Star.
London, England, 1816-02-19 00:00:00

oLp Latirs

Saturday Corte Herroemr was inflietect for Wei.- I
marrying with flusatmati Anne Giblett, his former
wile. Mary Usher, being at that time alive.
The Rev. Arnold Barroirs, Chaplit,ri to the Presi-
dency of Bombay, prayed a copy of. the parish re-
gister, dated February 6, 1794, and which certified
the marriage-of George Harrower to Mary Usher.—
Witness did not starry them, but he had visited and
dined with thefts, when Mrs. Harrower presided at
the head of titer:able, and acted in all respects as his
wife. He belistied Mr. OwenrChaplain at Calcutta.
performtd the marriage ceremony between Captain
Harrower and Mary Usher. Me arrived in England
in 1814, and soon after gave information to Mr.
lett, the. father of Captain
.H.'s present wife, of the
previous marritige to Miss Usher.—On his aqsa-vx!,
mutation this witness said, Mrs. Harrower, in jndis,,,
was a lunatic, at' some times wild. When Be left
Bombay, however, she was perfectly quiet, and had
no doubt she was the person who was- once called
Miss Mary Usher.
The Re*. John Owen did not recollect that he had
ever performed any marriage ceremony at Bombay.
He had no recollection of the prisoner or of Miss
Usher.

Lionel Thompson knew Captain Harrower
tonally, who called on him, and told him, that
was a conspiracy against him, to charge him with
having another wife alive, which he denied, as be
hoped ever to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Hg
also asked witness to assist him in getting out of the
kingdom, Which he did. •On the pier of Calais, he
asked Captain Harrower to say whether his wife at
k.Buntbay was alive or not ? and he then confessed that
'she was alive. Witness then advised him never to
think of coming
.to England again but lie came
back twice, and a/darn saw hint at an inn in the 80.
tough.. Witness proved chive letters to be in Captain
Harrower's hand.writing, and relating to the disposal
of Mrs. Harrower. _

Cross-exatisined.—He admitted that Captain Har-
rower had withdrawn himself from the acquaintance
of witness. He did not mention the conversation he
had bad on the pier of Calais, because on his exami-
nation at Bow-street, he was not asked about it. He
had dined with Giblett long before Captain Har-
rower married his daughter ; but he was not a credi-
tor under Giblett's commission. Captain Harrower
paid witness's expenses in the journey to Calais.
• D. Wallis, clerk to the prosecutor's attorney,
proved the cop} of the register of the prisoner's mar-
riageto Mjss Giblett, on the 12th of October, 1812;
At St. George's, Hanover-squire.
The prosecution closed, when Mr. Serjeant Bast
rose, and submitted no objection, founded oa the sta-
tute of James 11. by which parties intermarrying be.
yond the seas, and afterwards separating for seven
years, were freed from the ties unposed by the Mar-
riage Act.
This objection was ihstadtly oter-ruled.
Captain Harrower, being then called upon for his
defence, entered into a statement of his condition in
We fruit his youth to the present time. He adverted
to the p4eiod when he had had the misfortune to be-
come known to the prosecutor Giblett, who, in drain.
ing him of his purse, and instituting proceedings
against his liberty and character, had left him but one
consolation, an amiable and beloved wife, unfortu-
nately the daughter of the worst of men. The pro-
secution. he said, was the result of a foul and infa-
mous conspiracy, and not that of a desire to support
the laws of the country, or to punish those who trang-
gresited them. He had been introduced to Giblett
in an unguarded way, and, feeling a consciousness of
his own integrity, did not suspect a contrary principle
to prevail in him. After the acquaintance between
them was matured, he married his daughter, upon
whom he settled a jointure of £lO,OOO. He atter-
wards lent Giblett sums of money amounting to
£17,000, and further sums, which raised the whole
of what Giblett had succeeded in drawing from him,
to more than £30,000. In fact, he had not only de-
prived him (Captain Harrower) of all the money he
could by possibility extract, but he had robbed his
own daughter of the £lO,OOO which had been settled
upon her. Every means was used by Giblett to
cause his wife to leave him, and to live at home with
himself, when he offered to give up certain apart-
ments in his house for her accommodation ;—adding,
that they would be able to get the whole of the
money to themselves, and he, (Captain Harrower)
might go and starve. These proposals, however,
were always uniformly and indignantly refused by
his wife. He alluded to the commission of bank-
ruptcy which had been issued against Giblett, by
which he had contrived to defraud him of his money,
and mentioned a circumstance which that person had
been heard to declare, namely—" that he would try
and get the money into Chancery, if other designs
failed of depriving him of the property." He went
' into a variety of other statements, the object ofl
which was to represent Giblett to be a character ofl
the worst description ; a character such as he never
thought existed in England, and such as he trusted
Lever would be found in it again. He also made
some strong allusions to the ungrateful put which
the witness Thompson had taken against him in this
conspiracy. Finaliy, he protested his innocence of
the crime of which he now stood charged, and trusted
that the sentence of the Court would at once rescue
him from the infamous plot which had been laid"
against dim, and restore him to the arms of a be.'
loved and only partner.
Mr. Baron RICHARDS summed up the evidence at
considerable length. He observed, that it was of
little consequence by whom or by what means the
prosecution was instituted. The Jury, as well as
himself, were assembled there upOn their oaths, and
however painful the duty would be, should they de.
'terrnine upon the guilt of the prisoner, still that ver-
dict must be pronounced. The simple question,
therefore, for them to try was, first, Had the priso-
ner been proved, to their satisfaction, according to.
the evidence of Mr. Burrows, and the confirmatory
confession cif that fact to the Witness Thompson, to
have been married to Mary Usher of Bombay ? And,
in• considering the latter, part of this question, was the
witness Thtunpson to be believed ? Next, was the
tnarriage of the prisoner to Miss Giblett, during the
lifetime of the before-mentioned Maty Usher, also
satisfactorily proved ? Upon these points he had no
doubt they would come to a safe and conscientious
conclusion.
The Jays having retired for half an hour, returned: