Star.
London, England, 1830-11-29 00:00:00

THE XING T. LEAMAN.

This was an indictment for an assault, with an intent to commit vio-
lence, on the person of Elizabeth Green. The defendant is a surgeon,
the prosecutrix a straw-bonnet-maker, both residing in a town—we
believe Shefford—in Bedfordshire. The trial took place before Mr.
Justice Littledale, and the defendant was found guilty, and was now
brought up for judgment.
31r. Justice PAT TEBO3I read the notes taken by the Judge at the
trial. From these it appeared that the prosocutrix was the prin-
cipal witness. Her age was twenty.one years. She bad been in the
habit of going to the defendant's house, as ohs veld, always for the
purpose of delivering work to the defendant's sister, for whom she
had been in the habit of working. She went to defendant's house
on Friday, the 21st of August, 1829, and, upon getting to the door,
she was laid hold of by the defendant, and pushed about the gar-
den ; and that afterwards be dragged her into the parlour, where
the assault was committed. She swore positively that she st;reamed
out as loudly as she could, and that she became quite faint, and
was greatly exhausted from his violence. She denied having
ever allowed the defendant to take improper liberties with her.
She also stated that a light was brought into the parlour, which
was extinguished by the defendant. On her croes.examina-
Son, she said she did not complain to her friends un-
til the Monday following, when site mentioned what bad rte.
cursed to her mother she had known the defendant from her childhood
—he is 26 years old. There were three or four other witnesses foe the
prosecution, but none of them were near the defendant's house on the
night in question. For the defendant there were called several witnesses,
one of them, a next door neighbour, swore that he was at Mr. Lea.
man's on the evening in question • im be saw the plaintiff come near
and make very free with the defendant, who desired bee to go away she
did not do so at first, but, having afterwards left the place, she again re-
turned and went into the parlour or surgery after the defendant. This
witness remained near the room, but hard no noise—on the contrary,
be heard them whispering, and saw the prosecutrix sitting on the defer.
dart's (Mr. Leaman) knee. Mary Bailey, a servant of the defendant's,
swore that on the evening of tie 21st of August she had advised the pro.
seclude not to go to her master's house, as his sister was not at home,
and she could have no business there. This witness also swore that she
remonstrated with Elizabeth Green upon her improper levity with her
master.
The Court having consulted for some time, asked the defendant who.
tier he had any counselion the trial?
11r. Leaman said he had Mr. Sergeant Storks and another.
The Court asked him if he had any counsel DOW ?
The defendant answered in the negative.
The Court.—Do you wish to move for a new trial ?
The defendant said, that since the trial he had not employed any
counsel, as he could not afford to go to any additional expense. The
verdict had come upon him and the whole county as a thunderbolt, and
the Learned Sergeant at the time advised him not to go to any further
expense, but to throw himself on the Court.
Lord TesiTenuex told him that if he had any thing to say in mitt.
station of punishment, the Court would hear it.
The defendant then proceeded at length to comment on the testimony, I
and said it was a persecution of him.
Mr. Smith, as counsel fur the prosecution, made a few observations
in support of the prosecution and verdict, and contended that the de-
fendiat's late conduct and mode of defence was an aggravation of the of-
fence of which he was found guilty.
Mr. Justice Pane, addressing the defendant, said, the Court thinks
the justice of this case will be met by fining you in the sum of la. apon
payment of which you are to be discharged.

C MIL/LE • THE PROPEIZTORS Oi THE NEWAIIMMILICORT,.

This was an action for libel, brought against the defendants. Mr.
Carlile is a bookseller in Fleet.street. The trial wok place before
Lord Tenterden, at Westminster, previously to the last term, and a
verdict was then given for the defendants. The alleged libel was con.
tamed in a letter written by the Rev. Dr. Gilbert, and published in the
Newark Mercury. The letter was in reply to a challenge given by
Mr. Carlile to Dr. Gilbert to meet him in theological controversy. In
the reply there were some expressions which the plaintiff alleged were
imputations on his moral character, and tended to lower him in the es-
dined= of the people of Newark. During the last term the plaintiff
in person obtained a rule to show canes why a new trial should net be
granted on the ground, amongst.othen, that the learned judge admitted
improper evidence for the defence.
The ATTORNZT-GEWXRAL and Mt. HILL appeared this day on
behalf of the defendants, and contended that the evidence admitted at
the trial was perfectly legal.
Mr. Cazt.lLE addressed the Court in support of the rule, and said
that the counsel for the defence had been allowed to give in evidence
certain publications of the plaintiff's, and bad done so by putting them
Into the hands of the plaintiff's witnesees.which be bad not a right to
do. and the Learned Judge left it to the Jury to say, not whether the
publication bad a tendency to injure the plaintiff in Newark, but gene
rally, whether it had a tendency to injure his character ?
The COURT were of opinion that the books produced at the trial
ought not, under the circumstances, to have been admitted ; and as
they could not decide whether that evidence had any influence on the
minds of the Jury, they were bound to grant a new trial.