Star.
London, England, 1822-04-01 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

LEICESTER, MARCH 29.
CHAOGE OF POISONING.
William Barnett, charged with the wilful murder
of Mary Barnett, his late wife, at Ullesthorpe, on the
20th of September, 1821, by poisoning her with arse-
nic, took his trial yesterday. He purchased the arse-
nic at a druggist's shop in this town, on the Saturday,
taking a man along with him whAm he accidentally
met, and who inquired for what purpose he wanted
it ; he replied it was not for himself, but for a neigh-
bour, who wanted it to destroy some. rats. On the
Monday following his wife, who was a milliner and
staymaker, and in the habit of going to the different
villages to dispose of her goods, found herself very
unwell ; being somea hat better after breakfast, she
set off on her journey, and the prisoner accompanied
her as far as High Cross, where, on her calling upon
one of her customers, she was again taken ill and
fainted away. The poor woman daily grew worse
till the Sunday following,when she died in the great-
est agony. The prisoner is supposed to have been
induced to commit the horrid murder in consequence
of an unfortunate attachment to a sister of the de-
ceased ; and it is worthy of remark that, notwith-
standing he defeated the ends of justice for several
months, by avoiding the eye of the Police, he was,
at a moment when he felt himself perfectly secure,
recognised by a little boy, who accidentally met him
at Woodstock, in Oxfordshire.
The Jury found him Guilty, and he was ordered
for execution to-morrow—(Saturday last.)

SURREY.
HAMMOND V. THE INHABITANTS OF WOKING.
This was an action against the inhabitants of the
Hundred of Woking, to recover a compensation for
an injury sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of
the destruction of certain stacks of hay, &c.
It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, a Clergy-
ma.), resides at Wigglesham, near Bagshot, within
the Hundred of Woking. Alter his family had re-
tired to rest on thesth of May last, they were alarmed
about twelve o'clock by a cry of fire. It was imme-
diately discovered that the plaintiff's hay and straw
stacks were on fire, and burning with rapidity. Con-
siderable damage was done before the fire was sub-
dued. Several elm trees were literally burnt to the
very roots, and others so much scorched as to stop
'their growth. By the intrepid and active exertions
of the neighbours, who procured a fire-engine from
the Duke of Gloucester's Lodge, the flames were
prevented from communicating with the plaintiff's
dwelling : but their progress was not stopped until
some outbuildings were destroyed. Upon examining'
the cause of the flames, no doubt could be enter-
tained that they originated in the diabolical design of
some incendiary. It was observed that the stacks of
hay and straw were on fire at different places, and
in such spots as to remove all supposition that the fire
was accidental. The usual notices having been given
by the plaintiff's attorney, under the Black Act, 9th
of Gen. I. upon which this action was founded, the
plaintiff, after having in vain endeavoured to discover
the perpetrators of the offence, now sought a com-
pensation against the Hundred for the injury sus
tained. The sum sought to be recovered was £193,
which included .the injury done to the trees.
Witnesses were called to prove the manner in which
the injury was committed, and the amount of loss
occasioned by it.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction,
found their verdict for the plaintiff— Damages £lB7,
excluding the value (six pounds) of the trees injured
and destroyed.