Star.
London, England, 1828-12-05 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQURR. Dgc 4.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. MATHEW,.
This was au intorniati.m filed against the defendant
by his Majesty's Attorney General, for the recovery of
certain penAltie, incur.eJ by reason of his having do
hied certain of the Excise regulations for the nuking of
malt.

The Souctroa GENERAL. in stating the case, said,
that it was rather a singolar feature in it that the defen-
dant had been at one time an insi ector of Exci e, and
that in the discharge of his duty he had to inspect the
vet y malt houses of which he sub,eqise tly became pro-
prietor, and in whic'i the alleged frauds were committed
by him. The malt houses w eie situate at Western Hen-
died and Norwell, in Bei kshire. •1 he license for malting
was taken nut by a man named Petit, who had since
absconded, but the Jury, upon h..aring the evidence,
would have no doubt on their minds that the defendant
Nlathews had a share in the concern. The Learned
Solicitor could not refrain (tom observing, that a retired
Excise officer. and particu'arly one holding tl e high
rank which the defendant did, was the most d mgerous
description of persons to entrust with the making of
malt. He knew the habits of the Excise officers, their
times of visiting malt houses, their means of detecting
frauds, and was therefore calculated to defeat their
vigilance. Indeed, in the present instance, he had still
further advantages, for he had been the inspector of,
the very malt houses in which he afterwards conic&
on the 1. autb. It would appear that the deft ndanr, after
the detection to .1c place, begged the Excise officer by
whom it was made not to press too heavily on h•nr
Don't make," said he, " m.ite than three or four hun-
dred pounds, or that (pointing to Reading gaol) must
be our portion." _ _ _

Several witnesses um called, for the purpose rf
proving that the di.fenclabt was a propritor of the malt
houses, after which,

Mr. JEKvis, sets. addressed the Jury for the &fin-
dAt.t, and contended that the evidence was in,ufliciei.t
to connect his client with the transaction rabid!, gave
rise to the information. He admitted the frauds, but
denied his client's participation, in the most remote
degree, in them.

The Cytei BARON summed up. and with reference
to t' e demeanour of parties when detected in crime,
said that it was not always s. fr to rely too much upon
the conduct of men in such cases. A great modern
Poet (Byron), in alluding to the cootie's c.f his hero
upon a particular occasion, douLts whether it be

the calmneAs of the good,
Or vice grown bold by desin.rate hardihood."
The Jury returned a ver-ict for the Crown.

COURT OF THF. DEAN AND CHAPTER OF
WESTMINSTER, Die. 4.
Before Sir Minas JitiNFIL. Commissary.
IB 111011 P V. 518THORP.

This was a suit for eeparalion a mensa el Nro►o, by
reason of adultety. promo ed by Ntrrin Sobthor pagain t
her husband, Colo, el C. D %V. Sit,thorp, M.P. foe Lin-
coln. No uppositi •n was off red on behalf of tie hus-
band ; a few passages only of the evidenc.! were con e-
quently read, which established the marriage, cohabi-
tation, and identity of the par ties, and the adultery.

Sir HIMBERT JENNICR gave sentence. The parties
were married in Gloncesieishi-e, on the 20 h February,!
1812, and c,h4bited till o,:tober, 1827. The issue of
the matriage was t.wr sons. In 1826. Colonel Sibthorp
formed an acquaint trice %%lib a woman named S r..h
Ward ; and in May, 1827, Ve brrupa,ht her to Lindon.
and vole apartments at Mrs. Fsrn.er's, in 1) sset-
strict, Portman square, where they c'snt nued for nine
weelps, sleeping to?, tl,ev. There was no doubt as to
the fact of adultery, and Vie evidence as to the identits
of the parties was complete: there were letters from
Colonel Sibthorp tr Mrs. Farmer, which ;loved Lis
identity, and them was a witness to the fact that the
person with whom hr cohabited was not Mts. S.bshoip
lien the w hole, there was no doubt slut tie w ife was,
entitled to the sentence of divorce which sic prayed.
Dr. LISSIiINGTJN then, on behalf of M. Sibtltorp,
applied for the allotment of permanent alimony, upon
' an Allegation of the f culties of Col eel Suthnrp, which
set los th the amount of his tevenue, admi ting with. ut
objection the deducti,ns he claimed.. Colvnel Sibthorp
was possess. d of the estate at Calnwick, rear Lincoln,
which he valued at 3501. per annum. The gross rental
of his other property amounted to 14.817Lbut he cl timed
detluctions ti various kinds, which redu:ed the net in-
come to 8,5361. per annum. Colonel Sibthorp admitted
that he had in ready cash 10,000/. but alleged that bis
debts egualltd that sum. lie also admitted the posses-
sion of other effects to the amount of 5,0001. Of the
four sons, the eldest was 14 years a f age. the nest 12,
the third 10, and the fourth 8. Mrs. Sibilios p possessed
an annuity if 3001. for her separate use. The joint net
income of the parties he took At 8,8001.
Dr. A R NOL n, fur Colonel Sibthatip, observed, that he
had no objection to admit that to be the amount, but he
submitted t!'at there were a variety of circumstances in
the case which the Court ought to consider in making
this allotment of alimony. It appeared that Mrs. Sib.
thorp had not brought any fortune to her husband, and
he had now four sons to maintain and educate; and,
from the age of those children, the expense was one
which mu tbe constantly is creasing. It also appeared.
that the estates were entailed ; and Colonel Sibthorp
would, therefore, have to provide future frrtunes for
those children, as well as to maintain and educate
them. It was also most important that there was no cir-
cumstance of aggravation in the ease, and that Colonel
Sibthorp was not charged with any personal ill-treatment
of his wife.

Dr. LUSHINGTON, in reply, urged that it was not to
be assumed, even if Colonel Sibthorp had no powei to
charge his real estate, or to fell timber, that out of so
large an income he could not provide for his children.
Aithough no aggravating circumstances were charged
in this case, still the adult ry was not of a very venial
nature. Colonel Sibthot p bad cohabite,l with his Wife
from 1812 to 1816; and at a time of life shin he was
not in the heyd,iy of youth, he forgot hi. duty to his
w.fe, and fcrmed an adulterous connexion with a person
of low character. Mt s. Sibthorp was not to sustain any
Inns through the mi.feasancc of her husband. No ali-
mony had been allowed peudente lite.

Sir H. JENNIIII took the amount of faculties as fol-
lows—Grass income, including the estate at Caltiwick,
14,3171. deductions 6,1301. leaving a net revenue of
8,1871. frttm real property ; adding the separate income
and prospective property of the wife, the joint income
of the patties was 8,8001. The allotment of permanent
alimony was diffetently regulated from an allowance
pentane lite, whilst it was doubtful whether the site
could establish her charges. There vas no filed rule
for the Court in these cases ; they always depended
upon the particular circumstances of each. In cases
where the circumstances were aggravated, the Conn
had even allowed a moiety of the joint income. In the
pre,ent case, although the wife had brought no fortune,
she was still e• titled to be maintained in the same rank
in which she had moved whilst she cohabited with het
husband. Taking the joint it come at 8,8001. he thought

the Court woulii act with liberality to the ono- pa•trf
and wish Able attention to the claims of the other, if it
a hated the sum of 2,200 i. (including the separate in•
come of the wile) fur pm minent alimony from the date
of the sentence.

HlOll COURT OP JUSTICTARY, goiascaari, Dec. t.
This day Allan IPLean, late post i unner for con•
veying letters between Oban and Tobermory, was ar-
raigned on the Statute of 53 Gen. 111. e. 143 (whin
Imakes the crime capital). for having, on be 25th Aug.
last, secreted And embezeed A letter. address d by 31r.
John B ith, jun. merchant, Campbell-town, to M.
James Nisbett, water, Tobermory, containing 501. in
bank notes. The indictment contained an alteinine
charge of theft of the above letter and content..
The pannel tot understanding English, Mr. M•Do•
nald. of Staffs, was sworn to act as interpreter. Sonic
conversation followed, as to the necessity of the libel
being teed in English. Mr. M Donald stated he had
made the pannel f ully aware of the nature of the charges
preferred against him.
The LORD Je3Tice CLERK ranirked, that in such
cases he thought copies of the indictment in tile Gaelic
language should be served upon pannels.
*Lean, though the intercreter, pleaded Guilty to
the first charge as libelled; and the Lord Advocate
I passed from the second change, testi icting the pains sf
law as to the other to an arbitrary punishment.
Mr. M'Donald of Staffa was about to address the
Court, when—

Mr. J. W. DICKSON, Counsel for M-Lean, said Mr.
hl4Donald having communicated with the pannel in a
language which he (Mr. Davin) did not understand.
was able to make some explanations to the Court with
more effect than he could Mire to do.
Mr. Nl'Dowat.o then de-ctihed the manner in which
the prisoner had conducted hinsselt after the commis-
sion of the clime- That he fist went r:o Neil Nl4Phail
t.) count the money, and next to purchase horses and
boats; that his own conduct led to his immediate de-
tection; and no sooner was lie taken tnto cusody, and
made fully aware of the magnittide of the crime he
had committed, than he expressed the nto‘t unfeigned
contrition, candidly .nd openly confessing the full ex-
tent of his guilt. T e Learned Gentleman mod s-me
certificates to show that the lad had, up to the commis•
sion i f this offence, berne an excellent character, being
always considt red a useful and holiest boy.
Lord Gibucts, in proposing the sense. c., said this
was one of the peculiar (,ffences to which the at-
'ached the punishment of death. That being the case,
Ice thou4lit all had been done which could be d• ne for
tie poisoner by .the restriction of the public prosecutor,
therefore he would say that he should be tians;:orted
for the whole period of his natural We.
Lord Pirmibbi concurred; and the LORD JCSTICII
CLERIC, in expressing his opinion, remarke.r, that inde-
pendent of the satute, the offence was one of the most
aggrava eJ nature. The pannel had be n urged as
a servant of the Post-office, who had vitiated his trust,
and pleaded guilty to that crime. Their I,,rdships,
theiefne, were bound to inflict such punis'inoent as
would show to all in the Post-office service that it was
their sacred duty to discharge faithfully the trust re•
posed in them.
Semence of transportatCon for life was then pro-
neunced against the unfortunate lad, who dii not ap•
pear to be Above 15 or 16 years i f age, and who seemed
to feel very keenly his degraded situ.otion.

SURREY SESSIONS,DEc. 4.

Clarks Pitman was indicted for stealing a pair of
trousers, and oil er articles of a eating. apparel, the pro.
perty of John Yates Coop-r, Esq..i t Hackney.
Clem the Bow-stre t pair I, plowed that having
f wend the articles in question in the box of the prisoner,
win tras servant to Colonel Todd, of Coady's, and
u petting they were stolen, he ilquireJ t i the piose-
cut r, by whom they wete identified as his room ty.
E:izahezh Btoniley, a servant a Mr. Coppees, stated
that the gi,ols in question were her master's.
Mr. BAC ))1, for the prisoner, cross ex +mined the wit-
ness, who admitted that she had kei t company with the
prisoner, and had given him chain articles a wearing
apparel. which her master tad given to her for the pur-
pose of being distributed to.pon people; she denied.
however, that she had ever given him the articles men•
tioned in the indictn.ent. .

Edward S!repherd proved that the last witness had
been in the habit of leaving parcels at his house fur the
pri: &met.
The pi honer, in his defence, said the clothes had been
given him by thew liners Bromley.
The Jury returned a vet dict of Not Guilty.
The same prisoner was' a second time indicted for
stealing a silver watch.
The witnesses for the prosecution proved that in No.
vember last a man s f the name of Greases, the gsrdener
of Colonel Todd, hanged himself; that some time be-
f re his death he had been possessed of the watch in
question. and that it appeased to be in his pocket after
his body was discovered. By means of a letter ad.
dressed by Bromley. the winless in the last case, to the
prisoner, and found upon him, it bad been discovered
the swatch was in his possession, and there the police
officers found it.
Mr. BACON, for the ()limner, objected that the indict•
mensatMadoll not be sustained. It consisted of two counts.
in die estri of which the property of the watch was laid
to be in Amelia Greases (the deceased's widow), and in
the seconds to be in some person or persons unknown.
The fit st, the Counsel insisted,was clearly wrot.g. Amo.
lia Greaves not bring charged to be the administratrix
of the deceased; and the second, because the property
must be either that of the administratrix. or. if ao ad-
ministration had been granted, that of the Ordinary, in
whom the deceased's estate vested by operation of law ;
so that in no case it could by possibility be the property
of a person unknown.
The CIIAIRMAY allowed the validity niche 6r.t, but
overruled the second objection. He then charged the
Jury, and pointed out the di credibility of the witness
Bromley, on whom the proof of the case depended,
wheretion they retutnei a verdict of ,%04 Guilty.
William Harper Was indicted for stealing several
yards of linen from the shop door of a tradesman in
Newington.
The charge against the prisoner was fully established
against him, and he was found Gadfly ; but it appearing,
in the course of the testimony given by the *lames,
that the article in question was exhibited for sale out-
side the prosecut u's door, the Chairman, on that con-
sideration, passed a milder sentence on the prisoner than
he would otherwise have been disposed to extend to him,
' being an rld offender. Ile was therefore sentenced to
six months imp: isonnsent, the Court expressing the im-
propriety tradesmen placing their goods outside their
shops; it was a temptation for persons such as the
prisoner to commit an offence; and In order to show
their disapproval of such a cu tom, are Court would
never grant the exi.enses to the prosecutors. The pro-
secutor in this case, on his application to be allowed the
expenses, was refuted.