Star.
London, England, 1827-08-25 00:00:00

PAUL R. KERLEY.

Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS stated to the Jury, that this was
an action brought against the defendant for the price of
a valuable sheep dog, which it was alleged the defend-
ant had shot. The Jury would hear from the witnesses
that he was about to call, that the plain:iff's shepherd,
keing in a field of his master's, with two sheep dogs
With him which were tending on the sheep, heard a gun
go off very close to him, upon which he left the work
on which he was employed, and run to the hedge or
bank which divided the fidd in which he was from the
next. This kank was so high. that the person who shot i
the dog, which was on the bank, had been unable to see
that the shepherd was in the field under the batik. As
soon, therefore, as he perceived • the shepherd coming to-
wards him, he made off at a quick pace. The shepherd,
not being many yards from him, instantly recognised
him as the defendant, called nut to him as such, and
pursued him over a field or two till he dived into al
plantation which led towards his own house. Upon
this the shepherd called his master, and they proceeded
to Kerley's house, who was gamekeeper to the warm
in which they lived, and tlr;refore accustomed to walk
about with his go-, i,hout exciting any observation
on that account. When the farmer and the shepherd
arrived at the gamekeeper's house, and were admitted,
the shepherd remarked that Kerley had changed hi,
jacket, he then having on a light nankeen j icket, and
when he was out in the field, being dressed in a dark
velveteen one. On being charged with shooting the
dog, the gamekeeper denied it altogether, and said that
he had not quitted his hi use since he had returned
home from Chard market. Kerley's daughters were
present when this statement was made.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS addressed the Court for the
defence, and called

Witham Peat, Sarah Harris. and William Batten, who
all of them swore that they saw the defendant leave
Chard market a little before !ix o'clock, on horseback,
and with a sack of barley under him, by way of a sad-
dle. He went at a slow rate towards hi. own tome,
was without a gun, and dressed in a dark velveteen
jacket. One of them saw the defendant pass by the
spot where the dog was shot, and was about the spot
for three quarters of achnur afterward,: the witness
Saw the Bash of Lillian when the 'dos was killed, and

saw the man who fired it run away. He was shout
153 yards from him, and did not believe that it was the
defendant. The man, however, was dressed in a dark
velveteen jacket.
Joseph Dyer and Thomas Board stated, that they
had seen Berry, the shepherd, at the public house of the
former, shortly after the death of the dog ; and he. then
stated, that he pursued the defendant as far as a lime-
kiln close to pis house, and that he saw him come out
of his house into his garden, in the nankeen jacket.
Both these statements were denied by Berry on his
cr.tss•ezamination by Mr. Sergeant WILD&
Catherine and Jemima Kerley, the daughters of the
defendan', were then called, and stated, that their father
came home from Chard market, about half-past six,
OR horseback ; that as soon as he came in, he changed
his velveteen jacket for another one, which the elder
sister described as a dark jean jacket, and the other
as a pepper and salt light jacket. Their father went
once or twice into the garden with his gun, where he
shot a bird or two; but he was never out of their sight
for more than five minutes from the time he returned
Irom Chard mat ket to the time when Paul and Berry
came to the house.

Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS took an elaborate view of the
whole state of the case, and commented at considerable
length on the evidence which had been brought forward
in behalf of the defendant.

Mr. Justice Buttaotiou was about to sum up the case
to the Jury, when the Gentlemen who composed it ex
pressed themselves satisfied," and immediately found a
•erdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 101. -

Caewu Couar.—Before Lord Chief Justice Barr.
BURGLARY.

Elisa Dicks and J. Wiltshire were indicted for bar-
glariously breaking and entering the house of Mr. Jame-
son, of Lark-hall, near Bath, and stealing therein ten
sovereigns in gold, and ten guineas, besides a plated te4
pot, and some other articles. It appeared that the fe-
male prisoner lived at the time in the service of the pro-
secutor, and was in the habit of receiving the. visits of
the male prisoner, as those of a sweetheart. Between
them this robbery was concocted and executed, and the
Jury found them both Way.
Lord Chief Justice Bear, in passing sen•ence of 4e:tth
upon the prisoners, said, that the prevalence of the
crime of burglary had at length rendered an awful ei-
ample necessary, and that example he was deterinhltd
to give in all cases like the present, ss here the guilt tau
clearly established. It was shocking to refllct that ser-
vents in employment, who could not plead misery or
distress for their crimes, should violate eve', solemn
obligation, and raise their hands against the interests
of those who looked to them for aid and security...rile
then pronounced the awful sentence of death upon the
prisoners, and recommended them not to lawtone
went in preparing for the dreadful fate 0114 Ipetritibry
awaited them.

The woman was asked the usual question, whether
she had a iy plea of pregnancy to urge in bar of the
execution of the sentence? but she replied in the ne-
gative. She thrnughout the passing of the sentence
maintained more fortnude than the man, who trembled
excessively, and would have fallen in the dock had he
not been uph Id by one of the gaolers.
The prosecutor recommended the prisoners to mercy,.
so far as a commutation of the capital puni,hment.—
The Court, however, held out no hope that the recom-
mendation would be attended to.