Star.
London, England, 1826-08-12 00:00:00

ASSIZSANTELLIGENCE.
liiAlfls'lbNß, Ana, 9.
THE tINO 9..ITIRSDOIR AND ANOTNIEN.
This was an indicttnent for an assault and false I.M,
paisoninent.. The case, in itself, Was net of general refit.
portance,- but it gave rise to a discussion upon. Mn
Peel's late Act for facilitating proceedings in criminal,
Cases (7 Geo. IV. c: s. 20), which occasioned the
point to.be reserved for the consideration of the Judges.
The case was then tried on the mains, and in the result, the
defendants were found Gtally. ' : •
The business of the Crown side finished this evening. Nemiket
the capital convicts were left for execution. • -
Joseph Finn who was convicted on Monday of send;
ing threatening letters to a gentleman named Gregory,
demanding money at the.peril of being murdered, was
sentence.' to be transported for the term of his natural
life. The Learned Judge old hinr, that had not the'
capital punishment been taken away by a" recent Net Of
Parliament, it was a case in which the utmost severity.,Of
the law must have taken place. The prisoner was sus-
pected of having sent similar letters to other persons,
and amongst them, to the present Earl of Winchelsoa.
POOLLY PYBUS ••
This was an action for maliciotisly suing out a Commission of
Bankrupt against the plaintiff, without any, reasonahle or. probable.
cause. 'lle parties were near neiihbours in the town of Maidstone,
each carrying on the business of a corn factor, wharfinger, and coal
dealer. .This was the second trial Qf the same cause. At the last
Auiaes the plaintiff had a verdict for 6001. damages.
WELLS. Avower 9.
• • • • OWYTHERS V. BROWN, . .
This was an action against the owner of a.trading•
vessel coming up to Bridgewater, for- wages alleged to
be due to the plaintiff, as master of the vessel. If ao
peered, however, in evidence, that the plaintiff had..b'een.
recognized by the defendant only in . the ch,r rare of
mate, and had been discharged. He was afterwards en-
gaged by the master to supply his 'place daring his ill-
ness • but this engagement was upon some 'uriderstarid-
bag between themselves, and the defendant hid never
adopted or acknowledged the plaintireservices as mas-
ter. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. •
The rest of the day *Ai oisisPied in the trial of gm action. of qt.'s;
pass respecting a liability to repair the fences between two (semi:
Richard 6thson, a young man' in the dress of a
bouring farmer, was indicted for stealing an iron chest,'
two canisters, and several articles from a dwelling-
house. The charge of stealing from the dwelling-house
WAS afterwards abandoned, the articles being deposited
in a counting house, distinct from the house:' and the
offence was, therefore, reduced to *the mere stealing.
The offence itself had nothing. extraordinary in its
circumstances, but the a' ter consequences were of very
setious nature to the prisoner, and probably to his corp.!
panions, if he had any. The prosecutor, rely, waso mer-
chant, was awoke in the nig'it of the robbery by an ex-
plosion which shook his house.. It turned out, on ex- j
amination that some thieves had broken open his count-
ing house,. and taken away his iron-chest, 'with two;
canisters, which in fact contained several pounds ofj
gunpowder. The thieves, no doubt, supposed-they con-,
tained something more valuable; for having gottenjust:
out of the house, they, no doubt, proceefle4 to examile:
the contents of thecanisters ; and being off thirsturd,l
they must have incautiously applied-a light.. But what
ever might have been 'the cause, the effects were obvionsel
The explchion has already been,finentioaed. The pirti-1
cies of the iron chest .were .discovered: the ch,est ltsell
being blown to•pieoes so as to. have hat all
contents (chiefly deeds and papers).wartickttered4l)O44C!
•r. •gh (to
partially burnt; .apots of, blood were peFfelyilas4
some portions of the chest ; and. a ,Istattranstar
fronsta roan's jacket, •was :fiend on one of• the -
Suipicion fell upon. the prisoner; and a cons's,'
to his lodgings. He was found in-bed; his face dim..
fully Scorched ; his eyelids 'destroyed,` and a -shriekiliih
lacerated wound on one•of his legs. For the scorching
.cas hit face he did not profess to *account ;'but-trisr'
wmuid On his leg he airpribed to his haying_fallfil.ll°l6 •
a wall which.* had atfnmpted. to c.lianr; 'mid in th',,
fall he said a stone had
-come upon his leg. A luftvi,
4sitasksine,d his leg, and-said that no stone under suchci4
camstances could produce a wound of such severity)o
The prisoner having thus mentioned so inadequate.!'
cause, incteasA the suspicion against him.., js sinthea
were therefore examined. His trousers an. stockings
bore marks of blood. His jacket had • buttons similar'
so that which was found upon a particle of the, iron-
{Jest; and one buttoit was wanting in the row upon the
jacket. The prisoner did not now offer to account for
day of theie appearances; but rested his defence on the.
admitted Nei, that no. part of the property•was found•
upon him, and that he had not recently been seen near,
the premises in question.
The Learned Juvor left these circumstances to the jury, observ-
ing on their strength, tbat they all contributed•to 6z the guilt npotr
the prisoner, but giving-him all the benefit of the •obieivation, that
they did nut amount to positive proof.. The Jury found him Guilty
and sentence was for the present postponed.
Phoebe Hooper, aged- about fifty, and.. apparently 'a-
respectable woman, was indicted for. feloniously mar-
rying Jonathan Puxtone, her former hushiscid,,W.illiain'
r -
Hooper, being living.
~ •• •• •. •
The object or the prosecution did not appear, sae was it'suggestlet
that any injury had been sustained by any person la toissequente of
the alleged offence of the prisoner. • '
It was proved that a marriage had taken. piece* 4..
1819, between a man named Hooper, and a female sup:
posed to be the prisoner,-by her maiden name.of 'Hol-
loway; but the witness, the parish clerk, who was nano&
to prove this fact, said he was not certain• of the "pri--
soner's identity. She appeared to be the same woe..
man; but she was, if the same; very much- altered'
in appearance. The second marriage with •one Pits-1
tone, a farmer, in the preient -year, (as well as•
prisoner's identity with regard to this marriage);
clearly proved. Tnis took place in the month of April in,'
the present year. To clear up the fact as•to the iden-
tity of the.pris ,nor on the first marriage, the constable'
who apprehended her was called. She was living with
her second husband, farmer Puxtone, at t to times When
told there was a warrant against her for bigamy, she
said it was impossible, as there had been an agreement.
between" thens"—an agreement prepared ,bra lawyer;
and therefore she, at first, c-.ulJ not be made to believe
that there 'could be any legal charge against her. The
meaning of the expression thein".would be clearly
made out, as referring to the two husbands, if the con-
vet sation on the same subject, at the same time, bitt
occurring while the prisoner was dressing -herself, in
order to go to prison, could be nude legal•evidence
against her; but as it took *place in Ler ab once, it was
not admitted in evidence., Upon this defect in the case
on the part of the prosecution, the Learned Judge
directed an acquittal, because, although it had been
proved that there ha-i been a marriage between two
persons in the year 1819, it was not' proved- either ,by
vidence, or by the prisoner's confession, thit she was
one of th, m.
the Jury accordingly acquitted her.. The griapner„. from Aar
appearance and manter, As.weli as from tker clepertsuant.threnh

. .

~ ~

inj