KINGSTON, APRIL 2.

Crown Side.-Murder. Robert Dean was put to the bar, charged with the wilful murder of Mary Ann Albert, a little girl between four and five years old, on the 16th of October last, in St. George's-fields, by cutting her throat with a caseknife.

The following are the leading circumstances of the case:-On Friday evening, the 16th day of October last, between six and seven o'clock, the prisoner, who was a watch engraver, went, as he had been in the habit of doing, to visit the mother of the child who lives near the Elephant and Castle, St. George's-fields, and she asked him to take tea; while he was there he nursed and played with the child until about six or seven, when he went away with Mrs. Albert's brother, Williams, with whom he was intimately acquainted and had been fellowapprentice. They proceeded as far as the Obelisk, when they separated, and the prisoner returned and took the child again into his lap, and put his hand in his pocket to get some halfpence, and said he would go and buy some apples for his little Mary; he then took the child up in his arms, and asked her if she would have an apple and many other trifling questions, such as, do you love me? do you know who I am? &c. He then went out with the child, but being absent rather long, the mother feeling alarmed, went out to see after them, and on going into a court near the house she met the child, who reeled towards her,

and on her taking her in her arms, the blood gushed from her throat and the child appeared as if she was expiring; a surgeon was sent for, but his efforts were fruitless, and in about an hour it died. The prisoner wandered about for three or four days, and although every diligence was used to find him, it was unsuccessful. At length on the morning of Tuesday following, at about five o'clock, he rapped at the door of the watch-house of St. Andrew, Holborn, and said his name was Dean and that he was the murderer, and he was of course detained and taken to Giltspur-street compter.

Mrs. Mary Albert, the mother of the little girl, was examined in support of the above statement. When she beheld the prisoner at the bar she burst into an hysteric scream of horror, and was for a long time incapable of giving her evidence, until she was relieved by a flood of tears. The prisoner seemed evidently affected by the agony in which she appeared to be. On her crossexamination she gave a very favourable representation of the temper and disposition of the prisoner, and that he was extremely fond of children, and particularly of the unfortunate infant who had lost her life by his act. On the evening in question she observed the prisoner to be very uneasy in his mind on account of his want of employment, but he spoke in a rational and collected manner.

Mrs. Sarah Williams, the mother of the last witness, on her cross-examination described the conduct of the prisoner on the evening

evening in question, as indicative of an uneasy mind, arising from his distressed circumstances. She gave the prisoner the highest character for kindness to her grand-daughter, and said that he had always been on the most friendly terms with her family.

Joseph Williams, the brother of Mrs. Albert, deposed to the circumstances connected with the above outline of the case. On his cross-examination, he said he had been fellow-apprentice with the prisoner, who had always conducted himself in the most friendly manner towards him and his family. Witness and the prisoner had lodged together for a long time; he knew the prisoner was unhappy in his mind on account of a young woman with whom he kept company, whose father had forbidden any further intercourse.

Joseph Myatt, the watch-house keeper of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, proved, that early on the morning of the 20th of October the prisoner surrendered himself to justice at the watchhouse. He appeared in a state of great agitation, stating that he had been induced to surrender himself in consequence of his having heard a sermon at the Tabernacle in Moorfields; that he had wandered about ever since he had committed the horrid deed, and was unable to hold out any longer. The prisoner was afterwards taken to Giltspurstreet compter, where he begged he might be allowed a Bible. The witness's description of the prisoner's demeanour at the watchhouse was strongly indicative of remorse, but of sound intellect.

John May, a police-officer of Union-hall, proved that he removed the prisoner from Giltspur-street compter, and by the direction of the magistrate of Union-hall took him on the 20th of October before the coroner's inquest, which was then sitting on the body of the deceased child. When they got to the place of sitting, the prisoner requested to speak with the witness in private; and being left alone, witness, at the prisoner's request, took down the following statement in writing, as he gave it in his own words :

"On Friday evening last I met a young man named Joseph Williams, with whom I had long been intimate, at Mrs. Albert's house, in Jacques-court, Thomas-street. I had long been acquainted with a young woman named Sarah Longman, daughter of Mr. L. at the Grapes, Church-row, Aldgate; my affection for her was extremely great; I had for some time corresponded with her. A dispute unhappily arose; I wrote to her upon the subject, expressing my regret at the unfortunate rupture, described the very great regard which I entertained for her, implored her to consent to a reconciliation, and begged that she would write me an early answer. She never replied to my letter. Her father called upon me, and wished that the connection might be discontinued. These circumstances had an indescribable effect upon my mind; I was miserably unhappy, was incapable of attending to any business, and gave myself entirely up to despair. I endeavoured to prevail upon her to renew the correspondence.

dence. I felt that I could not be happy in this world without her and determined to leave it. Thoughts of a dreadful description entered my mind, and must have proceeded from the Devil. I felt that I should leave the world in a state of happiness if I could murder her, and determined to perpetrate the deed. I had been from home two days, business not being very brisk, and on Friday evening I called to see Williams at Mrs. Albert's, and we both came out together and walked in company as far as the Surrey theatre. We did not go in; I told Williams that I wanted to see a gentleman in the Borough and should go that way. We parted, and I returned to Mrs. Albert's. After talking in a very friendly manner with the family I asked for a knife, and they, supposing that I wanted to cut some bread, gave me a case-knife. I took an opportunity of concealing it unperceived in my pocket. I shortly after went out with the child to buy her some apples, which having done I returned to the court. A sudden thought came over my mind, that if I murdered the child, who was innocent, I should not commit so great a crime as in murdering Sarah Longman, who was older, and as I imagined had sins to answer for. In a moment I pulled the knife out of my pocket, put the child down out of my arms, held her head back and cut her little throat. In an instant I imagined that I was in the midst of flaming fire, and the court appeared to me like the entrance of hell. I ran away, not knowing where I

went or what I did; I wandered about in a state of distraction until I surrendered myself up at the watch-house."

The prisoner, who during the course of the evidence abovementioned appeared to be in a kind of idiotic stupor, being called upon to make his defence, merely said in a wild manner, that he was not guilty.

A great many witnesses were then examined on his behalf to prove a case of insanity. Among others were, James Longman, the father of the young woman to whom the prisoner had been attached; George Cass, a watchmotion-maker; Ann Keys, Eliza Campbell and Maria Tyrrell, persons with whom the prisoner had lodged; and the tendency of their evidence was to show that the prisoner, a few weeks previously to the unfortunate transaction in question, had been flighty and low-spirited, in consequence of his want of employment and having been forbid the continuance of his addresses to the young woman, Miss Longman.

The case went to the jury under the learned judge's direction, and the prisoner was found guilty.

Mary Hayes being then a spinster and about twenty years of age. The warrant for that license described the intended marriage as being about to take place with the consent of Sarah Church, widow, the mother of the said Mary Hayes; and it was accordingly solemnized, Mrs. Church assisting at the ceremony. The ground of the present suit, how ever, was, that in point of fact, no legal consent was ever given: the father of Mary Watts, long supposed to be dead, being at that time living, and Mrs. Church, ci-devant Hayes, being consequently not a widow as she had described herself.

The learned counsel for the husband, Mr. Watts, conceived that the most proper course for them to pursue, was, to submit the facts as proved, without any other comment; then the evidence would show that Mr. Watts was not a party to procuring the license, and was not aware until the citation in this case was served, that there existed any informality in the marriage.

Sir John Nicholl remarked, that the circumstances connected with this suit had something peculiar in them: for it was, contrary to the usual custom, one brought by the wife against the husband, and on account of her own minority; the marriage not clandestinely nor secretly had, but with the consent of the minor's mother, who supposed herself at the time to be a widow. It turned out, however, that the father, for some years reported to be dead, was then living, and had since indeed been examined as a witness. He was the only person,

according to the act of parliament, who could legally consent to the match; and if the terms of that act were not complied with, notwithstanding that the parties had lived together for 18 years, it was in point of fact a mere nullity. Now, the minority of the lady, by the depositions of several witnesses connected with the family, was put beyond all doubt. The father left England in 1780 for America. He resided for some time at Halifax, in Nova Scotia, which place he quitted and returned to England in 179+. In the interim his wife and children, who lived in the house of his uncle, heard nothing of him, and concluded that he was no more. A person named Church, arrived from Halifax, confirmed the intelligence of Hayes' death and married Mrs. Hayes, who did not herself communicate to Hayes on his arrival what had taken place. The affair was, however, made known to him previously to some negociations entered into with him to execute a bond to his wife, then Mrs. Church, enabling her to receive some funded property under the will of the uncle, a Mr. Adams, who had left her one or two legacies of that nature, Hayes, after a stay of a few months, returned once more to America, and was never heard of again until April, 1814, when understanding that a nephew of his, John Hayes, esq. commanded his majesty's ship Majestic on the Halifax station, he addresssed a letter to him informing him of his being in good health, &c., and dated from the town of Norton, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia. Of course the marriage of his daughter

without even his knowledge, and in the absolute belief that he was not living; his wife, who had contracted a second marriage, and lost her second husband, concluding herself a widow, had given that consent which was, in fact, illegal; and although the parties appeared to have acted only in error and under misinformation, the prayer of the daughter must be granted; and the Court accordingly pronounced the marriage null and void.

COURT OF CHANCERY,
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21.

Gordon v. Gordon.

This was a case which had been long pending in this court, and it was a litigation between two brothers, as to an agreement entered into so long ago as 1790. The facts of the case were shortly these:The plaintiff, Harry Gordon, is an elder brother, as compared with the defendant James Gordon, and had a brother yet older than himself, named Peter. The father died, and Peter also soon after died intestate. A doubt now arose as to the legitimacy of Harry; and it being generally understood that he was actually illegitimate, his younger brother James, who is a barrister, entered into an agreement with him to allow him an annuity out of the estate, which of course would fall to the defendant who was legitimate, a public marriage having taken place before his birth. This agreement was dated 1790, but

fact, a private marriage had been celebrated by the parents of Harry previous to his birth, and previous to the public ceremony; the consequence of this was, that if no agreement had been entered into the whole property would have fallen to Harry, who was now the legitimate heir at law. The legitimacy of the plaintiff had been established by the verdict of a jury; and now an application was made to set aside this agreement, under the peculiar circumstances of the case. Counsel having been heard at length on both sides,

Mr. Heald was this day further heard in reply, and read many letters which had passed between the parties previous to the agreement of 1790, as evidence to show that the plaintiff knew nothing of the private marriage by his parents, and that the defendant was well acquainted with the fact, previous to making the agreement. He also endeavoured to prove from the same documents, the strong desire of the plaintiff not to stir matters so delicate to his mother, who was still living, and to prevent the publication of her disgrace to the world. There were then two questions most material for the consideration of the court:-1st, Whether there was any suppression of any fact wilfully or intentionally by the defendant, in making this agreement? And, 2dly, Whether there was such a mistake, either on one side or on the other, as would induce the court to set the instrument aside? He contended, that all the evidence tended to