Star.
London, England, 1818-03-21 00:00:00

arrival in England witness often corresponded with
Mr. Wilkins, and who was now at Horsham. '

Mr. Yates, clerk to Mr. Evans, solicitor to the
prosecution, proved the acknowledgment of the pri-
soner, that she was married to Mr. Walton whilst
Mr. Wilkins was living.
Ikre the case for the prosecution closed.
The COMMON SEILTRANT and Mr. CHITTY then
submitted two objections to the form of the indict-
. menu :--1 st. That there was not a sufficient renue set
out as to the first marriage stated in the indictment,
inasmuch as it simply said " at Bombay, in the East
Indies," whereas it ought to have gone on with a
scilicet " to wit, at Cheapside, in the city of London,"
in the usual form, so as to give the Court jurisdiction.
'-3d. That there was a variance between the indict-
meilt and the registry of the second marriage. In
the former it stated the marriage to have been cele-
brated " at the Parish of St. Peter and St. Mary,"
whereas the registry described the parish to be Saint
Peter's (with au s) and St. Mary. These objections,
they submitted, were fatal to the indictment.

Mr. Baron dRAII.I.NI thought the objections not
tenable, and they were consequently over-ruled.
The Prisoner heing called upon for her defence,
said, that after her arrival in England, Mr. Wilkins
and herself v.ere separated, and she did not see him
for three years. She then saw him in Lond n. Pre-
viously to that she was told that he had married a
second wife—a Jewess. She was also told, that her
marriage in India was not lawful, there being no
witnesses present at the ceremony. but the clergy-
man and the clerk. When Mr.-Walton raid his ad-
dresses to her, silt, told him of her marriage in India,
and remonstrated with him upon the impropriety of
persevering. She had his own hand-writing to chew
that he was well acquainted with her situation.—
When Mr. Gates, the Attorney's Clerk, came to her
in prison, he told her that no punishment would be
inflicted upon her, and that the only object of the
prosecution was to bring about a separation. She
had never made any secret of her marriage with Mr.
Wilkins, and having been informed that it was not
valid for want of witnesses, she did not consider it
binding. Mr. Walton was made acquainted with
every circumstance of her situation, and it was only
after repeated i:nportunities that she consented to
marry hini.

The Rev. Robert James Carr was examined on
behalf of the Prisoner, who stated, that Mr. Walton
had made application to him for a license. Being
confined to his house at the time, he requested Mr.
Walton to call in a day or two, during which period
the Reverend Clergyman requested his Curate to
make inquiries respecting the Lady. Upon Mr.
Walton's second application, the witness declined
granting a license, and with the greatest considera-
tion of kindness, begged of him to recollect the un-,
happiness he would give to his mother by marrying•
this Lady. Mr. Walton was determined to obtain a,
license elsewhere, which, the Reverend witness obH
served, had he been aware, he would have prevented
by giving information of the circumstances of she
objection for his refusal.
The Learned Judge summed up the evidence with
much force and perspicuity, and pointing out the
facts to the attention of the Jury, he left it to their
consideration to give a verdict accordingly.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a
verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to
mercy. . .

The Learred Judge, in passing sentence, observed
to the prisoner, that from the frank and open manner
in which she declared her situation to Mr. Walton, as
being previously married, and which was partly
proved in evidence, the crime with which she was
charged was much extenuated, and that she would
be visited with the least punishment the law in such
cases had provided. The sentence was, six months
confinement in the House of of Correction at Lewes,
and that it should be attended with as gentle treat-,
meat as war suitable to her situation.

CHARGE OF CRINI. CON.
MUSKETT V. GURNEY.-(SPECIAL JURY.)
This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, J. S.
Muskets, Esq. of Intwood, against Richard lianbury
Gurney, Esq. for crier. con. with the Plaintin wife.

The proceedings being opened by Mr. Sruatis,
Mr. GURNEY, in a long and able speech to the
Jury, set forth the blackness of the crime with which
the Defendant was charged, and the injury the Plain-;
tiff had sustained by the seduction of a wife in whom
all his of happiness were placed. Mr. Mus-
kett's situation in life was such as gave him every
assurance of a happy future, till the occurrence of
the unfortunate circumstance then before the Court.
The Learned Counsel then descanted on the nature
of the evidence he should produce ; it was, indeed,
but circumstantial, and the Defendant had flattered
himself that no evidence could be produced strong
enough to convict him ; he (the Learned Counsel)
trusted the decision of the Court would prove it was
but flattery, fur he would produce such circumstances
to the Court, as, he trusted, would prove the case
so strongly that no man could lay his hand on his
heart and say a criminal intercourse had not passed
between the parties. He knew that his Learned and
excellent Friend would do all that could be done on
the part of the Defendant, but when he had proved
his case, he knew not m hat answer could be made by
the Defendant. Mr. Gurney knew his Learned Friend
would not give him the opportunity of replying, and
therefore he rested his case in the hands of the Learn-
ed and experienced Judge, whose knowledge of the
law, of the polession, and of the world, was most
profound. On the subject of damages he should say
nothing; even if the Jury wove the whole damages,
it would scarcely amount to a year's income, but it
would be the only recompence they had it in their
power to make to the Plaintiff. Mr. Gurney ex-
:oiled the conduct of the man who openly elopes
with :he adultress, when placed in c“rnparison with the
secret seducer, who, under the mask of friendship,
works the ruin of his friend's wife. He trusted the
Jury would give some compensation to the injured
husband, under this greatest possible aggravation of
the offence, and show by their verdict that the purity
of domestic peace was not to be violated with im-
punity. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
call witnesses, who proved the marriage and the
terms of reciprocal affection in which Plaintiff and
his wife had lived previous to the discovery of the
connexion which subsisted between Mrs. Muskett
and the Defendant.—Alter hearing three witnesses,
Illr. Setjeant VAPGIN N addressed the Jury at
great length, and commented strongly on the evi_l

dente which had been prodtked before them, and
which he contended would, if carried to its utino.l
me.using, only prove that an improper familiarity
had subsisted between the Defendant and 'Mrs. Mus-
kett. lie wished to impress on their minds that the
question for them to try was, whether or not the act
of adultery had been committed? not to try the pre-
vious stages of the proceedings ; whether there was
more or Less levity in the conduct of the parties, or
whether these was a wowing attachment which
might have ripened into love. The Jury were nut
to inquire whether the intercourse between the par-
ties might have ripened into illicit intercourse, but
whether it had arrived at its cousurnmation ? He
trusted the Jury would discard from their minds all
that they had heard out of doors, and take the evi-
dence as it stood before them. On the subject of,
damages he should say nothing.
The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence
with great impartiality. He expressed his opinion
to be, that no criminality had subsisted between the
parties, though he considered the conduct of the De-
fendant as improper and reprehensible.
Inc Jury, after a short consultation, returned a
verdict for the Defendant.

I
' I .
--- = -..........-.....-......-
MAN AS HE IS TOO OFTEN.
What sinks the female soel in woe,
In friendships guise a deadly foe,
Say who can cause the bitterest throe?
Ms Man.
• ' • When unsuspecting young and gay,
When peace and pleasure lead the way,
Who'll tempt a simple girl to stray?
'Tis Man.
2
I When llyhla's honey seems to flow
1 In sweetest accents soft and low,
Who watches then to give the blow?
i 'Tits Man.
When lost in virtue, sunk in shame,
When venum'd scandal taints her name,
1 / Who then will clear himself from shame?
'Tis Man.
And when her woe-worn heart is broke,
When e'en in death his name she spoke,
In that sad hour who'll laugh and joke
'Tis Man.
ißut oh ! when death's unerring dart
/ .
Shall stop the life-throb of his heart,
/ Say then who feels his conscience smart?
Base Man.
The fluttering pulse, the silent tear,
The quivering voice proclaim death near,
Remorse shall then thy bosom tear,
Oh! Man.
am-- --- • .
1 ASSIZES.
SUSSEX.—CIIARGE OF BIGAMY.
Thursday morning the Courthouse, at Horsham,
* was excessively crowded with Ladies and Gentlemen,
to hear this interesting trial. Before eight o'clock,
Maria Walton, alias Maria friiking, was put in the
prisoner's box : she was dressed in white, with a light
coloured pelisse, and wore a round black hat with
i •
feathers, and a black veil. Her countenance was
• exceedingly prepossessing, notwithstanding the natu-
ral anxiety of her feelings upon the situation in \OIL li
she was placed. A few minutes after eight, Mr.
Baron GRAIIANI entered the Court, and Mr. GURNEY
(special Counsel), and Mr. BOLLAND, both for the
prosecution; as also Mr. NOLAN and Mr. CHITTY,
Counsel for the prisoner. After the indictment had
been read, to which the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty,
and was allowed the privilege of a seat,
' . Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Ju"v. The
prisoner was the daughter of a respectable tradesman
i at Weymouth, and had been married to an Officer
in the Army, named Cut, with whom she proceeded
to Bombay, in the East Indies. Ensign Cox having
died in 1802, in the year ItUO the prisoner married
a Gentleman in the East India Company's service,
named Wilkins, and with that Gentleman she re-
.
tamed to England. For reasons not now necessary
to state, the prisoner and her husband separated. In
the year Ihl6, she was residing at Brighton, and
there attracted considerable notice, particularly of
ll
•
: 1 the Gentlemen of the Army, by her personal attrac-
tions, her accomplishments, and her style of living.
Mr. Walton, a very young Gentleman, a native of
, 1
Barbadoes, who had been sent over to this country
by his mother, a respectable Lady of fortune, had
,-* f entered into the army at an early age, and was then
quartered with his Regiment at Brighton. He be-
came acquainted with the prisoner—was smitten with
her charms, and in the result, they were married
' I
The prisoner was married by the name of Maria Cox,
irepresenting to Mr. Walton, that she was the widow
of Mr. Cox. The marriage WAS solemnized at Lewes;
they lived together for a short time, and shortly al-
terwards Mr. Walton discovered that his connection
with the prisoner threat him into the greatest pecu-
niary difficulties. He was arrested for debts con-
tracted by her, and doomed to a jail. Mrs. Walton,
thought it proper, under all the circumstances of the •
case, to institute the present prosecution. The two
• I
marriages would be proved beyond all doubt, as
would . Iso the fact of Mr. Wilkins, the second hus-
band, being still alive. Indeed there would be no
doubt that Mr. Wilkins was living at this moment,
t - because the same Gentleman had received letters from
him, dated Clonmel, in behind, since he had been
, . in thic town, announcing his intention of coming to
England, and down to the very hour of this trial,
his arrival was expected. The prosecution was car-
ried on by the mother of the young man, who,
though his prudence in this transaction could not be
much praised, yet as a soldier he was entitled to
f .
every commendation. In the field of honour he had
greatly distinguished himself; he had shared in the
laurels of Waterloo. The Jury, under the circum-
-1 ' stances of the case, must feel it their duty to pro-
f nounce a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Maitland, clerk of the Secretary's office at the
India house, produced the book of registers of mar-
riages, births, and deaths, at Bombay, commencing
. the 14th of January to the 19th of December, 1810.
• The Bev. Mr. Burroughs stated, that he was a re-
sident Chaplain at Bombay 42 years ; every marriage
is registered at the church, and copies are regularly
transmitted to England, after they are compared
from the original register book, signed by the cler-
gyman. The prisoner was married to James Thomas
Racket Wilkins, by him, on the 26th of January,
• 1810. They left Bombay soon afterwards. Witness
had not seen the prisoner until he had an interview
with her in Bristol jail, where she was confined for
want of sureties to keep the peace towards Mr. Wal-
ton's mother. This was about three weeks ago. He
knew the prisoner well at this interview, notwith-
! standiag the length of time which had elapsed since
I y observations! the marriage at Bombay, owing to the celebrity of
her character, and the observations he made at the
Pltime as to her person. This was further corroborated
I from the conversation he held Nvith the prisoner at
that time, when she recognized bins. There were no
subscribing witnesses to the marriage at Bombay,
which was by license.
i Mr. NVinter, the parish clerk of St. Peter's, Lewes,
iil produced•the register of the marziage at that parish
I t I church, namely, ‘, Robert Baron Walton, of the pa.
rish of Brighton, and Maria Cox, of the parish of
Lewes, by license, 28th of May, 1816." The witness
• was present at the solemnization.
Mrs. Brierly, of the Pelham Arms, Lewes, was
also present at the marriage.
Mr. Bampfield, surgeon, of Bedford-street, Co-
:
tvent-garden, knew the prisoner, and her deceased
4 husband,-Mr. Cox, in Bombay, and subsequently her
second husband, Mr. Wilkins, who introduced the
printer to him as his wife. They resided at. Boni-
hay till June, 1810, when they sailed for England.
Witness left India in the same fleet, and since their.,
•
. ,
0.:
• / t‘.!.%
• v, vr, • '
1•" s„
;.,,.. .
I"''' • .
...
- -