Star.
London, England, 1827-06-04 00:00:00

in Saint John Street Read, and t respectable Lady named
Rawlins, introduced the defeadant..rho was a surgeon, and
he was soon after employed by *I plaintiff in his profe
sional character. Mr. Saunders was • married man, and the
father of a family, and it -could not be matter of surprise that the
plaintiff should not have harboured the remotest suspkion that be
was that deep, designing, intriguing character, which he afterwards
proved himself to hr. About Michaelmas, 1825, the plaintiff re-
moved to Panton-street, Haymarket, where the defendant still con-
tinued to attend as surgeon, and in June, in the same year, taking
advantage at the temporary absence of her husband on business,
Mts. Waiter eloped with the defendant. Fur same time, her hus-
band could learn no traces of her, but at length, she was discovered
lodging at Brampton, and passing as the wife of the defendant. who
had assumed the name of Harwood. Witnesses world be produced,
who would prove that the plaintiff and his wife enjoyed great do-
mestic happiness until their acquaintance with the defendant. It
was true the plaintiff was in humble circumstances, but no man
suffered so much from the loss of domestic happiness as it poor man,
for what had he that was so valuable as the tender assiduities of an
affectionate wife ? In conclusion, be called upon the Jury to give
full compensation to the plaintiff, for an injury which had been pro.
perly characterisell as the greatest one that one man could inflict on
another.
John Kent examined, and said the plaintiff's wife is my daugh-
ter. I was present at their marriage ;It was celebrated at a village
near Stowmarket, -on the nth of July, 1819. The plaintiff carried
on business as a hatter at Ely, anrsubsequently removed to Lon.
don, where he conducted business for Mr. Middleton. I was fre-
quently in the habit of seeing the parties after their marriage. They
appeared to be living very happily. My daughter always spoke of her
husband with the greatest respect and affection. The plaintiff came
on a visit to my house about last Whitsuntide. His wife soon after
followed. I then observed a difference in their behaviour towards
each other. They did not appear to enjoy as much domestic hap-
piness as they had previously done, aid I told my daughter that I
feared she bad bad advisers. My daughter's name is Susan.
Mrs. Rawlins said—l lived in St. John-street-road in 1845. The
plaintiff and his wife lodged with me and my son. They appeared
to live on terms of great affection. I believe it was at my house
the plaintiff first met the defendant, Mr. Saunders. The defendant
is a suipoo, and a married man, with a family. The plaintiff has
no family.
Mr. Middleton—l am i hatter. The plaintiff came into my ser-
vice in 1892. He managed my business. I frequently bad an op-
portunity df seeing him and his wife, and they appeared to live very
happily together.
John Deacon—l live in Panton-street, Haymarket. The plain-
tiff and his wife came to lodge in my house. Mrs. Walter left my
house in the absence of her husband. She returned frequently
afterwards to take away some things which were left. I subse-
quently saw her at the house of Mr. Arnold,' in Brampton. She
was living under the protection of Mr. Saunders. They passed
under the name of Mr. and Mrs. Harwood. Whilst the plaintiff
and his wife were lodging at my house, Mr. Saunders attended
Mrs. Walter in his professional capacity.
Mr. John Arnold—l live at Michael.place, Brampton. Mrs.
Walter took my lodgings, she said for herself and husband. Mrs.
Walter took the lodgings under the name of Harwood: Mr.
Saunders passed for Mrs. Walter's husband, and they occupied the
same room.
William Magness-.-I live at Pimlico, I know Mr. Saunders. He
lived at the corner of Duke.street, St. James's, and kept a surgeon's
-shop. He took lodgings at my house, as Mr. Harwood, Mrs. Wel-
ter lived with him. They lived as man and wife.
Aaron Blackman was produced to prove the hand-writing of
the defendant Saunders; and a copy of verses, written by him,
was put in, which proved to be Moore's weilknown com-
mencing—•• Fly from the world, oh Belay, to me," the t
' having substituted Susan, which is Mrs. Walter's nu" imeend of
the name chosen by thebrish Anacreon.
The case having cloned, Chief Jattice But addreintl Nay
The evidence left no naiad dosibt that there had biothatmlesi
connection between the plaintiff's wife and the &beam. The
Jury were to consider, however, that they did not sit there to
punish Ike defendant, but to make amends to the plaintiff, for the
apiary be sustained. The defendant being a surgeon, was certainly
an aggravation; for medical men were received into families upon
different terms from other male visitors, and if a medical man
availed himself of those facilities to debauch a female, be was guilty
of *most scandalous breach of, trust, verdict for the plaindff.—
Camel* .1150.

SECONDARIES OFFICE, Joss 2.
LINNIF-POISFORD N. CHAPMAN.

The defendant, in the above case, the proprietor of
" The Kent and Essex Mercury," having suffered judg- '
ment go by default, a writ of inquiry to assess damages
was directed to the Sheriffs, and the case came on on
Saturday for hearing.
Mr. WooLla attended from Mr. Harmer's office, on
behalf of the plaialiff; and Mr. TALIOURD appeared as
Counsel for the defendant. .
The Jury being sworn, Mr. WOOLIR stated the case
to be one of libel of so very aggravated a nature in it-
self as not to require any address in aggravation. It con-
sisted of a charge against the plaintiff of having disposed
of the dead body of her husband to the surgeons for dis-
section ; and not content with this accusation, revolting
as it was to every feeling of humanity,the same paragraph
accused the plaintiff of prostitution and drunkenness.
It was not possible to conceive any charges of a more
weighty description; and if they could have been in the
slightest degree justified. no one would have had the
hardihood to take the .case into a Court of Justice. But,
strange as it might seem. there was not the slightest
foundation for other. of these accusations; and the de-
fendant, bye suffering judgment to go by default, had
confessed that he had not even the preference of a justi-
fication in the most remote degree; he admitted that
the plaintiff had been grossly slandered in his columns;
and it remained to be-seen, since there was no defence,
what excuse could be offered in mitigation of the very
moderate damages laid in the declaration—namely,tool.
Mr. TALIOUED, in reply, offered the usual apologies
for !taste and inadvertence; but candidly allowed there
was nothing else to offer Ia extenuation of the libel;
except that his client had nothing else whatever to do
with the matter, beyond the accidental admission of
the paragraph into the paper. He called upon the Jury
to remember the benefits derived from the Press, and
trusted they would not visit an accidental aberration
with any thing like excessive damages.
The Secondary, in his summing up, remarked, that
the libel was certainly of a very decided nature. He
left it to the Jury to say what damages were, in their
opinion, cow mensur ate with the justice of the case.
The Jury retired for about a quarter of an hour, and
returned with a verdict or 2001. being the whole amount
of the damages laid in the declaration.

•
OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, Jt1.14;2.
•
Susan, Tim munDiarc—The witnesses in this Otte
were teverally called into Court, and were called upon
to enter into recognizance; to appear at the Sessions
House, Clerkenwell, there to give evidence before file
Grand Jury, touching the death of a child that had b..en
murdered. The indictment is po-onned till the neat
Sessions. Sheen continues in custody.
Some misunderstanding respecting the ground of the
acquittal of this culprit on Friday, appears to have gone
abroad, and by 4 great many it has been presumed that
the prisoner could not be again indicted for what may
be thought to be the same offence. With regard to the
first pint, Mr. CLAnKsom's obj-ction was, that the
child, being a natural offspring of the mother before her
marriage with the prisoner, had no name in law naleibi
it had acquired one by reputation. The evidence failed
to prove that the child in question had acquired by re
potation either the name of Charles William Beadle (the
name in the indictment), or that of William Sheen (the
name of the child in the Coroaer's inquisition), and
therefore both bad. There was no evidence to thew
that it had aclitired any other name by reputation than
William, and of that fact there was ye y slight evidence.
The cases reterred to by the Learned Judge,tipon which
the decision was founded, were Rex v. Clark, and Buss
and Ryan, C.C.R. With respect to the other point, it
is presumed that an indictment may be so framed as to
meet the crime charged against the prisoner, and to
place it out of his power to plead " afore-quit."
John ;nibs. aged ss, was capitally indicted for stealing, in the
dwelling-house of Ann Elizabeth Montague Douglas Scott, com-
monly called lady Ann Scott, a pair of silver candlesticks,. value
131. on the tads of June, 1826. Guilty—Death.
Samuel Smith was indicted for stealing a pier-glass, the property
of George Daniels, in his dwelling-house, and Thomas Bailey for
receiving the same, knowing it to be stolen.—Guilty.
Henry Refines, aged thirteen, John Blemajeld. sixteen, and Wil-
liam Bracer, seventeen. were indicted for stealing from Joseph
Croons a handkerchief. The prosecutor stated that, on going along
Ludgate-hill, he felt a pull at his pocket, and, turning round, found
the three prisoners near him, and kis handkerchief in the hand
of Robinson.
The RUCOILDIR charged the Jury that, if they could make a dis-
tinction between the prisoners, they would do so • if not they would
find them all guilty.—The Jury found all the prgoners
The prisoners were immediately called up fur judgment, and
Bracer and Bloomfield were sentenced to be transported for life,
avid Robinson for seven years.
Jaitaflesukre was indicted for stealing from Backingloot Palace
seven pounds of lead, the property of his Majesty. In analog aunt
the property was stated to belong to Sir C, Arbuthnot ma=
I,
the Commissioners of Woods and Forma—Mr. BILLIND A
the case for the pitaecutiou.
John Allesiby, the overseer of works to Mr. Nash, the architoolo
stated, that be saw the prisoner returning from work through lust I
Gardens, when, from appearances, it struck witness thalweg.'
more bulky than usual; be followed him to a marine store diem lothe
Seven Dials, where be offered it for sale, but the person woad nee
purchase it. Witness then went in and ked the viewer (wheal,
be knew) from whence be had brought the lead? Tbe poignance this
fell es hies knees, and declared that this was Me firdellimile; hateifi
he found the lead among the rubbish at the times Pidins whole,
he was a labourer.
Mr. Ross stated, that at present there were 700 artificers sail
labourers employed at the Palace.
Mr. ROLLAND said, that it was only last Sessions that there wee
a charge of a similar nature prosecuted at the last Session hie 11
rubbery at Carlton Heuse.—Verdict, Guilty.•
Mr. Sergeant /seam said, that the property thus Mien
to the public, and how grea: would be the aggregate el=
if 700 men were to purloin seven pounds of lead daily; the primed
might rely upon being transported.
Jain Bartell, aged 80, a sweep, was indicted for stealing arid
watch, gold key, and seals, value Litt, the property of John
Thompson. The case was clearly made out, and the Jury, with
• hesitation, found the prisoner GuiltyDnath.
William .florlatati Wdoams, the individual who levied cemeibu-
dons so extensively upon the shopkeepers of the metropolis, and
who escaped from Clerbenwell Prison, but was retaken, was in-
dicted on four charges of shoplifting, and found guilty upon them
all. He was elegantly dressed, and behaved with great indifference.
cuasea Or MOSSIDO.
/*gods Name, aged 64, was indicted for the wilful murder of
Jeremiah lisephy, by administering 'arsenic in a pint of peeteral
which the deceased drank.
Samuel Mils,, surgeon, Spitalfields, examined the body of the
deceased as the 18th of April—k presented an unnatural livid ap- '
romance, the face, mouth, and lips were very much swollen; the
eyes were in the ordinary state. The body generally war in a
high state of putrefaction. He had seen similar appearances follow
death by poison OD several occasions. He first opened the lungs;
there was the appearance of extmvasated blood, which might have
been produced by a blow, but from the state of the body he could
not come to that conclusion. He found the vessels of the brain
in a very turgid state, and effused blood on the brain. Various
causes might have produced these appearances; apoplexy or poison
might, he could not conclusively say which. He opened the
stismaCh, and found it mach inflamed—general inflammation.
The state of the stomach and the intestines was not such as to lead
to a satisfactory conclusion as to the cause of his.deatb, they only
led hint to a suspicion; the appearances might have proceeded
team other causes. He took home the contents of the stomacb-.-
had there been any mineral poison, there was a sufficieat quantity
for him to have detected it. He detected no mineral poison—he
used a variety of tests. He did not think that any medical man
could say with certainty what was the cause of the death of the
deceased.
Mr. Baron Hustace here stopped the case. In his' Spinioni
there was not evidence to support the indictment; it was not
necessary to prove that the poison was of a particular description,
but there must be poison • and it was clear from the evidence that
no poison had been discovered. A skilful person could discover
the least quantity of mineral poison, but here there was not the
least particle found; and the witness not being able to say, with
certainty, what was the cause of the death of the deceased, the
ptiseno must be acquitted. Verdict—Not Guilty.

Saturday an Inquest was held at the Ring's Bench
Prison, on the young man, Henry Hewes, who threw
himself out of one of the windows in the inside of the
prison. The evidence which was given corroborated
the statement given in Saturday's STAR, and the. Jury
returned a verdict of Insanity. The Jury said, that a
medical Gentleman ought to be engaged to reside within
the walls, and resdlved to petition the Secretary of
State upon the subject.
STRUM Rusamtv.—Friday last, Mary Hawkins, a
respectably dressed female, entered the Mary-la-bonne
Court-house, in a state of great agitation, and address-1
ing Mr. Litton, one of the officers, exclaimed, " Oh, Sir,
I have lost all the money I possessed in the world ! the
produce of my industry and labour for several years
past." Mw Litton asked her to explain the particu-
lar nature of her loss? The young woman said,
" Sir, I received a letter from a relation of mine, a
few days ago, who resides at Rippon, in Yorkshire,
recommending me to d-aw my money from the Bank
of England, and to hasten home as soon as possible, my
mother being in so dangerous a state, that she was not
expected to live an hour. I accordingly went to the
Bank, and received 441. (one2ol. and tour 51. notes and
4 sorer eigns), all of which I kept close in my hand until
I arrived at the corner of Berners-street, Oxford-street. I
then put the money into my pocket, and did not discover
my loss, until looking at some caps in a milliner's shop.
window, higher up in Osford•street, and having put
my hand in my pocket with an intention of making a
purchase, I, to my sorrow, discovered that my money
was gone, my pocket cut across at the bottom, and
every thing in it made away with." The officer recom.
mended her to proceed as expeditiously as possible to
the Bank, to stop the payment of the notes, it it could
be done. The poor girl thanked him for his advice,
and refired Irons the Court-house in deep distress. •