Star. — 1827-07-14 (London, England)

OLD BAILEY-THIS MORNING. AcquirrAt. of WILIAAWSHEEN, wfilo tedtod)nditt  [ortbe WILFUL MURDER oe a MALE climb. The ttkal of the above individual having been an pointed to take place this morning, the mast uni.su*a degree of interest was excited, and the Cart aa, exceedingly crowded long before the artival of ILI Judges. At ten o'clock the prisoner was brought to the bar, to which he proceeded w;th a fi m step and undaunted look.  On being asked to put in his plea, vil ich had beet voluntarily prepared for him by Mr. Cuesswcid, the Barrister, it was handed in. It protested against II t second trial taking place, as he had been once indicted, tried, and acquitted on an indictment and Corni.er'i Irquest, for having murdered the time child, as de scribed in the indictment at the last Sessions.  Mr. Callawat.t. addressed the Court on of t prisoner. He stated, that he could produce evidence prove that the child described in the present indictmr  I was known by the name of Chas. William Butte, and was the same child as that described in the indictment, charging the prisoner with murder at the last Sessions, and these were the chief points for the consideration of the Jury. It was an old maxim of English law, that if a man's life was once placed in jeopardy, he could not be tried again for the same offence. The prisoner's life had evidently been placed in jeorardy. John Sutton, clerk to the Solicitors of Willis's Pont. house, proved, that the child mentioned in the indict. ment was baptized in the name of Charle.Williamßeatle.  Elisabeth Cabel, nurse at Willis's poor-house, staid that Lydia, the mother of the child, was delivered is that house of a child, which was christend Charles ham, and wa. known by the name of Beatle.  Judge Boaaouou questioned her as to her knowledge of the child. She answered, that she enly knew it by the name of Charles and William or Bill, but heard that its name was Beatle; if that name was mentioned, she would know to whom it applied. Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS spoke at some length in sop. port of the prosecution, and alluded to authorities to shew that the trial could consistently and legally be proceeded with. Witnesses were called by the Counsel, but their purpose failed them. Mr.CLarticsou then addressed the Jury at considerable length for the prisoner, and wished strongly to impress on the minds of the Jury the necessity of reflecting on the circumstance of the man's life been placed once before in jeopardy.— He trusted he had satisfactorily proved that the child was knosin by the name of Beatle, which circumstance their issue and the prisoner's life depended. Judge BURROUGH read over the evidence, aid said, the simple questions for the Jury to dwell upon were, whether he, the prisoner, bad been placed in jeopardy at the former trial ? if so, he certainly could not be tried again, for the English law would not allow a man to be tried for his life a second time for.the same offence; and if they thought thecbild was known by the name o Charles William Beatle, the prisoner must be discharged. If Mrs. Cabel's evidence had been brought forward oa the former trial, it would have been in favour of the prisoner at that time. The Jury, in about two minutes, decided that they were of opinion the child was known by the name if Beatle. Judge Brasov :le—Then he must be discharged. The prisoner heard the decision with much cony posure, and was led from the d ick to the interior of Newgate. During the proceedings, the father or the prisoner was its Court, convulsed with grief, and on being called upon to give evidence, he could not utter a sentence. The prisoner witnessing the severe struggles of the unfortunate old man, burst into tears.