Star.
London, England, 1817-03-18 00:00:00

LINCOLN.

At these Assizes, in an action, Wnwst r o. Jzssor,
the plaintiff, an apothecary of Bottesford, sought to
recover from the defendant, a bachelor of opulence,
residing near Lincoln, £787. 18s. for medicine and
attendance, during 25 years. By statement of plain-
tiff's Counsel, it appeared that the defendant was of
a hypochondriacal turn, and had taken pills for a
great number of years; he used to have from 600 to
2000 pills sent to him at a time ; and in one year he
took 51,000 ! being at the rate of 150 a day. There
were also thousands of bottles of mixture. From the
ravenous propensity of the patient for physic, it was
deemed necessary to call in two physicians, who, in-
quiring of defendant what was the course of medi-
cine and nourishment he pursued through the day,
airsweieJ as follows :—At half past two o'clock is
the morning, I take two spoonfuls and a halt of ja.
lip, and then a quantity of electoary ; then 1 sleep
till seven, and repeat the dose of both jalap and elec.
tuary ; at nine o'clock I take fourteen pills of No. 9,
and eleven pills 'of No. 10, to whet my appetite for
breakfast ; at breakfast 1 eat a basin of milk ; at 11,
I have an acid and alkali mixture; afterwardsl have
a bolus; and at nine at night I have an 'anodyne
mixture. and go to sleep. After some progress had
been m.tde in the evidence, a compromise took place,
the plaintiff accepting a verdict for £4511.
At the same Assizes, William Araifft, and Ana, his
wile, were tried for a burglary. The evidence was
clear, but Nelsen declared he did it through the per-
suasion of his wife, which she acknowledged, decla.
ring—l' I am the wretch that have been the cause of
his committing the robbery ; I have been the princi-
pal actor ; and if I only could be hanged, I email
be satisfied." The Judge observed; that, in poi at of
law, Ann Nubert could not be convicted of this
crime, far. as she ';acted with her husband, the law
regarded ber as acting under his coercion. '8 Yon
and I, whe are married men. Gentlemen, (said his
Lordship to the Jury) know that this presumption of
the law is often wrong, and that the husband is too
often coerced by the wife (a lasish ), so, however, it
is, that if the two commit a robbery together, the hus-
band only is answerable, although the wife may have
instigated him to the deed, as. whilst she is with him,
lie is always considered to coerce her. I believe I have
made myself intelligible, though perhaps my infor-
mation may not be very itatataile—it is not our busi-
ness to inquire why the law is so, but•it is our emir
to act as it requires, and, therefore, Gentlemen, you
must acquit the female prisoner." The Jury, accor-
dingly, Acquitted the wile, and found William Nu-
bert Guilty.

BEDFORDSHIRE.
NDANCE AT DIVINE WORSHIP.

NON•A'

THE axe. s. D. TREE V. ant AIONTAGUR E. BURGOYNE.
Thu' was an action of a very novel as well as of a
very extraordinary description, and excited a consi-
derable degree of interest throughout the County.
Dr. Free, who is Rector of Sutton, appeared in
Court, dressed in his canonical:, and was prepared
to take part in the conduct of his own cause. The
Coon throughout was crowded almost to suffocation.
The Jury, which was common, having been sworn,
Dr. Fre* addressed the Learned Judge on thi
Bench. He observed, that he bad been driven into
Court on die present occasion, in consequence of a
motion mad* by the Learned Counsel on the other
side for judgment, from his not having proceeded to
trial at the last Assizes. It was nut his intention to
have taken any further steps in this business, because
he had observed with satisfaction that Sir Montague
had begun to return to reason, by coming to church
on the 7th of April last. The steps taken by the le-'
gal advisers of the defendant, however, had compel-
led hint to come forward; and in doing so, he felt
he was vindicating the cause, not alone of his brother
Clergymen, who had been too frequently maligned.
but that of the Church of England itself. He
trusted the example which would be made of the de-
fendant would operate as a warning to others, and
prevent that inexcusable inattention to divine worship,
which, when occurring with a person of inflience in
the County, bad the worst effects upon the habits
and manners of the lower orders of -society.
Mr. Itaralson said it became his duty to detail to
the Court and Jury the particulars of this case. The,
plaintiff was Rector of the Parish of Sutton, and
the defendant was Lord of the Manor in which the
said parish was situated. The action was brought
to recover penalties under the statute of Elizabeth,
for nonatteadance at divine worship at the parish
church, thereby, and is coasequenh of his emo-
te, spreading contagion around the county in which
resided. It was his wish to abstain altogether
from a statement of the circumstances under which
this action had been brought; he ahould, tbetefore,
confine himself to the simple observation, that the
plaintiff, in coming forward as the accuser of the
defendant, was.solely actuated by a-deeite to enforce
the laws for the observance of refigioneworship.—
The statute under which this action was brought was
the 23d of Elisabeth, by the fifth section of which
it was enacted, that every person in England absent-
ing themselves from divine worship, either at their
own parish church, or some other place appointed
for public prayer, for one month, forfeited a penalty
of seit). This penalty was equally nivided into three
parts, one of which went to the Queen, another to
the poor of the parish, and the thud to the informer.
He should be stabled to prove in this case, that the
difendant had absented himself from his parish
church for nineteen months; and having dune so, he
should be entitled to a verdict for the full amount of
the penalties, or at all events for twelve months,
which was the period within which the statute re-
go/red the action to be brought.
Witnesses were then called to prove the case.
Mr. Serjeant Btoseor now addressed the Juq on
the part of the defendant. He said, that hoWever
unwilling he might be to trespass on the Court by
any very extended observations on this case, yet he
could not help remarking, that the *simian made by
Dr. Free, that be had stood forward as the champion
of the Church of England and of the Clergy, was
not borne Out by the facts. When a Reverend Gen-
tleman came forward into*. a Court of Justice in his
canonicals, and in the character of en informer. to

@tippet a tai sass action upon a statute which, al-
tboogh notepad*, had been in disuse for upwards
of one hundred and fifty years, he rather appre-
hended he would not be hailed by those whoseinte-
rests be professed to represent, as a person likely to
reflect much credit upon their sacred character. That
such conduct was consistent with the true spirit of the
Christian religion, he believed no man of I,beral 11,el•
ings frould allow. With regard to 6e St.ou,e on
which this action was brought, he was willing to
admit that it remained unrepealed; but, at the same
time it was prosier to remark, that it or7ginated in
causes of a political nature, and was by no means
applicable to times like the present. Ile operations
were meant only to apply to Roman Catholics and
Dissenters, at a period when the Church of England'
might be considered as in danger. The principles of
toleration which had since been disseminated, how-
ever, and the firm foundation upon which the Church
of England had been established, were such, that net
man possessing the slightest claims to liberality would
venture to put the construction upon the Statute
which it had received from the Reverend plaintiff
in this case, without entering on the construction of
the Statute ; however, he thought he should be enabled
to meet the plaintiff in the most conclusive manner.
—For, in the first instance, he should be enabled to
prove, that for several months of tlizt period, during
which the servant of the Rev. Plaintiff had so posi-
tively sworn that he had regularly attended Sutton
Church, no Divine Service had be, n performed in
the church at all. lie meant the mouths of June,
July, August, and Ist of September, during which
Months the Plaintiff had so shamefully neglected .his
deities, that he had received a monition from the
Bishop of the Diocese. He ahould also prove, that
atotber periods, the Rev. Plaintiff was so inattentive
to the performance of the religious service of his
church, that his parishioners were constantly in a
state of uncertainty as to the hour at which service
was to commence, or whether it would be performed
at all. Inapendent of thile, it was no very pleasant
thing for the Defendant, when he did go to church,
to hear a sermon delivered, which, instead of inced-
eating Divine truths, was made the vehicle of per-
sonal abuse to himself. With these facts before them,
the Jury would be able to form a pretty correct judg-
ment of the motives of this action. The next ground
on which he rested with confidence on the goodness
otitis own cause, he derived from the st mete of Eli.
zabeth itself, for by the statuie of the Ist of Eliza-
beth; which was embraced by the 23.1, it was.en,:ct-
ecl, tliat where the Defendant in a givi tear action,
such as that now before the Court, could assign a
reasonable excuse for absenting himself from public
worship, and should afterwaetis conform to his reli-
gious duties, the action should be quashed ; on this
Dead of defence he should be enabled to prove, that
Sir M. Burgoyne, who was a General in the British
service, had returned from Gibraltar, in thl4. in a
ales' precarious state of health, and had cootinued
thus Milicted down to the presort day, a circumstance
*hich he hoped, in addition to the uncertainty of the
perfOrmance re church service at Sutton, would be
considered a sufficient excuse for his non-attendance.'
With regard to his sentiments on the subject of reli.
gion, those would be best proved by the evidence he
would ad Luce, of its being his invariable practice to
read the church prayers to his family every Sunday
when capable from the state of his health so to do,
and if unable himself to perform that duty, to call
upon Lady Burgoyne to read for him. He should
'also prove, that prayers were frequently read in his
house by the Rev. Dr. Hughes, in his occasional
visits to his family. There was another ground on
which he was still more deciJedly entitled to a ver-
dict. This was to be found in the statute of the first
Ames 11. c. 4, whereby it was enacted, that any
person offending against the statute of ElizaLeth by
a non-attendance of Divine worship, became clone.
rated horn all consequences,, by conforming to the
rules of his chinch, before judgment was obtained,
and declaring himself publicly to be a faithful son of
the church of England. This Sir Montague Burgoyne
had done in the presence of the Bishop of the Diocese
himself, and was there ready again to declare openly
in Court, his high veneration for, and accordance in,
all the principles of the Christian religion.
Evidence was then called to support the Defeo
dam's case.

Lawrence Cosall, churchwarden of the p Irish of
Sutton, proved, that Button church bad been shut
up from the 25th of June to the 3J or September.
Thomas Brown, the other churchwarden, corrobo-
rated the te►timony of the. last witness, and proved,
that the church had been further shut, from the 15th
of• December to the sth of November, no service
having been performed.
Dr. M,Grath, a medical gentleman, proved the
precarious state of Sir Montague Burgoyne's health,
from his return from Gibraltar to the present mo-
ment, and the danger of his going to church at par.
ticulu stages of his disorder.
Lucy Carrington, nurse in Sir M';ntague's family,
bore testimony to her 'nester or mittress invariably
reading prayers to the family, on the Sunday when
they did not go to church.
The Rev.- Dr. Hughes occasion,illy visited Sir
Montagne's family fur weeks together, and always
read prayers to the family when they did not go
to church.

I Mr. Baron GRAHAM being of opinion that a Tea-
onable excuse for the mm-artei.d-rnce of tl,e Des fn.
dant at his parish church had been proved, Itt. Sir-
jeant BLOUOP did not call any more witnesses.
Mr. Jamesson having shortly replied.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM summeJ up the evidence.—
His Lordship abstained fr,ln makin.: any remark
upon the motive by which the plaintiff had been ac-
tuated in this action, but at the sante time remarked,
that no liberal Ond could have constrved the salute
of Elizabeth jute manner in which it had been con-
strued by hifh. e lift it for the Jury to say, whe-
ther a reasonable excuse had not been proved for the
nonvattendaticx of the Pefendant at church, and whe-
ther in other respects, tffe ase of the Plaintiff had
not received a complete answer.
The Jury, without .hesitatiOn, found the Wen-
dant—Not Guilty.

There is, at this time, a farni of upwards of 600
acres, in the neighbourhood of Shiffnall, Salop, aban-
doned and untenanted by the proprietor, on account
of the excessive charge of the Poor Rates. No per:,
son I,as )et been found who will take it, subject CO
the payment ot the lout Rates alone: