Star.
London, England, 1822-08-10 00:00:00

CROWN SIDE.

Robert Peat was indicted for the murder of Robert
Peat, his own relation, to whom the prisoner was heir
at laW.—Mrs. Peat, widow of the deceased, deposed,
that her hu band was possessed of some small pro-
perty, which he had disposed of by will some years ago,
in distribution between the prisoner, the witness, and
other relations. The precise disposition of the pro-
perty was not known to the prisoner, and his display
of anxiety to know this had much displeased the de-
ceased, and determined him to revoke his former
will, by which he made more ample provision for
her, his wife. This he executed in August, 1815.
This circumstance coming to the knowledge of the
prisoner, it would appear had engendered feelings
of revenge. He disguised his disappointment, how-
ever, regularly calling on the witness and her hus-
band every Monday at Darlington, in this county,
where they lived, and • generally at a time when he
knew they were absent from home, attending the
market. On Monday, the 17th of June, the witness
purchased some lamb, and having put it on the fire
for broth, she went out, and was followed on her
return by the prisoner, who said he had been at her
house timing her absence, and asked her if she had
read in the Newspapers of some persons having been
poisoned by bad water. She (lid not mach attend to
the observation at that time. The prisoner having
left the house, some pieces of broken phial were
found upon the hearth, but this did not then excite
suspicion. The aged couple at their usual hour sat
down to dinner (the deceased was upwards of 76),—
They both observed the lamb which they ate had a
peculiar taste; and in about half an hour after the

•
deceased was 'seized with a veinitmg • and violent
pains, and at half-past twelve that night he expired.
The witness herself was likewise extremely from
a smaller portion of the lamb which she ate, and in
consequence kept her bed till after her husband's
death.. The prisoner called to inquire after the health
of the parties on the afternoon of the same day on
which he had poisoned the broth. It was afterwards
suspected this was to ascertain whether his diabolical
purpose had been effected. On the same evening it
appeared a female, named Mary Smithwaite,
and ate some of the lamb for her supper, and was
dangerously ill for several days after. The same
effect was experienced by Sarah Stainsby, who like-
wise partook of the lamb. It was not till after all
these had felt the effects of the poison that suspicion
fell upon the prisoner, and that the meat had been
poisoned by him.
Another witness, named Blinkerton, deposed, that
the prisoner said to him, 4, There was an old woman
(meaning Mrs. Peat) in the town of Darlington, who
wished to wrong him out of his brass, but he would
take care to watch her out and get possession of the
old man's will," (meaning the deceased); and after-
wards told the witness he had succeeded. This was
on the morning the deceased was poisoned ; the pri-
soner likewise exhibited a bottle, which he said con-
tained laudanum, which he wished the old woman
to take.—A witness of the name of Cradock deposed
that the prisoner confessed the murder to him by
means of a bottle of laudanum.
Mr. Smith, a druggist, of Darlington, deposed that
the prisoner called on him on the morning of the 14th
of June, and purchased an ounce of laudanum, which
he said was for some Ladies at Middlethorp. The
prisoner since called at witness's shop, and asked him
if he knew him? adding, that he was blamed about
Robert Peat, the deceased. Witness acknowledged
the prisoner purchased the laudanum of him.
The prisoner being found guilty, Mr. HOLT moved
in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the pri-
soner did not know that the broth was intended to be
drank by the deceased.
The CHIEI JUSTICE, after consulting with Mr.
Baron WOOD, from the other Court, decided against
the objection.—The prisoner was sentenced to be exe;
cuted, and his body given for dissection.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
THOMAS V. JONES.
In this case, David Thomas, Esq. -sought a com-1
pensation in damages against Miss Hannah Jones, for
a breach of promise of marriage.
Mr. TAUNTON stated, that it was rather an unusual
circumstance that a Gentleman should have to pre-
sent himself as a plaintiff upon such an occasion, be-
cause, to the honour of the Ladies, in engagements
of this sort they were generally faithful ; but on this
occasion the plaintiff had to complain of an extremely
serious injury—not merely to his feelings, but also in
consequence of the Lady's caprice having put him to
considerable expense in preparing for that happy
event, which, at one time, he unquestionably antici-
pated. The defendant, Miss Hannah Jones, had not
to urge, in her excuse, the levity and inconsistency
of youth, because she had attained to full years of
discretion, having arrived at the mature age of 46.
Had it happened that his client had been guilty of
that fickleness, it would. have been matter of com-
plaint, on the part of his Learned Friend, that he had
shewn that sort of levity which younger persons some
times indulged in—he being but thsi ty-eight years of
age. The parties were respectable, acid possessed of
property; and the courtship was carried on, not clan-
destinely and secretly, but under the eye and with
tke sanction of Miss Jones's mother. The plaintiff's
house being somewhat dilapidated and old-fashioned,
at the suggestion of the defendant, alterations and
repairs were done to it to the amount of £250 ; and
the Lady upon this occasion found or paid for a part
of the timber. She belonged to a class of people
called Anabaptists, and she was extremely desirous,
when she came to the mansion-house of the plaintiff,
that she should not have far to go to Chapei, and
therefore she prevailed on the plaintiff to grant a
lease to the Society to which she belonged of a piece
of ground on his estate, for the purpose of a Meeting-
house being built there, which Meeting-house. still
stood there. He should prove, in the most satisfac-
tory manner, the promise of marriage on more occa-
sions than one. He should also prove, that in the
month of February, 1821, the plaintiff, finding that
the Lady had intimated a wish to break off the match,
sent her a formal invitation to come and be married,
which she declined, declaring that she never would
have the plaintiff for her husband. He should also
prove that Miss Jones and Mr. D. Thomas had previ-
ously been to the office of Mr. Lewis, at Llandilo, and
signed proposals for a settlement to be made upon the
marriage, which proposals in substance were, that
David Jones, in consideration of £7OO to be paid by
the mother f Miss Jones, agreed to settle his estates
to certain uses, first to himself and wife for life;
then to the survivor; and after the decease of the
survivor, to their children, by entail male, &c.—
It was not extraordinary that they should have looked
forward to the usual consequences of marriage, and
with that view not only was provision made for sons,
but also for daughters ; in the anticipation of which,
a term of one thousand years was to be carved out
of the freehold, for raising portions for these expected
younger children; so that a large family was really
considered as likely to be the result of this meditated
union. The Learned Gentleman observed, that it
was no light matter for a Gentleman, under such cir-
cumstances, to be pointed at in the country as having
been jilted. Suppose he should wish to make an en-
gagement with some other Lady, would the Ladies
be so glad to receive him now, after this treatment
of Miss Hannah Jones? It was impossible to state
this case without a smile, but he trusted the Jury
would not permit the amusement which the cause
might afford them, to get the better of their sense of
justice; and lie trusted they would, in the end, give
his client such damage. as in their sober consciences
they thought he ought to receive.
David Reece proved the Lady's age to be 46; that
Mr. David Thomas was courting her in 1818; that
he is about 35 years of age ; that a servant was hired
by Miss Jones, with a view that the marriage should
take place at Allhallowtide, 1819, who lived under
such engagement in the plaintiff's house for twelve
mowths. She was subsequently examined, and stated
that her reason for leaving was, that Miss Jones would
not marry Mr. Thomas. • .
Several witnesses were called; who proved promises

of merlin. on the part or the atifiodant.the ye-
pairing of the plaintiff's house—the building of the
chitper—and the-other points stated by Mr. Taunton.
Mr. CAMPAILL, for the defendant, said this action
was so ridiculous, that Mr. Taunton bad faired it inlo
possible to state the facts to the Jury with doom
gravity, though no man had greater powers of coot-
tenance. Hil friend had -exerted himself to the tn.
most to preserve his gravity ; but a smile constantly
betrayed the struggle, and, as the Jury might have
seen, he actually several times burst into laughter.--
So trumpery an action was never before brought into
a Court of Justice. This Gentleman, no doubt, might
well have worn the willow, and might indeed have
beta considered an unfortunate lover ; but would he
not now, wherever he went in the Principality, be
pointed at as a person who wanted to inveigle an old
woman into marriage for the sake of her fortune,
and, when he failed in that, wished to get it by the
verdict of a Jury ? Surely be might have met with
a Lady younger, mere beautiful, and more conform-
able with the objects of a marriage settlement. The
Learned Counsel said, that the Lady had certainly
reached the mature age of 46. One witness had said
she was very beautiful ; another bloated, arid seemed
to indicate some doubt on that point. Now he was
instructed to state, and upon that the Jury would
take the Lady's own word, that she was exceedingly
plain—not to say ugly ; that she was not accom-
plished, for that the instructions which had been
drawn for a settlement, and were said to have been
signed by her, only bore her mark ; that no love-let-
ters had been produced probably arose from the
Lady's inability to write ; and the Lady must have
been very much astonished when the conveyancer
talked of provisions for the Ist, 2d, Sd, 4th, sth, 6th,,
7th, Bth, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and all and every other
the sons, &c. issue of this marriage, unless she was *a
woman of very weak understanding. Did it appear
that the Esquire did not keep a female servant before'
or did it appear that he had in- the slightest degree
increased his establishment on account of Miss Han-
nah Jones? He must have had a female servant. to
make his bed:-..t0 do all things to be done—milk his
cows, &c. Such were the feelings of the Learned
Gentleman, that he must repeat the apology of Mr.
Taunton, that in this case it was impossible to pre-
serve gravity of countenance—that, however, was the
fault of the cause, and not of the counsel. The ex-
penses to which the plaintiff had been put in prepar-
ing for the wedding could be alone given in evidence
as damages, the amount of which had not been in
anyway proved ; and he, therefore, trusted that the
Jury would send the plaintiff back to the county of
Pembroke with the indignation and contempt which
he so jo.aly merited.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in charging the Jury, ob-
served, that actions of this nature were not common,
but still this was a case in which an action would lie,
and the promise and breach had been clearly proved. It,
therefore, became a question for the Jury to consider
what damages they would give. As to the repairs
of the house of the plaintiff, there was no evidence
that they weie done at the suggestion of the defend-
ant ; and with regard to the building of the Chapel,
it was not.at all improbable that the plaintiff him-,
self was a member of the Anabaptist Society, and
was thereby induced to give up to them a piece of
land for the purpose of building a Chapel. The Jury,
Katlcii
vet
ureefamlol
yreorb,eeeotuinlgahin,tuttnho,
teoteiznipnepenrsseteipmawathitniichnzg
ftoitirheethepdiaama i
ntigires to
had
proposed
wedding.--The Jury consulted for a few minutes,
and returned a verdict for the plaintiff of £lOO.

CORNWALL-BODMIN, AUGUST 6.
SRDUCTION.--BUCKLRY V. FRY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John
Buckley, for seducing his daughter.
Mr. C. F. WlLLiaras opened the pleadings, and
Mr. ADAM addressed the Jury, and seeing many fe-
males in Court, he suggested the impropriety of their
continuing in Court during the examination. The
Judge, however, did not concur in the necessity of
their retiring, with which the Cornish maids seemed
not a little pleased.
The Learned Counsel then stated, that the defend-
ant was a farmer, living near Bidderford, and of-con-
siderable landed property. He was a widower with
nine children, and the parties living within half a
mile of each other, they colsequendy were visiting
acquaintances; but it was not until a year and a
quarter from the commencement of the acquaint-
ance that the defendant had seduced the plaintiff's
daughter from the paths of virtue, even under her
father's roof. The fruit of this base act was the birth
of a child on the 28th of February, 1820; but the
most unfeeling part of his conduct was the compel-
ling his victim to appear before a Magistrate, to
filiate the child, when an order was made for the
payment of two shillings per week. The Learned
Counsel did not press far excessive damages, owing
to the defendant's having paid this sum froth that
period; but he contended that the father was, never-
theless, entitled to just as much damages, in his hum-
ble capacity, as if she had been of nobles births His
daughter's character was equally dear to him., The
plaintiff was in his seventieth year, and by the seduc-
tion of his daughter he had been deprived of her as-
sistance to his family independent of that loss of cha-
racter which was yet more dear.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS called the daughter, Jane
Buckley, who was the only witness examined :
She lives near Bidderford; defendant paid his addreues to
her nearly a year and a half before he seduced her. On the 2d
of May, 1520, he told her he was then worth 2,0001.. yearly;
she never had acquaintance with any other man than defendant.
Mr. Serjeant PELL for the defendant, cross-exa-
mined Jane, the daughter:
Well, Jenny, how old are you?—Jenny (smilingly)—Twenty..
nine, Sir.
When did theferst act of seduction take place, Jenny ?—After
father and mother were one to bed, Sir—between eight and
nine o'clock In the evening.
0 fie, Jenny ! How hog did he stop after this took place?—
She did not know; it might be half an hour.
Now try, Jenny (said the Sarjeant), and recollect the second
time; for I must, indeed, hero* all about it!—Well, she took a
walk, but not in the fields—no, in the road—yea, in the high'
road too, until they came to a barn, which she (Jenny) very re-
luctantly went into ! She did not shut the door. This was on
chi ith of May. There wash lock, but she did not know whe-
ther it was locked or not—she did not try It; knows the defend-
ant's brother.
Did you borroW, book of him P—Yes; no; I borrow a book,
Sir! no. I had a book of his—l took the book out of his coat.
Describe the book, Jenny.—The book is better known to
your Honour than myself.
You read it a good deal ?—Yes. •
On your oath, Jenny, was it am a most immodest work
Yes, It was, your Honour!
The Learned Serjeaat then addressed the Jury, aria

OarakMt dije agematice of af Ames% parti.
caleely re se related andhe book, and the smiling
Mawr in which sbe (Jemmy) had given her e‘ ideate.
The book she had kept for tyro months in her pos.
session. • He (tee defeadant), said the Learned ilew►
jeant, bad made the easiest cosignest man ever made
over a rental; and particalatip so over Jenny, whose
yielding soul was nothing but melting love. Was
this a case to call forth large damages? No; th
father would be well paid without: and he would
leave kis the Jury to say by their verdict what was
due to the plaintiff for the loss of such a daughter, of
whose services the plaintiff had been derived in ,s
consenting a meaner.
The Learned Judge (Sttsaapsen) said, the father
was certainly entitled to then verdict, and scow
'usages for the loss of those services be had been dn.
prived of by the acts of the defendant. Seduction
was one of those cases which always called fat,
rieus consideration. They had heard the evidence
and would draw their own conclusions, and give such
temperate damages as in their judgment they believed
the plaintiff entitled to.—The Jury gave £l5.

_
BUCKLEY, W. PST.
This was an action by Jane Buckley against the de.
fondant fora breach of promise of marriage, in whir*
the record was withdrawn.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGT..-..COCK V. MOIL

Mr. J. CARTER opened the pleadings in this CASse
by stating that this was an action brought by the
plaintiff against the defendant, to recover compen-
sation for a breach of promise of marriage. The
damages were laid at £2' ,000.
Me. Serjeant PELL addressed the Jury for the plaia-
tiff. and stated that She was the daughter of a respect.
able farmer in this County, who has eight girls and
two boys, and who is now in the 73d year of his age.
His daughter. Harriet Cock, is now in the 23d year
of her age; the defendant is an Officer in his Majes-
ty's service, and commands the Eagle revenue cutter.
At the time he gained the affection of Miss Cock he
lived at the house of his mother-in-law, Mrs. White-
head. Two years previous to his going to sea, Mrs.
Whitehead and the family of the plaintiff were upon
terms of the greatest intimacy, and were constant
visitors at each other's houses, in which Parish they
had lived nine or ten years, bur afterwards went to
reside at a place called Miloc, in the beginning of
1818, where the defendant resided, and was always
received in the plaintiff's family as the intended hus-
band of Miss Cock, and his mother-in-law well knew
he was received as such. At the time the defendant
paid his addresses to the plaintiff she was in the 20th
year of her age, the flower of her prime, and pos.
sessed at that time many accomplishments of person
and mind, and the defendant by his letters prwessel
the most ardent affection and attachment to her.,
This continued until he formed a connexion with a
Miss May, when he most cruelly left the object ci
his former care to pine and lament hei misplasx.l
fection for one who ill received it, and who rerutcei
that affection in a mariner most reprehensible.
The Learned Judge left it to the Jury to say
the plaintiff was entitled to for the loss of that peace
of mind the defendant had been the cause of de.
priving his daughter of; but they were to banih from
their minds vindictive damages. They were bound
to consider the situation of the defendant, and his
pecuniary m.rans of paying them.
The Jury consulted for a short time, and save a
verdict in favour of the plaintiff for £2OO.