Star.
London, England, 1814-08-02 00:00:00

LINCOLNSHIRE ASSIZES.

LAMLEY v. H. MAILsmAL.
This was an action to rec•ver (I:tillages for the se-'
Auction of the plaintiff's daughter.
Sarah Lumley, the daughter, stated, that her fa-.
tinr is a grocer, at Grmsby ; and the defendant is an
°nicer in the Custom-house. In August, 1812, she
became intimately acquainted with Line,—he promised
her marriage, but did not visit her at her father's
house. He first spoke to her at her father's door, and
some time Alter she met him or. the road leading to
Grimsby Luck. There he again told her his inten-
a,s were honourable ; that his situation brought him
in k 1.50 A-year ; and to at lie had expectations of get-
ting the Corr, pt.: tiller's situation. They corresponded
t ther till the November following, and witness oc-
:Moistly saw him. A difference arose between them
in November, and witness requested the defendant not
v write to her any more. No improper intercourse
had taken place at that time. Defendant, however,
write on the Ist of December, requesting to see her,
and she met him in consequence. He told her he
wished to renew the acquaintance, and begged her
to go to Hull to get married. He said the marriage
should take place on the 16th. On the 13th witness
went to Hull, where he promised to join her on the
foil, v ing day ; but, alti.ongli she remained there a
vie, k. lie neva came. An inipe, per intercourse took
pl..re the evening before she went to Hull, in conse-
taessi.e o•f which site became pregnant. In the course
get a tot tni,,ht alter, dele-daut wrote, ncilltiLiDg to see

her again ; to which she returned an 'omen`, refusing,
and stating that she feared she had already too much
cause to lament having trusted herself in his power.
After receiving two other letters, she at length met
him. The intetcourse, however, was not again renew-
ed on such friendly terms as before. Finding herself
likely to become a mother, witness wrote to the defen-
dant. She did not inform her father, because defendant
desired her not. Witness lived with her father at that
time. There were foui other children, all younger
than herself : she is 21 years of age. Was never out
so late as to give her father suspicion of her being
improperly employed. Witness perceived herself to
be in the family way about two months after her in-
timacy with the defendant,. but did not inform him
till June. She met him several times, but he always
evaded her, and wOld not give her an opportunity
of speaking to him. Her father was acquainted with
the circumstance in September. Defendant, by let-
ter, requested witness to meet him again ; but she
never saw him after informing him of her being with
child. About three weeks after her return from Hull
she met him, and told him her doubts as to her situ-
ation. She made an appointment .to meet him the
following evening, when he questioned her as to her
situation j and on her stating to him what she had
hinted the night before, he told her, if she would fol-
/low his dirt:it/one it would never be known that she
had been in the family way. He then produced a
small bottle, and desired her to take a little of the
mixtu, that was in it. She told him she dare not
take any thing of the kind. However, on his insist-
ing on it, sea stating that it was harmless it she took
it in milk or tea, she consented, and next morning
took some of the contents before breakfast, as direct.
ed, in consequence of which she soon after felt so
very sick, that she did not take any more. She did
not meet defendant after this, but wrote to him. On
the 2d of September she was delivered, ather father's,
house. Her father did not know it until the day
after. Witness burnt all the letters she received from
defendant, at his desire, being afraid they would fall
into her lather's hands. Defendant desired her to
conceal her situation, and threatened, if she did not
destroy his letters, that she should meet with leer
reward.
Ann Ward, milliner, of Grimsby, stated that about
the 11th of July, 11113, defendant came to ask per-
mission to pay his addresses to a young woman who
was with her. He slid his intentions were honourable
and that he intended to :mike her his wife in a few
weeks. She observed, Why not this week ?" De-
fendant repliedatitat he was in embarrassed circum-
stances with respect to Miss Lumley.
After Mr. Clarke had addressed the Jury for the,
defendant, Mr. Justice CHAMBRE said, he considered
the plaintiff entitled to a verdict; and the Jury
awarded £lOO damages.
John /lir, alias Wittier, for stealing four ewes and
four lambs ; and G. Morris, ler stealing a chejse and
a chaise.cushien, received sentence of death. J.
Thompson, a gentleman's servant, for stealing a quan-
tity of stamps from the office of W. Allison, of Louth,
was sentenced to seven years transportation. .
In the case of the King s. Fraser, an Attorney, an
indictment for a libel against Mr. Clarke, a Barrister
at Law, by publishing a letter, and sending a,
challenge, asserting, that he was to share damages in
a cause that he conducted, Mr. Fraser was found
guilty, and will receive judgment in the Court of
King's Bench.
YORK CITY SESSIONS, FRIDAY, JULY es.
Mary roues and Mari Young, (father and daugh-
ter) of Thorpe Arch, which is in the ainsty or coon•
ty of the city of York, were charged with the murder
of a male child, the offspring of the said Mary Young.
After a trial, which occupied five hours, the jury,
a' ter re• i, lag for some time, acquitted the prisoners.
There was this singularity in the case, that the male
prisoner was the father of the other prisoner, and was
the only person privy to the birth of the child, which
was concealed for two or three days, when suspicion
having been excited, the fact of her delivery was
mitted, and the child was produced from a band-box ;
it was then dead, and there was no doubt but it had
died of strangulation, either dining the birth or soon
after it.