Star.
London, England, 1825-03-17 00:00:00

knew bim, when he was running...may., He made
sudden stop, and then ran off again directly..
In his cross-examlnation,• he *as not very
drunk. I was not fresh, but not quite so sober as I ate
now. I was not drinking for three hours. I was in
the house three hours. I was.quite sober. I did not
stagger at all. There was no moon the night I was
knocked down. It happened between eleven and
twelve at nig6t. A Lady waited upon me at the pub-
lic-house. Though I told Cleaver that I knew him, he
did not run away. He was taken at •home the next
morning. There were a greatetti:ther of' people in the
Black's Head. Nobody went with me. Boulbee
didoiot go part of the way home in my company.
Frances Holmes deposed-1 am the wife of John
Holmes. I remember my husband coming home on
the night in question. He was sadly mauled. He was
all over mud, and was blooded. His braces were undone.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he was not guilty
of the crime. He went the contrary way home to
Holmes. He had several persons with him.
Many' respectable witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent
character.
The person with whom he lodged deposed, that Ile was at home
at least a quarter before twelve at night.
Mr. Baron Bottom summed up the evidence.
Verdict—Guilts—Death. . .
LANCASTER, MARCH 14.
Henry Lee, stood charged with killing and slaying
Daniel Grimshaw, a child of 15 days old. •
Mr. RAINCOCK stated the circumstances. of the case.
It appeared that a sect, called the Joh‘naites, pro-
fessing so be disciples of the late Johaunt Southcote,
had lately increased to a-very considerable extent'in this
county, and particularly in that pan of it which was in
the neighbourhood of Ashton-under-Line. It was not
necessary for him tastate all the tenets of that sect; it
was sufficient for the Jury to be informed that they had
lately adopted the Jewish rite of circumcision. The chil-
dren of the people belonging to that sect were circum-
cised on the eighth day after birth. During the cere-
mony music was performed in a garret, which they
called a chapel, where the circumcision took place.—
The child whose death formed the subject of this
enquiry, was circumcised by the prisoner at the bar
and in conseqvence of the wound inflicted upon it on
that occasion the infant died. He did not impute to
the prisoner any malice towards the infant, or any in-
tention of promoting his death. But he would tell the
Jury, under the direction of his Lordship, that the mu-
tilation committed by the prisoner on the infant was
an illegal act, and that he was answerable for its con-
sequences. It would appear in evidence that the pri-
soner was the circumcisor of the sect; that a hollow piece
of metal, which was used to prevent too much from
being cut off, was on the table, as were alio a knife and
scissots; but whether the knife or the scissors was used
was a point that could not be clearly made out.
Mr. Justice Barter observed, that it was quite immaterial which
of the instruments were used.
When the incision was made, a cobweb was applied
to it to stop the blood, and over this was placed a linen
rag. The child was born on the 9th of September last ;•
it was circumcised on the 16th, and it -died on the
23d, from a mortification which took place in the
wounded part.
The, facts es stated by the Learned Counsel were supported by
witnesses, some of whom give their evidence very-reluctamly.
Mr. ltaiscout said, the object of the prosecutors was to put
down what they toticdeed to be an illegal practice.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said they were perfectly correct
and right," and I should have gone with you in saying,
that. the practice of circumcision is illegal; at least, so
far as those are concerned who are not in a state to
judge for themselves. But it seems to me that the ob-
ject of the prosecutors is attained, by bringing the ques-
tion in this way before a Court of Justice. It is right
that the public should know that this practice is not
legal with respect to children, and that they shouts
understand that this indictment goes off only because it
is not properly framed as to the description of the means
of death."—The Jury, under his Lordship's direction,'
then acquitted the prisoner.
The prisoner, who had been previously out on bail,
stood in the dock during his trial. He was dressed in
a dark frock coat, made like a hunting coat, with steel
buttons. Unlike one of the witnesses, he was smoothly
shaved ; he exhibited a pair of' large and well nurtured
whiskers, and a countenance that betrayed no symptom
of his denying himself the good things of this world.
He appeared about thirty-four years of age. When he,
was leaving the dock,
Mr. Justice BAYLIS' said to him—lf my advice has earertiglit
with you, I world recommend you to abstain from that prudes ilia
future, at least with regard to children.
The prisoner looked a good deal tusked when he received this
advice, but be said nothing; and left the dock apparently widest
any Intention of acting upon it.
Richard Reed was charged with killing and slaying
Ellen Dickinson, at Chorley, under the following cir-
cumstances :—He was a farmer, and amongst his cows
he kept one which was notoriously mischievous. He
bad frequent occasion to know that it was dangeous
for any person to go near it ; several persons had been
'hurt by it, and the woman in question at last fell a
victim to its fury. She was passing through the field
where it happened to be: it' followed her out on the
road, and mangled her in so dreadful a manner, that
she died io a few days after.
Mr. Justice BATLAY told the Jury, that if.a man kept
an animal which he knew to be maliciously inclined,,
and did not take measures to prevent it, either by con-
finement or by other means, from injuring other per-
sons, he was responsible for the consequences—Guilty.
Mr. Justice Bay.* proceeded to pass sentence on
him, and in doing so observed, that he could not help
feeling that the prisoner was guilty of great negligence
in leaving the animal at large after he knew outs mis-
chievous practices—(The prisoner was here much af-
fected). I don't want to break your spirit by confine-
ment. lam bound, sitting here, to shew that it is the
interest as well as the duty of every person to prevent
such an occurrence as this, whereby a poor woman has
come to an unfortunate death, and which might have
happened to your own wife, if you have one, as it wad
nearly occurring to your own child. You have received
a most excellent character, which weighs very much
with me ; and in consideration of which, and some other
circumstances communicated to me, the sentence of the
Court is, that you do pay 201. to the King, and be fur-
ther imprisoned until the fine be paid. •

SHERIFFS COURT.

LZWII, FAQ. AND 01111114 AGAINST TWO 01 TIM IN•
HABITANTS 01 TIIII NUNDRID OF WAFT DIRIT.
This was an action brought to recover compensation
in damages for the injury done to the Theatre Royal,
Liverpool, during the recent riots there, occasioned by
Miss Cramer's " appeal to the public."
The defendants having, under the direction of the
Acts Geo. IV. suffered judgment by default, the da-
mages were assessed in the Sheriff's Court, before W.
Phut Esq. Bartistevat4aw (the assessor'), and a soot

4