Ann Gale Tyrrel, and Elizabeth Sutton deposed to the same effect.

Frances Sutton, the mother of the two preceding witnesses, was examined in support of the same evidence.

Ch. Puddie observed the same scene mentioned by preceding witnesses.

Sarah Bowditch and Susannah Gibbons (formerly Susannah Bowditch) described the amusements of the evening, and the persons attending the christening, &c. in the same manner as the other witnesses.

Mrs. Mulraine spoke to all the circumstances attending the christening of her child.

W. Bowditch spoke in similar terms as to the party attending his mother's house, on the 27th of August, 1817.

Joan Bowditch confirmed the preceding evidence generally, and spoke positively to the presence of Mary Whitby during the whole of the evening.

Mrs. Atkinson examined by Mr. Gurney. This witness deposed, that in the month of December, 1817, she lived as housekeeper in Bath; Mr. Tuckett occupied apartments in her house. Witness observed an alteration in the behaviour of Mary Whitby when Miss Glenn entered the house; she came down stairs into the kitchen, and said that a person had come whom she had entertained a hope never to have seen again. When Whitby was complaining of the temper of Mr. Tuckett, witness asked, "What, is all this talk about a child being christened ?" Whitby replied, that it was about a Mrs.

that Miss Glenn had attended the christening, but begged witness not to tell Mr. Tuckett.

After some questions put to the husband of this witness, the case for the prosecution closed. Mr. Serjeant Pell addressed the jury.

Henry Read was called to contradict Mrs. Mulraine.

Maria Glenn was then called. She deposed, that she went in July, 1818, to Holway Farm, the residence of Mrs. Bowditch; she was then not 16; she had before been living with her uncle at Taunton; her father was dead; her mother is still living in St. Vincent's; she left Holway Farm on the 2nd of September; it was on a Wednesday; remembers Mr. Tuckett coming to see her on the Wednesday and Saturday in the week preceding her departure; he came on Wednesday the 27th August, about 10 or 11 o'clock; she was then sitting on a sofa in the parlour; her uncle remained with her until nearly 4 o'clock; Mary Whitby had gone to Taunton, and did not return until a short time after her uncle left her. During that time she was never absent from Holway. She knew Mrs. Mulraine; never stood godmother to her child; never was at church whilst her child was christened; never dined with a party assembled to celebrate the christening of Mr. Mulraine's child; dined on that day in her own parlour, where she always dined; she dined that day about a quarter past four; her dinner used to be dressed at her aunt's, and sent over to Holway Farm; went to bed that evening at 8 o'clock. Knew William Tyrrel; did not see him that day;

did not join any party at any time, either in the kitchen or the hall; Tyrrel never kissed her, nor did she ever dance when he played on the piano. Never borrowed any of Mrs. Mulraine's clothes; never played at blindman's buff or cards with Mrs. Bowditch's family; was never in the habit of mixing with persons in the kitchen; never said to Mrs. Sutton, that she had tricked or nicked her uncle.

The counsel for the prosecution declined entering into any

cross-examination.

George Tuckett, esq. was next examined. He stated himself to be a barrister residing at Taunton; he had lived there eight or nine years. He recollected going over to Holway Farm on Wednesday the 27th of August: he found Miss Glenn in the parlour, sitting on a sofa; he remained with her until about a quarter to four; during that time she was scarcely out of his sight; saw none of the Bowditch family; was struck with the stillness of 'the house when he entered.

William Woodford examined. -Is a carpenter residing at Taunton; knows the Magdalen church in that place; has a pew there; recollects doing some work in the pew during the year 1817; recollects seeing a christening in the church; James Bowditch and William Bowditch were there as godfathers; the rest of the party were two sisters of James Bowditch, and a short woman, whom he did not know; has seen Susannah Bowditch to-day; is sure that she was present at the christening; he noticed the defect in her eye; has been since the trial to the house of Mr. Tuckett; has seen Miss Glenn, and is quite certain that she was

not present at the christening; during the service James Bowditch neglected to answer, and the clergyman rebuked him for his neglect.

In cross-examination he proved that a bill put into his hands was made out by his father; from his book, he saw that he had been employed in the church on the 25th of June. There was an entry on the 27th of August, from which it appeared, that he had on that day been employed at home.

Mr. Scarlett now called other witnesses in aid of the prosecution, who clearly proved, that the christening witnessed by the last witness, had taken place on Wednesday, June 25th, when James Bowditch and William Bowditch had been godfathers.

Mr. Sergeant Pell observed on this evidence.

Mr. Scarlett then commenced reply, which occupied him nearly an hour and a half.

a

The Lord Chief Justice summed up the evidence.

The Jury retired, and after being absent about half an hour, returned with a verdict of Guilty.

The following accident occurred in the grounds at Brandenburgh-house this evening, just at the time when they were most crowded. A boy about 14 years of age, the son of a labourer at Hammersmith, having taken charge of a gentleman's horse, mounted it, and was riding gently about the field, which was at the moment thronged with carriages, when the animal, taking fright at some object, reared, and threw the boy; and his foot hanging in the stirrup, the horse became still more frightened, and set off at full speed down the

field, dragging the poor lad after him, and dashing his head and shoulders against the wheels of the double line of carriages through which he passed. The horse was stopped before it reached the bottom of the field, but the boy was then quite dead. 3. KING'S BENCH.-The King v. Maria Glenn.-This was an indictment for perjury.

The name of the defendant has already appeared, and the ground of this prosecution been before explained in the report of Ann Whitby's Trial-[see page 450]. The assignments, upon which the case turned were three in number. First, upon Miss Glenn's state ment-that she did not stand as godmother at the christening of Mrs. Mulraine's child; nor wore upon that occasion a spencer and bonnet belonging to Susannah Bowditch, the sister of James Bowditch: : secondly, that she did not dance at a certain festival on the same evening at the house of Mrs. Joan Bowditch; and that she was not upon that occasion kissed as one of the godmothers: thirdly, that she never walked in the streets of Taunton, nor in a certain place called the French Weir-field, with James Bowditch.

In addition to the witnesses produced against Whitby, who were all examined, there were produced on the present trial, Mrs. E. Alcock, the wife of colonel Alcock, of Taunton, who deposed to seeing Miss Glenn meet and walk with James Bow. ditch, in the road before her house, a short time previous to the elopement.

Miss Emma Alcock and Miss

Harriet Alcock deposed to their having seen Miss Glenn upon

four different occasions walk with James Bowditch in the French Weir-field. They knew the person of Miss Glenn perfectly well, and were confident that they had not been mistaken.

The Lord Chief Justice then briefly went through the evidence, and the Jury, without deliberation, found a verdict of Guilty.

Note. Miss Glenn had not been held to bail, and absconded before judgment.

or re

4. DISCOVERY OF A MURDER. A person employed as a process-server, had been sent in that capacity to the house of a farmer of the name of Edmund Murphy, of Ballyellan, in the county of Carlow, and had on that occasion suddenly disappeared. And it was not until within a few days past that the disclosures of a servant, who had been in the employment of Murphy since, and sometime previous to, the disappearance of the man in question, brought to light the certainty of his murder by Murphy and his confederates. The servant, in resentment, venge, of some offence received from his master, deposed before a magistrate of the county, Blackney, esq., to the facts of this revolting crime, and deEcribed the place and position in which the body of the murdered man had been, with his assistance, buried. A very diligent search was accordingly made in Murphy's garden, where, at length, the skeleton was found, placed in an upright position. Measures had been previously taken to secure the person of Murphy, who, however, while his house was so surrounded by a policeforce, secreted himself in a loft, to which the entrance, by a trap

door, was so indistinct as wholly to have escaped observation. On the retirement of the police the fellow effected his escape, and has not yet been taken.

5. KING'S BENCH-Crook v. Sir William Hoste, Bart.-This was an action upon the case. Public attention had been a good deal excited by a petition presented to the House of Commons upon the subject, and the Court was filled with respectable persons at an early hour.

Mr. Gurney stated the case. The plaintiff, served as a common mariner on board his majesty's ship La Mutine, of which the defendant was captain. It happened one night that a man of the name of Grimaldi, a sailor on board, being in a state of intoxication, cut the lashings of Crook's hammock, and let him down. Crook, hurt by the fall, applied to the surgeon for assistance; the matter came to the ear of Sir Wm. Hoste, and that gentleman, suspecting some improper collusion between Grimaldi and Crook, put them in irons. The Court would find that Sir Wm. Hoste had not stopped at that point: he, of his own authority, and without any trial by court-martial, although such trial was implored, ordered six dozen lashes to be inflicted upon the plaintiff; and afterwards, without money, character, or means of subsistence, set him on shore at Malta. Upon his arrival in this country the plaintiff's first act was, to apply to the Admiralty for his arrear of wages, and for prize money which was due to him; and he received for answer, that the letter R. signifying "run or deserted" had been affixed to his name. No choice was thus

left to the plaintiff but to seek by an action compensation for the injury he had sustained. It was the first instance, he believed, in which the gallant defendant had sought to avoid an action; but in the present case he had not only pleaded not guilty, but also that the cause of action had accrued more than six years back. The statute of limitations, however, would not avail Sir William, because it would be shown, that he had within the last three years, by his letter to the Admiralty, caused the continuance of the R against Crook's name, and, in consequence, the continued privation of his property.

Mr. Justice Bayley. Of course, Mr. Gurney, you mean to proceed upon the count for continuing the R: the other counts are out of the question.

Mr. Gurney.-Certainly, my lord, the original cause occurred 19 years ago.

Lieut. George Antony was lieutenant on board La Mutine, from Sept. 1799, to July, 1802. The plaintiff was a boy before the mast, and Sir William Hoste was captain. There was a man named Grimaldi on board; he was an ordinary seaman. In the year 1801, as the witness was standing on the quarter-deck in the morning, the surgeon came aloft and said, that his servant, William Thomas, could get no rest at night for Grimaldi and George Crook. Sir Wm. Hoste sent for Crook, Grimaldi, and Thomas. They came upon deck. Crook was then a boy of 15. Sir William Hoste then asked Thomas what had been done to him? Thomas answered, "I can get no rest at night for Grimaldi and

Crook making a noise." Sir William said "What noise?" Thomas answered "that Grimaldi had got into Crook's hammock." Sir William then asked Grimaldi "why he had done so?" Grimaldi said, "that he was drunk at the time." Thomas said, "That cannot be, for you were in Crook's hammock more than one night or two." Thomas was then desired to state what noise had been made. He said that he had heard improper language, and that he had heard Crook say, in a low tone of voice, to Grimaldi-[The remainder of the answer we are compelled to suppress.] There was a good deal of moving about in the hammock. The captain then asked Grimaldi and Crook what they had to say. Grimaldi said, "I was drunk." Crook said nothing. Both were ordered into confinement. Witness then left the ship upon duty. He left the men in irons; and when he returned, a month after, they were gone from the vessel.

Cross-examined by Mr. Scarlett.-Grimaldi was a half-bred Italian. The words spoken to by Thomas, as uttered in a low voice by Crook, were- - [The witness repeated the words which he had stated on his examination in chief.]

Is it not the custom in such a case as that which you have been describing to inflict some punishment? It is.

Is it not usual to put the parties in irons until the ship comes into port?-Certainly.

And is it not the usage, when a man is suspected of such an offence, and likely to be in bad odour with the crew, to wink at his desertion to let him go

away if he likes?-It is frequently done.

Mr. Justice Bayley-The captain, I think, did no more than his bounden duty. The plaintiff received summary punishment for a crime, and was discharged. Hemight have evaded that punishment by calling for a court-martial; but he knew that such a measure would place his life in jeopardy.-Plaintiff nonsuited.

7. SEDUCTION, AND ATTEMPT AT SUICIDE.-A young gentleman attended this morning at Bow-street, with the night constable of St. Mary-le-Strand, who brought the charge-book from the watch-house, in which was entered, "A gentleman charges a lady with attempting to drown herself in the Thames!" In explanation of this, the young gentleman stated, that on the previous evening, at rather a late hour, as he was going down Catherine-street, Strand, he heard cries, as of a woman in great distress, and saw a young woman standing in a court, crying bitterly. He spoke to her, but she continued crying; and while he turned for a moment to speak to some persons who were with him, she ran off into the Strand, and down Norfolk-street. He pursued, but she ran with uncommon speed; and when she got to the bottom of the street she attempted to throw herself over the iron railings into the river, but fortunately her clothes caught the railings, and she was suspended by them until he came up, and, with the assistance of a watchman, extricated her from her perilous situation. She was taken to the watch-house, where she was extremely ill, and the