Star.
London, England, 1826-08-09 00:00:00

Upon receiving_ this eomtuuttication, the prosecutor'
caused the earth near-sieieirif.the pos•s of his outward!
gate to be searchet.artitin a hole was found a small]
bag, resembling's( .watch • fob.;, A few halfpence Wesel
then put-into the bag, and it was Depletes' in its firmer
sins tints, covered with earth, as before.: Ile then gave
directions to. his servant to watch the spec, and appre-
hend any person mho came for the bag. Between nine
and ten o'clock the same evening, the servant who was
on the watch perceived the feet of a man approaching
thegate. The man stooped down; and, after removing
the earth, took the bag out of the hole in which it had
been placed. The 'errant immediately rushed out and
seized the prisoner, with the bag in his. hand. The pri-
soner became alarmed, and begged to be allowed to go,
and offered to give the servant a guinea. Faithful,
however, to his trust. the servant took him prisoner, and
brought him into the presence of the prosecutor.—
The prisoner desired a private conference with the
prosecutor, which, being denied, he said he did not
write the letters, but that be knew who dia. and
offered to conduct him to the writer, though he did
not know his name ; this was declined. When
brought before the Magistrates, he gave a different
account of the matter, saying. that in passing the
prosecutor's gate. he saw the servant hiding the bag
near the gate, and tempted by the supposition that
money was contained in it, he had gone in the evtbilis
and taken it in the manner described, being wholly ig-
norant of the contents of the letter which had been !mot-
to the prosecutor. He then gave directions to the con-
stable to search his box at his father's honse, about half
a mile from Willesborough. The constable obtained the
key from the prisoner's mother, and on searching the
box found half a sheet of paper; corresponding exactly
with the half sheet ori which the letter first sent to the
prosecutor wes written. It was proved that this paper
had been purchased by the prisoner at a shop in Wines-
borough, about the time the letter was dated. In the
prisoner's box was found a copy-book, with his name
written in it in several places, and the second letter ap-
peared to have been written on one of the leaves taken
from the same book.

The prisoner, in his defence, denied all hone/ledge of the letter or
of its contents. •

Mr. Justice Houton* summed up the evidence, and left the
Jury to determine whether they were satisfied 'MU the prisoner
bad sect the letter which was the subject of the present indknpent.
The Jury, alter a short deliberation. found she prisoner

BODPdIN, Avant 4.

THE ZIXO V. THOMAS TRIDIZAIIIIK THE EMIGRE.

This was an indictment charging the defendant with
wilful and corrupt perjury.
From the speech of Mr. Setjeant WILDS, who loathe
case for the prosecution, and trom the evidence after-
wards adduced, it appeared that this was one of those
cases which so frequently grow out of borough elec-
tions; the present related to the borough of St. Ives, in
this county. At the general election, in 1820, there
was a contest for the borough, Sir Walter Stirling and
a Mr. Meade standing on the interest of Sir Christopher
Hawkins; and Mr. Graham (now Sir James Graham)
and Mr. Evelyn on that of Mr. Halo, the prosecutor
of this indictment. Mr. Heise is an attertsey, is town
clerk, and is now himself the Member for the borough.
On the occasion of 1820, the candidates in the interest
of Mr. Halle were returned of course, to the great dis-
satisfaction of those who bad opposite feelings or inte-
rests. That dissatisfactinn 'hewed itself, in one respect, in
the, fdrm of an indictment against Mr. Halle, charging
him with offering tcs bribe and corrupt an -elector,
named James Richards. Mr. Hasa was tried on this
indictment at the Spring Assizes of 1822,and convicted
on the evidence of Richards, his wife, his son, and his,
son in law. The arnbunt of their evidence was, that
they beard Mr. Hale say to Richards, " It will be a
double return--401. more." This conversation, it was
said, took place in a court-yard otitside "Richards's
house. Mr. liaise afterwards, on inql4iiy,Toond•that at
the date which was given to this asserted conversation,.
Richards did not live in any house with aviitift-yard
before it, but in a house-farming part of the- line of a
street. Upon proving this by affidavit, to the satisfac-
tion of the Court of King's Bench, they ordered a new
trial; and Mr. }false was afterwards acquitted fdr want
of prosecution. But it was in this late stage of the pro
ceediugs (the argument for the new trial) that the pre-
sent defendant introduced himself. He made an affidavit
in support of Richards's statement,• and in denial of
Mr. Halse's, positively stating, that at the time- in
question Richards did live in the house with the court
yard before it; and upon the fact so stated by Richards,
and so repeated by the defendant, the present indict-
inent was founded: '

Theternial evidence belay adduced to let in the Inquiry on this
indictment,
Mr. Hahn was called, and positively denied the as.
sertion of Richards altogether. He bad called on
Richards in his house in the street, which was not at
all in view of the other house with the court-yard before
it; but this was merely a compliment which is ispected
by the ladies at election time. He denied ever bevies
rated any thing to the effect sworn to by Richards.
He never was in the house with the court before it,
during any part of the election. _ _

A number of witnesses then proved very dearly, that at the time.
sworn to by Richards he hag left the bow with the toort•yard
before it. •
• hie. C. F. WILLIAMS. for the defendant, .admitted
that his client must have been mistaken, but submitted
that it was, on his part, nothing mart than misdate. He
had been led into, it by the fact that Aithitrefi had re-
moved from the house with the court-yesOefore it only
a short time before the day in question; that it was let
to Richards 's daughter ; that Richards was frequently
there, and WAS seen the' e by the defendant dories the
time of the• election. These. facts were relied upon to
account for the mistake; and with them was urged the
improbability that a young man, respectably connected,
would wilfully swear to a falsehood, as to a fact which
could be contradicted by so many witnesses.
Several witnesses were called, who proved the above facts ; and
the defendant, who it :be sun of the Comptroller •ot St. Ives, n.
ceived a very good character from Sir Walter Stirling and other.
Mr. Justice Ltrzt.xnaut summed upithe evidence, leaving it to
the Jury to decide whether the defendant really did believe the feet
to which he swore, or no:.
The Jury, after an hour's deliberation, acquitted'the defendant.
The ind•etmeets against the Richards family, arising out of the
same transaction, remain until the neat Italia's, the Learned Aids,
being obliged to proceed to Wells.

GLO UcESTER, Avoess 7.
Nine o'clock was expressly fixed this morning by Mr.
Justice lions.ouom for hearing the cause of Doe, on
the demise of Straford and morn, plAintiffs, v.•Ltw-
rence, defendant," which involves a property to a very
large amount, and under singular ci:cumstances.
Mr. SCARLLTT, who was Specially reta ned (with the
aid of a full bar} for the defendant, arrived ye.terday
from Carlisle, anden:vet! the Court at a varier before
nine o'clock this m mint, when the JuJge took his
seat ; but to the utter disappointment of the immense'
throng, cornmeal chiefly of Ladies, vho had been en-