Star.
London, England, 1814-03-29 00:00:00

SURREY.-CROYDON, MARCH 26.

James Smith was indicted for wilfully firing at aticl
wounding Thomas Carrington, at Walton-epon-
Thames, in the month•of January last.
The prosecutor stated, that, about ten o'clock at
night, he was ringing at the bell of the prisoner's
house, where he was going to see the prisoner's wife,
when he heard the report of a gun from the opposite
side of the way, and felt himself wounded in the leg.
s leg was badly fractured. He admitted that he
-as visiting the wife against the wishes of the priso-
u'r, and -that he knew the prisoner disliked it.
Another witness, a labouring man, just as the gun
:lira.'., saw the prisoner at the door of a public-
..,a:.r, nearly opposite, with A gun in his hand. He
:l. to him, " what have you done ? you have shot
:• • van ;" he replied, 44 yes, he had ; he had been
1,,r ILim some time, and had caught him at last."
tiler witnesses proved expressions of the prisoner,

?cos dttermination to injure the prosecutor,
tvi:om s!ivected of an impioper intercowse with
his wife. Tile Jury found him guilty.

STAFFORD.

- a;:herine Walker, aged thirty-two, was indicted for
the v. Iful murder of her female bastard child, at Ut-
toleter. Upon the trial, her son John Walker, a boy
appArently eleven or twelve years of age, was called
as an evidence against his mother. Immediately on
being sworn, he cast his looks to the place where his
mother stood, and, bursting into a violent and unre-
straineble flood of tears, he exclaimed, " Oh, mo-
ther ! oh, mother !" His impassioned gestures, his
evidently acute sensations, and uncontrollable emo-
tions, were such, that almost. every eye that was upon
him moistened, and every heart vibrated to his feel-
ings,. The expectation of a conviction, for murder
had previously been abandoned, and fortunately there
was sufficient evidence, without examining him, to
prove the birth arid concealment ; the painful task
was therefore spared, and the boy was not.examined.
—The prisoner was sentenced to two years impri-
sonment.

YORK, MARCH 24.

SEDUCTION.-LODGE, CLERK, V NOBLE.

This was an action by the Rev. D. Lodge, a cler-
gyman, residing at Kirkburton, in this county, to re-
cover a compensation in damages for the seduction of
his daughter.
The Attorney General (Panic) stated' the case to
be a serious and aggravated one. The plaintiff, a
most respectable minister of the Church of England,
had to complain of the dishonour of his daughter, by
the defendant, his near and opulent neighbour ; who
had accomplished his designs against her virtue, un-
der the mask of an apparently honourable courtship,
which he had for some time carried on, with the con.
sent of the father, whose permission he had solicited
for that purpose. His visits to the young Lady vivre
constant and assiduous ; but at length an intercourse
took pine, the consequence of which rendered a mar-
xiage the only refuge against shame ; but the dcfen-
da'tt having triumphed over her virtue, refused to
fulfil the promise by which he had betrayed her. He
wrote several letters to her expressing his hope that
she was not in the way she suspected herself to be
insinuated groundless suspicions of her fidelity, and
&tarty deserted her.
Miss MAry Lodge was produced as.the witness for
her, other. Slie described the progress of the defen-
(Lir:es courtship, until one evening when her father re-
tirPd to rest about nine o'clock, leaving the defendant
'arLd her tr,getber. It was upon this occasion, that
taking a,ivantage of her confidence, he induced her,
ilAer The promise of marriage, to consent to his im-
po Lunities. They frequently met afterwards, and the
result was, she was delivered of a child in her father's
house : her father had supported her during her con-
finement. Upon her cross-Lx:imination, nothing trans-
pired affecting her character previous to her intimacy
with the defendant.
A Lady, who had known her from her infancy,
stAedi that till her criminal acquaintance with Mr.
Noble, her conduct had been that of a chaste and vir-
tuous girl.
Mr. RAINE, in addressing the Jury, contended,
that as this was not an action for a breach of promise

of marriage, but for a compensation to the plaintiff for
the loss of his daughter's service, his own conduct
• ought to be taken into consideration. It appeared he
had been wanting in that caution which a parent
ought to exercise. He had gone to bed, leaving two
young lovers together: the consequence had been what
nsight have been expected.
Sir &mos: LE &Aso thought there was nothing
to impeach the right ot' the plaintiff to maintain the
action. The conduct of the daughter had been ex-
emplar/ till her intimacy with the defendant, and
therefore the father was entitled to compensation, not
nly fin- the loss of his daughter's service, but for the
injury done to his feelings.
The Jury,retired for about half an hour, anti retur-
ned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages al2O.

NORFOLK.

PILGRIM V. iVESTON.

This alas an action at the suit of Elizabeth Pil-
rim against Mr. Godfrey Weston, for a breach of
promise of marriage. The phenttiff is daughter of Mr.
Maurice Pilgrim, of Morley St. Peter, in Norfolk ;
and some time ago she went to live with her rela-
lions, Mr. and Mrs. Pilgrim, of Wymondham, in the
capacity of a servant, where she .became acquainted
with the defendant, who was a sort of Managing farm
servAnt to her relation Mr. Pilgrim, and possessed
some real estate of his wan, which he has since sold.
The defendant availed himself df this opportunity to
take advantage of the plaintiff's youth and unwary
innocence, under the triost unqualified promises of
marriage: After remaining forty weeks at Wymond-
ham, the plaintiff's appiaranceindicated the unlaw-
ful intimacy she had engaged inj and in consequence
of a quarrel with her relation and master,- Mr. Pd.
grim, she returned to her father-'s house at Morley,
and after twenty-four weeks residence there she was
put to bed. After her return to Morley, the defen-
chnt continued his attentions by frequent visits, and
was crewed by Elizabeth's father and mother as one
of the family, upon the faith of the approaching con-
nectinn,which he so unequivocally promised. The bans
bad been actually published at Morley, but no positive
evidence could be shewn of his assent thereto, the

lady : he, herever, continted. his visits at Morley, at
the very time that these bans were published in the
parish, which afforded a strong presumption in favour
of his knowledge and consent. The defendant had,
however, since discontinued his visits at Morley, and
told plaintiff's father he could not think of marrying
his daughter, because she had no money : since which
declaration he had, in fact, actually married another
woman, although his hand-writing was proved to a
letter to the plaintiff, couched in the most affectionate
terms, in which he subscribed himself her 4. constant
lover," and declared, if ever he married it should be
to herself. The defendant's Counsel admitted the
promise of marriage, but strove to mitigate the da-
mages, in consequence of some payments voluntarily
made by -the defendant, in addition to those which
the Magistrate's-order compelled him to pay. Ver-
dict for plaintiff—Damages £l5O.

MEREST V. HARVEY.
This was an action for damages brought in conse-
quence of a trespass committed by the defendant on
the lands of the plaintiff, accompanied by much pro
yoking language towards the person of the plaintiff.
Judgment had been suffered by default, and an in-
quiry as to the amount of damages was now heard
before the Judge and a Jury of the county.
Mr. Serjeant SELLoNr, for the plaintiff, stated the
case, which was afterwards confirmed by the testi-
mony of the Rev. Mr. Cullum, who had been the
companion of the plaintiff at the time the outrage was
committed. The substance of the case was as fol-
lows ; —The plaintiff was shooting on his estate of
Lynford, on the Bth of September last, with his ft iend
Mr. Cullum, when he was familiarly accosted by the
defendant, who appeared to be travelling on she road,
and had with him a friend, a curricle, and a servant,
and who proposed joining the plaintiff's party. The
plaintiff observed, that he (the defendant) being a
perfect stranger to him, he must decline giving him
permission to join, being engaged in company for a
day's shooting. To which the defendant said, " Oh!
you won't, won't you ? then Plt be damned if I don't
shoot, whether you will or no." . The plaintiff then
said, if he did it was at his peril, desiring to know his
name, and offered him a written notice, which he re.
fused. The defendant then delivered the plaintiff his
card of address, and went to his curricle, and got his
gun and proceeded to hunt up game with his dogs,
and to shoot in the face of the plaintiff and his party.
After ten or a dozen shots, the defendant very mo-
destly turned round to the plaintiff and said, as his
shot was all out, perhaps the plaintiff would supply
him with a few charges; and on his being refused,
he returned to his curricle, supplied himself, and
again proceeded to shoot.—On being again offered a
notice by the plaintiff, he said plaintiff did not know
his business, and nothing would give him so much
pleasure as to have the affair brought into Court, and
he would give the defendant £5O if he would bring
it into Court • adding, " You don't know who I am,
Sir- I am a Member of Parliament, and a Magistrate
of the county of Essex, and if you don't hold your
tongue, I'll commit you."—His Lordship observed
to the Jury, that this was a case in which they were
not to confine themselves to the actual injury com-
mitted, by treading down the plaintiff's grass, but
should take into consideration the magnitude of the
insult which he had received, and for which no pro.
vocation had been given. Verdict for plaintiff—Da-
mages £5OO.

SALISBURY.

GRIFFIN V. BANNING.

This case, which came on at the last Assizes, be-
fore a Special Jury, excited a considerable degree of
curiosity and attention, as it presented a novelty ne-
ver before, we believe, witnessed here. An old tomb
stone, of the year 1715, covered the table of the Court.
It was an action to recover considerable estates in the
county, which had belonged to the late Mr. John
Griffin, who died intestate, about four yeirs ago ;
and the question in dispute was, which of the two
parties (who had descended from two of three bro-
thers, the intestate being a descendant of the third)
was the heir at law It appeared that the late Mr.
Griffin had uniformly declared to his tenants, and to
all his friends, that the plaintiff was his heir, and
would possess all his estates at his death. Against
these declarations, proved by many witnesses, the dr,-
. fendant produced several persons to prove their
having heard from the mother of the defendant, that
her father was the eldest of the three brothers ; and

in the absence of any registers of their births, the
circumstance of this brother having trried nearly
thirty years before the others, and toed thirty-two
years before one of them, and forty-eight years before
the other, gave the character of probability to the
latter testimony, upon whicll two former verdicts had
already been found in favour of the defendant. The
strong conviction, however, which rested on the mind
of the plaintiff, front the many expressions of his rela-
tion in his favour, that he was the right heir, induced
him to seek for better evidence amongst the family
tomb stones, which not being legible, had before been
disregarded. With much pains, however, taken un-
der the eye of the clergyman, to make out the inscrip-1
tions, several stones were cleaned, and two were dis-
covered, which completely solved all the difficulty,
shewing the ages of the three brothers, and whereby
it appeared that the defendant's ancestor had marred
at the very early age of 22, and died two years after-
wards, in the year 1715, !t.aving a posthumous daugh-
ter, who was the mother of the defendant ; the other
brothers had married much later in life, one at fifty-
two and the other at forty-eight, and thus the- miscon-
ception of the defendant's branch of the family had
arisen.

A plaster impression had been taken from this tomb
stone of 1715, previous to the lot bummer Assizes, to
be given in evidence, but the trial was then put off by
the defendant, for want of his witnesses. It now ap-
peared by the testimony of his attorney, that he had
gone off immediately, upon leaving the Court, from
Salisbury to Avebury church yard, a distance of near
forty miles, in the short space of four hours, taking
with him four masons from Devizes,x and carried off
with them the tomb stone which was now brought
into Court : but after all this industry, it was not given
in evidence, and no conclusica. was attempted to be
drawn upon its being thus publicly exhibited to an
astonished Court.

The Learned Judge, in the strongest terms, repro-
bated the improper act of the removal of the stone as
a public re,ard ;—and, after recapitulating all the
evidence, the Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict