obtained the advice of Mr. Justice Bayley) coincided in opinion with the prisoner's counsel; but desired the case to proceed as against both prisoners, upon the ground that the woman might turn out to be the guilty person, and not the man. Mr. Walford having stated the case, proceeded to call evidence.

John Overell said, he kept an extensive farm, and resided in the hamlet of Wakely. The prisoner had been in his employment, and he discharged him on the 18th of May last. His barn was set on fire the 27th of August following, and completely burnt down. His large stable adjoining, and a shed, were also burnt down. The barn was separate some distance from his dwelling-house. In the year 1817 his premises were set fire to in a similar way.

J. Turtle said, he resided at Buntingford. On the night of the 27th of August he was alarmed by information of a fire at the premises of Mr. Overell. He rose from bed, and rode to the spot. The fire, which was blazing, appeared to have commenced at one corner. In about two hours after he had been there, James Head appeared upon the premises, and kept walking about and talking very much of the former fire at his master's in 1817. He talked also much of the then fire, and witness was induced to observe him closely. The prisoner caught his eye, appeared embarrassed, and shuffled away to break off the conversation.

George Mickley said, he also went to the premises of Mr. Overell the night of the fire. He saw the prisoner there, who spoke

to him, and said it was a sad job that a fire should thus happen again on his master's premises. His wife, he added, was unwell, and had got out of bed in the night, when he (the prisoner) said he thought there was a fire. His wife replied it was nothing but moonshine, but he thought it was a contiguous farm which was on fire. The prisoner appeared to the witness to be confused and agitated. He lived about a mile from the place where the fire took place. Witness did not think it possible, from the situation of Head's dwelling, that he could see a fire while he lay on his bed; but admitted that the atmosphere might be illuminated by a blaze where the fire was not directly opposite to the view.

Thomas Britton resided at Munden, close to the prisoner's house. The latter called him up on the night of the 27th of August from bed, by an alarm of fire. Witness arose, and accompanied him to the premises of Mr. Overell. The prisoner told him on the way, that when he first called him up he was naked, and that his wife threw his clothes to him out of the window, when he put them on by the time he (the witness) had got dressed.

Richard Tew (an interesting boy) said he was the son-in-law of James Head. Martha Head was his own mother, and he lived in the house with them. He slept up stairs in a room outside his father's, and through which the latter must have come to go down stairs. On the night of the 27th of August he was awoke by a person, whom he knew to be his father, and who went down stairs

and

and out of the house. He returned in about a quarter or half an hour. He knew his voice well, and heard him distinctly say, "I have left a brave light behind me." Witness soon after this went to sleep, but was again, in a short time, aroused by his mother, who called out, "Dick, get up; your master's (Mr. Överell's) farm is on fire." Witness threw his father's smockfrock out of the window to him.

Ann Bowyer said, that her husband was in the employment of Mr. Overell in August last. Her husband had money to pay the prisoner after his discharge from the prosecutor in May last. He accordingly came to their house, but her husband was not at home. Witness asked him if he came for his money; he said, yes; but it would not be much when he had it. Witness said it would be some for him, as it was for them; when he immediately replied, "D-n his old blood (meaning Overell), he wants my knife in his throat, and another or two want a knife as well as he." He also added, "I'll be d-d to hell if they don't have it, and he (Overell) must not live. He wants another light over his head, andhe must look d--d sharp if he does not have it." Witness asked him if her husband ever heard him use such expressions, when the prisoner replied, "No; hell a bit; the less your husband knows, the better it will be for him." Witness had known Head and his wife for eight or nine years, but had no immediate intercourse or acquaintance with them. She never had angry words or quarrelled with either in her life.

Under the direction of the learned judge, the prosecution as against the woman was here totally abandoned.

Stephen Lavender, the Bowstreet officer, said he was employed in the investigation of the affair in question, and went to the house of the prisoner James Head, which he carefully examined in his presence. He lay down on the bed from whence the prisoner said he had seen the light of the fire, and thought it utterly impossible he could have seen it from thence.

The prisoner, in the most solemn manner, protested his inno

cence.

Mr. Justice Park addressed the jury; who, after a consultation of about ten minutes, pronounced an acquittal as to Martha Head, but found the prisoner James Head-Guilty.

Chelmsford, March 10-Wm. Bush, James Westwood, George Westwood, Joseph Chessum, Robert Wolfe, James Jeffery and Robert Litchfield, were indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Chapman, at Waltham Holy Cross, in this county, and plundering the house of a variety of articles set out in the indictment.

Mr. Jessop stated the case, which was proved by an accomplice of the name of Duvall, who gave the following account of the transaction: That Wolfe, who was the captain of the gang, on the 25th of October met him in London, and told him that if he and Litchfield would come to his house they would meet with some others, who were to proceed to

a house

:

a house where they could get a good booty, as they knew an old man who had a good hoard. He accordingly met Litchfield the next day at Hertford, and they went together to Hoddesdon, where they slept at the Red Lion; they staid there until 4 o'clock; they went on to Bromley, where they crossed the fields to Mr. Chapman's house, which was a lone farm-house in the parish of Waltham. They listened in a lane until it was quite dark, and then they went to an outhouse near the house, where, by appointment, they were to meet Wolfe and the others. Soon afterwards Wolfe and the four others joined them, and they all continued in the outhouse until about eleven o'clock at night they then went to the house, and just then they saw the carter returning with his waggon, who had been to London; he went into the house and got a light, and went with another lad into the stables. Some of them immediately bound the two men together, back to back, and fastened them to the manger, where Wolfe stood guard over them. The others then went into the house and went up stairs, when they got into a room where they found two men servants sleeping; they asked them where was their master's bed-room, and where he kept his money. The men were very much frightened, and replied, their master slept at the other part of the house, and that they did not know where he kept his money. A guard was left upon them, and they proceeded to the other stair-case; but here they found a strong

door, which was fastened; they went out and get two ploughcutters, with which they immediately shivered the door and burst into Mr. Chapman's bedroom; he and Mrs. Chapman were in bed; they demanded his money and his keys, which he gave them, and told them his money was in a bureau below; they went down stairs and broke open the bureau; they also broke open an iron chest, forced all the closets and completely ransacked the house, taking away considerably above 100l. in money, plate, and three watches; and they regaled themselves with wine and spirits, and took away the best part of a ham. The manner and circumstances of the robbery were also confirmed by the servants and Mr. and Mrs. Chap

man.

In confirmation of the testimony of the accomplice, it was proved by the landlord at Hoddesdon, that he and Litchfield had slept at his house the night before the robbery, and one watch was found in the possession of Jeffery and another in the thatch of Wolfe's house.

Mr. Curwood cross-examined the accomplice, but did not discredit his testimony.-The Jury found them all guilty.

Litchfield was also convicted of another burglary in the house of Nash Kemp, at Christall, a little shopkeeper. He was found the next day with all the goods, having stripped the shop.

Chessum, Wolfe, and Jeffery, were convicted of a third burglary.

The learned Judge immediately passed sentence of death, and told

Wolfe,

Wolfe, Litchfield, Jeffery, and Best, that they would certainly be executed.

This gang has for some time been the dread of the surrounding neighbourhood. Wolfe acted as leader always; came to his work on horseback, and the usual rendezvous was at his house at Stortford, where they adjusted their accounts and settled the division of the plunder.

MAIDSTONE, MARCH 17.

Cramp and another v. Bayley, Clerk. This was a case of rather a singular nature. It was an action of trover by the plaintiffs, as churchwardens of the parish of St. John the Baptist, Margate, against the defendant, as rector of that parish, to recover the value of certain black cloth which had been put up in the parish church in respect to the memory of the late Princess Charlotte of Wales, but which the defendant had converted to his own use by having it made up into coats, waistcoats and other articles of apparel.

It appeared that the plaintiffs, as churchwardens of the parish in question, wishing to pay proper. respect to the memory of the late Princess Charlotte, had purchased a quantity of black superfine cloth and kerseymere of a woollen-draper at Margate, for the purpose of covering the pulpit, the reading-desk and the communiontable of the church, during the time allotted to public mourning upon that melancholy event. The cloth cost 371. Os. 9d. and was nailed to the places above-menVOL. LXI.

tioned, where it remained for six weeks. At the end of that time the plaintiffs sent for the woollen-draper to take down the cloth again, and give them the amount of its then value, to be placed to the account of the parish. The defendant, however, having been apprised of the intention of the plaintiffs, took steps to appropriate a portion of the cloth to his own use, the remainder of which was divided between the clerk and the sexton. The defendant afterwards employed the same woollen-draper of whom the cloth had been originally purchased, to make him a coat and other articles of clothing from the cloth so taken and converted. Some ill-will seemed to have arisen in the parish in consequence of this act of the defendant, who was charged by report with having stolen the cloth. He was afterwards applied to for the purpose of accounting to the parish for the amount of the cloth taken; but having declined all communication with the plaintiffs, in consequence of the coarse imputation cast upon him, the present action was brought.

The defence set up was, that it was the general custom of all the parishes in the kingdom to allow the rector to take a portion of the black cloth put up in churches on the occasions of public and private mourning, and that in all events such was the custom of the particular parish in question.

Mr. Justice Bayley objected to the evidence of general custom, but allowed evidence to be given of the custom of the particular parish.

P

Witnesses

Witnesses were then examined upon this latter head; but their evidence went to show, that in two instances where private individuals had put up black cloth in the church out of respect to departed friends, the rector, the parish clerk and the sexton, had been allowed respectively to take a portion of the cloth so put up. The general impression of the witnesses was, that such was the general usage.

Mr. Justice Bayley, in his address to the jury, laid it down as the rule of law, that no person had a right to hang up what are called ornaments in the church without the leave of the rector, because the freehold of the church was in him, and he might make his own terms for that leave. In general, where private individuals hung black cloth in the parish church with the concurrence of the rector, there was a kind of understanding between them that the cloth became the property of the rector. In the present case, however, there had been no bargain between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to the terms upon which the cloth was to be hung in the church, and consequently the latter had no right to take any portion of the cloth, because, by law, he was not entitled to take such a property, unless by matter of arrangement or agreement between the parties to whom it belonged. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict for the value of the cloth which the defendant had converted to his own

use.

EXETER ASSIZES, MARCH 18. Before Mr. Justice Holroyd and a special jury.

Rex v. Sir Manasseh Lopez, bart. This indictment charged the defendant with having, by himself and by certain agents, corrupted and bribed several of the electors of the borough of Grampound.

Mr. Sergeant Pell opened the case on the part of the Crown. -The borough of Grampound contained sixty voters, claiming that right in respect of being freemen. In November, 1815, a meeting took place between sir M. Lopez and a man of the name of Hoare, who would be called as a witness. Hoare being a voter of Grampound, the object of the meeting was, to adjust terms for bringing Sir M. Lopez in for the borough. This was to be effected by a loan of 2,000l. to the electors; this loan being really a gift, and the price of their votes. In addition to the evidence of Mr. Hoare and other gentlemen, letters would be produced from Sir M. Lopez himself, which would leave no doubt upon the nature of the transaction.

A number of letters were then read from Sir M. Lopez and from Mr. Hunt, his solicitor, addressed for the most part to Mr. William Hoare. By these letters it appeared that Mr. Hunt was the confidential solicitor of Sir M. Lopez, and that he was the agent employed to manage the business of this election; that 2,000l. was to be paid upon securing fortyfive voters; that the 2,000l. was to be a loan, and to be paid by