Star.
London, England, 1802-08-10 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

MAIDSTONE, FRIDAY, AL`DUST 6.
Mary Rowed" was indieled for the wilful mur-
der of her female child, at a place called Gilling-
ham, in the minty of
.Kent. The ptifoner was
lervant to a Mr- Grinflead, and was obferved to
1-: exceedingly ill, thntigh none cf the family int:
pest Ni her to he with child. On the 24th of June
the was mach WOT rf ; in th• eveniil,4 of which day
the fecreted herfell in the privy belonging to the
hour:, and was delivered of el female infant. She
w• ; alked, a thou time afterwards, if the was bet.
to ? flue flid the was, and begged to go to bed.—
The nest mottling a child was difcovered down
the privy, and the prifoner accuted of brutally
defiro)ing her babe; the replied, the knew the had
a,fled wrung in keeping her pregnancy a fecret, but
that the thought the had two months to go, and
meant, when her miarefs got up (Mrs. Grinilead
lay in at the time), to alk leave to go home to her
mother. Stae added, that the child was dead born,
and that the wifhed to conceal her fhame. A wit-
nefs,
who seas in the adjoining houfe, (wore port-
tively that flue heard the cry ofa child, and Ihortly i
after'heard ltunething thrown down the privy.—
This, it was argued, might have been the cry of!
Mrs. Gtintlead's titian:, and not the prifoner's,
which, indeed, appeared to he the fad, as Mr.
Andrews, the furgLon, who viewed the child after
it was taken up, faid, that he could not take upon
hinifelf to fay the child ,a;a-,• live born.
There was another fan, very much in favour
of the prifoner, namely, that the had made provi-
fion of cloaths for her expeCled infant. She had
a good charaCter as to her affeCtion for children in
general, and to her having lived in her place five
years. She had always been looked upon as a
good girl, and it was fuppofed that fhame had in-
duced
her to conceal her misfortune, rather than
premeditated guilt. The Judge fumnued up with
much feeling, and the Jury pronounced her—iskt
Guilty.

Chapman, lames Smith, and li'm. were
indiered for felonioufly killing and flaying George
skinner, in the city of Canterbury, on the 7th day
of May lall ; it appeared the deceafed was fighting
with one of the prifoners, when he received a blow
*hich drove him under a carriage, on which the
other two prifoners were fitting, the wheel of which
went over his head, and killed him on the fpot.
The prifoners were found—Guilty of Manflaugh.
ter, and were fentenced to one month's imprtion-
merit. They have lain in gaol from the time of
the accident.

The Allizes having &Ted on Saturday evening,
the eighteen following prifoners received fentence
of death :

Frzncis Allen and William Clark, for healing a black hot('
and I,ay mare, the property of Stephen Page.
Wiiham Mace and John Lawrence, for healing a brown
mare, the property of John Marlow.
Iliac Good, for healing a bay mare.
John Jones and Daniel Anchor, for uttering at Canterbury
forged flank notes, knowing them to be fuch.
eiljarnin Blackford and Jofrph Powell, for lbeep-healing,
in company wit► it. rations, who has already been executed
for the offence.

David Wakefield, for ftcalirg from a velfel lying at Rochef-
tei , !hive bales of lisp clothing. the property of John Ledwiek.
ina Cowie, for a highway robbery from Oliver Clarke.
Charles Allcoond,for forging a feamais's will and power.
William Dorton and Henry Robertfon, for a burglary In the
dwelling-houfe of Edward Overight, in Cliffe.

John-Butchcr and Samuel Afhdown, for fevcral highway
robheriek. •

Jana.:&at, for horfe-ftealing.
And William Freeman, alto for liorfe-Itealing.
John Jones and Daniel Anchor, for uttering forgcd Bank
Notes, and Charles Almond, for forging a will and power,
were feparately fenteneed, and informed they were not to ta-
ped any mercy, from the enormity of their crimes; and are
the only three left for execution. _ .

To he tranfported for 14 years:—Matthew rower, for ut-
tering forged Bank notes, to which charge he plcaded guiity ;
illiant Stoat:lt:ea and Urias Allander, for receiving Itolen
gaols; thirty-two for (even years each; and niu. for various
periods nf imps ifonment. The remainder were difeharged by
proclamation.

YORK ASSIZES—NISI PRIUS.
SIR THOMAS PILKING row AND OTHERS, V. GILL

A%D OTHERS.

The plaintiff is owner of certain ancient corn-
mills in the town of Wakefield, to which the privi-
lege offuit and foie is annexed: The defendant and
other perfons had meed modern mills within the
foke or manor of Wakefield, and the gneflion to be
tried was, whether the eredion of fuch mills, for
the purpofe of grinding corn, was or was not an in-
van at of the plaintiff's rights, a; proprietor of the
ancient foie mill ?
Serjeant Coc II lux (fated the cafe of the plaintiff,
and admitted, that the queflion lay within a very
'tallow compafs. It was fimpry this: Whether
any corn could legally be ground in the townthip
of Wakefield, except at the plaintiff's mills, to
long as the plaintiff's mills were in a fituation to
grind it) The Learned Serjeant then tinted the
title of the plaintiff as deduced through the Saville
family, to whom James I. had made the original
grant of thefe mills: he alfo (fated two decrees of
the l)uchy Conn of Lancatler, confirming tilde
rights ; the one dated fo early as the year 1610,
the other in 1761. He alfo dwelt on the reafon-
ablenels of this privilege of foie, as ;airing from the
duty incumbent on the lord of the manor, of keep-
ing up his mills in proper repair and condition.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff was, the
original grant of thefe mills by James!. afterwards
confirmed by Oliver Cromwell.; the tun decrees,
the one dated 16 to, the other 1761, confirming the
right offole ; and the parole tellimonies of feveral
old witneffes fpcaking to the cutioms.
Mr. Woon, on the part of the defendants, •b-
-raved that the evidence which had been adduced
by no means affeded the defence he was inftruded
to make : He was ready to admit, to the utmofl
extent that tltofe decrees went, that all cam, "eon-
fumed, fold, or uttered," at the devellinr-toofis
of thole perfons living within the fde, ought to be
ground at the plaintiff's mills ; but the defendant's
mills had been erected fur the purpofe of grinding
corn, not for the inhabitants of Wakefield, nor to
be conftuned within the limits of the plaintiff's pri-
vil. ge, hut for the purpofe of being fent to Lulea-
(hire, and to other didant pmts. 'llk had been
admitted by the plaintiff:; and the defendants con-
ceived themfelves perfedly jullifiable in iii doing.
Lord ELLENEOROUGN faid, he had .never read
in any legal reran, or heard of any claim of this

fort In ertenfive al. what the plaintiff flied for.—
' This privilege of Coke was originally a mete ad-
vantage, to which the Lord of the Manor was en-
titled in reciprocity, for the expense of building
and keeping in repair mills for the conveniznce ni
his tenants ; but as for this claim, which was not
only for a monopoly,- as refpeaing the internal
conlitmption of Wakefield (which was allowed).
but for the entire corn trade that might be cad.
blilhed here : it was a claim fb very extraordinary
and extent-we, that it required very aria proof
of eflablifhed cuttom to lanetion-it (if any cuttom
could be allowed to fanaion a claim fib hoflik
to the interefts of the community). As to the
decrees that had been read, they proved nothing
more, than what had been admitted by tho. De
fendant ; that the Plaintiff had an exchfive
right to grind at his mills, the corn urea for the
coafumption of the town of Wakefield ; but as
to any exchtfive privilege of the plaintiff to pi es Lin
perlims in Wakefield from grinding corn for the
ufe of other dillrias, he could neither find it in the
evidence, nor infer it by analogy, from the known
rights of other fake mills. Verdia for defendants.

THE KING V. SUTCLIFFE.

This was an indictment for. a libel, publiffied by
the defendant againft Mr. Beaumont, an aetinz
Magittrate of the Weft Riding.
Scrjeant COCK ELL Rated, that although the libel
which was the fubjal of the prefcnt precaution'
WAS as malignant and foul as die heart of man had
ever invented, yet, as the Jury were only called
upon to fay whether the defendant was guilty or
ma of publilhing it. he Should not dwell on the
falfehood and malignity of it,as thole circumftances
which aggravated in the higheft manner the guilt
of the defendant, were to be futonitted to the Court
when they fhould be called upon to pronounce the
rentence. The libel was conveyed in a very long
and very abufive letter to Jofepli Radcliffe, Efq.
who was alto an acing Magistrate of the fame dif-
tridt. It charged Mr. Beaumont, in the moll vio-
lent and rancorous terms, with having wilfully and
deliberately given a falfe account of his property
before the Commiffioners of the Income Tax.—
Among the many defamatory expreflions refpeCt-
ing Mr. B. are the following :
.4 I than now give a thort account of the infa-
mous conduit of your brother juftice, and of the
wilful and deliberate falfehoods he has Rated before
the Commiffioners. This is the /ov:/patri9t, who
would do every thing to support the Government
and the revenue, except giving a fair account of
his own income, which is not lefs than 50001. per
annum. When asked by the Commitlioners how it
happened that his income was fo much Inf., than
the preceding year, he gravely replied, that he had
by millake charged himfelf too highly tiie year
before ; but when fitting over a cheartul glut., he
j2cofely laid, If the Commiffioneis knew the
quantity of timber I have fold there three hit
years, what would they think of the account I
gave them?' Such conduCt and morality might be
expeted in a man who, like him, boafts of feldom
going to be fober, and of not being in the inftdc
of a church once in feven years. I now appeal to
you,whether inch a man be not a difgrace to your
Bench, and whether he onzlit not to be (truck off
the Commiflion ; and whether I have not dill-
charged my duty to the public in expofing the
robber of the revenue to public jultice ?''
The letter was proved to be the baud-writing of
the defendant by Mr. Radcliffe, who received it.
The Counfel for the plaintiff then ttated, and it
was admitted by the Counfcl fur the defendant,
that as the publication of the libel was proved, the
Jury were bound to find the defendant guilty, and
could not go into the particular circumftances of
this libel, which mutt be difelofed at a future time
to the Court by affidavits.
Lord ELLEN BoROLICII Paid, the Counfel for the
defendant had aeled rightly, in not contending that
the truth of thofe expreffions (even fuppofrng they
were true) would be a defence againft this profecu-
tion. The peace of fociety is not wantonly to be
dilturbed by perfons, who, from malicious mo-
tives, publifh what may even be true, for the pur-
ple of injuring the charader, and wounding the
feelings of individuals. If thofe perfons have com-
mitted offences, instead of being libelled, they
ought to be brought before the proper tribunals. In
the prefent cafe, if the defendant's zlfertions had
been true, and they had been conveyed in decent
language to the Coml./tin-inners of the Income Tax,
the defendant would have been clear from any cri-
minality, as acing from public duty ; but, on the
contrary, he had fen this letter (the language of
which was very far from decent) to a gentleman
who had nothing to do with the collation of Mr.
B.'s income tax. If the defendant was found guil-
ty, the Court would Rill confider with attention
every circumttance he could urge in mitigation of
punithment. Verdiel—Gulty.