Star.
London, England, 1825-04-04 00:00:00

'a cause, be said, of great hafortaace to the pasilespi
from the amount of property involved, and also a nice
question of the international law between England and
Scotland. If, however, his view of the case was cot-
rem the second question would not came under the
consideration of the Jury. The plaintiff, who was pro-
bably known to some of the Jurors, was John Burt-
whistle, Esq. a young Gentleman residing near Skipton,
and the defendant was Mrs. Vardill, his aunt. The
grandfather of the plaintiff- had three sons—William
and Robert, who died without issue, and Alexander,
the plaintiff's father ; and one daughter, the present de.
fendant. Mr. Alexander Birtwhistle, when at the age
of twentrtwo, quitted this country, and became do-
miciled in Scotland, where he carried on business ex-
tensively, held several estates, and lived till 1810, when
he died, and was brought for burial to Skipton. Mary
Purdy, the mother of the plaintiff, was the daughter of
an Irish Gentleman, who, becoming involved in his cir-
cumstances, took his family to Scotland, where his son
entered into the service of Mr. Alexander Birtwhistle,
and became his overlooker. This Gentleman, seeing
his overlooker's sister, who was a young Lady of great
beauty, became enamoured of her; and as she steadily
resisted his advances on any dishonourable terms,
whilst he did not dare to marry her publicly, owing
to the objections of his sister-in-law, Mrs. Thomas
Birtwhistle, who kept his house, and intended to leave
him her property, he married Miss Purdy privately.—
This marriage took place in the presence of his chief
clerk, Denison, and a friend named Thompson, on the
12th Nov. 1795. These witnesses were dead, but Mrs.
Birtwhistle would be called, and would state to them the
facts. Mrs.Thomasßirtahistle died in 1803 or 1801, and
in 1805,Mr.AlexanderB. publicly mart ied her, and in the
deed of marriage it was distinctly asserted that the psr-1
ties had been 4, privately and irregularly married on the
lath N0v.1795." Mrs. B. lived at a separate esta'ilith-
ment kept by Mr. B. and as the mistress of the house.
She afterwards lived at Balmay, in a style of splendour'
wholly inconsistent with the idea of her being a mistress.'
It would be shew it that Mr. A. Birtwhistle had stated his
marriage to many different persons. Now, if they
should even fail in this proof, it was the fact that a sub-
sequent marriage in Scotland, accord.ng to the Scotch
law, legitimatized children born previous to the mar-
riage ; and if this was the law of Scotland, a child thus
legitimatized there would be held legitimate all over the
world. He quoted Huber, who lays down the principle
that the rights and qualities of persons are held the same
in all countries as they are legally recogniz d in their
own country.
Evidence was called to support the plaintiff's case.

Mr. SCARLZTT believed the question of law in
this case to be, whether a man who is the lawful heir to
an estate in another country will be heir to estates in
England, if be should have been born under circum-
stances that would render him a bastard according to
the English law ? But the question of fact, with which
alone the Jury bad to do, was, whether a marriage had
taken place prior to 1805 ? ie then commented on the
evidence at considerable length, and contended that the
evidence of the previous marriage was unsupported by
any credible testimony. The circumstances they were
called upon to believe were, that the daughter cf an
Irish lab.nuer, who could not ether read or write, all
the mtunbers of whose family looked for their subsist-
ence, worked for their subsistence, and who lived in a
kitchen, with a single closet, resisted even the honour-
able advances of a young man of the most handsome for-
tube, and needed to be pressed to it by a respectable
Magistrate; yet, when once the marriage had taken
place, it was consummated after dinner in a room in
the factory where there was no bed, and the intercourse
carried on in a convenient room of Catharine Mageoch's
dram-shop, unless there were some green fields around
Gatehouse which served for the scene of their nuptial
sites! Such a story was surely contemptible and ridi-
culous. He decl •red that the case made out was so
miserably weak, that he wished the Jury, on looking at
it, would stop him, and say it was unnecessary for him
to enter into the body of evidence he bad to destroy it.
Judge BAYLVI said, he certainly had a strong impres-
sion on the subject, but Mr. Scarlett must not, on that
account, refrain from going on with h;s proofs.
Mr. SCARLETT repeated his earnest wish, for the sake
of the public, that he might be spared the production of
his witnesses, and concluded, after several pauses, by
saying, that he would take it u; on himself to re,t the
defendant's cause upon the pla;nt ff's own evidence.
I The Jury consulted a shot t time, when they found a
special verdict for the plaintiff, that there had been a
marriage celebrated on the 6th May, 1805.
On this verdict, the novel question will be raised and
decided in the Courts above, whether persons considered
legitimate in the Scotch Law, being born prior to a
marriage, and legitimatised by, the subsequent act, can
inherit property in England ? The property in this case
is estimated to be nearly 2,0001. per ann. in this county,
and the interest attached to it, caused the Court to
be crowded to excess, by a number of Ladies of rank
and fashion ; who, notwithstanding Mr. Scarlett's warm
and close examination, with his subsequent comments,
were constrained by the pressure, to keep their seats.
Oa the Crown side, at these Assizes, Stuannts4 Turpin
Win tried on Friday, for poisoning her mother-in-law.
I:The principal evidence was Mary Ann Saunderson,
grand-daughter to the deceased, and niece to the pri-
soner. She stated that on a Saturday, in March, 1826,
the daughter of the prisoner brought a cake to the
deceased's house ; it was shewn to the witness and the
deceased, and then put away for tea ; at that time the
deceased and the witness ate a portion of it, toasted, and
with the witness's grandfather they drank tea out of the
same pot. Shortly after eating the cake, the witness and
the deceased were taken very sick, and the deceased's
husband, who had been advised by Jane Turpin, an-
other of his daughters in law, not to be too venturesome
in tasting it, took it fcr examination to a medical man,
through whose advice medicines were administered to
the deceased and the witness ; the former, however,who
had eaten a greater portion of the cake, died in the even-
ing. It further appeared from the girl's evidence, th t
on the 2Sd November previous, she went with the pri-
soner to a druggist's shop in Hull, and by the prisoner's
desire, purchased some poison, and said it was to de-
, stroy mice. The prisoner had frequently visited the
deceased, and bad seat her provisions when she com-
plained of being distressed ; but they did not quarrel.
Several other witnesses were examined ; but they failed
in supporting the charge, and the prisoner was ulti•
mately acquitted.

The Morning Paper from which we copied the ac-
count, says, 41 We have reason to believe that the Ask between the
Ben' Nero and six mastiffs did not take place on Tuesday Yet at
Warwick, at stated in our Paper et Saturday. We received the
MOM OMR I COCrofpoS4Onti on when accuracy we have always
WOWS! correctly relied."