Star.
London, England, 1817-08-05 00:00:00

ReNTO:GDON, JTJ.LVI

This w.ts an indictmens ag-ainst Jane, the widow
of John Scarborough, a respectable innkeeper
Bueden. on the North-road. the prisoner, a respect.
able hwilline woman, about 40 yeries,of age, stood at
the hat, accompanied by her daughter, an interesting
and beautiful y 43.‘ir worn In. shim 19.-I'he iiidict-
rneut ch aged the prisoner with feloniously ste:liir. a
letter, containing a tern; ttence of a at) Bank 011 in-
land note. from Richard Preston, Esq. of Lincoln's-
inn, Barrister at Law, M.P. which was addressed to
his seri W. S. Preston, Esq. a pupil of the Rev. Dr.
Maltby, at Dueden. In the first count the not: was
charged to be the rr- pert y at R. Preston, Esq. senior,
and it, the second c.-unt as the property of W. S.
Preston. Esq. junior.
Mr-Oenetrroe stave! the ease for the prosecution,
and called the following witnesses ;
John Sharp stated that he was clert to Mr. Pres-
ton, sets. On the 16th of October, 1815, witi..” re.
°shred directioes from Mr. Preston to receive £2) for
a cheque upon Messrs. Praed and Co. his benLers,
and to forward the I.ame to his son, at Bugoen, In an
en veli-pe which he gave him for that put pose, t ranked.
Witness accordingly received this aCe2O which hem irk.
ed with the name of Praed and Cie ant noted the
number, bin 201.. The same day he received, seal-
ed up the d 2 t, and gave the letter to Matthew Cue
mantic, which he sew lem give to the letter carrier
bellman, in ell erlette-street, Bl rckfi jars-road. Vs'itness
swore to his mark, and the identity of the Nee pro.
duced. The letter was directed in a hand which was
not very legible, and much blotted.
This letter was traced Virongh different hands to
Win. Cox, an elderly man, post-master at Bugden,
who now deposed that on the morning of the 17th of
October, 1815, remembers that he receive.; by the beg
from Huntingdon a letter, which he delivered to Mrs.
&Arbor iegh, the prisoner at the bar. He toilt it to
her, because he could not make .otst„the direction,

which was much blotted, and not legibis, -Mrs. Scar-
borough received it from witness at the bar of the
George Inn, at Bugden, saying, " I know the gentle-
man for whom it is directed, and will deliver it to him,
you had better leave it." Witness saw Mrs. Scar-
borough days After. who informed hint the letter had
been safely delivered to the person to whom it was
divcted. Witness aJmitted that he wets frequently
in the habit of delivering letters to the prisoner for
persons w!.om he did not know, and particularly fort
traveliers upoo the North-road, who put op at her inn.
He is th4t letter was never returned to him :
Whe: 1) Maltby came to the witness borne days
after ivt.ter should have been receiveJ, witness told

Dr. M. !ad no recollection of havingoreceiveil any

such ict:er. It was not till several months atter, when
witness received a letter on the subject from the Po.t-
master General, teat he recollected that oe the day in
question he delivered a letter to Ilse prisoner, the di-
moon ttp-n which hr could not distinctly read. The
circumst.mer inquired into by Dr. Maltby did not
brine it t • the recolli-ction of witness then. 11e ne;:rly
twelve months after, the letter he received from the
Post mister General brought these circumstances and
conversation with the pris.mer to his entire and per-
fect recolkction.
Mr %V Warn Scent Preston stated, that he was a
pupl of Dr. Maltby, from May 15, until the
ink September ; his letters, of which lie receive.' many
from his father and other persons, generally franked
by his father, were all severally received, except the
one in question, and it was not until some days after
its miscarriage, that having been disappointed of a re-
mittance. he ascertained the fact of such letter never
baying been received. He did not recollect whether
or not he received a letter on the 17th of October.
But is certain that be never received the letter in
question.
William Jarvis stated, that he is clerk to
an attorney at Peterborough. On the he had
as interview with Mr. Bond, an atetirney, at Leices-
ter, together with Mrs. Scarborough, at the Bell Inn,
Stilton, kept by Mr. Green, who is son of the prisoner.
Mr. Bond had a Claim against Mr. Green of dna
which Mrs. Scarborough paid for her son to Mr.
Bond. The payment cenststed of one note for £29,
one for ‘lllO, three for 45, and three rel notes. These
Mr. Bond put in his picker, and took away with him.
Mr. Robert Bond stated, that be is an Attorney, at
Leicester. He had a debt against Mr. Green, son of
the ptisnner, and came to the inn at Stilton for the
purpose of obtaining payment. He did not see itir.
Green, but saw the prisoner, who paid him the note
in question. He put it into his pocket with other
notes, but he had no other Bank of England note in
his pocket than those he received trent the prisoner.
On Thursday following he paid the eeib to Mr. Price,
of Leicester. This was about the 20th of September
last.

Mrs. Scarborough (who bore this investigation
with a degree of composure that might have credited
bee innocence) gave in a written defence to the fol-
lowing effect :
" She.:trested la her deliverance from the present charge,
widen she did um' blame her prosecutors for Junketing against
ken She could only lament that the bad ranee ender it through
the most strange and unhappy circumstances. She Ironed the
heneerable ledge and the Jury who tried her, would allow her
to boor herself incap.ble of sects a crime as dishonesty She
had held hers nation for thirty's/ears and for twenty years as
Innkeeper. herself, ranee the death of her husband. She had
ELM tip a family at sons and daughters in rerpeetability, all
WIWI, *lent the one who sat betide her, were well mar.
rind, mid themselves I ad families. Many thousands of pounds
had passed through her hands in tarrying an an extensive busi-
ness; Cad the first families, tweeting Nobility, were ia the ha-
bit of wins her house. 'line would not
.snspect her of disho-
nesty, meek less that she would have tommitkd sath an act as
that wkh which she was now charged. She Sad no knowlAge
of this letter. Letters were freiliesitty lett at her &wee for
straagen, whom she knew not Wisher than their enquiring for
lettere seek* with her. The Ale note she gave to Mr. bond,
oliestectived of a stranger who came to •Sulten and changed
hems eery a day or two before. She bad no means of Audits
miter/a be was; he set-oo the dickey of the coach, and her str-
fasts would prove the fact that she so took it ; but she adeed,
the did Dot believe it was the same note which she was charged
with pilot to Mr. Bond. She lamented that the Gen:kitten of
the Peet•udiee, who were In fact both prosecutors and wi:nesses
against her, bad though: proper to bring her to trial. 411 she
mead rely epos for her defence, was a character until this time
not marety unimpeached, but free Iron) suspicion . she regretted
the *Wow di the bishop of Llacoln and of Jobu Flodgeon, Esq.
se eley werbiti lerrelelled to the honourable testimony she should

induce k favour of her ren2ral ebaracter. She trusted to the
favourable recettiou «le hoped t•., receive from the Court and
bort, that she :md :ter faa1....; ntigfia be once more restored to
harieness «int pract of and thst which atone could reran:
her to society unj tite r,!:;.ret of maiskiud, which she and her
randy had so Itsug coltgesi, and tint was, a Verdict of Not
Guilty.*
The prisoner's Counsel called her servants.
- - -

Tlitunas Standish, a waiter, said, he returned this
letter to Cox, the Po.tmasser, ley desire of his mis-
tress. He RI not put it into his hand, but laid it on
the tai.)le of the k'teiten, where Cox then was. Her
housekeyer :and howler saw her take a £2O note o
a stranger the day belote she paid Mr. Bond. They
could see: er to the identity of the note.
The following witnesses were then called to her
general character : Sir James Jithisie, George Th.,rn-
t9n, Esq. Laur•mce Reynolds, Esq. Dr. Maltby,
George James Goa, Esq. banker, Dr. Maw., y,
Chief Justice Coat remarked upon the strung tes.
simony and coincnience of circnmstaocesio prove the
prisoner guilty. There was, however, great allow-
ance to he made for persons in her situai icy, tint tieing
able to acr.onsit for the possession of hides which mig:lt
be changed at lstr house by strangers passing or using
it, and 91d.,111 she could know nothing to. The July
would say to which side the evidence preponderated,
and morn their verdict accordingly.
The Jury retired to a Lite hour. The Judge having
gone flume to his lacking,. waited to receive their
verdec. Atter severai limits deliberation, they found
the pi isnne r and she was sentenced to twelve
calendar months Imprisonment in the county jail.

DORCIIIWER.-SEDUCTION.
ALUM IP RULLIIN.

This case excited the stronAesr curiosity through-
' nu: the whole county. and the Court was unusually
crowded by s 4WD of the first rople in Dorchester.
As the cause was however quashed. vie are not at
liberty to lay before ,:ur Readers the circumstances
attending it. The plaintiff is a w dr,w, residing at
Drimpti.ii, iii the parish of Broad Windsor, in ihii
county, and the de:enclant is a relation, and the son
of an opulent farmer, living at Clhiroiouth. The
young Lady, who would have born the subject of
the trial, hail it priiceeded tin, is the daughter of
the plaintiff, and about 18 years of age. The dl-
mages claimed by the plaintiff were two thousand
p-unds. The Sped 11 Jury being einpannelled, the
Astor:late of the Nisi Prius Court directed them to
find a verdict tot nve hundred pounds damages for
the plaintiff, observing that the parties had muinally
compromised the action for that sum. The verdict
was accordiligly reci.r.ted, and the defendant ;Treed
to pay all cos:s. Mr. Serjeant t'ell's clerk had, by
some accident or other. received a retai..er for his
matter on both sides, and to this circumstance is at-
u ibute.t the compromise ; the Learned Serjeant being
compelled to return both briefs.

YORK, JULY NO.
The Court met this morning at ten o'clock, and the
convicted prisoners being called to the bar, Mr.
Baron Wools proceeded to pass sentence.
1. Bradshaw, convicted ut having violated the per-
son of an iniant of seven years of age; W. Ellis, J.
Hoe.orth. J. Scott, J. Shaw. and J. Jones, found
guilty of burglary; W. Shires and G. Mass, con-
eic.ed of highway robbery ; S. Wood, convicted of
horse.stealing ; K. Wid, of sheep stealn.g ; and R.
Hume, of stealing h a dwelling-house, to the amount ,
more than 40s. were all sentenced to capital pu-
nishnient. The first prisoner was desired t.. prepare
fir the execution of the awful sentence of the law,
and to indulge no hopes of mercy ; the other ten,
though they had subjected themselves by their of-
fences to death. did not receive the same fatal as-1
!mance, but were desired to prepare f r the worst,
for it was uncertain to which of them. or upon what
conditions the royal clemency would be extended.
N. Crawford, convicted of stealing R. Copland,
of grand larceny; Wm. Field, of receiving stolen
goods; J Ferrar, of Manslaughter; Kay Tomlin-
son, of uttering counterfeits of the new coin ; Hannah
GoJley, of the same offence; and J. Robinson, of a
misdemeanour, were successively sentenced, th ! first
to transvrtation for 14 years; the second for styes
years; the third to imprisonment in the House of
Ciirrection for two yeatb; the fourth to imprisonment
for one year; the fifth to imprisonment for one year
in the House of Correction ; the sixth to imprison-
ment in the same place for six months; and the
seventh to imprisoninvnt in the County Gaol for
one year.
DOB V. DUCKWORTH AND OH MI&

This was an acuon Gt ejectment to recover posses-
sion of certain premises, part of the estates of Mr.
Ward Harrington, in this county, to which the de-
fendants, who were in possession, claimed right.
The CAW as stated by Mr.Scaanarr, for the plain-
tiff, was this :—A Mr. Harrington, who had long
held the estate in fee, devised to a Mr. Ward, who
upon entering into possession took the name of-Har-
rington. lie mortgaged the premises in question,
along witii others, to a Mrs. Perry for MOO% and
Jittery/Ards purchased-several annuities from a Mr.
Bolton, which were secured on the premises. Mr.
801t...n, in order to protect himself, purchased and
procured an assignment of the mortgage, and thus
had the legal estate. of which he was put in posses-
sion. Two of the tenants were unable or unwilling
to pay their rents; and then a Lady' who afterwards
married a Mr. Duckworth, agreed with the tenants
to purchase the stock on their farms, and to give
thew a receipt for their rents, and the Lady in this
manner obtained possession. The prc.ent action was
brought by Bolton, the real plaintiff, to remove her
and her husband. The defence, as he understood,
was, that Mr. Justice Alibone in the reign of Charles
the Second obtained a mortgage of the estate for a
term of WO years, and had afterwards purchased the
equity of redemption, and that use Lady was the heir
at law of the said Justice Alibone.

Documents were then produced. proving the title
and possession of the Harrington s for 130 years, and
the mortgage and assignment to Bolton. There was
nu atteopt to make out the detract.- of the title Lem
Justice Alibone.—Verdict for ti:e Plaintiff.