Star.
London, England, 1817-11-04 00:00:00

OLD tAILEk SiSSIOKI.'

V

L.4W INTELLIGENGE.
--:

STATE TittALS.
DERBY, SUNDAY NIGHT.
A reprieve was this day received for the nineteen
Prisoners who pleaded Guilty, and a respite till the
]4th inst. for George Weightman. The execution
of Brandreth, Turner, and Ludlam, is to take place
on Friday next.
The Chaplain, in the course of the afternoon, com-
municated the intelligence received to Brandreth and
George Weightman. It is almost impossible to sup-
pose that Brandreth could do other than expect the
notification he received ; yet it appeared for a moment
to shock him, ai if it had taken him by surprisq He
was evidently much affected, and the silence he pre-
served on the occasion seemed to proceed from the
horror which the certain knowledge of his doom in-
spired, and he did not immediately recover his accus-
coined tranquillity.
Weightman was also informed of the decision come
to foe the present in his case. The news was not re.
ceived without symptoms of strong emotion—his face
was Bushed, and he was altogether much disordered.
He seemed to have anticipated a more favourable
communication.
Weightman and Brandreth were separated from
Turner and Ludlam, and confined by themselves.—
For reasons, which have not transpired, it was deem-
ed advisable not to make the prisoners la* named
acquainted with their destiny till the morning.
Brandreth, on one occasion, was asked, if he were
aware of the precise manner in which he was to be
executed ? which the Gentleman conversing with him
was proceeding to describe ; when Brandreth, with
far more propriety than the genikmari who put the
question, told him, the explanation might be spared,
as he had witnessed the execution of Colonel Despard,
and his associates, and knew all that was to be done.
ARCHES COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS, NOV. t.
LAIN HERBERT D. LORD HERBERT. •
'This was an appeal on the part of Lord Herbert,
bybpplication for an inhibition to be granted by this
Court against the proceedings of the Cor.sistory
Court, in the above suit, brought at the instance of
Lady Herbert, for restitution of conjugal rights.
The suit was commenced in the Coort below, in
March last, and no appearance being.given on the part
of the Defendant, in answer to a citation which had
been posted up at the Royal Exchange and parish
church, besides being served at his Lordship's house in
London. Sentence of contumacy was ultimately pro-
mounted against his liordship by Sir William Scott,
he being thereby considered to have acted in con-
tempt. Upon b-r Ladyship's Proctor having after-
wards obtained leave of that Court to brine in the
libel, and to ex +mine witnesses de bore me, in proof
of the marriage, the defendant's Proctor then said,
he appeared for Lord Herbert, who was at that time
residing out of the kingdom, but that such appear-
ance was in effect only to protest against the juris-
diction of that Court.
• The marriage of Lord Herbert with the present
plaintiff (who is the daughter of a Sicilian Noble-
man, the Duke de Rose Petnellas) was alleged to
have been celebrated at Palermo in 1816; that shortly
after, finding he had abandoned her, she cause over
to ibis country in hopes of being enabled to obtain a
settlement, and in crder to establish her marriage.
Drs. ARNOLD and SWARM were heard at conside-
rable length in behalf of Lord Hetbert, and in answer
to an ohtection of the other side, namely, that his
Lordship was not entitled to be heard on this appeal
until purged of the contempt which he was under
by the sentence of Sir William Scott, it was con-
tended, that since sentence of excommunication had
been abolished by an Act of last Ses.ion of Partial-
- meat, here the act of contempt was sufficiently purged
by the party having ultimately appeared in Court,
•ns in this case Lord Herbert had done, in his fro-
teitiog against the jurisdiction of that Court. Sen-
tence of excommunication required to be purged by
absolution, but that was not the case with sentence'
of contempt.
Drs. YEHLAISIORt and LLIIIINGTON replied, refer-
ring to the 96th and 97th Cannot, which respected
grievous or vexatious suits. 'nay stievoa and vexa-
tious proceeding in this case wastan the part of Lord
Herlikrt, and not of Lady Herbert. He had chosen
.this mode of proceeding solely for the purpose of de-
lay. and of frostraling die ends of justice. The
Consistory Court had afforded Lord Herbert the op-
portunity of coming before it, and in a regular man-
ner to have purged the contempt ; but he had chosen
• only to dispute its jurisdiction without purging the
contempt, and therefore was not entitled to this appeal.
Sir JOHN Ishomoi. demanded, it it was not the Frac-
- tics of the Ecclesiastical Courts, where sentence of
contempt had been pronounced, that the party in
contempt ihould pay the costs in Immaas, and formally
submit to the authority of the Court, however it
aright then be competent to dispute die jurisdiction f
The answer was, the Act of Parliament did not spe-
. city is what way sentence of contempt (which was
. substituted for excommunication) was to be purged,
and there was no case is point. This, therefore, was
resolved to be-a question entirely at Ilse discretion of

the teurr.
Sir Joan Mourn decreed—That it appeared by
the - 96ds and 97th Canons, which applied directly
to the question before the Court, o.d no inhibition
whatever could be granted without tilt superscription
of an Advocate, which was here wanting. lyre inhi-
bition applied for, could only be extended to the prin-
. siple of preventing grievous or vexatious suits. This
appeal dui not apply to the merits of the principal
cause at issue, but went to dray theurisdiction of the
Cuosistery Court. The party cited did not object to
ibleforns of citation, or to the justice of the sentence,
wisicb placed him in contempt, but without purging
that.sentence it was a stralge•firconsistency to deny
the jurisdiction, when it wait his duty first to have
appeared to and then,
.without prejudice to the
oisteation of jerseiliction, it might be fairly determined
whether or not Os whole proceedings should fall to
aha.grottad, and become a nullity ; which would be
ibexes* if the Court acted without jurisdiction. The
Cbosistar Court could net do otherwise, consistent
with its.cluth in the case of a foreigner claiaiing its
pr, ',fee the restitution of marriage rights, and
the gefesdeht seeking to gain delay.. Ile was, there-
fore, basted _to. refuse the ishibitlegi and to &miss
the appeale.-Ordered accordingly.

.
Yesterday Maki Irdream Watt:, 24, and 1111liant
Marl" 28, were Indicted for stealing two pillow.
ares, five prints framed and glazed, with .a number
bf other articles, the prnperty of John Alford, from
a furnished lodging. The charge was laid as a bur-
glary, but the evidence went to chew it was a fur!
'tithed lodging taken by Watts, and therefore the
burglary was abandoned.
The prisoners came to thelprosecutor's house on the
evening of Friday, the 27th September, asking for a
lodging, but it being da)k his wife declined :hewing
him the room till next day. Watts came next day
and saw the room, with which he was satisfied ; but
the prosecutor hesitating to let him the lodging with-
out a reference, as he had been repeatedly robbed
in his lodgings by people of this kind, Watts said
they hid lived in Vauxhall. The prosecutor being
busy on the Saturday, had no time to enquire about
their characters, but let them the room. They came
in the evening, and next morning the prosecutor's
daughter pasting by the house, saw the window open
and alarMed her father, on which he went up, found
the prisoners gone and some furniture gone, while
other articles were lying packed on the floor ready
for their removal. The watchman in the district
heating a cry of " stop thief," detained Marten,
took him to the watchhouse and searched him, out
which he found on him, two sheets round the body,
a curtain in his small clothes, two pillow cases in his
hat, and two prints in his bosom. Watts, in a short
time after, was found concealed under a bedstead in
another room he had gone to lodge in. He excused
his lying there, by saying he was afraid to be seen,
as he knew a warrant of bastardy seal issue 6 against
him. No part of the property was found on him.
No defence being made, the evidence was summed
up by Mr. Justice DALLAs, who stw no reascn to
make any distinction between the cases of the priso-
ners, although at first that of Marten seemed more
directly against him. At the same time it was the
province of the Jory, to judge how far they were both
concerned. The Jury found both Guilty of Felony.
Codurine Sharileford, 38, was indicted for stealing
an immense number of articles, sheets, table cloths,
pencils, &c. the property of Mr. S. Duncan, Palace-
street, Pimlico, in the parish of St. Margaret's, West-
minster. The prosecutor stated the girl was servant
in a family which occupied part of his house from
the 3d of October to the 25th. He missed two XI
notes during the time she lived there. The notes
were in a bed room occupied by Mts. Duncan, and on
Sunday the 26th, after the family were gone, she
missed a geld chain, a cornelian cross, a gold ring,
a hair ring with gold medalion having her initials on
it, a muslin petticoat, two sheets, a shift, silver spgar
tongs, ice. &C.
Bly, the officer, stated that he searched the loa-
ves house, who is a Mr. hemp, where he found the
prisoner, oho is servant to Kemp, who lodges now
in Brewer-street, Soho. The prisoner resisted, but
iri her pocket was found a book containing a metal
seal and twelve dupl.cates, on which he went to the,
pawnbroker':—first, to Mr. Woollet's, in Orford-
street, where he found a gold chain with a cornelian
cross; second, to a Mr. Monist's, in York-street,
Westminster • where lie found three books, teen ,
he went to Mr. Williams, in Chapel-street, wher4e
toted also some 'boating. The. property (geus.i.kia
Woollet's was valved at 3..m.—(Here this,
broker was seriously catetiolied by Mr. Justice tope`,
on the gross impropriety of his taking such property
from a person of so poor an appearance as the psi.
soner.)—ln Morrirt's the property was pledged for
ss. Iu Williams's a table cloth was pledged fur 44.
Gilmore, the officer, next deposed, that he searched
the prisoner's bed, and found between the bed and
the mattress a shirt, three handkerchiefs, a cap, a pee.
tieoSl ; under the bed, in a box, were three books,
and a bundle of black lead pencils.
No defence being made, ter. Justice, Paax sum-
med up and observed, that there being no direct
proof that the servant stole all at one time, be thenight
the capital charge was done away, unless, indeed,
the chain was worth 40s. At the same time the case
was so strong against the prisoner, that he was afraid
she must be found guilty of larceny. The facts were
so fully gone into, that he felt it was perfectly unite.
cessary for him to recapitulate them, for be regrettedi
to-say that the case was so clear. Inc favour of life,
the Jury might probably do well to acquit her of the
capital part, and find her guilty of stealing.-.. The
Jury found her guilty of stealing to the value of *9i.
Sowell Highland, aged 22, was indicted for stealing
a coat and tippet. value 295. privately in a shop.
Mr. Thomsoo, a constable, stated he was in Fleet-
street on the 25th of October, and saw the prisoner
in company with two others.. He has known the
prisoner, and suspecting him and the two others, be
followed them into the Strand, and as they came to.
St. Clement's. C.theteh, they crossed over the way;
and went into Holy well-street. They came to the
Indian Queen, a ladies'-dress-maker's shop, when the
prisoner went to the door, and with his left arm
reaching into the shop, pulled down a coat or pe-
y line, which he threw to a companion of his, on which
the witness pursued after the one who got she pro.
petty, but he escaped with it, and it was never found
since: Witness returned to the street, and found
primmer loitering near the same shop, on which lie
took him Into custody. Witness had -known the pri-
soner a month before this happened. The gang at-
tempted several shops in their way. _ Witness being
asked by prisoner where he saw him first ? declared,
he had seen him frequently in company with thieves.
The loss of the property was confirmed by Miss
Turner, shopkeeper to the prosecutor ; and the priso-
ner, in defence, denied all knowledge of the crime.
Justice DALLAS summed op, and the Jury found
the prisoner—Guilty of stealing, but not privately.
of a very genteelap-
pearance, and about 21
George GoessA, a young man,
years of age, was put to the
bar under an indictment charging him with stealing,
one three.shilliog Bank token, the property of
Taylor.
The prosecutor deposed, that he was a lines dra.
per by trade, and the prisoner was one of Ms shop.
men. On the 10th October. suspecting that all was
not right, he took the money out of the tills over-
night, counted it, and placed in its stead forty, shil-
lings of marked silver, putting twenty shillings in
each till. The money be had marked with the letters
' “ Tay," and among it were several three shillin
g
' Bank tokens. Between eleven and makes .'clock,
he returned home, having been out, and was Wine.