The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-06 00:00:00

WESTERN CIRCUIT.-DORCHESTER, AUG. 3.

This day the Assizes "for Dorsetahire commenced
in this town. Mr Justice BUtiItOUGH sat on the
Crown' side. In his chargé to the Grand Jury he
remarked that there was little of importance, though
there were several offences to be submitted to their
consideration.
The criminal business consists of one or two
cases of horse and sheep stealing, and a number of
petty larcenies.

LIBEL..--LANNING V. CRISWICK.

This was an action brought by a person of the
name of Lanning against Mr. Criswick, the printer
and pUblisher of The Sherborne, Dorchester, and
Taunton Journal, and. General Advertiser for the
South.and West of England.
Mr. BARSTOW stated the case for the plaintiff.—
The plaintiff was a carrier residing in this county,
and shortly. before, the Spring Assizes of the present
.year he had the misfortune, through a mistake of
identity, to have been committed upon a charge of
robbery in his neighbourhood. Some poultry was
stolen frOm a lady near his residence, and by mistake
the offence was imputed to him. He could not
complain of the, legal consequence of that unfortu-
nate error, neither could he of the trial which fol-
lowed- Two witnesses (in error) swore to his
identity, but he was . immediately acquitted, there
not being the smallest real foundation for the charge.
So far he had suffered, but so far he could not com-
plain of. the due operation of the law. It was
mortification enough to be made the companion of
felons, but it was rather too much to have reserved
for him the injury which the defendant had per-
petrated; for when. Mr. Lanning returned home.ex-
peeting to be received by his friends and acquaint-
ances as an acquitted and not dishonoured man, he
was looked upon as a convict who had escaped from
his gaolers, because this defendant, a man of respec-
tability and influence, had thought proper in hi,
paper to state, that Lanning had been convicted, and
sentenced to seven years' transportation. The Jun
would rethember that the trial and acquittal tooi,
place at the last Spring Assizes for Taunton, mu;
yet on the 13th of April, in the defendant's paper..
Lanning's name was put among the transportable
cases in the list, or summary, of the sentences of the
Assizes. It would of course be said that this had
occurred . through some transposition of copy, as ii
Was called, or of the types ; and that when the ego)
was discovered,. a paragraph was inserted to set
,tin
matter right. But the . Jury would recollect, that

The LORD -.CHIEF JUSTICE then charged the
Jury. lie said, that in the reports of proceedings
in Courts of Justice in newspapers, it was undoubt-
edly, as a general principle, a Justification to prove
that they were correctly given. But here a serious
error had been promulgated. A man whose mis-
fortune it was to have been charged with a serious
crime, and acquitted, had been recorded ns a con-
vict sentenced to transportation. It must, how-
ever, be admitted, that the evidence in the case re-
futed the notion of malice, and that
.the error was
instantly corrected. .Under such circumstances, un-
doubtedly little damage could have been inflicted.
He (the Judge) had known this newspaper in the
country for many years, and he believed it to be
most respectably conducted. There was not a tittle
of evidence to show malice here; and he was rather
surprised the defendant's original offer was not ac-
cepted. Now, his opinion upon certain points of
practice of the public press was well known ; but at
the same time, he was free to say, that he should be
always ready to protect it against actions, not for
fair redress, but for a compilation and multiplication
of costs.

The Jury instantly found a verdict for the plaintiff.
—Damages one farthing.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendant, made a
vecii.l application to the Court to certify costs, on
the ground that every fair retractation had been offered
and given; and particularly that an action was now
pending against the Bath newspaper for the same
offence.

Lord Chief Justice BEST said, that he would take
until to-morrow morning to consider this application.
The Court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.
SATURDAY, AUGUST 4.

When the Court met at eight o'clock this morn-
ing, the Chief Justice certified for Mr. Criswick, the
proprietor of the Sherborne newipaper,againstwh3rn
a verdict of one farthing damages \-/as given yester-
day, on the prosecution of a man named Limning,
who Was stated in the paper to have been sentenced
to seven years' transportation, instead of having
been acquitted (which was the fact), at the last
silting assizes for Somersetshire. The effect of his
Lordship's certification is, to prevent Mr. Criswick
from being visited with the costs of the plaintiff.,--
The paragraph, which originated in some mistake,
was copied from a Bath newspaper, against which
Larining has likewise instituted an action. This
equitable decision of the Court isimportant, from its
necessary tendency to restrain the too, frequent prac-
tice of disreputable practitioners, to augment actions
against' several newspapers for one and the same
impirted libel; and such cases have been heretofore
sought to be tried before Chief Justice Best, owing
to a notion, we believe unfontided, that he entertains
strong and idierseOpinions to thegeneral manner in
which the public press is conducted.
HEKLEF V. 'FRE MAYOR APD BURGESSES OF LYME-ROOLS.

This canse, which was an important
,action against
the Corporation Of Lyme-Regis for not repairing
their sea walls, by which the plaintiff's land had
been inundated, was withdrawn, owing to the sudden.
illness of the defendants' attorney:
Three or four other causes were settled and the
business terminated.

The commission will be opened on Monday at
Exeter.

CHALLENGE TO FIGHT A DUEL.

TUB KING V. SIR ROBERT STEELE.
The COURT inquired whether the defendant was
present.

After a short delay, occasioned by the crowded
state of the avenues, Sir Robert Steele appeared in
the witness box, and, was informed that room should
be made for him-at the Couilisel table: He replied,
that he' was lame and unable to move thriiiigh the
crowd to get 'there," and 'would therefore remain
where he was, with his Lordship's permission.
Captain Garth sat near his' counsel ; and Lady
Astley, who had .been subpoenaed -by the defendant,
was in waiting, if her presence were called for.
The indictment, which' was.or'great length, "and,
the defendant with havingandeavoured, by various
contained twelve counts, was then read. It charged
false, scandalous, and malicious means, to provoke
Capt. Garth to fight a duel with him; and, among
other modes of proceeding which he adopted, was
that of writing a letter, on the 23d of February last,
and afterwards posting a copy of it in the Weymouth
Club Room, as well as circulating more copies of it
amongst, the gentlemen of the county. The letter
stated in substance that it was only on that after-
noon that it had come to his ears that Capt. Garth
had been engaged in an attempt to undermine and
assassinate his (Sir Robert's) character,. by insi-
nuating that he had taken ae.vantage of his absence
to insinuate himself into the confidence of Lady
Astley; that as long as he had confined himself to
the act of 'tieing the chattering harbinger of biS own
disgrace, he (Sir RoheitY had remained silent,.
but that when he had dated to 'aeCuse" him of hay-
ing taken advantage of a. lady's , protector to make
attempts upon. her honour, • the only answer
he should give him "ivai,''that he' lied in' his throat.
Equally false was it if he had 'asserted that he had
ever borrowed money' from Min 'which he had not
lawfully returned.' The *letter COneloded with an
intimation, that notwithstanding the Jury who tried
the action for damages {Ailey v. Garth) had stated,
that no language could express their detestation of
his conduct, and that the Judge who sat on the
bench at that trial, had said there, a worse creature
than he was could never have crawled, he (Sir Ro-
bert) was ready to meet him half way, if he ven-
tured to come forward and give satisfaction, not-
withstanding be had. found him a traitor to his
mis-
tress, and false to his friend. Let him now show
that he was not the recreant knave which the world
thought him.
The defendant, when called upon for his plea,
said, " I have, my Lord, too great a respect for the
laWs of my countfy, to 'defend at this moment the
breach of the peace whieb I -admit I have com-
mitted. I therefore plead guilty to, the charge, and
throw myself upon the mkeeiful consideration f the
Court."

Mr. Sergeant WILDE.—Then, my Lord, on the
part of the prosecution, I pray the judgment of the
;Court upon Sir Robert Steele.
The C9uKT.Has the defendant any affidavits.
Mr. Sergeant ‘14.14:3...—171ch0 not know, but I
have some on ibr p!irt of CaptsizOinth, which
wish to put in Wore judgnielst is given.
J t
S;r Robe Steele—l ein without Counsel, my
.i.i•IC

. .
'Lord, anNunprepared for this mode of proteeding
I was not aware of it.

The COURT.—IT 'you desire Aime for• any affi-
davits, you shall have it. We must hear the affida-
vits for the proseCution, and then you shall harp_:
time to answer them, if you can show that that de-
lay will be necessary.
Sir Robert Steele expressed his thanks to the
Court, and

Mr. Sergeant \Arnim then put in three affidavits
on the part of the. prosecution.
The first affidavit was that of Captain Themes,
• Garth, which stated, that about the month of De--
cember last, he was residing at the St. James's
Hotel, Jermyn-street, Where, from peculiar &mt.',
stances, Ladv Aetley was a resident with him.:
That, siinatea as he was, he needed advice and as.:
sistance, and had consulted Sir Robert- Steele ac-
cordingly, by whose advice it was that he (Captain;
Garth) returned into the country to see his fadtd,
General Garth ; but that the moment he had done
so, the defendant took advantage of his absence, and
endeavoured to tradive him in The opinion of Lady
ri
--A ley, as weag-to make improper advances to her
Laciy%hip,which she repulsed, and complained of to
' him (Captain Garth) when he returned from the
country. Disgusted at this misconduct, he had con-
.;tilted- Lieut.-Colonel Garwood, of the 10th Hnssars,
upon the coprse which he ought to pursue on 'sail
an-occasion, when the Colonel recommended him to
hold no communication whatever with such a per-
. ,:on as he had described Sir Robert Steele to he,
That it was upon his refusal to hold any further
communication with the latter, that he received the
insulting letter set forth in the indictment; that
copies of this letter were put on the table of the
Weymouth reading-vontn, and circulated also among
(7aptain Garth's friends in Dorsetshire. The de-
punent swore that the insinuations against him in
this letter were false and unfounded, and that the
:mope,/ alluded to as being lent, was 5/. which the
defendant.required to be paid to him to bear his ex-
penses back to Weymouth, from whence he had
come to town.as the friend of Captain Garth.

The second affidavit was fivin Dame Georgiana
Caroline Astley, who swore that she had heard in
conversation from Edward ,John Howard, solicitor,
that Sir Robert Steele had imputed to her acts of
unbecoming levity with him, which imputation she
declared to be false, calumnious, and Unfounded.—
And she solemnly denied that she had ever encou-
raged or tolerated any improper freedom or indeco-
rum from hiM. That in the end of last December
she was residing with a female servant at the St.
James's Hotel, ,Termyn-street, while Captain Garth
was gone into Dorsetshire, as she believed by the
defendant's.recommendation, to see his father. That
the Captain had left Sir Robeet at the hotel as his
guest, until his return ; but that a few hours had
only elapsed from his leaving town, before Sir Ro-
bert took the opportunity to speak insultingly of
him, and to talk contemptuously of Captain Garth's
mind, and then endeavour to assume a familiarity
with her, which she instantly rejected ; and upon the
return of the Captain, made him acquainted with the
rireurastanees when.Sirßobert Steele was compelled
to*.ve the hotel.
The third 'affidavit was from Edward John
Ila Ward, the plaintiff's attbrneY, who deposed that
lie had " paid 5/.. to Sir Robert Steele, who claimed
it to defray his expellees back to Weymouth. The
defendant then admitted to him that his conduct had
been indiscreet towards Lady Astley, during Capt.
Garth't; absence, but said, in extenuation of it, that
a ten was not always friagter of himself in the pre-
sence of a lovely and accomplished woman. He
(Sir Robert) then proceeded to dwell upon the-par-
tiality which the ladies generally had shown to hinft,
although he did not ascribe it to any personal ar-
tracrions. The-deponent declared that he felt dis-
gusted at the manner in 'which the defendant had
spoken of the attentions. which the ladies had
bestowed upon him, and particularly of the scandalous
manner in which he had spoken of the levity that
Lady Astley had shown to him, without, as he said,
his having given encouragement for such conduct.
The deponent further stated, that the defendant had
subpcenaed Lady Astley as a witness on this trial,
thOugh he knew she was in an ill state of health,
and could only have been actuated by a desire to
harass and wound her feelings: Lady Astley' had
beer. in thii manner brought to Dorchester by the
steopcena of the defendant.

When these affidavits were read, the Court ad-
-tires:led the defendant. " You have heard these
affidavits ; do you now wish for time to answer
them; and on what grounds ?"

Sir Robert Steele.-7. Assuredly I do, my Lord ;
but I d 6 not see how I can answer them at the pre-
sent Assizes. The party who was actually present
at the areater part of the proceedings, alluded to in
these • affidavits, is a military
,gentleman, who is at
present at P6rtsinouth ; and he could give a total
contradiction to the affidavit which the unfortunate
Lady Astley -has been induced to swear. I have
likewise a letter, written to me by Mr. Howard
(who has made one of these affidavits), who is Capt.
Garth's attorney, subsequent to 'my return to the
country, which I am anxious to put into the hands
of the Court.

The CoiiitT.—Sir Robert, if you can show, by
any affidavit, that you know and believe you can put
in an answer to the affidavits which have been.read
against you, and must have further time for pre-
paring it, you shall have that delay. .

- -
Sir Robert Steele—l am quite ready to do that,
my Lord. •
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—Bat at least we are enti-
tled to expect that he will swear he believes he can
give an answer to. them. If he does this, on the
part of Captain Garth we have no objection to the
requisite delay. At the same time, we ought to
have the assurance that such an answer is likely.

• Sir Robert Steele declared his perfect readiness to
make the strangest affidavit which Captain "Garth's
Counsel could dictate ; but upon being informed
that he must resort to a solicitor of his own for
that purpose, he retired from Court; and re-
tiirned in half an hour, with an affidavit, which set
forth, that. the affidavits made by Thomas Garth,
Esq., E. J. Howard, 'and Lady Astley, were full of
false, infamous, and libellous aspersions upon his
(defendant's) character, and that he should prove
such to be the fact, if allowed time to get the affi-
davit of Edward Jonathan Steele, who had been
continually with -him, and Dame Georgiana Astky,
during Captain Garth's absence in the country.
It was then decided that Captain Garth should
have a fortnight from.this date to file new affidavits,
if he thought proper ; that the, defendant should he
allowed a month after, that fortnight to answer them;
and that in the case of one person,, who was out of
the country, the same time (one month) should be
ailoWed•Captain Garth for procuring his affidavit,
giving notice of the same to the defendant.
The bail on which Sir Robert Steele was at large,
having surrendered him, and not appearing to renew
their recognizance, he obtained a short time from the
Court to bring in• fresh sureties. In the meantime
he entered into his own recognizance, and was.di-
yeeted to bring his bail to the Judge's chambers be-
fore his Lordship left town.

CROWN SIDE.
Clement Nicholas was capitally indicted for cutting
and mainning Jonathan Hawes and John Read, in
the parish of Winterborne Stickland, on the evening
of the 12th of July. The prisoner was a foreigner,
end four foreigners were upon his Jury. There
were other counts in the indictment for an assault
to do grievous bodily harm. •
Verdict Guilty--. Sentence of death recorded.
A man convicted of horse-stealing was sentenced
to death, and assured by the Judge that he would
leave hint for execution; and that on all future occa
sio„,, so far as he had the power, he would inflict
the capital penalty, in the hope that the .awful
example would at length prevent theprevalence of
this offence.
After some unimportant cases of assault and pkty

larceny were disposed Of, tlie criminal business ter-
minated, and Mr, Justice Burrough left the town:

NORTHERN. CIRCUIT—YOhiIi, Aub. Q.

.JOHN PRINCE AGAINT BUTTON AND ANOTHER:

This was 6;1 fiction for an assault and battery.
ioi Airtwags stated the cafe, The
plaintiff was a roper at Lee& ; the defendant, Dut-
ton, was a gentleman, who had retired from busines,
and lived a place called the Ivy-house, about one
mile and a half from Leeds, and the other dekridant
Mary Chapman; was his eervttnt, Mr. Dutton and
his family had been much alarmed by frequent rob-
beries irl his neighbourhood : and to obtain as much
o,otection as he coiAld, he had invited Captain Prince,
the brother to the plaintiff, to come and by with
him. The captain ceinplied witl the invitation, and
took up his st"drk at Arst in the house of Mr. Dut-
ton, And afterwards in a small house at the end of
his garden, which was called the garden-house, and
was the house mentioned in the pleadings, In this
house he , lived from last November to May ; but
unfortunately disputes arising between the, parties,
Captain Puttee determined to give up the hbuse,
and. appointed Mr. Dutton to come and-take pos-
session of it on the morning of the sth of May.—
Mr. Dutton, with his two maid servants, one of
whom was the other defendant, came
.accordingly,
and the captain proposed tp Mr. Dutton to examine
the furniture, and compare it with his own inventory,
but he refused to do so, and thought fit to claim and
insist upon rent, which the Captain refused to pay,
as an unjust demand, he having come to reside iii
the house purely for the accommodation of Mr.
Dutton, and with an understanding that no fent wary.
to be paid. Mr. Dutton, however, very violently
' insisted upon having rent, on which he was desired
to leave the house ; but this he refused, and struck
the, plaintiff a violent blow on the face. Upon this
a great struggle commenced, and it was not without
considerable difficulty that the defendants were put
out of the cottage. •
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against
Dutton, with one farthing damages, and a verdict
for Mary Chapman, and expressed a hope that each
party would have to pay their, own costs.
Mr, Justice BAYLEY said, as there was a plea of
justfication, the damages carried costs.

DUTTON V. PRINCE AND OTHERS.

A new Jury was sworn, and Mr. BROUGHAM, in
a most animated manner, stated the plaintiff's case,
and called upon the Jury, for the sake of justice and
of common sense, and for the safety of his Majesty's
subjects and the security of the peace, to give the
plaintiff all the damages that the record would allow
them to give, and which he regretted to say did not
exceed 2001. The present action was brought three
weeks before the former action, which would never
have been dreamt of but for the present proceed-
inks ; and it was very hard that the plaintiff should
have to pay all the costs of it. In4hat action Mury
Chapman was joined for the fraudulent purpose of
excluding her testimony, which the Jury would,
however, hear in this action, where, thank God,
there were no mazes, no special pleading, for the
defendants had not ventured to justify their assault;
and the only question for the Jury would be—what
damages they would make those foul wrongdoers
pay for their atrocious assault upon the respectable
gentleman he represented. The case was strong
enough without a plot; but it was clear there was
a plot, for Woodhead had been sent for to assist the
two brothers in.case.they should not proVe an over-
match for the peaceable tradesman against whom
they conspired. For what purpose could this pre-
paration be, but to gratify their revenge ? The
Princes may deem themselves sufficiently fortunate,
that they are called upon in this Court to answer in
damages fOr their conduct, instead of being tried for
it i►► the other Court before the Learned Baron,
who was then trying criminals for much lighter of-
fences. The Jury would hear that the assault was
so violent as to dislocate the plaintiff's shoulder,
and to make the blood come from his nose, mouth,
and even one of lera ears, to the dreadful injury
of the system, and to the permanent hurt of the
plaintiff.
The same evidence was afterwards given for the
plaintiff in this as was given on his behalf in the
former action. The defendants called no witnesses.

The Jury immediately found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 2001., the whole damages laid
in the declaration.
FRIDAY, AUG. 8. . _ _

George Clarkson, of Northfield, in the parish of
Bowes, a farmer, aged 2.5,' was- indicted for the wil-
ful murder of an infant, the illegitimate child 'of
Anne Hamilton, by administering to it arsenic, mixed
in gin and water, in the month of May last. The
child was 20 days old when it died. There were
several counts in the indictment, some of them.
stated the child's name to be James, and others
called him George.
There was another indictment against the prisoner
for the wilful *murder of another illegitimate child of
the same Anne Hamilton, of the neme.of William.
Sarah Robinson examined by Mr. CLARKSON.—
I am the wife of Mr. Robinson of Lartington. Ann
Hamilton came to my house, by order of the over-
seers, about last Candlemas; she was then pregnant;
she was delivered on the 19th or April last, of two
as fine boys as ever were born in the world. They
were baptized the next morning by Mr. Ellis, the
Catholic clergymen, the elder was named William,
and the other named James. The prisoner came
with Eleanor Thompson to my house on that. day.
They. went to Anne's bedside and talked to her.
She cried all the time. The prisoner came to her
the three next days ; the last time he came was on
the Monday night. I heard from the next room a
conversation between the prisoner and Anne. He
was very angry with her because she had not put
Janies'away, and spoke of the expense lie was put
to. I heard him say, " Thou seest, Anne, I have a
stock ; they will be very expensive, and thou can'st
not go out to work." She said, " Oh, George, if
thou wilt only get me a little girl tonurse my babies,
I will do my best. I value my babies as much as
you. do your stock." The prisoner answered,
" Thou see'st that Ruth has got shut of hers, and
see how she now dresses : if thou wilt get thine put
away, I'll marry thee directly, and think no worse of
thee, and thou shalt want for neither inoney nor
clothes." She said, " I was trying to put James
away, but Sally catch'd me." He said, " Thou wilt,
then, certainly get them both managed by Wed-
nesday." I (continued the witness) was in the next
room and heard every word distinctly, and upon these
last words I came out in a passion, and flew at him,
and said, " George, begone from my house, do ydu
intend to commit murder ?" He got up to go away,
but she cried out, and he came back and•bid her
hold her tongue, and said he would have her shifted
very soon. I said, " If you dare to hurt a hair of ,1
their heads, I will follow you both to York, and
hang you both." The prisoner then went away,
and never came to the house again. Anne was in
my house a fortnight all but a day ; she then went
away with the children. They were then both well.
Anne Hamilton, examined by Mr. STARKIE.—I
was never married. I went to live with the pri-
soner on May-day, 1826. Some time after that I
was with child by the prisoner. I continued with
him until Martinmas last. I was put to bed on the
19th of April, and delivered of two male children.
The prisoner was at Mrs. Robinson's the night I
was confined. He came to my bedside that night,
and asked how I was, and whispered to me, " Now
make away with the younger-boy." 1 made him no
answer. He came to me the next Friday evening,
and asked.me " Why I had not done according to
his words, and made away with the younger child r
I told him I had not. He asked if I had not had
an opportunity of doing it; I said I had not. He
then told me I must smother the younger child that
evening. I could not give an answer to that. He
came again the next day, Saturday, and brought me
some victuals, and reproached me for not having
.made away' with James, and said, " Make away with
him to-night, and send me word to-morrow morn-
ing." He told me to lay upon the child, and if I
could not get rid of it that way, to put its head un-
der the pillow, and lie upon it. He came again

on Sunday afteinhon, but we were not much alone
then. He did ask me then, why I had not put
away James. I said the wohian had slept with me.
He then said, if I did riot smother James that night,
he would bring me no more victuals, but would leave
me on the parish; and they might do what they liked
with me. Ile came again on the Monday evening,
with Eleanor Thompson. I was then up. He de-
sired me to go back to bed; iMd I did so: He then
came to MO' rind said; he had hid his uncle from
BOWes, Mid' i did not make away with the child
he would sell his stock and go off to the Indies. I
said, the woman slept with me again. He said, that;
was no reason why I should riot heir° done it. I;
said, I *Old have diine it; Nit I was afraid the wo-,1
man would have caught me. Witness here protested.'
that she never meant to harm the child ; she only
said so to pacify the prisoner. The prisoner did not
come again while I was at Mrs. Robinson's, where
I stayed 13 days after my confinement. The prisoner
then sent Eleanor Thompson, his housekeeper, with,
a cart for IA and the children, when we went to his
house. That was on a Wednesday. Nothing then
ailed the children. George was buried that day
fortnight. On the Sunday before he seemed con-
vulsed, and in the afternoon at 11 o'clock he was
ill, but not much so. His mouth and finger nails
turned blue; he was very ill during the night. I
had not milk enough for both; t fed them with
boiled bread and milk. The prisoner, on the Mon-
day morning, asked me how the child was; I said
it was very ill. I then went with the prisoner a
milking, and when we tame home, he said,
" Poor little thing; the bairn is worse." He then
got some boily in a tea-cup, with some white stuff
in it, but the chiltLhad none of it at that time. It was
between 6 and 7 when we went a milking,and we might
begone three-quarters of an hour. When we returned,
Eleanor had the child upon her knee. The prisoner
poured the boily out of a tin mug into a tea-cup.—
There was something in it, part of which cleaved to
the side of the cup, and part swam on the top of
the boily. Eleanor asked him "what that get was
that he' was going to give the child ?" He said
" Nothing that would hurt it ; it was what they
might all take; he should be sorry to hurt the
child." He gave me a spoonful, and I swallowed
it, and put the cup to his mouth, but I could not
tell whether he tasted it or not. The prisoner then
thew the contents of the cup behind the fire, and
rinsed it out with warm water. What I took caused
my mouth, tongue, and throat, to swell, so that I
could scarcely swallow, and made me a little sick.
—The soreness continued a week. After the child
was dead, I showed my tongue to Anne Hammond.
The priSoner came in again from his work about 10
o'clock that morning, and asked if the child was not
better; and he went and got a sup of gin and Water,
and put some white powder in it. I asked him what
the powder was. He said it was given him by
a doctor, for a pain in his own breast. He said—
" If it did good, God give it good of it; if it did
harm, we must say nothing about it." The prisoner
had fetched the powder from out of the parlour,
where I heard him open and afterwards lock a box,
of which he always kept the keys. When he came
out of the parlour, he brought the powder in a cup,
and. he gave the gin and water to the child, who
drank it, and he afterwards put the cup into the
closet. About 11 o'clock the child grew convulsed
and sick. It seemed in great pain, and was very
Much purged. It died about four o'clock.
Cross-examined.—l have said that the prisoner
was not the father of the two children. I have
sworn them to a man named Birkett, arid a warrant
was granted against him in Westmoreland. Birkett
was then at Crooley. I left Westmoreland when
I went to live with the prisoner. Birkett followed
me as a sweetheart; but nothing improper ever
passed between us. The prisoner wished me to
swear that Birkett was the father of the child, and
promised to marry me if I would do so. I never
said to Donald that I did not know whether the
prisoner was a man or woman; but I did tell him
that Birkett was the father of the two children.

Thomas Donald, constable and overseer of Lar-
tington, apprehended the prisoner, and took him to
witness's house. The prisoner said he was clear,
and did not fear. The next morning my wife asked
him what kind of a night he had. He said he had
never passed such a night before; if the children
were taken up, and poison found in them, it would
be hard indeed that he should suffer for what Anne
had given them. Witness and Awde searched the
box. Witness gathered the powder together, and
carefully put it in a paper, which he delivered to
Mr. Miles Lawson.

Mr. Thomas, Kilpin, surgeon, of Barnard-castle---
Witness on the Bth of June opened the bodies of
the children at Bowes. He applied several tests to
the contentsof the stomach. He applied ammoniaco
nitrite, which produced a yellow precipitate inclining
to orange colour; it appeared to witness to detect
arsenic; the stomach was inflamed enough to cause
death ; he attributed the inflammation to arsenic.
Mr. Baron HuLLocic minutely summed up the
evidence, and observed, that the case depended prin-
cipally upon the degree of credit the jury gave to
Anne Hamilton. They would consider that she had
not given her information until after she had quar-
relled with the prisoner, and that she had perjured
herself when she swore the children to Birkett at
the instigation of the prisoner. The evidence of
Mrs. Robinson was very important: it confirmed a
great part of the evidence of Hamilton, and shoWed
that the prisoner had a murderous intention towards
the children.

The Jury retired for about an hour and three-
quarters, and then brought in a verdict of—Kot
Guilty.
The prisoner was put to the bar on another in-
dictment for:the wilful murder of William, the other
child ; and as no evidence was offered,
Mr. Baron HULLOCK directed an acquittal.

John Garth, of Barnard-castle, Durham, apo-
thecary, was indicted for administering drugs to the
same Anne Hamilton to procure her miscarriage.—
The prisoner was acquitted.