent at Hell
for the St. Patrick Assurance Company. The policy date
of the acceptance of the policy was Dec. 17, 1826.
As the evidence, in this case went merely to establish the
'facts and the custom at Hull, it may be omitted.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendants, contended that the
policy in question, though made by the agent of the St.
Patrick Society at Hull had been accepted in Dublin, and
was therefore, to all intents and purposes, a Dublin policy.
During the whole of his experience, he had never heard of
such a rule as that attempted to be established on the other
side, though he had known the contrary rule a thousand
times established in Courts of Justice.
The evidence for the defence established, with the ut-
most clearness, the rule at Lloyd's, as stated by Mr. Scar-
lett, viz. that one-third was deducted from the amount of
all repairs, on the ground of new for old, except on the
first voyage. The rule of one year was not known. The
.citnesses were average staters. ho had been employed in
that duty many years at Lloyd's, and had stated averages
on policies made at Dublin, Liverpool, and many other
places, but had never heard of any other role than that al-
ready specified.
Mr. BROUGHAM insisted, in reply, that this was a Hull
policy, not a Dublin policy, and therefore to be affected by
the Hull rule, the reasonableness of which he vindicated
strongly.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, the rule at Hull was quite
clear, and indeed admitted by the counsel for the defendant,
! and it seemed more reasonable than the rule at Lloyd's ;
' but the question was, what was the existing rule at the place
where the policy was made ? That place, in his opinion,
was Dublin ; he thought this was a Dublin policy, and
' that Mr. Garbutt, the agent for th,,, St. Patrick's Assur-
ance Company in Mull, should be considered rather as the
agent of the plaintiff, to convey his proposition to the Dub-
lin'Company. The policy was signed and dated in Dublin.
The 'amount of damages was not a question here : it would
be submitted to reference, and the only question was, was
this a Dublin or a Hull policy.
The Jury retired, and shortly returned with a verdict,
that the Hull usage ought to regulate the question.
The Judge told them they ought to consider what the
Dublin usage was, and he wished they would retire again,
and let him know their decision on that point. It was for
the defendant to. make out what the Dublin usage was, if
he did not make it out to be different from the Hull usage,
the whole amount of the insurance ought to be paid.
The Jury returned again in ten minutes, when their
foreman said, " The Jury are of opinion that the rale on a
Dublin policy is the same as on a London one."