Star.
London, England, 1821-01-18 00:00:00

HEAD-QUARTERS, CALCUTTA, JUNE 24.

At a Native General Court-Martial, assembled at
Sumbhulpore, on Thursday, the Ist of June, 1820,
Emaum Buksh Khan, late Nuggarchee of the Ist
Ressallah of Ramghur Frontier Horse, was arraigned
on the following charge, viz.
" Emaum Buksb Kban, late Nuggarchee of the Ist Ressallah
of Ramghur Frontier Horse, charged with murder, in wilfully
and maliciously shooting to death, with a ball from a pistol, be-
tween the hours of six and eight of the evening of the second of
May, 1319, in the bed of the River Malta Nuddee, opposite the
Fort of Sumbhulpore, a woman named Choohun, the daughter
of Mudara Shah Faqueer."

Upon which charge the Court came to the follow-
ing decision :
FINDING-" The Court, after the most mature deliberation
on the evidence given in support of the prosecution, together
with what the prisoner bas said in defence, find bins guilty of
that part of the charge, viz. For having shot to death with a ball
from a pistol, between the hours of six and eight of the evening
of the second of May, 1519, in the bed of the River Maha
Nuddee, opposite the Fort of Sumbhulpore, . the daughter of
Mudara Shah Faqueer. But the Court acquit the prisoner in
having wilfully and maliciously done so."
SFNTENCE—" The Court, having found the prisoner guilty
of that part of the charge above stated, does sentence hint, the
said Emaum Buksh Khan, late Naggarchee of the Ist Ressallsh
of Ramghur Frontier Horse, to be imprisoned for a period
of six years.
" In consideration of the prisoner's long confinement in irons,
since the second of May, 1819, the Court most respectfully beg
leave to recommend him to the clemency of the Commander in
Chief, and that the period of his imprisonment may commence
from the above date.'

" Disapproved, (Signed) " HASTINGS."
REMARKS BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE COMMANDER

IN CHIEF.

" The Commander in Chief entirely disapproves the sentence.
The prisoner, Emaum Buksh Khan, was charged on circum-
stances furnishing strong suspicion, with having deliberately
murdered the woman who lived with him.

" The inference from those circumstances was, that be killed
her to prevent her surviving when he had determined to put
himself to death, though his heart failed him as to the latter pur•
pose, and he did not carry it effectually into execution.

" Against those particulars, which seemed to fix the crime
directly on the prisoner, there is not a tittle of evidence adduced
beyond his own assertion. He states, that, having resolved to
put an end to himself, he went to the bed of the river for that
object ; that the woman, suspecting his intention, followed him
silently ar.d unperceived; lastly, that on his preparing to use the
pistol against himself, she suddenly seized It, which turned the
muzzle towards her, and by the pistol's going off in the struggle,
she was accidentally killed.
" The points of the defence are thus rebutted :—By the preg-
nant fact of the prisoner's having taken two ball cartridges with
him : by the testimony of Peer Khan, first witness for the pro-
secution, who swears that he saw the deceased walking towards
the river about forty paces in front of the prisoner, and of
course in his view : by the testimony of Shaick Ainodeen, the
second witness fox the prosecution, who deposes that he heard
Jamadar Mahommed Khan (since dead) ask the prisoner where
his woman was? to which question Einaum Buksh answered,
that he had shot her, and that she was lying in the bed of the
I river. The Commander in Chief is utterly at a loss how to
reconcile to such evidence the finding of the Court, that the
prisoner had not wilfully and maliciously shot the deceased.
" Supposing the above conclusion of the Court to have been
borne out by what appears on the proceedings, then the sentence
would be altogether inapposite. Six years' imprisonment for an
unintentional homicide Ise punishment too extravagant to admit'
a moment's countenance.
" The finding on the charge of murder kin; an acquittal, the
Commander in Chief will net direct the Court to revise its opi-
nion. In other respects be must consider the proceedings is too
incorrect to have any validity attached to than ; therefore the
Commander in Chief orders the prisoner, B naum Buksh, to be
liberated, bat forbids his being retained is the service, or being
. re-admitted on any future occasion-
" JAMES NICOL, Adjt. Gen. of the Army."

Lady FRANCES ANN VANE STEWART attained het
21st year yesterday. Great rejoicings took place at
Sunderland to celebrate the eventd

:6•HiSith

The following is a copy of a litoteit ag:ilinst the
proceedings at the County Meeting, bearing the sig=
hattlies attached

• "To TRP ULM! .tHiniti-P.
. "In Pattietioente of the arbitrary character or your decisioni
at the County Meeting, held on the 11th inst. of the Nobility,
Gentry, Clergy, and Freeholders of Cheshire, who had repaired
to Northwich, in obedience to your call, and in reliance upon
your importiality, eve do hereby protest against the titrnidtuary
proitedi nits or that air as well as atainst yrnit odndritt in the Chair.
" Ist, In. declaring that Lord Grosvenor's Amendment was
irrelevant; without stating your reasons for the assertion ; and
in refusing to fake the sense of the Meeting, either upon the
Amendment itself, Ct upon the question o!' its retev.ncy.
" 2d, In refusint to grant a division; repeatedly demanded,
against the Address proposed by Mr. T. ChohnOndeley, when
there was reason to doubt the correctness of your decision upon
the shew of hands.
governing the Ccanty Meeting 67 your own ciin:o's
alone, upon a disputed point, of which you Levi the obvious de-
nionstrotion within your reach. (Signed)
" GEORGE WILBRAHAM, " JOUR THOMAS STAYLEY,
" Carwr, " JAmr.s Tommsos,
" EDIARD DAIZIOOILT, " RALPH LITCZMIER,
BELGRAVE, R EMICARD STARLET,
" WILLOUCHRY CREWE. " JOHN BROWNE,
" CHARLES WICESTEAR, " CHARLES Boutor LAwror,
" ()FILET CREWE, Gtecc:.

Gaosvrxna,
" Div the more incumbent on me td annex my signature to ti
above Protest, as I happened to be so personally situated as to hi% e
a most advantageous view of rite whole Court. When the question
was put, I surveyed the vast assemblage attentively, and it ap-
peared to me impossible to form a just opinion as to which side
carried it. Had there, however, been no alternative but to de-
cide upon the show of hands, I should have said that the non-
addressers had it. I think it necessary to add, that the question
against the Address was not put in a distinct, audible and in-
telligible manner: " ItA LPH EYCESTEIt, jun."