Star.
London, England, 1828-04-05 00:00:00

SENTENCESTHE HORSE STEALERS.

Of the fourteen prisoners charged with this offence,,
the following were capitally convicted: John Wilkin-1
son, Samuel 'Willis, William Smith, John Todd, John,
Horner, John Marriott, George Reggett, and Matthew;
Harrison; who being placed at the bar,
Mr. Baron Hum.oce said, 4, Prisoners at the bar, you
have severally been convicted of the crime of horse-
stealing; your numbers afford sufficient proof that the
offence cannot be put a stop to without having recoutse
to the literal execution of the law, and that the lenity
that has hitherto been shown is altogether unavailing ;
therefore it is my duty to inform you, and I do it with
great reluctance and considerable pain, that your of-
fences must be expiated by letting t..e literal sentence
of the law be executed upon each of you. Every one
of you must suffer. The interest of the public, and
the protection of this species of property, demand it.
I have, Therefore, to request of you all, nut to suffer the
precious moments that now remain for you, when you
are upon the brink of eternity, to pass without setting
about earnestly, by prayer and supplication, to make
your peace with GOD. I cannot flatter any one of you
that you can hope for mercy here. The sentence of
the law was then pronounced upon the prisoners, some
of whom, especially Willis, seemed deeply affected.

CIVIL SlDE.—Before Mr. Justice BATLZY:
HORSINGT6I4 V. DNA UNOT AND WIFE.

Mr. PATTISON opened the pleadings, which stated
that the wife of the defendant had spoken certain defa-
matory words of and respecting the plaintiff, highly in-
jurious to his reputation and reflecting thereon, and also
charging him with frauds in money transactions.
Mr. BROUGHAM, in a most powerful address, stated the
case. Never had he to address aJury with greater feelings
of anxiety—a case of greater interest to an individual
could scarcely be reposed in the hands of any one. It was
a very common saying, but not the less true on that ac-
count, that the thing which was most valuables° man in
society was his good name. His client was not only
charged with dishonesty, as the Jury had heard by the
pleadings, but with dishonourable conduct, in matters
of the most delicate nature. He was charged .with a
most foul and fraudulent breach.of trust, in a situation
the most delicate that man and man could be placed in
society together—he meant that of steward and confi-
dential agent. Nothing could be more ruinous than to
impute a breach of trust to such a person. To call a
merchant a bankrupt, a soldier a cower d,or-aGentleman
a swindler, could not by possibility affect such characters
more than the imputation cast upon his client. He had
to state the .circumstances under which the words were
spoken, and the base purpose for which they were
uttered. The defendants probably they all knew ; they
were Col. and Mrs. Beaumont, who possessed very large
estates in Yorkshire. The plaintiff had resided in the,
West Riding of that county for more than 16 years, and
had been confidentially employed by many persons
of rank and property, as their agent and surveyor.,
In that capacity be had been employed by Sir
George Steel. and by a Nobleman of large estates
and political importance, Lord Buckinghamshire,
from whose knowledge of him he had been recom-
mended to the defendants, Col. and Mrs. Beaumont,
and upon such high recommendation he entered the
defendants service as their land agent and steward in the
year 1812, and continued therein until November in
the last year. During that period he was employed by
other persons; amongst them, we understood, were the
Duke of Wellington and Lord Howdah When he first
came upon the estates of the defendants, he found them
in a state that required the greatest care, attention, and
good management ; and under his management he
brought them, td a very high degree of regularity and
order ; so much so, that his conduct met the approbation
of the delendants,and the rents were raised as high as they
could be. In 1826 an event of great importance took
place—the election for the,county of Northumberland;
the Beaumont family were much interested therein, one
of the family being. a candidate. The highest confi-
dence was placed in the plaintiff; and he, above all
others, was .sent to Northumberland, in the rank of
agent, to settle and reduce the electioneering bills,
on which service he saved the defendants many
thousands of pounds, in the doing of which all the
odium was cast upon him ; and that might lead
to the motive that prompted the slander. Early in
July last, Lord Howden received a note from Mrs.
Beaumont, they then being in London,, requesting
that he would call upon her the next day, in Port-
man-square. He should state that Mrs. Beaumont
managed all the affairs of her aunt and her husband's
property. That part of the Salique law which excluded
a woman from reigning was not adopted in the Beau-
mont family.—(Laughter). The reigning Lady governed
all the affairs of the estate. Lord Howden called as re
quested.' She then told him that she did not like the
plaintiff's moral chaiacter, and he understood that
she then said that he kept a mistress ; that he would
have passed over, and never have grounded an
action upon it. Finding that Lord Howden was
proof against all this, what he would call tittle-
tattle, she then proceeded to inflict the wounds on
the plaintiff's character, which none but the Jury could
relieve him from. She said to Lord Howden that the
plaintiff had taken money from the tenants on their leases,
that he had made a profit of her money in discounting
bills—and that he had also taken some of her money,
for which he had never accounted. And she then left
that statement to work upon the mind of Lot d Howden.
He understood it was that day meant to be said that
Mrs. Beaumont only meant that he took his usual
fee ; tut he would show them that she meant that
he had turned the letting of the lands to his own
profit, and that he took bribes from the tenants
to grant leases on more reasonable terms. Lord H.
wrote to Mrs. Beaumont, stating that he denied the
charges and defied proof—adding, that the charge
made was such, if true, as rendered the plaintiff un-
worthy of confidence; he also alluded to the service
of the plaintiff at the Northumberland election, and the
thousands he had there saved by his assiduity. No answer
was sent to this letter ; and, therefore, he contended the
' construction of Lord Howden was tr ue, and such as Mrs.
Beaumont adopted.He cared not whether Mrs. Beaumont
came there that day clothed in all the quibbles which was
afforded by the law. He should leave his case to the deci-
sion of twelve honest Jurymen,and he was confident they
would be of opinion that no other constractionecould be
put upon her words, than that which was the strong
'impression of Lord Howden. The plaintiff having been

dismissed by Mrs. Beannon, and not receiving any
answer from her, Lord. Howden thought that the same
impression remained on her mind, and he, therefore,
could not think of continuing the plaintiff in his employ
when under such imputations. There were other words
spoken of the plaintiff—that he had kept two rentals,
and that she could transport him for defrauding her of
her money—and some other charges—had been stated
to a common servant.

Lord Howden, and other witnesses, were called to
prove the facts stated.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS (Mr. F. POLLOCK, arid Mr. AL.
DIMON, with him) addressed the Jury.
Mr. Justice BATLEY summed up most minutely.
The Jury retired for a short time, an I then returned a
verdict for the plaintiff'. Damages-4:1,700.
The trial lasted more thin six hours.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

_••••••1••••.--.