The Sun.
London, England, 1829-08-07 00:00:00

CRIM. CON.-WALKER V. SHAW.

Mr. BALGUY stated the facts, and observed that
the plaintiff's case was one of peculiar aggravation.
He had had the misfortune to be convicted of an
offence against the laws of his country, for which
he had paid the penalty inflicted upon him. It was,
however, on the prosecution► of the defendant that
the plaintiff had been convicted and sentenced to
transportation, and it was much to be feared that the
law had in this instance been made the instrument
of giving effect to the defendant's views, by re-
moving the husband out of the way, that he might
with the more security and freedom give himself up
to the gratification of a passion which be had long
cherished towards the plaintiff's wife; and, indeed,
his conduct was such, as to leave but little room
to doubt it.

The marriage having been proved, Isaac Howell
stated, that his sister, after her marriage with the
plaintiff, lived with him as his wife. He saw them
at Wrangle after the wedding, and afterwards at
Swineshead, where they lived comfortably as man
and wife ought to live. They had three children.
The plaintiff had been sentenced to transportation
for stealing ducks, and returned from the hulks in
March last, and at the same time his wife was living
in a house at Boston.

Eiizabeth Winter said that the defendant and Mrs•
Walker came to her house, at Boston, together,
and remained there from six until ten o'clock. He
took Mrs. Walker's child on his knee, and gave it
h;s watch to play with; saying, " Bless thee, child,
that is more than I would do to one of my own."
He then added, " I wish Old Ducks were near me,
that I might slip the watch into his pocket, and
send him over the herring-pond for the rest of his
life."

J. Winter, a boy, the son of the last witness, had
peeped in through a chink of the bed-room door,
and seen Mrs. Walker in bed, and the defendant get
into bed to her. The child remained on the outside
of the bed, eating a piece of cake.

The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up,
'I be Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, Is.

NALL V. OWSTON AND OTHERS.

This was an issue from the Court of Chancery,
to try whether the will of a person named Kelly was
attested in the testator's presence by the three at-
testing witnesses.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, thereby
establishing the due execution of the will.
William Sardison, a farmer residing at Aunsby, in
this county, was capitally indicted for a felonious
assault upon a servant girl named Elizabeth Put-
tergill.
The prosecutrix had been in the prisoner's service
about three weeks before the Bth of July, on which
morning, about four o'clock, he came into her bed,
put his arms about her, and awoke her. lie then
wanted to take greater liberties with her, which,
however, she resisted, and got out of the bed. She
went to the wi►►dow, and would have jumped out
through it, but the prisoner prevented her, and
threw her on the floor. She endeavoured to cry
out, but he put his hands on her neck to stop her
breath, and by that means he accomplished hig pur-
pose, telling her at the same time that if she squalled
out he would kill her. After he had got up, he
said, " Now, Betty, if you do not tell your mistress,
or any body else, I will give you a pound bill." To
which she replied that she did not want his bill. He
then went down, and she went into her mistress's
room, and complained of the treatrnent.she had re-
ceived. Her mistress was her master's sister, and

she only replied " Pooh, pooh►, get along, I shall
riot trouble myself about any of your bother." She
'hen went down and lighted the fire, and having
lone so, she set out for Sleaford, which was six
miles off, to which place she walked ; and having
there met her uncle, she related to him what had
happened, and they went before the Magistrates to
obtain a warrant.

On her cross-examination she stated that there
was only a thin partition between her bed-room and
that of her mistress, who must, therefore, hare heard
all that had passed between the witness and the
prisoner. She also swore that this was the first
time she had ever had a particular intimacy with any
man. Her person was not examined by any body,
but she was willing now to be examined by a sur-
geon, to show she had not had any intimacy with
other men.

The prosecutrix's testimony, as to what occurred
at Sleaford, was corroborated by her uncle. But
she was contradicted in every material circumstance
by the prisoner's sister, a respectable-loeking woman,
who stAted that had there been the slightest noise
in the prosecutrix's room she must have heard it;
and she heard none whatever.

The Learned JUDGE here intimated his opinion
that it was unnecessary to proceed any farther with
the defence, and the Jury instantly returned a vet.-
' diet of Not Guilty.
Ann Baker, aged 26, was indicted for the wilful
murder of her illegitimate child.
The prisoner, it appeared, was in the service of
Mr. Lyster, of Burwell, in April last. At about
four o'clock on the morning in question she was
observed by her two fellow-servants getting out of
bed, and on one of them being about to get up also,
she told them it was too early, but that she was
getting rip in consequence of being very ill and in
pain. She then went down, and did not return
until until half-past six o'clock, when she was ob-
served to have a bundle in her apron. She then
said she was better, but complained of a head-ache.
Suspicion having been excited, a surgeon was sent
for, who taxed her with having been delivered of a
child. She denied it, but upon examination of her
person by the surgeon, the suspicion was confirmed.
She, however, still denied it. A search was then
made forthe child, and for some time it could not be
found. One of the prisoner's drawers was locked,
which she refused to open, until they were about to
break it open, upon which she opened it with the
key. She then tried to remove a bundle which was
in a cloth, but the surgeon prevented her, and on
opening the cloth he discovered the body of a new
born infant. A second surgeon having been called
in, they both examined the body, and found marks,
as if from a cord, on the neck. The lungs also were
expanded, and floated in water, from which they in-
ferred that the child had been born alive. They ad-
mitted, however, that this was not of itself an infal-
lible test to prove that the child had been born alive.
Under these circumstances the Jury acquitted
the prisoner of the murder, but found her guilty of
concealing the birth of the child.
She and Mary Ranson, who on Monday pleaded
guilty to a similar charge, were each sentenced to
six months' hard labour in the House of Correction.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.-SALISBUIZY, AL-G. 5.

Stephen Payne was indicted for having felonioudy
stolen a fat wether sheep, the property of Jonathan
Dann, at Heytesbury.
The Jury having pronounced a verdict of Guilty,
The Learned JUDGE addressed the prisoner, and
said he must prepare to leave the country for life.
Charles Hiscock was indicted for having broken
open the bed-room of Daniel Tilly, and feloniously
stolen a gold ring, two sovereigns, and other monies,
his property.—Guilty.
Sarah Woodman was charged with having broken
open the dwelling-house of Susannah Vincent, and
feloniously stolen therein two silver spoons and other
articles.—Not Guilty.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—CAAIBRIDGE, Auc. 5.

DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF MICHAEL WRAGG V.

WRAGG AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the heir-at-law of
a person deceased, against the devisees under his
will, to try its validity, it being alleged by the plain-
tiff that the testator, at the time of its execution,
was of unsound mind. _ _

Mr. PRYME, stated the case on the part of the
defendants. That the plaintiff was the heirat-law of
the late Mr. James Wragg, of Swavesea, in this
county, he readily admitted; he was not, indeed,
very nearly related, but he was the person who
would have been entitled to succeed to the real
property of that gentleman in case he had not dis•
posed of it by will; He had so disposed of it ; and
the real question between the parties to this suit
was, whether at the time he executed the will and
subsequent codicil, he was of sound and disposing
mind, and understood what he was about. The
testator was a gentleman of large landed and per-
sonal property, who for many years had resided at
the parish of Swavesca. He was a man of mild
manners, of economical habits, and of an active and
intelligent mind. The large property he died pos-
sessed of was the honourable gain of a long and
laborious life, and was entirely acquired by his own
industry and frugality; arid if any one has a right to
determine in his life-time the channel in which his
property shall flow when he shall be no more, it is
peculiarly the man whose own industry and talents
have enabled him to become the architect of his own
fortune. Such a man was the late Mr. Wragg. Mr.
Fisher, the attorney of St. Ives, a most honourable
man, was the attorney of Mr. Wragg. He had
known him long and intimately, and the greatest
friendship subsisted between them. Mr. Fisher
accordingly took the liberty from time to time of
recommending that gentleman to make his will, and
as often Mr. Wragg delayed to do so ; and it not !In-
frequently happened that men of the strongest
minds were unwilling to set about the necessary
but not very pleasant task of making their will; and
this was most. natural, as the task seemed to bring
the prospect of death nearer to their view. MZi'•
Wra!_rg, however, at last became unwell, and
then he applied himself in earnest to make a pro-
per disposition of his property, his mind continuing
as calm and as sound as it had ever been during
his long and useful life. He sent for Mr. Fisher,
gave him instructions for his will, and that gentle-
man made his will in exact conformity with those
instructions. In that will, the testator• mentioned
his having omitted to dispose of some small estates,
and a great portion of his personalty remained un-
bequeathed. A few days afterwards, he again sent
to Mr. Fisher, and gave him fresh instructions for
the disposal of the rest of his possessions. Mr.
Fisher took the testator's commands; but finding
that, in consequence of some interlineations in the
first will, and the alterations proposed then to be
made, it would be easier to make a new will than to
add a codicil, the former mode was proposed to the
testator, who at once acquiesced,and a new will was
prepared and executed; and a few days after that
the testator made and executed a codicil, for which
he himself dictated the instructions. On the 29th
of May the first will was dated ; the second on the
3d of June; the codicil on the 9th of June ; and
the testator died on the 2d of July. So far all was
legal; but the plaintiff says the testator did not
know what he was about. Did he not ? The Jury
should have the evidence of the doctor who at-
tended him ; the clergyman of the parish, who
visited him in his sickness, to administer religious
comfort and consolation ; tradesmen, neighbours,
and all wish whom the testator was in habits of
the greatest intimacy. The• testator had no
children; his heir-at-law had been extrava-
gant, to say the least ; and the testator
knew that to leave his property to such a man would
be to bequeath it to one who would make an im-
proper and improvident use of it ; but he was con-
siderate,
and though he could not conscientiously
bequeath it to the plaintiff, he did leave more than
2,0001. to his (the plaintiff's) son. Mr. Fisher was
perfectly disinterested in the question, for he did not
take one shilling by the will.
John Dodson, examined by Mr. GUNNING—Was

acquainted with the late Mr. Wragg for 40 years.
On the 29th of May was witness to the execution
of his will. It was at the testator's house. He waF
in_a perfectly sound state of mind, ;old quite compe-
tent to make and understand his will.

James Coulson, examined hy Mr. AUSTIN—\I'a,
born and has lived at Swavcr•ta for 30 year,, during
►which time he has known testator. haw him or•
the 29th of May, 1828, and signed a surrender• of r
copyhold to the use of the testator's will. Ilk mind
was then as sound as could he.

Thomas E. Fisher, examined by Mr. PRY:ME—
I-Ls been an attorney at St. Ives for 20 years, and
to the late Mr. Wragg for 16 or 17. Testator
frequently, during the last five years, told witness
that he wished to make his will, but he had so
many relations he was puzzled how to leave hi,
property. Saw him on the 28th of May, 1828.
Testator gave him instructions from a written
paper, and witness took them down, and prepared
a will in the house, in conformity with them.—
On both occasions he perfectly understood what
he was about, and his mind was perfectly sound,
On the 3d June he proposed some additions to his
will, but as there were some few interlineations in
it, witness thought he had better make a new will
than a codicil. Witness accordingly took from the
testator's dictation the particulars, and incorporated
them with the former will. The will was written
in an adjoining room. Witness read it over to the
testator, who said it was all proper, and then it was
executed. (Will produced.) The codicil was pre-
pared and executed in testator's house. His mind,
on this and on the former occasion, was sound and
competent. On the 24th witness found him worse.
and his mind wandering, and he died on the 2d of
July. Not one of the devisees of the will was a
client of the witness.
All the witnesses to both wills and the codicil
were then examined, and a vast variety and number
of other persons, to prove the sanity of the testator.
It appeared that he had filled all the offices in the
parish with the highest satisfaction to all, down to
the period of his last illness.
The Rev. Henry Kirby visited the testator on
the Ist of June, and on every succeeding Sunday till
his death, as a minister. In witness's opinion he
was perfectly sound until the 29th.
Dr. Haviland—ls Regius Professor of Physc in
the University. On the 2d of June I attended the
testator. On the 7th I again went, and found him
sitting by the fire-side, and in low spirits. I con-
versed with him on several subjects, especially about
his will, and was perfectly satisfied that he was in a
fit state to make his will.

Mr. Seijeant STORKS then addressed the Jury for
the plaintiff. His Learned Friend had told them
that the question for them to try was, whether the
testator, at the time he executed the instruments
now before them, was of sound and disposing mind ;
but he begged to say that the real question was, not
whether the testator were insane,--not whether he
were absolutely an idiot, but whether his mind was
in such a state as to render it easy for others to ex-
ercise an undue influence over him, and whether such
influence had been, in fact, exercised ? It was evi-
dent that the had been maoe with great precipi-
tation, with " breathless haste," at the time when
the mental and bodily powers of the testator were
rapidly decaying. Legal men ought to be called in,
to advise the ignorant, and to assist the weak ; but
they ought not to goad an old man to make his will
to the disinherison of his heir at law. The testator
had been unfairly dealt with.
Thomas King—Heard Dodson say that the tes-
tator was as feeble as a child, and he was obliged to
take him out of bed and hold him when he signed
his will.

Josiah Marriott—Heard defendant Jeneway say,
" if he had not gone to the old gentleman, he never
would have made his will." He said his legacy at
Yarmouth was a nice little place.

Alice Webster—ls niece to Mrs. Richmond,
testator's housekeeper. Went to visit her omit in
March, previous to his death, and stayed a month.
Ilis memory was very bad, and so was his health.
Has asked the testator " how he was ?" and lie
said, " he did not know, but they used to keep him
in bed, though nothing was amiss with him." Ile
did not know what he was saying. He was in a
very weak state when he signed the will, and wa3 in
bed. He sat up, and I supported him.
By the Learned BARON—For eight weeks before
his death, he %vas unfit to make a will.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PRYME was about to reply for the defendant,
when—

The Jury said that was unnecessary : they were
quite satisfied that the will was valid.
Mr. Bamn GARROW—Do you think, gentlemen,
that Mr. Wragg was of sound and disposing mind on
the 3d and 9th of June, 1828, when he executed
the will and codicil ?

Foreman—We do, my Lord.
Mr. Baron GARRow—And so do I, and so must
all who have heard this trial.

The Jury then found for the defendants.
Win. Reader, aged 27, and 117 m. Turner, aged 22,
were indicted for voluntarily and maliciously setting
fire to a stack of haulm at Linton, on the 31st of
March last, the property of Mr Wm. Chalk.
The prisoners had nothing to urge in their defence.
Mr. SMITH submitted that the indictment was not
good, inasmuch as the word " haulm" was men-
tioned, and there was no such word in the statute;
it was clearly substituted for " straw," which was
mentioned. Again, the word " voluntary" was used
instead of " unlawfully."

The Learned Judge left it to the Jury to say
whether the prisoners were the men who put the
fire to any, and what buildings, and all other mat-
ters would be left to the consideration of the twelve
Judges.
The Jury, without much hesitation, found the
prisoners Guilty ; and they were of opinion that they
intended to consume the whole premises.

Mr. Justice PARKE told the prisoners that they
had reason to be thankful that their time in this
world was extended to a distant period; he hoped
that they would use it in preparing for another state;
because, should there be no room for the scruple in
his mind, the Judge, who would succeed him at the
next assize, would sentence them to die, and order
that sentence to be carried into execution.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—WORCESTER, Auo. 5.
TILE KING V. JOAN HUNTER, ESQ.

It will be recollected that at the last assizes for
this county a true bill was found by the Grand Jury
charging the defendant with the forgery of a deed,
or with uttering the deed knowing it to be forged.
He had been at that time out upon bail, and on the
bill being found, an application was made to the
Court to put off the trial at the last assizes, in con-
sequence of the illness of a material witness. Mr.
Hunter then surrendered, in order to be present at
the application, and on its being granted, Mr. Justice
Park directed that he should enter into fresh recog-
nivinces, and give bail to a heavy amount, which
was accordingly done. The trial was fixed for yes-
terday, but in consequence of the long duration of
another cause, was put off till this morning, and the
Court was crowded to excess at an early hour.
Mr. CAMPBELL (with whom was Mr. Seijeant
Russell and Mr. Curwood), in addressing the Jury
said, it now became his painful duty to state the
circumstances of the case out of which arose a capi-
tal charge against an individual occupying a very re-
spectable situation in society, and who probably but
for this unfortunate affair would have been attend-
ing his Lordship in the situation of High Sheriff.
He had to begin by stating to them, that in the
county of Worcester there was a certain manor,
called the Manor of Benholme, belonging to the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and on this
manor there are certain demesne lands, likewise be-
longing to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster ;
and they have been in the habit, from time to time,
of granting leases of the manor, and houses, and
lands therein. Within this manor stands a house,
part of which belongs to the Dean and Chapter, Lind

part of it belonged, for a great many years, to a family
of the name of Carruthers. That house N% as now
one tenement : it was formerly divided into two
houses. The family of Carruthers formerly held e
~art of the house as their own freehold, and the
at her part as the lessees of the Dean and Chapter
of Westminster. The Dean and Chapter wen
in the habit of renewing the lease of their de-
mesne lands at stated periods ; and their lesser
wanted an under-lease to the Carruthers of
the part not freehold. On the 24th of Aprl,
1778, the lessees under the Dean and Chapter were
Wm. Bell and John Drew ; and on Laly-day they
granted a lease to George Carruthers for 21 years.
It was probable, that before then the two houses
had been converted into one, but that lease fol-
lowed the terms of the old leases from the lessees of
the Dean and Chapter of Westminster,and described
the premises as a certain house in the occupation of
George Carruthers. But there was endorsed or
the lease a memorandum by the lessees, Was. Bell
and John Drew, stating that part of the therein
described premises wet e fi eehold, and then he-
longed to George Carruthers ; and the said Win.
Bell and John Drew covenanted with the said
George Carruthers at the end of seven years, to re-
new the said lease on the terms therein mentioned.
The jury would therefore perceive that those who
held under the Dean and Chapter acknowledged that
part of these premises belonged to George Car-
ruthers,and were freehold. Another lease by Wm.
Bell and George Drew to George Carruthers de.
scribed the premises, as all that inessuage or tene-
ment being now part of the dwelling-house of the
said George Carruthers ; and from that time the
leases to the family of Carruthers always described
the premises as part of the premises of George Car-
ruthers. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
detail the particular terms of various leases down to
1807, when a person of the name of Perrot, the as-
signee of the lessee of the Dean and Chapter of
Westminster, died, and on the Ist of August, 1807,
a new lease was granted by the executors of Mr.
Perrott, in the terms of the old leases, for 18 years
wanting three days. That lease of 1807 expired at
Lady-day, 1825; and on the 29th of September,
1807, the executors of Perrott assigned their lease
from the Dean and Chapter to Hunter, mid on the
28th of December, 1812, a new lease was granted
to Mr. Hunter by the Dean and Chapter for forty
years;--therefore Hunter became the landlord of
the leasehold part of the premises, and was en-
titled to receive the rent, and recover the possession
of that part of the premises at Lady-day, 1525.
In June, 1811, George Carruthers, who held
the freehold part of the premises, died, leaving Jo-
seph Carruthers, his son and heir. In September,
1812, Joseph Carruthers contracted to dispose of
his part of the dwelling-house to a gentleman of the
name of Hemming, but a difficulty occurred as to
what part was freehold and what part was leasehold,
and it was impossible to tell what part belonged to
Carruthers in his own right. The Jury would find
by and by, that Mr. Hunter produced the lease of
the Ist of August, 1807, for the purpose of showing
what part was freehold ; and on the 27th and 28th
of October, 1813, Joseph Carruthers conveyed his
share of the property to Thomas Falkner. Falkner
took possession, and was Ia possession of the pre-
mises at Lady-day, 1825, when the lease expired.
Disputes then occurred respecting how much of the
property Mr. Hunter was entitled to. Falkner would
have delivered up the leasehold part of the premises
to Mr. Hunter, but he insisted on having the free-
hold part; and, pending these disputes, Falkner
sold his interest to a person of the name of Bum-
I ford, who put in a person of the name of Champkin,
I as his tenant; and in Trinity Term, 1827, Mr.
Hunter brought an action of ejectment against
Champkin, to recover the po-session of the whole
of the house, insisting that the whole was leasehold.
Champkin, under the direction of his landlord, made
no defence as to the leasehold part of the premises,
but Mr. Hunter was not satisfied with that, and the
question in that action was, whether Mr. Ilunter
had a right to recover possessi, n of the whole of the
dwelling-house. If the whole of the premises had
been demised to limiter in 1807, lie was entitled to
recover the whole when the lease expired at Lady-
day, 1825; but it was not till the month of June,
1827, that the action of ejectment was brought, and
the case came on to be tricd before his Lordship on
the other side of the Hall. It was for what WaS
done at the trial of that cause that Mr. Hunter is
called upon to answer this charge here this day. The
lease by the executors of Parrott was at that trial
produced, and given in evidence to prove that Mr.
Hunter was entitled to the whole of the dwelling-
house in question. If it had been a lease of the
whole, no defence could have been made. It was put
in, purporting to be a demise of the whole premises,
for it ran thus:—The lessor demised " all that
messuage or tenement, being the dwelling-house of
the said George Carruthers," purporting to be a
lease of the whole. What had been suspected
turned out to be true. Between the word " being"
and the words " dwelling-house," where the words
" part of" had originally stood, there was an era-
sure. No explanation was given. The deed ap-
peared to have been examined, and no notice of the
erasure was mentioned in the attestation. The
space was not filled up as usually done by
lawyers and law stationers, when a deed is engrossed
and there is any erasure. It was stated by the
Counsel for Mr. Hunter, that the deed then pro-
duced was a lease of the whole, and the Counsel
for the defendant having stated the evidence that he
was prepared to give respecting that deed, the Coun-
sel for the plaintiff prudently withdrew and sub-
mitted to a nonsuit. In consequence of what then
transpired, it was thought right not to allow the sub-
ject to rest there—that further inquiries should be
made ; and it was resolved that a prosecution should
take place, and Mr. Hunter be called on to account for
it. But before the Spring Assizes for 1828, Hunter
had left his dwelling-house. A warrant was taken out,
and a constable was entrusted with the execution of
it, but Mr. Hunter could not be found, and it was
impossible to proceed against him at the spring
assize?. A day or two before the summer assizes
for 1828, Mr. Hunter gave notice that he meant to
appear to take his trial, but the prosecutor was ad-
vised that it was impossible for him to proceed
with the prosecution, until the depositions had been
taken, mid at that time Mrs. Perrott was not at
Worcester : she was gone to Harrowgate, and
having left the necessary documents locked up at
home, she did not return till after the Grand Jury
had been discharged : no delay took place. At the
spring assizes, an indictment was presented and a
true bill was found. Ott that occasion an applica-
tion was made by Hunter to have the trial ad-
journed to the summer assizes. No objection was
made on the part of the prosecutor, the object of
the prosecutor merely. being that an investigation
should take place. Having confined himself as
briefly as possible in the opening of the case, he
(Mr. Campbell) would now shortly draw the atten-
tion of the Jury to the evidence., The lease of
1807 was an original genuine document, but the
alteration of a genuine document was in itself a
forgery. (Here the learned Counsel proceeded to
expound the law of forgery, stating that not
only the fabrication, but the addition or erasure of
a letter, by which an alteration was effected,
amounted to forgery). Such being the law on
the subject, the charge against Hunter was
that he did either erase the words " part of" out of
the deed in question, or, knowing it to have been
done by some other person, uttered it knowing it
to have been altered. He (Mr. Campbell) would
now go to 1826. Falkner was then the owner of
the premises he had bought from Joseph Carruthers.
Disputes then arose between Hunter and Falkner
respecting the premises, and it was not till March,
1826, that Mr. Hunter produced the deed in the
altered form, by which he insisted on his right to
the whole, with the words " part of'' erased ; it
was noticed, and the erasure pointed out. He said
it was then in the same state that it was when it
came into his possession. Having thus produced it
in its altered state to three persons, he brings the
ejectment, and in its altered form, by his authority,
the deed was produced at the Assizes. The ques-

Lion for the Jury was, whether it had been produced
by him, knowing of the alteration.
Mr. Joseph Carruthers—l am subpoenaed on the.
part of the prisoner in this case, and am the ooli
ion of the late George Carruthers, of Pershore.
Ott his death I could find no papers in the house'
Hr. Hunter heli,ed me to what papers he sail be'
longed to my father: they were securities for
,noney : he bad the possession of them at the time
,f my father's death. Hunter produced the title t 0
he leasehold part of the premises. In 1812 I en"
aged to sell the leasehold part to Hemming. 1-100;
ter went with me with the lease to Mr. Dinely.
,aw the lease there produced by Hunter. 1 rest('
part of it. It was opened by Bryan. I read the,
parcelc. As far as I recollect they were de.cribea
" all that rnessuage or tenement, being' part of
the dwelling-house of George Carruthers." There
was no erasure at that time. 1 was subpoenaed at
the trial of the ejectment at the assizes for 18216
and observed the instrument given in evidence an
the part of limiter. I heard it read. I have 10
the least doubt it was the same I bad seen at
Dimly's in 1812. When I saw it in 1827 in
Court, it was not in the same state it was in 1812:
there appeared to be two words erased mite"'
the words '6 part of." They were not take°
clean out. I think the term was 18 years some odd.
Cross-exlmined by Mr. C. PHILLIPS—I took parr,
titular notice of the erasure ; the words ,6 part of
were era-pd ; " being" was the word before the gar
in the erasure.

1, every word you have here spoken as true 84
that ?-1 shall not answer that. I have been tic'
cased of doing something improper.
Were you never accused of forgery ? Witness—."
Forgery!!!
Mr. C. PHILLIPS—Ay, forgery ? Witness--b'
gentleman accused me of producing a will impOr
perly. I was accused of forgery. After that accir
sation I paid one of the certain persons the money
that was due.

Did you not pay the money you had sought t°
defraud them of ?—I paid the money, and the atiora
ney's bill.
By Mr. Baron VAUGHAN—I paid it under that
imputation; that is 18 or 19 years ago.
Cross-examined—l paid the attorney's expellee
for the prosecution of myself—that is, the expencel
of the proceedings against me. t
What amount WaN the forgery money ?—I don
know, on my honour.
Mr. C. k'nums—Your honour! Come,
wha:- was the amount ?—There was 600/. or 70°4
paid under that imputation, and the attorney's
70/.

Mr. C. PHILLIPS—Before you paid the mond:
did you happen to have a bill of indictment faro''
as-ainst you at the Warwick a,:sizes for forgery ?'''
The bill was found while I was there, and I after'
wards paid the money.
Do you remember any other little charges agaiil6C
you ?—I don't know.
Ou your oath (lid you not give security for 5001.?
—I don't recollect.
Do you mean to say you never gave security t°
another person for 5001. ?—My bead is very bad.
Your heart is worse : was it given to Robinson•
By Mr. Baron VAUGHAN—Did you give it to ail
body ? Witness—My Lord, I believe I did.
if
may have signed it. I have not the least doubt. ;

you have got the deed there, why I did.
Baron VAUGHAN—Does not the sight pro Adel—,
mot painful recollections? Witness—l did sign !;
Other evidence was adduced, but it was, oil the
whole, of so vague, suspicious, and unsatisfactory.°
character, that the Jury expressed themselves
fivour of the defendant, even before his defence 09
heard.
After it had been entered into the Jury returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
The Court instantly resounded with eeelarnatioo.!
The Foreman of the Jury here said, they were
returning their verdict, about to add that they mes
honourably acquitted the prisoner. IP
This trial lasted from nine in the morning till )It
past ten at night.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CHELMSFORD, Auo. 6. `

TIM IVITHAIR FIRES.

Edward Polls, aged 19, was arraigned on f°t,ift
indictments, charging him with as many distill...,
crimes of arson in the parish of Witham. The Pr
;:i
soner, who is of very youthful appearance, plea
Not Guilty.
Mr. CLARKSON, on his behalf, challenged eve
farmer summoned upon the jury. In consequen—
much time was lost before the pannel could be corn'
pleted. On this being done, the prisoner was tu.-
raigiied on a charge of feloniously setting fire to °r;
wit' outhouses at Witham on the 7th of March, th""
property of William Grimwood.
JEssoP stated the case, and called serer`
witnesses ; but as the trial was not over when 01/'
reporter sent off his despatch, we shall postpone °lit
account.

Died at Clyne, Sutherlandshire, on the 20th.
ult., Mr. Hunts M'KEtsztx, aged 101 years. Hell;e
quite a primitive in manners, dress, and conversation. ,
bad a strong dislike tl hear an evil report of any eT'er:
and, though few knew better the wide distinction betive et
the vicious and virtuous, in him was in exercise tis
charity which thinketh no evil. At the early age ef
he became deeply impressed with the importance of fie;
ligion, and was upwards of '7O years an Elder in toe
Church, during which time his character was without
stain. It is very remarkable that, for a long period befe'r
his death, he anticipated his dissolution with great P',ej
sure. He spoke of a future state (says one who obser!tb
his habits well) as one speaks of his native country, °lto
which he was well acquainted, and to which he long
return. Ills faculties remained entire to the 13'4.

Glasgow Courier.
We regret to learn that there is a great Pr°o-
liability of Mr. LitrroN's early and final retirement ft° •
the stage. How the vacancy is to be filled, we are at
loss to know. It is also said in the thcatricle circles t"
YOUNG and JONES will retire after the present seas°ll'..°
Brighton Gazette.
Last week a sturgeon was caught in the rivhcr
Parrett, and taken to Bridgwater alive. The roe of t":
fish weighed 401 b., the other viscera 12, the head a
and the body 1381 b.—total 2231 b. Its length was 9 feel
and its girth 3 feet 7 inches.—Bath Chronicle.
It is, we understand, quite true, that a theatrhoe'
larger than either Covent-,garden or Drury-lane, is t
erected at the top of Gray's Inn-lane, for the repre"tr•
tion of the legitimate Drama. Whether the ~hton
will obtain a license is another
Gazette.

BIRTHS
On the 6th inst. at Montpel.ier, South Lambeth, the '-
of E. J. Lack, of a daughter. Joe
On the sth inst. in Portland-place, the Lady Cather
Legge, of a son.
On the 3,.1 ins'. at the Friarage, Yana, Yorkshire, the
lady of T. Meynell, EN. of a daughter. colie
At Woodhall Park, the lady of the Hon. Ales-
Melvilh., of a son.

MARRIED.
- -

autop_,quare,

On the 6th inst. at St. Mary's, Bryak
D. Massy Dawson, Esq. son of J. H. Missy Dawson, Hof
M. P., to the Hon. Susan St. Clair, eldest daughter
Lord S;nclair.
On the 4th inst. at St. George's, Hanover-square, 14•
Garry, Esq. of Conduit-street, to Anne Pluebe Veer,
the eldest daughter of George Vescy, Esq. of Cadogaiv

place.
On the 4th inst. Richard Battley, Esq. to Ellin°l.'
(laughter of Wm. Dalrymyle, Esq. of Norwich.
At St. James's Church, Piccadilly, William A mbNise
Sh.iw, Esq., late of Bengal, to Mrs. Emerique) or
same place.

DIED.
On the 6th inst. Thomas, eldest son of T. Hard'', Egg.
of Walworth, aged 26.
On the sth inst. Philip de Jersey, the infant son of It.
Stocker, Esq. Welbeck-street, Cavendish-square.
On the sth in,t. Mr. J. H. Atkins, Mount-street'
Bet keley. squure, aged 24.
On the sth inst. Captain Thomas Horncastle, Superi°
tendent of the Commercial Docks, Rotherkithe, aged 74.,

PRINTED and PUBLISHED by MURDO YOUNG, at tba
Omcs, 112, STAAND, LONDON.

i 2