The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-06-30 00:00:00

bad been too much of late need for such purposes.
Ilia Lordship then read the tiro libels, and said
they were such as called for compensation. The
libel. stating that articles had bun exhibited
in the Ecclesiastical Court, similar to those mai-
bleed agsitist Lord Andley, where they could not
proceed to a crimival prosecution, was ridiculo 15 ;
and as to that part of the libel, charging Plaintiff
with being accessary to a rape on his wife, they had
heard nothinz. The declaration stated, that Co
Plaintiff is perkctlyiree the crime imputc44,
that his character is injured end that he is
degraded in society.'Phat thclibels were pub.
tisbed there ccrild he no doubt. The Diem,
dents bad pleaded nut guiltyt which could not
be borne out, unless by a justification, and their
attempt on that point, might, perhaps, go to in.
crease the damages ; as in the defencesit had been
stated, they could out injure Plaintiff's character,
because it was before notorious ; and they would
pay attention to consider,• whether the prejudice,
ill this resoert, tA a. such as would verify the appli-
cation ? Hi 3 Lordship then went over the evidence,
particularly cummcntin% upon the extent and dates
of the reports to the Plaintiff's prejudice; which,
if extended, or made more prevalent by the
Defendants, would, in proportion, affect their
verdict. Ile concluded by recommending to theta
to take the whole ease into their serious considera.
lion, and give such damages as would Meet the
justice of the ease.

The Jury retired for *hoot an hoar, and then
found a verdict fur the Plaiatiff—ikatages one
Thousand Pounds.

OLD DAILEY.

THURSDAY. JUNE W.—sycoxi) D.
Margaret Bird was indicted for stealing a watch
from the person of Morgan Sweeny. Thu prose-
cutor was passing through ilartatreet, Covent.
garden, on thecrening of the t'.2d of May, when
he was accosted by the prisoner, who contrived to
pick his picket of his watch. —The Jury (gaud
her Guilty,,.
llrilliam Higgins was capitally indicted for
breaking and enteriug the d welling.hnuse. of Juliis
Warner in the night time, and stealing therein a
great variety of articles.

Jane Bailey, servant to Mr. Warner, residing
at No. 7, Kingslaud Crescent, II ickney, secured
the liont,e in the usual way, on the night of the
31st of May, previous tu- the faculty retiring to
rest.

John Harrison, the watchman in that neigh.
bourhood, stated, that as he called the• hour, hair_
past four, on the morning of the lst June, he ob-
; served the gate of the court before the house open,
I and shut it ; upon passing again, a little before
five, ho found the gate again open, and this excit.
ing his suspicion, he went up to the vett, ts here
he saw the kitchen window up, the shutters cut
and broken, and chips lying ou the outside ; he
then trial the street door, which eras open—upon
going into the passage, lie saw a tea and coffee-urn
lying on the ground, packed up ; lee called out,
but received no answer ; he then went forward to
the street parlour, where be saw the prisoner in
the act of packing up a quantity of linen in a
shirt—he asked him what he did there ? to which
the! prisoner answered, he was doing no harm, as
his brother lived in the house. He immediately
secured him, and, ringing the bell, he alarmed the
family. Upon searching the prisoner, four tea_
.spoons, a sugar-tongs, and twelve doyleys, were
found in his pockets. It appeared that a quantity-
of platefand other articles, had been conveyed
away by some confederates before the discovery
took place.

There being no evidence of the burglary—that
is, of the breaking in, in the night time, the Jury
acquitted the prisoner of that part of the clurgr,
but found him guilty or stealing in the dwelling_
house above tho value of 40s.— Detak.
Sarah Courting, otherwise Child, was indicted
for feloniously marrying with John Watson, I
former husband, Juba Courtney, being then

, The registry of the parish of St. George, 111no-
ver-square, was produced, by-which it appeared
that John Courtney. and Sarah Child were marriAl
by banns, un the sth of November, 1785. The
entry was signed by the parties, and witnessed.
Thomas Watson, the grandsuu of the second
husband, proved the hand writing of the prisoner
to the entry ; he had often seen her write ; his
grandfather was dead—he knew her first husband
--about fourteen years ago they came to live at
his grandfather's, where they continued three
years, and then separated ; the prisoner after-
wards continued to live with • his grandfather, as
his servant ; upon his death she claimed admisais-
tration as his widow ' • he was about eighty years
of age at his death ; Courtney, her first husband,
was living, anal hid resided only three streets dis-
ta.it from her from the time of ber separation.
Edward Coertney, the brother of the first hus-
band, was obliged to admit his brother was still
living ; he saw him this day ; tie and the prisoner
had lived together as man and wife.

The second marriage was proved by the prase.
tion of the registry of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch,
by a hick it appeared that the prisooer and John
Wa'son were married by banns, on the 23d of No-
vember' 1808. Her signature to the entry was
proved by W. Boyce, a subscribing witness.
The prisoner,"en being called upon for her de-
fence, said, till present prosecution was carried on
from malice by the grandson, to whom she had,
acted as a mother, and had reared and educated
him with the greatest care.

The Learned Judge (CuAmittE), in summing
up the evidence to toe Jury, observed, they had
nothing to do with the motives, whatever they
might suppose, which induced the present pro-
ceedings ; they hail only to decide whether the
charge against the prisoner was or was nut made
oat in evidence ?

The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict
of Galley.
Thep isoner is an olq woman, seemingly about
60 years of age.