Star.
London, England, 1830-08-27 00:00:00

a CSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LANCASTER, TUESDAY, Auo. 24.
The Crown Court sat at eight o'clock this morning, and proceeded
t,lihspose of the cases in which the Grand Juryhad returned true bills.

Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.

Jch Alanion:a short, sallowTeon Iplexton, ill-favoured fellow, was
placed in the dock, charged with the crime of having killed his wife.—
The indictment charged him with manslaughter only.
Mr. STARKIE conducted the prosecution, and called
Mary Sidley, who stated that she was sitting at her door in a street in
Blanchester, about 11 o'clock in the morning, on the Bth of August,
when she heard the prisoner say to his wife, "You'll turn up that
shilling, or by Jasus"—the door was open at this time, and the pri-
Roller immediately shut it; she then indistinctly heard the wife cry out
twice or thrice, " Don't, don't" and then a faint scream followed : she
instantly ran to a neighbour's for help, and they got into the house and
found the man with his wife on his knee at the bedside. Some one said
to hum, "John, she's dying," to which he replied, "No, she's in a
tit." Another woman who came in then said—" If she is in a fit,
help me with her on the bed, and let us undress her." He did so,
but when she was laid on the bed her face was black, her skin cold, and
she was found to be a corpse.
Other witnesses stated conjointly with the above similar facts.
Henry Oilier, a surgeon, at Blanchester, was called in to see the de.
ceased on the day.in question, and found on examination a violent con-
tusion on her left cheek ; her viscera and other functions were in a healthy
state, but on making an incision into her cheek, he found a vast quan-
tity of extravasated blood within her head, and pressing on the brain
even down so far as the spinal marrow. The blow or contusion
on her cheek was the immediate and only apparent cause of her
death.

The prisoner stated in his defence, that his wife fell down in a fit
in the house, and hurt her cheek: he dented having struck her any
blow.

The Learned Judge summed up, and the jury immediately found him
Guilty. He was sentenced to 14 years' transportation.
Royer Barnes was indicted for the manslaughter of Isaac Slee, at
Chetham.hill, in this county, on 4th of June last.
Tice prosecution was conducted by Counsellor DROWSE, LL.D.
William Holt was at Manchester races last June, in company with
the prisoner, some neighbours, and two of witness's brothers, one of
whom was the deceased. On the evening of the 4th of June they were
all returning together to Manchester, and at arrived at Chetham on their
war, when some women came in sight. The deceased began to halloo
aft( r them, and the brother of the prisoner remonstrated with him, upon
which they had some words ; blows were then exchanged, and the wit.
ness's brother, Isaac :gee, was knocked down, the brother of Barnes fall-
ing upon him in the road Barnes, seeing this, called on the parties to
keep the peace, in the King's name, he being a constable, though not of
the township in which they then were. To this no attention was paid,
and the two who were lying on the ground continuing to do so, witness
thought it necessaty to interfere and assist Slee, his brother. Whilst he
was attempting to do so, the prisoner struck him a tremendous blow,
declaring that no one should meddle with the two men. The prisoner
then made tight at every one around him, and struck the witness severely
severs' times. The latter, however, succeeded in getting his brother
away front his antagonist, and he then called out for a constable to arrest
Barnes. Isaac Slue immediately said he was a constable, and pulled
out from his pocket something like a staff; but as he was bending for.
ward to seize the prisoner, he was met by him with a blow on the lower
part of his lace slid ;Moat, which felled him to the earth senseless ; he
was conveyed to a neighbouring house, and a surgeon was called to him,
who said that Le had received a concussion of the brain, from which he
could not be exreted to recover: he died shortly after.
Mr. ALEXANDER cross-examined the preceding witness on behalf of
the prisoner at great length, and with much legal tact : in tact. he made
the witness admit that he entertained great doubts as to whether the in-
strument which the deceased had produced was a constable's staff, or
whether it was not merely a pretence fot one. The witness also acknow.
'edged that Barnes might very reasonably be supposed to be unable, in

the riot and confusion of the fray, to distinguish between the constable
and those surrounding him.
The witnesses who succeeded this man confirmed his testimony, and
particularly that elicited from him by the counsel for Barnes.
A surgeon was examined, who stated that he was called in on
the night of the 4th of June to see the deceased, and he found him
in a most dangerous condition. There was a fracture on his skull,
extending all along the base. He died at 10 o'clock the next morn.
ing, and on dissecting the head, the vessels of the brain were found
to be suffused with blood, and the outer integuments were also charged
with it. He had seen few cases in which so extensive an extra.
vacation of blood had taken place ; but then he had only had three
years' practice as a surgeon. Outwardly, the only appearance on the
skull was a small bloody mark. He entertained no doubt that the death
of Slee was caused by the violence of the contusion : that contusion was
caused by a fall, and that fall by a blow.
Cross-examined—The blow upon the chin would not have caused
death of itself; the case was not one of apoplexy; he had often heard
of serious injury having been sustained by patients from ignorant and
incompetent surgeons, but he certainly did not consider this case as
coming under that class of treatment.
This evidence closed the case for the prosecution.
The prisoner declared his extreme regret for the unhappy occurrence,
and disclaimed having felt the slightest malice towards Slee.
Mr. Patten, the new county member of Parliament, gave Barnes a
high character for good temper and humanity : he was formerly game.l
keeper in his service for a short period.
The prisoner's brother stated, that the morning after the affray, the
prisoner had shown the deepest sorrow for what bad happened, and
sent to inquire after the deceased; also to say, that he would pay the
doctor's bill. Barnes had a wife and one child; and the brother, who
was engaged in the fray, was a cripple, with the use of one hand only.
The JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the prisoner Guilty.
His LORDSUIP expatiated on the culpability of his conduct in en-
gaging
in an affray, whilst it was his sworn duty to keep the peace,
and this culpability was deeply aggravated by the circumstances of
the man, who had met his death at the prisoner's hands, being also
a constable in the immediate execution of his duty. These circum-
stances called for a severe punishment ; and but for the contrition and
commiseration evinced by the prisoner, the sentence would have been
much heavier ' • that sentence was, that he be confined for two years to
hard labour in Lancaster Castle.

John Hinds and Connor Riley were arraigned upon a charge of bur-
glary. Hinds pleaded " guilty' to the charge, but Riley, sitting him
a look of reproach, pleaded not guilty."
The evidence, however, was so clear as to render it a matter of some
speculation what line of defence the prisoner would adopt. An alarm
of thieves was given on the night of the burglary t Hinds was caught
in the house, and a watchman twigged the other fellow just as he was
escaping through a cellar grating; he took hold of him, and lodged him
in the watch.house.

The prisoner, when called on for his defence, whispered to Hinds—
" I could you I'd never throw a chance away." Turning to the Judge,
he then said, " My Lord, I had been drinking that same night with
some Mends of mine, and after breaking up, I was passing by a house
promiscuously, when some one shouted Thayer, thaves I as loud as
iver they could bawl. I thought I might as well help to catch the vil.
leans; so in I crept at that same cellar grate—when they very unhand.
somely laid hould ;on me, and mistook me for the 'thafe, instead of
thanking me, as I richly deserved to be." During thii brief recital the
fellow made sundry pauses between the sentences, to gather fresh Im.
pudence for his next phrase, casting his eyes now at the judge, anon at
the jury, and often at Hinds, who apparently stood aghast at his un•
paralleled audacity, whilst the court and those present were not able to
refrain from laughter. At its conclusion, his lordship gravely asked
him to explain the only trifling difficulty which remained towards
establishing his innocence, by clearing up some little doubts which
might be left on the minds of the jury, as to his having been found
without his shoes whilst going a thief catching.
Comior—Oh faith, and is that all, your holiness (overjoyed at the
apparent success of his tale); I'll dare up that in one twinkling. Ye
see, I was wishing to stale on the rogues, your honour, so I pet pulled
oil my shoes to be more quiet about it.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and repeated the prisoner's in-
genious defence, leaving the jurors to draw their own conclusions as to
its truth.

Withouj any consultation, they found him Guilty, and sentence of
death was recorded against the prisoners.
The Nisi Fritts side has disposed of two cases this day—in the first a
juror was withdrawn after the defence was concluded, and the second was
a mere question as to liability of the inhabitants of a neighbouring vil-
lage to repair a road. Neither were possessed of any such Interest u to
render their publication desirable.

GLOUCESTER, At o. 25.
(CIVIL SIDE)--Befure Mr Justice PARK.
HICKS, EY DIX. TILT Y. WILLIAMS.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by Mr. Thomas Tily, the
husband of the heiress.at.law of Francis Skurry Smith, a brandy-mer-
chant, formerly residing at Lawrence-hill, Bristol, who died in Feb.
ruary, 1813, having in the preceding month of January made his will,
by which he devised to his second wife, Anna Maria Smith, all his
real and personal propertv,which was of considerable amount, to the ex-
clusion of Mary his daughter and only child by his first marriage.
The object of the action was to try the validity of the will. The
widow of the testator had married the defendant, Mr. Charles Williams,
a brewer at Dursley. The lessor of the plaintiff, Mr. Tily, who mar.
ried the testator's daughter in the year 1824, was a veterinary surgeon at
Dursley.
In support of the will, Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. TaLronD, who
conducted the defendant's cue, called the two surviving witnesses whose
names were subscribed to the attestation of the execution of the testator.
The first witness, Elizabeth Skinner, a cousin of Mrs. Williams, the de-
fendant's wife, spoke to her attestation of the will, which she said was
prepared by Mr. Charles Ludlam, formerly an attorney in Bristol.
She did not recollect seeing the testator sign the will, nor that he
said any thing at that time. She had signed the attestation by the chris.
tian name of Betsy, which she said was her baptismal name, and the
name in which she always signed important instruments, though on
other occasions she sometimes signed by the name of Elizabeth, or the
initial " E." She was asked, on cross-examination, whether she had

not denied having seen the will executed, and she said she nevet did;'
but on the question being repeated, and it being suggested to her, that
she had told Mrs. Tily that she did not witness the will, she admitted'
the fact, with this explanation—viz. that Mrs. Tily " had taken her so
unawares, that she did not understand what she said." She admit.
ted also, that on another occasion, when Mr. Tily's attorney called
on her, she at first said, she was not a witness to the will, though
she immediately corrected herself, and said that she was. The second
attesting witness, Harriet Stratton, who was a sister of Mrs. Wil-
liams, stated that she saw the testator execute the will (having
first read it over,) and that the three witnesses (Elizabeth
Skinner, herself, Mrs. Stratton, and Mr. Latcham, the attor-
ney,) attested it in his presence. Mrs. Stratton admitted on
her cross-examination that she at one time denied to a Mr. Rickards
that she was a witness to the will, but accounted for such denial by
saying she had forgotten the circumstance. There was a discrepancy
in the evidence of Elizabeth Skinner and Mrs. Stratton, as to the state
of health in which the testator was shortly before his death, the first of
those witnesses stating that he was ill and unable to move about the
house without assistance, and the other saying that he was able to go
up and down stairs and attend in his shop. The handwriting of Mr.
Latcham, the third attesting witness, who was dead, was proved, and it
was stated that at the time of the transaction in question he was a re-
spectable attorney at Bristol. it was proved also that the body of the
will was In the handwriting of a clerk of Mr. Latchum. It appeared
by the will, which was put in and read, that a sum of 201. was left
to the testator's daughter (now Mrs. Tily) for mourning, and that sum
was stated to be "in addition to what she was entitled to, under her
late mother's marriage-settlement." The testator, it was stated

by one of the witnesses, was about 40 years of age when he died. The
daughter was about 8 or 10.
On the part of the lessor of the plaintiff; Mr. TAUNTON, with whom
were Serjeant Ludlow and Mr. Blaule, (after addressing the jury, and
remarking that it was an extraordinary circumstance, that both the sur-
viving witnesses, who were said to have seen the will executed, and to
have attested it, should, at different times, and to different persons have
denied the fact,) called several witnesses, the two first of whom were
persons who had lived in the testator's service, and who stated, that the
testator had been always fond of his daughter, who was his only child ;
and that he occasionally had disputes with his wife (now Mrs. W illiants)
as to her mode of treating her. These two witnesses also spoke to the
fact of the testator being very weak for several weeks prior to his death,
and unable to go up and down stairs, cr even to get out of his chair
without assistance. The fact of Elizabeth Skinner having told 61r.
Powell, the attorney, that site was not a witness to the will, and afterwards
stated that she was, was deposed to by that gentleman ; and Mr. Rickards,
a bookseller and auctioneer, at Dursley, spoke to the conversations be.
tween him and the second attesting witness, H. Stratton. He stated
that he, accompanied by Mr. Tily, the lessor of the plaintiff, saw
her in March 1828, when, in answer to his inquiry, she stated, that
she had not seen the will executed, and was not a witness to it. She ad.
Jed that she was present when Mr. Latch= came in with the will, but
site " made it a point of delicacy" to leave the room, in order that it
might not be thought that any undue influence was used. On his cull.
lug on her a second time, in company with a Mr. Duberley, she said
she was very sorry she had misinformed him (Mr. Rickards) on the
former occasion ; but:she had since seen her brother, to whom she bad
mentioned the conversation, and he had brought every circumstance se
strongly to her recollection, that she was satisfied she was a subscrib.
ing witness to the will. In addition to this evidence, some receirk
signed by Miss Skinner in the years 1824,:,1826, and 1829, in the
name of " E. Skinner," were put in for the purpose of contradicting
that witness's statement as to her signing all documents of consequence
in the name of " Betsy Skinner; and a 'copy of her baptismal register
was produced, to show she was christened by the name of Elizabeth,
and not Betsy.
itlr. Justice PARK, in leaving the case to the Jury. observed that
if there was any doubt or difficulty in it, it was owing entirely to the
absurdity and folly of the two surviving witnesses in denying, as

they had done at different times, that they had attested the execu-
tion of the will.
The Jury, without the least hesitation, found for the defendant,
thereby establishing the validity of the will.
The above was the principal case tried in the Nisi Prius Court to-
day. In on action which followed, and which was brought in the name
of a boy IG years of agc against Mr. Cox, a respectable man in Glou-
cester, for sending the plaintiff to the Tolley in that city, in conse-
quence of his having trespassed on the defendant's premises in going
into his garden in search of some runaway rabbits, the Jury, after
hearing some rather heated observations of Mr. Justice Park, found a
verdict for no less a sum than 301. to the great astonishment of the
Learned Judge himself, and of the Counsel and every one else in court,
it having appeared in evidence that the boy was not detained at the
Tolsey above five or ten minutes, the constable having taken upon
himself to decide that the matter was not cognisable by the magistrates.
Mr. TAUNTON intimated pretty audibly that he should move to set
aside the verdict.
CHOWN SlDE.—Before Mr. Justice BOSANQUET.
Edwin Lewis, a young man, was indicted for a rape on Mary Ann
Fawkes, at Stroud, on the 17th of July last.
The details of the case are unfit for publication ; after a very long
trial the prisoner was acquitted.