Star.
London, England, 1827-08-24 00:00:00

HEREFORD, Auousr
.241

Thomas Jones and Samuel Higgins were indicted,
charged with having feloniously stolen and taken away,
on the night of the 9th of April last, one %%ether sheepi
the property of John Bannister.
From the evidence of the prosecutor it appeared, that
late on the evening of the 9th, the sheep were all safe
in his field, and on the morning of the 10th one thent
was missing ; he tra.kcd the sheep over afiedge into
an adjoining field, where it had been killed, and he
found the skin and entrails. He then proceeded to
search the house of the prisoner Higgins, where he
sound several joints of mutton cut up and deposited in
a steen (an earthen pan): on comparing the joints with
the skin, they were bound to corresiond.
The constable produced the skin, and anothtr *it-
, ness, a chymist, produced the tail of 0 e sheep, which,
by order of the Magistrate, he had preserved in spirits,
in order that it might be compared rsith a joint of the
tail left in the skin.

The confession of Jones was then read, detailing the
whole circumstances of the robbery ; but, notwithstand-
ing that, he denied his guilt, and both prisoners called
several witnesses, who gave them a good character.
Mr. Baron Vauotraw having summed up, the Jury
found the prisoners Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE then addressed the prisoners,
and said, that the crime of which they had been found
guilty had proceeded to such an extent, that no farmer's
property was sate, and he did not know, on considera-
tion, whether he should not be under the necessity or
allowing the law to take its course. He had great
difficulty in prevailing on himself, but their lives would
probably be spared: but they must expect to leave the
country for life.—Sentence of death was then recorded.

The wife of one of the prisoners, who had been
wa,ching the trial with the most intense anxiety, atld
had evinced great intelligence in calling the witnesses
to character, on hearing the last sentence of the law
mentioned, changed cdour, and clinched her hands
together, seemingly to implore mercy, but uttered not
a word; and when she heard that her husband must
leave the country for life, she dropped from her seat in
a swoon. It was not till the Learned Judge had called
out to the bystanders to assist her, that the stupid fele
lows by whom she was surrounded thought of carrying
her out of Court.

CML SlLllL—Before Mr. Junk! LISMILDALI.
HOLDER V. COATES.

Mr. Wurrcoufss opened the pleadings, and stated
that this was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is
lessee of a part of the Scatterbrain estate, to recover
from the defendant a compensation in damages for
falling an oak tree, 132 years of age; the main ques-
tion in the cause being, whether the tap-root of the
tree grew out of a bank belonging to the plaintiff, or
out of the land of the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant RA:sum, for the plaintiff, stated that
this action was not brought to recover the value of the
tree in question, so mucn as to decide the boundaries
of the respettive estates. The plaintiff was the tenant
of a gentleman of property, who became possessed of
the Scatterbrain estate on his marriage. The defendant
was an attorney of respectability, residing at Leo-
minster, in this county, and the lands of both parties
adjoined each other. The tree in question grew out of
a bank which was part of the property demised to, the
plaintiff, and it would be clearly established that the
main root of that tree was in that property. The
Learned Counsel undeistood that the defendant, who
was a lawyer, had no less than 38 witnesses, but be
was utterly ignorant what defence it was intended to
set up ; but no doubt it would be a very ingenious one,
as Mr. Coates was a very ingenious man.
Several witnesses were then called on the part of the
plaintiff to prove that the tree in question grew out of
a hedge-row, which was on the top of a bank forming
the boundary line between the lands of the plaintiff and
defendant.

On cross-examination, however, it appeared that the
tap-root of the tree went perpendicularly down into the
soil and freehold of the defendant. It also appeared,
that when an oak grew naturally from an acorn it al-
ways had a main tap-root; but when it grew from a
transplanted seedling, the root forked out into what are
termed spur roots, and some of the spur roots of the
tree in question had been cut off between the trunk and
bank, which was the boundary.
Six of the Jury had had a view, but they wished the
defendant's case to proceed.
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, considered this
perfectly a scatter brain action, but was glad the Jury
wished him to go on, as he was confident, that when they
had heard the evidence on both sides, the present ques-
tion would be for ever set at rest. There could be no
doubt that the oak, the subject of the present action,
had never been planted, but had grown from accident,
some acorn having been dropped there,possibly from the
beak of a bird ; and the Jury, who had seen the remain.
ing root, must have observed that the tap-root was in
the soil of the defendant. In fact, it was so far distant
from the bank, that the defendant had for years plough-
ed his land within the line of this tree to the foot of-the
bank—had planted potatoes there, and reaped them ;
and he had also planted a row of young trees closer-to
the bank than tl:e old oak in dispute, over which he had
exercised acts of ownership, by lopping side branches,
long btfore the real plaintiff's marriage brought him to
the Scatterbrain estate.

The Learned Counsel then called a host of witness'',
who proved numerous acts of ownership cgs the pan of
the defendant, and corroborated the principal part of
Isis opening statement.

Alter a tedious trial, which occupied the greater part
of the day, the Jury found a verdict for the delendai.t.

CARLISLE, Aua. Si. •
Csru. Stns.—Before Mr. Baron Hot.soort.
NORMAN AGAINST TATI.OjI.
This was an action for the loss of services, occ, sioa .4
by the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter. Mr. Hutt,
who stated the case, said that actions of this kind were
fortunately so uncommon in this county, that this was
probably the first that had been ever offered to.
to consideration of the Jury. The plaintiff was a
Aal' farmer, holding about fifty acres of land at
Beaumont. The lather of the defendant was also a
farmer, and kept a water-mill. The acquaintance

I!

.‘1

between the parties began several years ago, when the
plaintiff lived at Heikenith, but their intimacy increased
sifter he had removed to Beaumont, where the defend
ant's father had a corn-mill, and the defendant liyrd.
The acquaintance was prosecuted by the defendant
with the alleged view of obtaining the plaintiff's daugh-
ter in marriage. No intercourse was so insidious and
dangetous to a young woman as when iiiider that
pretence an attempt at cm ruptioa was made, for • her
itiends were off their guard: in this case the plaintiff
was entirely unsuspicious. The defendant paid his
visits during the whole of 1825 and the early part of
1826, during which period he effected his real purpose:
the plaintiff's daughter proved with child, or which
she was delivered, and then the defendant discontinued
his visits. The plaintiff had maintained the child, and
the defendant had refused to make any compensation
whatever. When applied to, he said he would rather
go to gaol and take the benefit of the Insolvent Act.
The plaintiff did not ask vindictive damages, but the
Jury would give such as would repress conduct of this
nature, and would sustain the reputation of that yeo
manry to which they belonged, and of which the
plaintiff has been all bis life a respectable member.
Ruth Norman—l am the daughter of David Nor-
man. He is a small farmer. He has seven children.
lam SI next Whitsuntide. I have known the defend-
ant three years; his father farms a small estate at Bar-
row-mill, a quarter of a mile off my father's. He is
about my age. I did not know much about him at
Skeugh. He came to see me both night and day at
Beaumont for one year and a half. He made proposals
of marriage, but he said he could not marry me then,
because he had nothing, and his folks would give him
nothing. He said he would marry me any time I
chose. I had a child by him on the 25th of last No•
,ember, and my father has maintained it ever since.
Tide defendant never paid anything for it. I was ill
about three months.

lined by Mr. BROUGHAM—I am 32 next
Whitsuiiide; I will not swear that the defendant is
more than 24. He often came to tea to us, and often
stayed till two o'clock in the morning, after my father
and mother were gone to bed. I never told them he
was to marry me. We went on this way a year and a
half before he took any liberties with me. There was
a settle in the toom ahem we were. He did not leave off
♦isiting me until a month before the child was born. I
swore the child to him a month after it was born. Aly
parents have loth gone to bed, and left us up together.
Mr. HOLT—That is my case, my Lord.

Mr. &tout:meat then addressed the Jury on the part
of the defendant. His Learned Friend, Mr. Holt, in
his preliminary observations, had said that actions of
this description--actions like this—were not common."
Indeed he believed so; for he never saw such an action
as the present brought into a Court of Justice. His
Learned Friend had said, that " compensation must be
given for thus contaminating the hearth and household
of the plaintiff." He did not knew whether his Learned
Friend meant to use the word " hearth" literally or
not, though he believed he might, with great correct.
ness, use that word in the present case. His Learned
Friend would have the Jury chew, by their ver.liet, what
they thought of the case. Now that was precisely what
he wanted the Jury to do. This was exactly the obser-
vation he intended to have himself made; and thus his
Learned Friend had saved him some trouble in the
speech he was under the necessity of making. He did,
certainly, expect, from the warm and glowing and Oa
fecting address of his Learned Friend, that he was
about to prove that some young, tender, innocent crea-
ture, betweeen the age of 18 or 19, had become the
'4O im of some abandoned profligate villain, neatly
double her age, perhaps 31 or 32 years trlJ. But instead
of stfth a being as his own imagination, and he was sure
that of the Jury also, had pictured to itself, what sort of
a creature made its appearance in the witness box ? He
thought, bettre his Learned Friend commenced his ex-
amination of her, that she must be some housekeeper, or
same set rant of some solicitor in the cause, who had been
called to prove the service of some notice of action.—
But he felt very much astonished when this Lady de-
scribed herself to be the very injured young person who
had become the seducer's victim—(Laughter.)—Cer-
tainly there were various tastes in the world. This
young man (the present defendant) might have taken a
liking to her, or she might have taken a liking to him,
which was much more probable, and she might have
cast her net and caught this young man. Whether it
was so or not he could not prove, as the defendant,
being a party to the cause, could not be placed in the
box, so as to tell what were the real facts of the case.
This young Lady, at tender one-and-thirty—(Laugh-
ter)—and there was scarcely any thing younger mar.
riageable—(Laughter)—became acquainted, about three
years since, according to her own account, with a young
man about her own age, but who, according to the
probabilities of the case, was much younger. Now.
was she likely, from her appearance. or the respective
ages of the lovers, to become the object of much wiles,
or art, or snares? Was she not much more likely to
be a tempter than to be tempted—(loud laughter)?
He, indeed, called her a young lady merely out of
courtesy, and general regard for the fair sex ; for be
would not call a woman of eighty years of age " as
old woman"—(laughter). He might call bar as
elderly lady—a lady stricken in years—a lady who
had been a long time in the world ; but never ,4 an
old woman'—(obstreperous laughter). This girl, as
he would call her, from the same principle, though be
ought properly to say, " this old girl"—this pretty pet
lamb—this fair dame on the shady side of 30—this
lovely innocent with the bell tolling for her last prayers
(laughter)—the old couple had lelt with the defendant
and gorse to bed. It was clear what they thought of
the qualifications of their daughter; it was clear what
pains the old father considered it necessary to take to
keep the young or elderly daughter out of this seducer's
way. They thought what was very natural and proper
to think, " Ruth is old enough to take care of herself;
and if she can't keep herself out of harm's way, why we
can't take care of her"—(continued laughter). Then
the good old people went to bed about nine o'clock at
Eight, a very proper hour for retiring to rest in the
country, and left the tender pair together, as the
elderly young Lady herself said, till two o'clock in
the morning—fora period of five hours. What sort
of care, what sort of caution, was here exerted by
the -good old injured father ? What excuse could
be made fur such conduct on the part of the plaintiff?
His Learned Friend would perhaps say, that a promise
of marriage had been given by the defendant, and
therefore they had been left together. But such an ex-
cuse could not be admitted, because the young elderly
Lady had herself said, that she never told her father
word about it. His Learned Friend had ev"r-'

" Could anything be better calculated to 101 l the suspi•
ripen of a patant, than appearing in such a character

as that which a suitor generally assumes ?" But where!
the parent had not heard a word. about the promise of
marriage, how could his suspicions be thus lulled?—
They might, indeed, be pretty sure that no such thing
as a promise of marriage had been given at all. It
was true the present juvenile elderly Lidy might be one
of that class of women with whom it was absolutely
dangeroes to go into the same roots'. If you bossed to
them, it was making love to them ; if you spoke to
them, it was giving them a promise of marriage; it
you shook hands with them, they roared out as it you
were going to commit violence on their person—(loud
and continued laughter). This was t' e nature of the
sex when they got beyond the age of thirty, or at least
it often happened so: If there bad been this promise
of marriage, why did she not mention the fact to her
father? She would have been glad enough to get a
husband ; and he would have been glad enough to get
rid of his old daughter, who bad been so long on his
hands, and whom he feared he should never get rid
of. He would have said,
,ss It is a very lucky thing;
I did not expect Ruth would have ever got a
husband, she lies got so much on the wrong side
of thirty-oner" But, one word more on the subject
of this supposed promise. His Learned Friend, it
was true, had not required any damages from them
on account of this breach of promise of marriage.
It would be most unjust if he had made or they had
granted such a request; for if, by chance, the verdict
for the plaintiff on the present occasion should be to a
small amount, then on some future occasion, possibly at
the next Spring Assizes, it would be used an an argu-
ment in support of a claim founded on the supposed
breach of promise, to another Jury, that only a few shil•
rings had been given on the present occasion, and the
defendant would be again visited with costs and damages.
Then his Learned Friend used a most extraordinary
species of phraseology in speaking of the consequences
resulting frem this supposed promise. He said an
accident" occurred. What this accident was he felt at
a loss to conceive. If the fact of the elderly young
Lady becoming pregnant was the accident, it was the
oddest " accident" he had ever heat d of. (La ughtt r). If it
was really an accident merely,the plaintiff could have but
very little claim to anything like damages from the Jury.
Now looking at all the facts of the present case, as they
had been disclosed by this elderly young Lady herself—
the discrepancy of age, the carelessness of the plaintiff,
and the frowardness of the young or elderly Lady her-
self, he would ask them what amount of damages the
presna plaintiff was entitled to expect?
Mr. Baton flum.octi said the plaintiff was entitled to
a verdict; and that in estimating the damages, they
were not only to take into consideration the expenses
the plaintiff was put to, but also the injury done to his
domestic comfort and peace of mind : but what had
happened was maialy attributable to his improper neigh-
gence in leaving the parties together. Verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 251.

In repairing a house at Lesanne (Marne), a sort of
closet has been discovered, in which the bodies of four Infants were
concealed. The ~or in which they were concealed was laid in
bricks; and several had been removed to make this new-fashioned
start of grave. This horrible discovery has eacited-rontialerable at-
tention, and the :Magistrates have began to inquire into the business.
It appearitbat the crime which led to this entombment is no: of
recent date.--Puri: .raper.

A few days back, a man named Charles Beo,jamin,
who is a dealer in fish, wai summoned to the Court of
Requests, Whitechapet, for the payment of a debt of If.
The defence which he set up was of a remarkable, al-
though.not altogether unprecedented dessription,namely
—that he was, about two years back, capitally convicted
at the Old Bailey Sessions, and received sentence of
death, but was conditionally pardoned, and ordered to
be imprisoned for a certain term in the House of Cor-
rection, Cold Bath.sfields—which circumstance was con-
firmed by one of the officers of Newgate. The de-
fendant submitted, that having been attainted of felony,
all his property had become forfeited to the Crown, and
that he was consequently incompetent to discharge
debts previously contracted. The Commissioners, how.
ever, having consulted their legal advisers, took a dif-
ferent view of the case, and ruled that he was liable to
pay the debt. The defendant appeared much dissatisfied
with this decision, and stated his intention of making a
representation to the Secretary of State on the subject.
Last week, an Inquest was held at Bedhamp-
ton, before Mr. Longcrofr, on view of ae body of Ito-
bert Marmon, a boy about 15 years old, nho-e death
was occasioned under the following afflicting circum-
stances, which were related in evidence before the Jury,
by William Carroll, Esq. who had lately come to reside
there.—lt appeared that on last Sunday afternoon, Mr.
Carroll left Bedhampton in a sailing boar, belonging to
Mr. Snook, accompanied by Mr. Henry Snook and the
deceased (who had been accustomed to the management
of a boat), for the purpose of sailing about for an hour
or two in Langstone Harbour. There was a fresh
breeze at the time, and they had not been out above
half an hour before it increased and blew hard ; the
boat shipped a considerable quantity of water, and not
answering her helm, Mr. Snook attempted to let go the
main sheet, but it unfortunately hung in a knot, and as
he was about to cut the line, the boat in an instant filled
and went down. Mr. Snook went down in her, but by
climbing up the mast, regained the surface of the water;
they were then two miles from the shore, with the tide
running fast out of the harbour, the wind blowing
strong, and not a boat in sight to render them any as-
sistance. In this perilous situation, the three being all
able to swim, contrived to keep themselves floating for
about 40 minutes, when, being almost exhausted, and
all hopes of being saved at an end, Mr. Carroll, in the act
of sinking, saw at a distance a small vessel (which proved
to be the Mary, of Southampton, Stephen Foster, master)
coming down the harbour ; he immediately felt reneged
strength, and called to Mr. Snook and the poor boy to
keep themselves up if possible, till the vessel came within
bail. It was evident they Were not observed by the
persons onboard, for the vessel was ste. ring past them
when Mr. Carroll called . out fur assistance, which he
did several times before he was heard, owing to the
roughness of the weather, and then, to his unspeakable
joy, he saw two men from the vessel get into their boat,
and row towards him. He was so spent when they
came to him, as to be only able to desire them not to
wait to get him into the hoar, but to coil a rope round
his body and tow him, and not lose a moment in endea-
vouring to save Mr. Snook and the boy. As they were
pulling towards Mr. Snook, they saw the poor boy, who
was at some distance from them, go down ; a very few
seconds more would have been too late for Mr. Snook,
as he was sinking when they reached him, and they
were but just in time to seize his hand as he was going
down. Boats were sent out to drag for the boy, but his
body was not found till Thursday, within 120 yards of
where the boat sunk. Verdict—Accidentally Dtowned.

SPORTING ,INTELLIGENCE.

BETTING-ROOM, TATTERSALL'S, Atrcerr 25.

Thera was some brick betting yesterday on two or three of the
favourites, but without effecting any change of importance. The
Derby horse is still all this rage; he was backed at 7 to 2, and S to
1, to some amount, while Granby was entirely without friends.
Nonplus advances, 15 to 1 being taken. Sancho is also getting up.
The odds generally lett off between 6 and 7 in the evening as follow—
Sr. LSO MI6
S to 1 apt Mameluke 26 to I apt Makk
4 to 1 apt Granby 30 to 1 agst Reviewer
15 to 1 agst Nonplus (taken) 30 to 1 aglt Atitiope
as to 1 apt Sancho 40 to 1 apt Olivera (taken)
20 to 1 apt Lunaria 40 to 1 agst Popsy (taken)
20 to 1 apt Matilda 40 to 1 apt Laurel
25 to 1 apt Medoro 50 to 1 apt Moonshine (taken)
25 to 1 apt Translation 50 to 1 agst Pelican
25 to 1 apt Lumky's
9 to 1 apt Nonplus and Matilda; S to 4 Lumley's apt Laurel—
both taken.