Star.
London, England, 1827-08-11 00:00:00

Subscribers.

Lord Scarborough's Tarrareatiii;.Fleuldswetth's His Worship.
Sqbscriptinn Stakes of 25 sous. each. Two miles. Fourteen Subs.
Tarrare, Sirius, Mulatto, Floristrnart, Nonplus, Fanny Davies,
Jerry, and Bat elegs.

SLADE, rne MuenreEn.—slade continues much in
the same state for the la,t leo days; he appears very
penitent, and pays considerable attention to the religious
admonitions and instructions of the Rev. Ch 'plain and
such other spiritual pastors as are allowed to visit him.
He eats heartily the allowance assigned him, and sleeps
undisturbedly, and now ..nd then his relations visit him.
It has been stated in the London Pa,)ers that, from his
condemnation he has been quite absorbeJ in tears, but
this is not the fact, he has not once shed tears, observing,
he never in his life could cry, but that it would relieve
him much if he could: his pers,n has not undergone
much change, and he expresses himself very thankful
for having a prolongation of time allowed him to snake
peace with his GoD. He says he is glad that he has
confessed the murder, for he should have gone on
murdering ; and says, that during three years of his
youth he did not commit a single depredation; but
unluckily, having fallen in with Heddings, he became
!hardened ro crime, and almost feat less of discovery.—
flualiaidon Gazette, August IQ.

ASSIZE INTELUGENCC.

CROYDON, Auccs: O.
CROWN Stec—(l3c ore Mr. Justice GASILte )

ALLEGED MURDER.
Miry Brooks, a mauled woman, aged 26, was in•
dieted for the murder of her infant child, Maria, aged
six months, by cluing its throat with a razor, at the
parish of St. Mary, Newington, on the 18th April last.
It appeared that on the evening of the 18th of April,
the prisoner and her husband to .k lodgings in the house
of a Mis. Golding, in Dean's-buildings, Newington, the
prisoner bringing with her the infant child in question.
Next morning, Mis. Golding hearing the prisoner's hus-
band making an outcry as if something very dreadful
had happened, she ran up stairs and endeavoured to open
the room door ; but finding it locked, she burst it open,
and on entering she saw the child lying across the bed,
with its throat cut, quite dead. The prisoner also had a
cut across her throat, from e ir to ear; and,the husband
was in the act of taking something from the floor, which
turned out to be a razor. Mrs. Golding asked her why
she di.l the dreadful act? She replied that s e did it
because the infant should not be upbraided for her mis-

conduct. A surgeon was immediately seut tor, and in
the meantime Mrs. Got. ing held the prisoner's head on
her lap. The p ironer a,ked twi:e if her child was dead?
—Nu answer was given to her the first time; but being
answered in the affirmative the second, she said, «The
child will not be upbraided for my misconduct now."—
She said she had intended to finish herself, hut she had
not done it. After the vogem ye t, she appeared very
sorrowful, and kissed the chill, saying, " Hot' could I
do it ?—I have killed the ()Ay comfort I had!" On her
cross examination, Mrs. Golding said that the evening
before the prisoner appeated to net to be out of humour,
and trlked somewhat iiic here.,tly about some police-
officers being after her.
Mr. H well, a surgeon, proved that the wound (11
the prisoner's throat was very superficial.
The prisoner, a well-looking y oman, and who was
bathed in tears whilst she remained at the bar, being
called upon for her defence, simply said, that she had
seven children, and that she had stabbed the child
only once.

Witnesses were then called to prove that the prisoner
had, for some time previous to the transaction in ques-
tion, laboured under mental derangement.
Mr. Swift, a su'geon, stated that he attended the
prisoner in her confinement with the deceased child.
On that occasion there was a strangeness in her demea-
pour which he could not account for. He had not

known her before. H• did not attend her after the third
day of her illness. About six weeks afterwards she came
to his shop with another Lady, who appeared to be in.
tosicat:d with liquor, and insisted upon his bleeding
her ft lend, who, she said, had been bitten by a mad dog.
Her manner was very wild and incohetent. He looked
at her companion's hand, and saw no appearance of
any injury on it, and he refused to bleed her. The pri-
soner flew into a passion, and insisted upon his perfot m-
ing the operation. Her conduct was so violent, that he
was obliged to send for a constable to give her in charge.
Mr. Daniel Boast, a surgeon, of New Kent Road,
said, he,h d known the prisoner about nine or ten years.
During that time, she was subject to violent fits of rasp
'ion ; sometimes her conduct in this respect bordered on
insanity ; slight causes would throw her into a passion ;
about five years ago he thought her in a state of de-
rangement ; at times he considered her as labouring
under mental aberration.

Nlrs. Elizabeth Edwards had known the prisrner
about 11 years. She had been in a low and deponcling
state for a long while prior to the transaction in ques-
tion. A short time before then she had told witness

that she and her child were very unhappy; and that
her child blushed at looking at her. The prisoner went
away talking incoherently of police officers being after
her, and that they meant to stone her to death. After
the prisoner was sent to prison, it was aece.sary to put
on a strait waistcoat; she frequently calleJ after her
child, and would not believe it was dead; she had lost
seven children, and her mind was much affccted on
that account.

The Jury interfered, and expressed themselves satis-
fied. They acquitted the prisoner on the ground of
insanity ; and she was ordered to be detained until his
Majesty's pleasure should be known.
MANSLAUGHTER.

John Cato and Frederick Bean, two young men, the 1,
sons of carriers, were indicted for feloniously killing and
slaying John Dunn, at Putney, on the 28th of April last.
On the day mentioned in the indictment, the prisoners
were driving their fathers' carts respectively, from Ham
and Wimbledon to London. When they got on Putney
Bridge, they began furiously racing against each other,
when the deceased, a master tailor, of London, who
was riding on horseback over the bridge, met the pri-
soners. Being unable to get out of the way time enough,
his horse was struck uath the first cart wheel. The
animal plunged and threw his rider, who falling on his
head, was killed on the spot.
The prisoners were found Guilty, and sentenced to
seven years transportation ; the L. :tined Judge tel;ing
them, that the offence of furious driving had lately be.
come so prevalent, that it was necessary to make a
severe example.

Joseph Chaplain, waggoner to a Mrs. Weller, of Cape),
was indicted ior feloniously killing Charles Hallord, a
child aged nine years, by driving a waggon over Lim,
at Dorking, on the o.
28th
Aprill
On the day mentioned the prisoner was re'inning to
his mistress's farm, horn Wandsworth, with a waggon
loaded wiih dung. When he got to Pipbroom-bridge,
near Leatheihead, being then lying asleep on the load
of dung, he did not see the deceased, who was crossing
the bridge, and the child being unable to get out of the
way, the near wheels of the waggon went over his head,
and killed him on the spot. After the accident, the
Frisoner spoke in an unfeeling manner respecting the
child. Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good
character.
He was fund Guilty, and by way of example to
similar offenders, was sentenced to seven years' trans-
portation.
CIVIL SIDE.—LEASER V. STEVENS ANA ()TIMES.

This was an action of assault and to se imprisonment,
to which the defendants pleaded the general issue.
The plaintiff, a puor shoemaker, lived at West Moul-
sey. Three of the defendants were overseers of the same
palish, and the other was a constable. On the 31st of
January last, the plaintiff having had some misunder-
standing N ith his wile, quitted his house. One of the
defendants, supposing that the plaintiff meant to desert
his wife and family, and leave them chargeable to the
palish, thought proper to send for the constable, and 'I
carry the plaintiff to the cage. Some altercation took
place between theoverseer and the plaintiff, and accord -
,ingly all the defendants join, d in carying hips to the I

cage at East oslsey, where he vas lacked rap rut the
*link of tte following night, with nothing to lie upolw
!,ut damp straw. The defendants then caused his foi-
allure to be taken from his house, which the? toeked
,ip, and cirried the furniture to the wow khoose. The

plaintiff's wife was taken to the workhouse, where in
two months afterward she lay in, the plaintiff's father,
a nran of colour, paying all the expenses of I er eorinne.
ment. When the plaintiff was taken before the Justices,
the defenJants sought to convict him as a vagrant, hut
the Magistrates ordered him to be discharged. Ilse
plaintiff appeated to have been used with great severity,
in forcibly c ,trying him to the cage, and leaving him
there during an inclement night. There was no evidence
that the plaintiff or his family h.id been chargeable to
the parish. or that he meant to desert his family.
The case went to the Jury, with strong observation,
'from Mr. Justice PARK, upon the conduct of the de.
Pendants; and the lay found their verdict for kW
Arintiff—Damages, 1001.
STAFFORD. Acucar 9.
Before Mr. Justice Lrtri.toALE and a Special Jury.

ATIWUCD N. SMALL AND OTH[RM•
Mr. WHATELY opened the pleadings, and stated that
this was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendants, who are members of the British
Iron Mining Company, the sum of 16.2501. being the
amount of one year's interest due to him on the balance
of the purcha.e muney tor certain iron works, coal
mines, &c. in this county, sold to the defendants.
I The declaration set forth, that by an agieement en-
tered into on the 10th of June, 1825, between the plain.
tiff on the one part and the defendants on the other, the
plaintiff agreed to sell, and the defendants w purchase,
the , states, iron-works, and collieries therein described,
for the turn of 600,0001, By a subsequent agreement,
bearing date the Ist of October, 1825, reciting the for-
mer agr, ement, and th .t the sum of 25,0001. had been
paid in part, and the time had arrived for the payment
of 200,0001. it was agreed that the defendants, on pay.
ment of the said 200,0001. in addition to any other pay.
ments stipulated for by the agreement, should teceis♦
possession of the property in question, By another
Agreement of the Ist of November. 1825', reciting the
preceding agreements, it was agreed that the defendant;
should be released from all personal responsibility its
to the payment of any further sums of money, except
the interest which might arise on the putqase-moner
remaining due, so long as they continued in possession.
That the defendants were accordingly let into posses.
sion, but had neglected to pay to the plaintiff the int,.
rest upon the sum of 325,0C:01. the residue of the pur-
chase-money remaining due. The damages were laid
at 50,0001. The defendants had pleaded the general

issue, and thereupon issue was joined.
The Arronriest GKNIRAL, who came to Stafford,
specially to conduct this cause, in stating the case to
the Jury observed that it was one about ss hick there
would be but little difficulty. The plaintiff. Mr. Att-
wood, was doubtless sell known to the Jury, as he
was a magistrate of this and two adjoining counties,
and possessed of extensive property in coal and iron
mines. 'f ire history of the case was this:—.ln the year
1525, previous to the commencement of that general
panic which had been so destructive to all description
of property throughput the kingdom, Mr. Attwood
considered that it would be a desirable opportunity to.
dispose of the property in question, C. mpanies weve
forming at that period in London, and all parts of the
kingdom, for engaging in every branch of trade. By
some chance, Mr. Attwoqd was introduced to the de-
fendants—Mr. Small being a merchant; Mr. Shears. 4
copper-smith, in extensive business in L ndon; and Mr.

Taylor, being an engineer, conaected principally with
a Company which had attracted considerable atten•
don in the commercial world, and was known by the

name of the Real del Monte Mining Company. Tbs
defendants, it appea.ed, were members of the Brithh
Iron Mining Company ; but Mr.-Attwood having insu-
perable objections to entering into negotiations with
any Company, contracted with the present defendants
for the sale of the mines in que.tion is their individual

capacities only. In the course cf the proceedings aris-
ing out of this contract, three separate deeds were elle-
clued by the parties, by the last of ss hich the defendants
engaged to pay the interest on such part of the purchase
money as might remain unpaid. To recover the sum

of 162501. the interest for one year, the present action
was now brought, of the result of which he (the Attor-
ney-General) could have no doubt, as he should satisfy
the Jury that such interest was nose due and owing to
the plaintiff.
The agreements having been put in and read, a nom.
lber of letters were also produced, moving the liability
of the defendants, who u ere proved also to be in actual
possession of the property in question.
Mr. CAMPAILLL (with whom was Mr. Sergeant Rus-
SEI.I. and Mr. Ricuatins), in addressing the Jury for
the defendants, said, lie did not consicer this case sn
clear from difficulties as his Learned F:iend had stated.
If it fwd been so, he could scarcely bring himself to
thiirk that the learning, ingenuity, and authority of the
Attorney-General would have been brought down from
London. His Learned Friend had prefaced his Address
to them by panegyrizing his client, and it was certainly
not his province to say anything against him. He (Mr.
Campbell) would not say that Mr. Attwood was not a
most just and upright man in his dealings, and most
unlikely to take in any man in this or the adjoining
counties. He would not venture to say that by fabri.
cated books the defendants had been deceived, or that
these mines were not worth half the value alleged in
the declaration; but he would maintain that the
plaintiff had no right to bring this action. He had
filed a bill in the Court of Ezchequer, praying that
the defendants might be decreed to pay the ba-
lance of the purchase-money now due, and he, Mr.
Campbell, was convinced that the plaintiff would
receive ample justice in that Court. The fact was, that the
defendants having purchased, as trustees for t e British
Iron Mining Company, the mines in question, the plain.
tiff, Mr. Attwood, by the purchase of a number of the
shares in that Company, -having become a member of
it, could not recover in a Court of Law, as he could
not bring an action against himself. This use was
like ever y oilier case of co-partnership, and it was &ear
that if three or more individuals were in partnei ship,
and one of them for their joint benefit supplied mate-
rials, although lie might in a Court of Equity obtain
he could ric.t maintain an action against himself
and his partners in a C•iurt of Law.
The Learned Counsel then put in several documents
proving that in the year 1825, a Company called the
Iron Mining Company was in ca -teller; that
the defendants were Directors of that C impany ; and
the plaintiff one of the shareholders.
The ATTORMILY GENeRAL,
in reply, said that the
reason why he had been brought specially from Lon—
don, *n4 now had the honour of addressing them, was