Sir M. Lopez felt rather insecure he was looking for this letter among others from Sir M. Lopez, Mr. Lambe said, "I will look for it" that Mr. Lambe then took all the letters and said he would return them; that they had not been returned; that he was anxious to have them back, lest people should suppose he had sold them. When Hunt came to Grampound the second time, and witness sent in the freemen one by one, he did not see any one receive any money.

Did you receive any money? Yes, I did.

Mr. Justice Holroyd.-I ought to tell you, you are not bound to answer any question which may eriminate yourself.

Mr. Adams. I now put the question again: Did you receive any money?-Witness. I do not choose to answer.

Mr. Teed (examined by Mr. Sergeant Pell) said, that he was an unsuccessful candidate for Grampound last election, and was at the present moment a petitioner. That in August, 1817, he received from Isaac Watts, a voter of Grampound, a paper containing the names of the voters who had been bribed by Sir M. Lopez; and that Watts told him the respective sums which had been paid, which he put down against the respective names; that he called on Sir M. Lopez in London; that he told Sir M. Lopez that he called at the desire of Watts, to know what he (Sir M. Lopez) intended to do respecting Grampound. If he (Sir M. Lopez) would be content with one seat, he (Mr. Teed) might have the other; that wit

ness then told Sir M. Lopez he was acquainted with his proceedings at Grampound, and produced the list he had received from Watts; that Sir M. Lopez merely expressed his surprise where the witness could have got so correct a list. That Sir M. said the sums were very correct, except that he had paid more to some than was put down. The witness told Sir M. Lopez that he and the electors were subject to a prosecution; that Sir M. Lopez then said, he would protect the electors if it cost him 100,000l. That he had taken counsel's opinion; and that the electors were not liable because two years had elapsed since the transaction. On his cross-examination by Mr. Adams, Mr. Teed said that he did not tell Sir M. Lopez that he should be prosecuted; but only that he was liable to prosecution. That the letters were taken from Hoare by Mr. Lambe, with the consent of witness; and that he (witness) did not choose to return them when he discovered their contents.

Mr. Moore argued on the part of the defendant, that the money in question had been given from charitable motives, to assist the borough of Grampound, which was at that time in great distress. He commented at considerable length upon the testimony of the various witnesses who had been called on the part of the prosecution. The Mr. Hoares, he said, stood convicted, by their own confession, of the very crime which they were attempting to charge upon Sir M. Lopez. They were quite unworthy of credit. The jury should be cautious. If a landlord

a landlord lowered his rents to assist his tenants, and was afterwards returned by their votes to parliament, would that constitute bribery? Where was the difference in the present case? The learned counsel then commented with some severity upon the evidence of Mr. Teed; and concluded with a hope, that if the jury entertained any doubt upon the case they would give the benefit of that doubt to the accused party.

Mr. Justice Holroyd summed up the evidence at considerable length, and expressed his opinion, that if the witnesses were to be relied on, the case had been already made out. The jury, without leaving the box, found the defendant Guilty.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY,

MARCH 25.

In the matter of the Ship Asia. Sir William Scott proceeded to give judgment in this case to-day; the facts of which, as far as he was enabled to judge from the very contradictory affidavits which had been exhibited, were in general these: -That the Asia private East India ship, laden principally with cotton, on her homeward voyage from Bombay was overtaken in the Downs by the memorable storm of the 4th of last March, and which lasted through several succeeding days; that she broke from her anchor, and her windlass was so damaged as to become useless; that in passing Ramsgate lights were hoisted, the one party says, in order to obtain assistance, and guns fired for the

same purpose; that after passing Ramsgate it was determined on consulting with the pilot, and for the purpose of saving the lives of her numerous crew, amounting in all, including the officers, to 28 men, besides some Custom-house officers who were on board, to run her ashore; it being then some time after high tide, which was falling fast, the wind setting in fresh in shore. This was done without any material injury to the vessel, except unshipping her rudder. Now a matter in contention between the parties was, whether lights were so hung out and guns fired, before she was ashore or after. But it was admitted that guns were fired. The presumption was, he thought, and in that he was supported by the opinion of the nautical gentlemen by whom he had been assisted, that lights were hung out before. In that condition of the ship, it must have been impossible for her to proceed without making signals for assistance from the shore, and therefore she passed Ramsgate with lights hung out. It was asserted, that after being run on shore she lay firm and secure; in that case it woul be difficult to account why guns were fired at that time, by the direction too of the pilot, a person charged expressly with the safety of the ship. The boatmen of Ramsgate in the neighbourhood of the pier, were on the look-out for accidents of this kind, in order to render their useful but perilous services, various ships being at that time supposed to be in distress. One boat was at length got along the shore and dragged opposite to

the

the spot on which the vessel was a-ground. Having got the boat off with the assistance of several persons who were on the beach, five men proceeded in her; and certainly in such a night, in such a storm and such a sea, the mere description of which could not be read without terror, this was a service of extreme peril and difficulty, rendered by a set of men accustomed to face danger and to contemn it, with spirit and with activity. Almost immediately on their quitting the boat, which swamped but was not lost, the danger to the ship fortunately ceased; therefore, as for 18 other men who came on board afterwards, and certainly performed severe labour at the pumps, he could only look at their services as labour, and not as of a salvage nature. After a review of the various points of evidence, he finally decreed 360 guineas to the five men who first boarded the Asia, as salvage money; and 350l. to the other 18 men, as the price of their labour. Salvage to be paid on freight in proportion; that is, 70 guineas being as the proportion of its alue (6,000l.), was to that of the cargo (30,000l.), or as 1 to 5, and 10%. for damage done to the boat. Thus the whole sum given by this sentence is, 8117. 10s.

SUSSEX ASSIZES.- HORSHAM, MARCH 25.

Crown Side.-Before Mr. Justice Bayley.

Cutting and Maiming.-James Gibbs, a youth of prepossessing appearance, aged about 18, was

indicted under Lord Ellenborough's act, for feloniously and maliciously stabbing and cutting George Gibbs, with intent to murder or do him some grievous bodily harm, on the 15th inst., at the parish of Storrington, in this county.

George Gibbs, a youth about 16, the unfortunate victim of the prisoner's ferocity, appeared in the box, dreadfully emaciated and still labouring under the effects of the outrage which he had suffered, his wounds being yet green, and gave the following statement:-His father was parkkeeper to lord de la Zouch, who lived at Parham-park. In the evening of the 15th of March, about eight o'clock, his father sent him with a message to the Crown public-house, a short distance from Parham, when he met the prisoner near the end of his father's garden. The prisoner had a stick over his shoulder, and although the night was rather dark, he could see him by the light of a lantern which he carried in his hand. The prisoner was then alone, but appeared to have parted from another young man, named Duke. When the prisoner approached him, he was about to wish him good-night, when the former struck him over the head and face with the stick which he carried. He was nearly stunned by the blow, which being repeated he was knocked down and from the violence of the blow; the stick was broken. The witness immediately cried out"Oh! Jemmy Gibbs, don't murder me;" and begged for mercy. The prisoner then went round him, and immediately pulling out a pocket

a pocket knife cut him twice under the chin; but his sanguinary design having failed by these means, he stabbed him behind the right ear with the same weapon. Witness struggled to get from him, and in doing so disarmed him of the knife; and in the scuffle the prisoner drew it through his hand and wounded several of his fingers. The prisoner then took him round the waist and dragged him to a gatepost, and endeavoured to swing his head against it. Witness cried out for mercy and called "Murder!" upon which the prisoner caught hold of him by the throat, which he griped with both his hands in order to prevent his making any noise. He immediately afterwards let go, but seized his throat a second time, and then the witness lost his senses and remembered nothing afterwards; when he recovered he found himself with his friends. He swore positively that he never had any quarrel in his life with the prisoner; that they were name-sakes; they were not related; that he had known the prisoner as a passing acquaintance and had seen him occasionally; but he was by no means intimate with him. He could in no manner account for the prisoner's attack upon him.

George Whale proved, that he heard the cry of "murder" on the evening in question and went to the spot whence it proceeded, when he saw the prosecutor weltering in his blood, and in consequence of the alarm which he gave, the prisoner was pursued.

William Moore proved, that

he was attracted to the sanguinary scene in consequence of hearing the prosecutor cry out "Murder;"" Jemmy Gibbs, don't murder me!"

Daniel Duff stated, that he apprehended the prisoner between nine and ten the same night on Wracklan-common, and saw the prisoner running from him and endeavouring to escape.

John Braby was present when the last witness seized the prisoner: his hands and face were very bloody.

Daniel Nash picked up the pocket-knife, which was smeared with blood, and a stick, resembling a broomstick, broken in two or three pieces; which articles he produced, and which were proved to be the prisoner's.

Mr. Dennett, a surgeon at Stonington who was called in, described the wounds which had been inflicted on the prosecutor. The knife being shown to him, he said it was dull on the edge and in his judgment that circumstance prevented the wound being fatal.

Here the case for the prosecution closed.

Mr. Justice Bayley asked the prisoner what he had to say in his defence.

The prisoner said, "I don't know that I can say any thing."

John Gibbs, the father of the prisoner, came forward in a state of pitiable agitation, so much so, that he could not stand, and stated, that he was a labouring man, that his son and he were in the habit of working for Mr. Emery, a farmer at Parham. On the day mentioned in the indictment, after he and his son had performed

performed their daily labour for their employer, they came home to do some work in their own garden. He observed that there was something singular in the behaviour of the prisoner, who seemed not to work with his usual cheerfulness. At supper time in the evening, about seven o'clock, the prisoner seemed lowspirited and ate very little food. He kept back from the fire, instead of coming forward as usual on such occasions to join in the humble cheerfulness of their meal. About half-past seven the prisoner went out and never returned. He did not know of any quarrel between the prosecutor and his son.

Sarah Gibbs, the wretched mother of the prisoner, also in an agony of grief, stated, that she observed something singular in the behaviour of her son during supper-time of the night in question. He ate little and sat quite behind from the rest of the family. His aunt was present and was about to go home; he was asked to accompany her, but he made no answer and stood dejected against the cupboard of the room. Witness knew of no quarrel between her son and the prosecutor. They always appeared to be on good terms with each other. The prisoner was a quiet, affectionate and industrious lad, and worked early and late, and was not given to gusts of passion or ill temper.

Anne Price, the prisoner's aunt, observed his conduct at the supper-time above mentioned; his behaviour was very different from what it usually was; he appeared very low. When he was nursing

witness's child, he threw it up in a great flurry, and not with his usual and tender care of the child, of which he was very fond. The prisoner was mild in his manners, dutiful and attentive to his parents and extremely diligent in his employment. On that night the witness asked him to see her home, but making no answer he stood silent and dejected. He used to see her home at night on the like occasions.

Mr. R. Emery, a respectable farmer at Parham, stated, that the prisoner worked for him three or four years. He was an extremely good workman and a very industrious attentive lad: he always bore the character of a civil, kind-hearted young man, and was never known to quarrel with any body.

Mr. Justice Bayley then summed up the whole of the case with great minuteness, and adverting to the defence which had been set up, told the jury, that if they were of opinion that the prisoner, at the time he committed the dreadful offence imputed to him, was possessed of sufficient reason to distinguish right from wrong, he was answerable to the law for the act he had committed, and the penal consequences which must follow a conviction for that act must be visited upon his head.

The jury, after a few moments deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty.

The learned judge immediately pronounced the awful sentence of death in a manner so impressive and pathetic as to leave no dry eye in court, holding out to the prisoner no hopes of mercy.

KINGSTON,