Star.
London, England, 1805-04-04 00:00:00

CRIM. CON.

At the Nifi Priu, Bar, there was a caufe tried
which excited a conliderahle degree of interefi. It
was an action brought by Mr. Scerla, a fchoolmaner
at Penzance, againt) Mr julept Batten, an attorney,
reading in the fame town, for criminal converfation
with Mrs. Sterla, his wife. The damages were laid
at pool. The o,unfel for the Plaintiff were Mr.
Serjeant Lama and Mr. GASELEE ; and for the Di-
fendant, Mr. itICYLL and Mr. EAST. Several wit-
neffes were called or. the part of the Plaintiff, for the
purport of proving the marriage—the perfe&) harmo-
ny which had fuldified between the Plaintiff and his
wife from the time of their marriage, which took
place in the year 179 y, until a twelve month fince,
when the Defendant became a lodger in the houfe of
the Plaintiff—the commiffion of the fact of adultery,
and the amount of the property of the Plaintiff. The
Counfel on the part of the Defendant made a very
eloquent and ingenious addrefs to the Jury, with a
view of inducing them to give damages merely no
minal ; but he did not call any witneffes. The Judge,
Sir THOMAS MANNIRS SUTTON, Knight, in fumming
up the evidence, expatiated on the ferious confe.
quences refulting to society from cafes of this nature;
when the jury, after a (port deliberation, returned a
verdict in favour of the Plaintiff for 2001.
KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES, MARCH at. •

The KING v. DAVY AND OTH ERS.—Thib was an in-
didment againa the Defendant for a nuilance, occa-
fioned by their Coke Manufadory, in BI tckfliar's
R"ai. The indidment averred, that, by reafon of
their Manufactory, the air %vas corrupted, and all
the neighlymi hood and padfengers annoyed by the
fmell and he Imoke.

Several wititelres were called, of which the princi•
pal was a Mr. Maynard, who dated, that the fmoke an
noyed all his 11,:ufes, and he had daily c =plaint :
none, howev.:r, of the witneffes limed any body had
ever been driven from their houfes, or that any body
had quit, ed the neighbourhood in confequence of the
nuifance.

Mr. GARROW, for the Defendant, Willed that the
Plaintiff had made no cafe. Verdi& Aot Grub,.
The KING v. SKINNER.—This was an indidment
againll Alderman Skinner hsr not repairing a road
and ditch adjoining to his houfe at Collier's Wood,
which it WAS alledged he was bound to repair, in con-
fequenee of the tenure of his lands. It was proved
that the Al,fer man's predeceff r had repaired an arch
over the ditch leading to the dwelling houfe, and
that, alter the entrance to the honk was made, he
continually kept the fame part of the road in repair.
For the Alderman, it was contended, that his pre•
decelfor had tak,m the piece of ground by incroach-
meat, and confequently was bound to repair while he
held it ; but afterwards making a new road to the
houfe, he gave up the old entrance, which reverted
to the tru:l, and then they were bound to repair it.
The Jury found a verdiet of Gs•ilry, as to the old
arch, sshich obliges the Alderman to repair 75 yards
oh the road.

MARCH 29.
J. Peacock was puutu the Bar, charged with having
ectalioned the death of Michael Coleman. George Mit-
clod' (wore, that on the night of the 27th of Dec.
latt, in palling Montague-chile, Southwark, in com-
pany stilt his brother, tit:), übferved a fondle, and
balloting to the (put, he Cm the prifoner at the bar
lir ikc the dece,ifed three times with one hand, hold
iug a lb:allied bayonet in the other : that the de•
ceafeti, in confcquence of theft: blows, fell fenfelefs
agtinit the !halts ft( a waggon ; that Mr. Peacock
rctittetted their :aka/Lace to catry Coleman to the

Clown public-houfe oppofite, where he ordered th%t
every Care and attention Ihould be paid to him.—
Coleman was afterwards removed to his lodgings,
and thence to Guy's Hofpital, where he died on the
Monday following. James Mitchell corroborated
the firfi part of his brother's tetlimony : they under-
went an ingenious and long arils examination by
Meas. GAR ROW and Lewes. The Surgeons and
Medical Alliitams of the Hofpital were examined as
to the caufe of Coleman's death ; but they could not
fay that the wound on the back of his head was the
()melon, or whether it proceeded from apoplexy or
otherwife ; neither did it appear in evidence that the
wound had been 'Aided by the prifoner. Mr. Pea-
cock made a very eloquent defence : he timed, th it
he was diatu bed at night by a violent ringing of his
bell ; that finding an unknown man at his door, he
endeavoured to remove him from it, but that he did
not fluke him. He Ilrongly animadverted on the
character and conduet of G. Mitchell, who he flitt-
ed to have been a Member of Deipard's Club.—
Mitchell here made an irregular appeal to the Court,
in reply to the prifoner's defence, but was ordered
out .'f Court. After a perfpicuous charge from the
Judge, the Jury, without leading the box, found a
vet diet of—Acquittal.