Star.
London, England, 1816-07-19 00:00:00

OLD DAILEY.

Yesterday John Fisher was indicted for bigamy, he
having married Ruth Elco:ks, his former wife being
then Alive. The Rev. R. K. Chapman deposed, that
he was, in the year 1812, officiating Ministerof Mary
14 Bonne church. He produced the register of mar-
riage, dated the 13th of June, 1812. between John
Fisher ;•ni.l Mary Arnold. Sarah Kennel, the sistet
of the first wife, deposed, that her sister
.4r.(1 the pt ironer left her house to be married at Mary-
cl..tirch, on the 13th of June, 1812. Her sis-
ter is alive. The prisoner left his wife entirely in
November last. _ _

y Jones, fellow-servant witl► the second wile,
szsid he had changed hits 11/Mt; to Jobe Ingram, under
which name he was married to the second wife.
William Hammond, the Parish clerk of Padding-
prodixed a register of marriage between John
ingram and Ruth Elcock, on the 13th of Febrnar y,
I Sl6. He was perfectly certain that the prisoner WAS
the man who had married under the name of John
J►igran►.
Toe prisoner in his defence said, that his first wife
had sold all his goods, and had left him with a child
to support. He said, besides that, their separation
was by mutual consent, as he could prove by a writ-
ten agreement.
The ',tattled SEIIJEANT said, that any such agree.
anent, even if it did exist, was of no force or autho.
thy to aber the law in the case of marriage ; and
with respect to the crime itself, of which the prisoner
stood indictee, it was one which was far from being
entitled to lenity. It was an aggravated species of
seduction, entailing disgrace and ruin on a betrayed
and innocent woman. He then summed up the evi-
dence at great length with much candour. He ob.
berted there could be no doubt whatever of the fallacy
of what the prisoner had stated respecting his first
wife, from his changing his name, and also from the
virtuous and irreproachable character she was un-
questionably stated to bear by all who knew her. In
answer to a question from one of the Jury, she 'Amos
stattdvthat a very erroneous opinion prevailed among

•
lie ioiainaa Pee.o, that although marriage had
been contracted, it was not valid Unless the parties
had slept together. This he begged to assure the
Jury and the Public was a gross Mistake, and abso.
lately contrary to law. The law considered a mar.
riage to be as valid after the solemn yews at the
altar, as if the parties had lived together. He wished
this opinion to be made known, as it was the unani-
mous sentiment of all Lawyers for the last century,
and had been particulary decided in a case before
the late Mr. JCSTICZ LE BLANC at the Surrey As-
sizes, last summer. The case was as follows
A young woman had been conned by a young
man, between whom and herself there was a mutual
affection, and an agreement that they should be mar-
ried. It happened, however, very unluckily, that the
young man, in one of his wooing visits, Mut oduced to
his mistress a friend, who was much richer than him-
self, and though that circumstance had no effect on
the steady attachment of the Lady, it was made use
of to influence her father to prefer the new ac-
quaintance, who had become enamoured of his
daughter, to the old lover. True to her vows and
prompted by amouroas ardour, rather than by filial
duty, she went off with her lover. But they were
overtaken, and by the double operation of persuasion
and command, she yielded to her father's will, and
married the rich suitor. Thia, however, was done
with a secret reserve in favour of her former lover,
and, feigning an.occasion to go home for something
she said she wanted, she turned her back on the
hrid:gronm, and ran into the arms of the man she
keel, and whom she presently married, persuading
herself that the prior ceremony being unconsummated,
aas no euffick-nt obstacle to the indulgence t,f her
inclination. In that perstresiou she treind herve f
egregiously mistaken, for the Learned Judge felt it
his duty to teach ' her, that a contact so solemn,
made in the presence of Goo, as that of marriage,
was not to be so lightly evaded, and he sentenced her,
as the slightest punidiment he could inflict, to six
months imprisonment in the county gaol.
The Jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty,
but expressed a wish to recommend him to me rcy.
The COMMON: SERJEAST could no:, in the consci-
entir•ius discharge of his duty, second any such recum.
mendatiou. 'ffie case of this individual was a mod
ti &grant violation of duty. lie had been guilty of the
worst species ol perjury, in solemnly swearing at the
altar of I.llm who liveth for ever and ever, that I e
knew no impediment to hinder him in neirrying this
girl, while at the lime time he knew his miserable
and ill-treated wife was alive, and he had also been
guilty of seductions in entailing disgrace and woe on
the
.girl he so falsely married, whose children, if she
any, were ilh.gitiniate, and herself precluded
trom the honourable hands of lawful wedlock. The
misery of the last wile was inexpressible, and the Jury
might judge the sitoratiou of the first, when they were
told she was at this nionient mar the time of her de-
livery of :t second child to the prisoner. Considering,
a; he dial, this case to be the most itigitiotts he had
ever s •en, be assured the prisoner that the severi-st
punishment of the law (traniportatien) would inf
libly be award.ll to him. His case deserved nothing
but the most rigorous treatment.

Michael Smith wag indicted for stealilg acoat, value
15i. the property of Sir J. GlailAlll, Bart. A for t.
man of Sir Jarnei Graham deposed, that his master
Ivied at N). 1, t'ortlaud-place. .On the morning of
the 4th w duly, he went and unlocked the area gate,
And then went to clean his knives. While he was
thus to.ployed, the prisoner came down the area
steps, and went up to the hall, where he took the
coat off a peg. A wanzian gave him information,
and he tollb*ed him, and wok trim into custody in
.Princes-street, Oxford street, with the coat rolled up
in his apron. He identified the coat, as being
the property of his master.—The Jury found him
Gullty, but-recommended him to mercy, on account
of the miserable appearance he had, and his age'
being 62.
John 1114xlvgl, a man of colour, was indicted for
stealing a bed as al bolster, on the Silt June, from his
furnished ',nights., the propeity of Jane G00416:1,1.
The prosecutrix deposed, that the prisoner had paid
her one week's lodgin, 4s. but in elie middle of the
following week, on the night of the ith of June, he
went to bed, between eleven and twelve o'clock at
night—she heard nothing until the morning, when a
constable called on her, and asked het it she had lost
any th:tig? She answered in the negative. He then
inquired if a man of colour had tint lodged in her
house ? She went up stairs, and found the articles in
the indictment missing.—John Elariore, a watchman
belonging to the parish of St. Dunstan's, deposed,
that he met the prisoner between the hours of three
and four o'clock in the morning, in Fleet-street, with
a bundle on his back, he stopped him and asked him
what be had got there? lie answered, his own pro-
perty ; not believing, him, he took him to the watch-
house. The prosecutrix identified the property to
be hers.—The prisoner put in a written defence, that
he had been eight years a soldier in this country's
service; that he had applied to the Duke of York's
Office for relief, but got none; that he then applied
to the parish officers of the parish of St. Dunstan's,
but they refused to give him relief ; he stood one
Sunday at the door of St. Dunstan's awe!), and
only received one penny ; he h4d used every endea-
vour to obtain work, without effect ; when he took the
things, be had not ate any thing for three days.
The Jury brought in a verdict of Guilty. The
prisoner is 36 years of age.
Edward Spring was indicted for stealing a pocket.
handkerchief from Robert Adamson, Esq. in %%rya..
sweet, St. Clement's, Strand.

Mr. Adamson deposed, that he was walking up
Wych-street on the day hid in the indictment about
three o'clock ; he found some persons rather close to
him, but had no idea of his pocket being picked; he
Tut his hand into his pocket, and found that his
handkerchief was gone. A young man came up and
pointed out two persons, and said, one of them took
it and gave it to the other. He took hold of the pri-
soner and searched him, and (mica the handkerchief
on his person, under his waistcoat.—Thomas Crew►,
a journeyman hair-dresser, residing in Wych-street,'
deposed, that he was looking out at the door of his
employer's house, when he SAW two men twice search
at the prosecutor's pocket ; the second time they suc-
seeded to draw the handkerchief out of his pocket.
The person who did it gave the handkerchief to the
prisoner, who put it into his bosom, and then rushed
past the prosecutor with great force. He immediately
went and informed the prosecutor, who searched the.

prisoner, arid. too' bite io fi-n - itreei --
other made his tscape.—James John Smith, one of
the BoW-street officers, depoied, that the prisoner wait
delivered over to him, and on searching him, he fontid
another handkerchief in his bosom.
The prisoner, in his defence, said, that the person
who gave hint the handkerchief was a total stranger
to him. Several witnesses gave him a good characttr:
The Jury found Ltim Guilty; aged 21,
Mum Levy was indicted fur stealing a tsocket
handkerchief from the person of William Corvine, a
head' ormigh of Shoreditch naris'i, value :Is. on the
7th of June, at Biw Fair.—lle was found Guilty.
The Itoconnen asked the prosecutor, after the con-
viction, it fie knew any thing of the prisoner?
;,ut'iiiig :owe than that he Was a notorious
th;el, and that he was the only one oFhis family that
had not been pulii,':ed fly stealing.
The It 7;unrintn, at haif past eight o'clock at night,
pissed sentence of death in the most awful and in.
pressiva insuner, on the following persons, who had
been capitally col:vie:ell during u.e Sesiions
Absabarn Meador:, fur Itig:iway rubbery; Denis
Ruder, for high tre;:son, in colLinf; m-ney Firnilar to
that issuz,tl from his MAjest7'. Min: ; J {mei% Qair,
T. Quin, James Maliafry, ElizaLeth Matiiilly, Miry
%niter, the younger, Margaret M'iMantis, and Cis-
theritie M•Mautts, for the like or.:nce ; John James
for horse stealing; James M.Dodd, Glib,
John Gibb, and Jan Harrison, for a like offence;
Benjamin Blundell, for stealing bank notes ; Jame',
Hay, for a rape; Edward Gurney for steaiing hooks
privately ; Margaret Wal:h and tiamue. Boorman,
for the same offence ; Richard Munston, for a high-
', way r ibhery ; John Edward Eggertun fo: a detestA.
ble offence ; Thomas Colliver, for honse-brei.king ;
and James Hickey and Mo:rii, for the same ;
John Corsvy and ‘Vm. Lew's, for rcbbing in a field.