-Your feelings overpowered you when you saw your husband, and you have not the least recollection of what happened afterwards?—Yes.

You said you did not wish to give evidence against the prisoner, because he was one of the best of husbands?—Yes.

How long were you away from

him?-About 12 months.

(Here the witness sat down, and seemed extremely anxious to hide herself from public observation.)

George King, a waiter at the Saracen's-head, Snow-hill, looked at the last witness: he recollected her coming to the Saracen's-head on the 5th of August; recollected her writing a letter, which was sent by a porter to the twopenny post-office; the woman afterwards remained in the house. The prisoner came to the Saracen's-head in the evening; he inquired for a young woman that had arrived by the Liverpool coach, and he was introduced to the last witness. She got up to meet him and witness shut the

door. In 10 minutes witness heard the shriek of a woman, and immediately went to the room in which he had left the prisoner and the woman. On arriving he found his two fellow-servants in the room : the woman was on her back; the prisoner was standing close by her; a knife was lying on the floor; it was bloody. Wit

ness discovered that the woman was wounded, and went for an officer. The woman said she hoped no harm would happen to the prisoner for what he had done, for she had been a base wife and he was one of the best of husbands.

Thomas

a wife against her husband was rejected was, that if it were admissible it would tend to excite disagreements in the marriage state. Where a woman spoke "in periculo mortis" this principle did not apply, and therefore the evidence might be received; but this was not the case in the present instance.

Mr. Adolphus addressed the court in support of Mr. Alley's objection.

Mr. Justice Best said that he had not the least doubt as to the admissibility of the wife's evidence in this case, or any other case of the same description; and this opinion was founded upon the principle that a married woman, like every other subject of the realm, was entitled to the protection of the laws, which would not be the case if the objections now taken were well-founded. There were many descriptions of personal injury to which a wife was subject, independent of that to which allusion had been made, which her evidence could alone. support; and if her testimony were as a matter of course to be rejected, she would be altogether without the pale of the law. The decision in lord Audley's case was perfectly analogous to the present; and the principle upon which the evidence of lady Audley was received was precisely the principle upon which he should admit the evidence of Mrs. Stent. Whatever might be the opinion of individual judges on this question, the opinion of the House of Lords, assisted by the twelve judges of the land, was of too solemn a nature to be easily disturbed.

Mr. Baron Graham was entirely of the same opinion; and his judgment was founded not alone upon the case of lord Audley itself, but upon a long experience, in which he had repeatedly seen the principle laid down by his learned brother acted upon. The decisions in those cases might not be found in the books from the universal acquiescence which they had received.

Mr. Justice Richardson agreed with the other judges that the evidence of Mrs. Stent ought to be received. It was a general rule, with very few exceptions, that a wife was an admissible wit ness against her husband in cases of personal violence.

Mrs. Stent was now addressed by Mr. Justice Best, when she entreated that she might not be called on to give evidence against the best of husbands.

Mr. Justice Best.-I am extremely sorry to give you pain; but it is my duty to ask you some questions which it will be your duty to answer.

Is your name Maria Stent?— Yes.

Is the prisoner your husband? Look at him. (Here the witness turned towards the prisoner with a look of great anguish.)-Yes.

I believe you separated from him for some time?—Yes.

When did you leave him?-On the 29th of August, 1818.

Where did you go to?-To France.

When did you return to England?-I returned to London in August, 1819.

Where did you come from when you came to London ?— From Liverpool.

Το

Do you recollect the day you returned?-On the 5th of August.

Where did the prisoner live at that time?-At Pimlico.

Did you send any letter or message to him?-I sent a letter. On what day?-On the 5th of August.

In the course of that day did you see your husband?—Yes. Where?-At the Saracen's

head.

He came to you?—Yes. What time of the day?-Between seven and eight.

As you recollect, state what passed? I have no recollection of what passed.

Did any thing happen?—Yes. What do you first recollect? -Being in bed in St. Bartholomew's-hospital.

What was the matter with you? -I was wounded.

Where were you wounded?In the neck.

Any where else?-Yes, there were other wounds.

How long were you confined in St. Bartholomew's hospital?A fortnight.

Have you any recollection of the prisoner's coming into the room to you at the Saracen'shead?-Yes.

Who came in with him?-I do not recollect.

Were you alone in the room? -Yes.

Before you went into the room had you any wound ?—No.

Afterwards the first thing you recollect was being in bed in St. Bartholomew's-hospital?-Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Alley.

You said you did not wish to give evidence against the prisoner, because he was one of the best of husbands?—Yes.

How long were you away from him?-About 12 months.

(Here the witness sat down, and seemed extremely anxious to hide herself from public observation.)

George King, a waiter at the Saracen's-head, Snow-hill, looked at the last witness: he recollected her coming to the Saracen's-head on the 5th of August; recollected her writing a letter, which was sent by a porter to the twopenny post-office; the woman afterwards remained in the house. The prisoner came to the Saracen's-head in the evening; he inquired for a young woman that had arrived by the Liverpool coach, and he was introduced to the last witness. She got up to meet him and witness shut the door. In 10 minutes witness heard the shriek of a woman, and immediately went to the room in which he had left the prisoner and the woman. On arriving he found his two fellow-servants in the room : the woman was on her back; the prisoner was standing close by her; a knife was lying on the floor; it was bloody. Witness discovered that the woman was wounded, and went for an officer. The woman said she hoped no harm would happen to the prisoner for what he had done, for she had been a base wife and he was one of the best of husbands.

Thomas

a wife against her husband was rejected was, that if it were admissible it would tend to excite disagreements in the marriage state. Where a woman spoke "in periculo mortis" this principle did not apply, and therefore the evidence might be received; but this was not the case in the present instance.

Mr. Adolphus addressed the court in support of Mr. Alley's objection.

Mr. Justice Best said that he had not the least doubt as to the admissibility of the wife's evidence in this case, or any other case of the same description; and this opinion was founded upon the principle that a married woman, like every other subject of the realm, was entitled to the protection of the laws, which would not be the case if the objections now taken were well-founded. There were many descriptions of personal injury to which a wife was subject, independent of that to which allusion had been made, which her evidence could alone support; and if her testimony were as a matter of course to be rejected, she would be altogether without the pale of the law. The decision in lord Audley's case was perfectly analogous to the present; and the principle upon which the evidence of lady Audley was received was precisely the principle upon which he should admit the evidence of Mrs. Stent. Whatever might be the opinion of individual judges on this question, the opinion of the House of Lords, assisted by the twelve judges of the land, was of too solemn a nature to be easily disturbed.

Mr. Baron Graham was entirely of the same opinion; and his judgment was founded not alone upon the case of lord Audley itself, but upon a long experience, in which he had repeatedly seen the principle laid down by his learned brother acted upon. The decisions in those cases might not be found in the books from the universal acquiescence which they had received.

Mr. Justice Richardson agreed with the other judges that the evidence of Mrs. Stent ought to be received. It was a general rule, with very few exceptions, that a wife was an admissible witness against her husband in cases of personal violence.

Mrs. Stent was now addressed by Mr. Justice Best, when she entreated that she might not be called on to give evidence against the best of husbands.

Mr. Justice Best.-I am extremely sorry to give you pain; but it is my duty to ask you some questions which it will be your duty to answer.

Is your name Maria Stent?Yes.

Is the prisoner your husband? Look at him. (Here the witness turned towards the prisoner with a look of great anguish.)-Yes.

I believe you separated from him for some time?—Yes.

When did you leave him?-On the 29th of August, 1818.

Where did you go to?-To France.

When did you return to England?-I returned to London in August, 1819.

Where did you come from when you came to London ?From Liverpool.

Το

He came to you?—Yes. What time of the day?-Between seven and eight.

As you recollect, state what passed?-I have no recollection of what passed.

Did any thing happen?—Yes. What do you first recollect? -Being in bed in St. Bartholomew's-hospital.

What was the matter with you? -I was wounded.

Where were you wounded? In the neck.

Any where else?-Yes, there were other wounds.

How long were you confined in St. Bartholomew's hospital?A fortnight.

Have you any recollection of the prisoner's coming into the room to you at the Saracen'shead?—Yes.

Who came in with him?-I do not recollect.

Were you alone in the room? -Yes.

Before you went into the room had you any wound?-No.

Afterwards the first thing you recollect was being in bed in St. Bartholomew's-hospital?-Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Alley.

- Your feelings overpowered you when you saw your husband, and you have not the least recollection of what happened afterwards?—Yes.

You said you did not wish to give evidence against the prisoner, because he was one of the best of husbands?—Yes.

How long were you away from him?—About 12 months.

(Here the witness sat down, and seemed extremely anxious to hide herself from public observation.)

George King, a waiter at the Saracen's-head, Snow-hill, looked at the last witness: he recollected her coming to the Saracen's-head on the 5th of August; recollected her writing a letter, which was sent by a porter to the twopenny post-office; the woman afterwards remained in the house. The prisoner came to the Saracen's-head in the evening; he inquired for a young woman that had arrived by the Liverpool coach, and he was introduced to the last witness. She got up to meet him and witness shut the door. In 10 minutes witness heard the shriek of a woman, and immediately went to the room in which he had left the prisoner and the woman. On arriving he found his two fellow-servants in the room : the woman was on her back; the prisoner was standing close by her; a knife was lying on the floor; it was bloody. Witness discovered that the woman was wounded, and went for an officer. The woman said she hoped no harm would happen to the prisoner for what he had done, for she had been a base wife and he was one of the best of husbands. Thomas