Star.
London, England, 1826-12-08 00:00:00

the prisoner's assertion ; and it was afterwards ascer-
tained that the lead was taken from the Custom-house.
The ingot was marked with the initials of W. Taylor, the
person who had the care of the lead at the Custom-house.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he found the lead near
Billingsgate, and seeing W. T. marked on it, he thought it was the
property of his masters, William and Thomas Piper—(a laugh) and
be was taken it to their premises when he was apprehended. Ver.
diet—Guilty.
Thomas P'iillips, a very young man, was indicted for
marrying Elizabe.h Duncombe, his former wile, Ann
Mafia Viner, being, yet alive.
Thomas Coulson knows the prisoner at the Bar, and
is father-in-lax to Ann Maria Viner, who 'AS married
to the prisoner at St. Leonard, Shoreditch, in January;
witness acted as father at the nuptials; Ann Maria
Viner, the first wife, is now in Court; the paper pro-
duced is a certificate of the first marriage.
On his cross•examinalion by Mr. C. PHILLIPS, he
said, that since the first time of separation between the
prisoner and his first wife, she has been living partly
with her mother; since his marriage, he has received a
small portion.
Sarah Booth knows Elizabeth Duncombe, who was
married to the prisoner on Easter Monday, 1826, at
Stratford-le-bow; also knows Ann Maria Viner, the
former wife.
. By Mr. C. PHILLIPS—Before the prisoner married
the second time, he told the witness and others that the',
first wife was living ; witness nevertheless acted as a
bridesmaid on the latter occasion.—The prisoner, in his
defence, said, that although he married Viner, she never
• acted with that prudence as a woman ought, or the
separation would not have taken place.
Mr. PHILLIPS called witnesses for the prisoner, one
of whom stated, that owing to the misconduct of the
first wife, the prisoner once, in a state of distraction,
threw himself in the canal, and nearly lost his life: his
first wife eloped from the prisoner.
The witnesses all concurred in stating that the prisoner was a very
moral, humane, and industrious man.
The Common SZROWIT summed up the evidence, and the Jury
returned a verdict Guilty, but strongly recommended him to mercy.
The COMMoN SERGEANT stated, that there were many
mitigating circumstances attending this case; for it ap-
peared, that instead of the prisoner forsaking his first
wife, she eloped from him, and her conduct in other
respects had been highly improper; while, on the other
hand, it had been sworn that the prisoner acted with
humane attention towards her. This was one of those
-cases where the offender could not be justified, yet it
ought never to have been brought into this Court at the
instance of the first wife, who seemed to have been the
original aggressor. The prisoner had been some time
in confinement, therefore the Court would merely pass
a nominal sentence—that sentence was, that he pay a
fine of Is. and be discharged.
The first wife (Viner), a very young woman, sought
her expenses, but she was refused, and the Common
Sergeant told her she appeared to have been the worst
character of the two.
The prosecutrix made an ehberate appeal, but her solicitations
were unregarded.
steed, aged 26, the ex-police officer of Marl-
borough-street, was put to the bar, charged with felo-
niously intermarrying with Catherine Ayres, his first
wife, Mary Hitchcock, being still alive.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS stated the case on the part of the
prosecution. He said, that the crime with which the
prisoner was charged was, unfortunately, of too frequent
occurrence for him to state it at any length. He would
forbear from mentioning any circumstance in aggrava-
Titus, because he was not quite sure that he could prove it.
The Learned Counsel, after some further remarks, called
John Ayres, who stated that he bad a daughter, Ca-
therine Ayres, who was married to the prisoner on the
30th of October last, in the parish church of St. Martin's
in the Fields. He had a certificate of the prisoner's first
marriage ; he had also a certificate of the second mar-
siege, extracted from the parish register. At the time
the prisoner was married to his daughter be did not
know that he was a married Man. He had been paying
his addresses to his daughter for two years previous to
the marriage.
The certificates of both marriages were put in by the
witness and read. The first certificate was the marriage
of the prisoner with Mary Hitchcock, on the 7th of
December, 1818, in the parish church of Sc. James,
Westminster. by banns.
The second certificate of the marriage with Catherine Ayres was
then read.
The witness Ayres was cross-examined by Mr. Law:
He had heard rumours of a former marriage three
'months ago; he never had any quarrel with his daughter
previous to her mat riage. Re-examined—His daugh-
ter informed him that the prisoner was a single man.
George Sargeant examined—He was present at the marriage of
the prisoner with Mary Hitchcock; she was at this time in Court,
and was pregnant by him.
Mrs. Ayres, the mother of the second wife stated, tbatl
she always understood from the prisoner that be was a
single man ; she never imagined that a public character
like him could be guilty of such a crime.
The COMNION SERGEANT addressed the Jury. He
said the only question was, whether the second marriage
was proved, the first wife being alive? The very cir-
cumstance of the prisoner paying his addresses to a
young woman during the lifetime of his wife, was in
itself a flagrant offence. The responsible situation which
the prisoner held was-a great aggravation of the offence.
If they were satisfied of the fact, the Jury must return
their verdict seem dingly.—Guilty.
James Francis Abbott was indicted for stealing part i
of a carding, twisting. and spinning machine, of the
value of 144. one smith's bellows, and other articles.

The prosecutor, James Mowbray Warren, on getting
into the box, requested the indulgence of the Court, as
he had no Counsel to conduct the prosecution. He then
stated that he was a carver and anatomical instrument
maker, and reAded in Augustus street, Regent's Park.
his workshop was in China Mews, Tottenham-court-
road. The Magistrate at Bow-street, dismissed his
complaint, and he afterwards preferred a Bill belorethe
Grand Jury without the intervention of a Magistrate.
Ou the 22d of July be was sent for, to his workshop, and
informed that the prisoner was there. He knew the
prisoner before; he carried on business as a broker. Wit.
ness found the at ticles mentioned in the indictment placed
it, a cart in front of the flume. He demanded by what
authority these goods were taken, having distrained
four days previous for more than the amount of the
debt due ? The distress was put in for rent, at the suit
of the executors of Mr. W. Gaskell, his landlord. They
distrained for one quarter's rent more than was due.
Believed the prisoner was employed by the executors,
but he would not :hew his authority. Had not offered
to pay the money. The goods had been sold, and the
proceeds, applied to the payment of the claim. The
goods were taken away openly in his presence. Time
was no attempt at concealment. He bought in pan of
the goods himself.