11 THE NATIONAL turned and walked towards the town, and they went forward arid milked the cows ; they might be employed about a quarter of an hour`, On their return home they met the prisoner a short distance from the close ; he spoke to her aunt and requested her to leave the witness with him, saying, he wanted to have some talk .with her. This her aunt declined; and the prisoner, with an oath, said he did not care for her. He then, turning himself round, stood before them and said " Stop," and drew a knife from his pocket, and opened it; on which witness and her aunt set up a loud cry, and she was so much frightened as to let fall the milk-pail. She then stepped back two or three paces, and the prisoner advancing, caught her in his armshnd threw her on the ground,falling with her. 'He then attempted to cut her throat; after hating wounded her severely ih the neck, she wrenched the knife out of his hand, throwing it over the hedge, and while he was seeking the knife, supposing that she had dropped it near the spot, she extricated herself from him and ran away, the prisoner pursuing her. She soon after met Isaac Ellard, who took her under his protection. Mr. John Man, surgeon, described the wound which he was called in to examine, to be an incision in the neck and three and a half inches in length, and a quarter of s.n inch in derh, a little above the trachea ; he also described several of her lisigt rs to be much cut. • On the part of the prisoner, Mr. Robert Stubbin t the partner of Mr. Brown before referred to, stated, that during the time the prisoner lived with them, which was about nine months, he conducted himself with propriety, and seemed to be of a hu mane disposition and good temper. • The Learned Judge, after recapitulating the evid ence , ob served, that it was pr obable the prisoner was much at' ached to • the young woman, who he suspected of a coldness towards him ; and that under the ic.fitience of these feelings, he wrought him self into a violent phrenzy of passion; but his Lordship observed, that the violence of passion would not justify or extenuate an act that deliberately aimed at the life of a fellow creature; if so, a door would he opened to all the excesses and crimes which persons, under the impulse of such passions, might be disposed to commit; and no evidence had been given to induce the Jury to think that the prisoner was not in a sane state of mind at the time this act was perpetrated. The Jury, without leaving the box, found the prisoner —Guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his good character.—The prisoner, on be ing removed from the bar, said, in an audible voice, " May Crud be toe comfort of my prosecutrix." BEDFORD. WARDON V. BAILEY. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a gerjeant In the First Bedfordshire Local Militia, cemmanded by Mr. Whit bread, against the defendant, a Lieutenant aid Adjutant in the same regiment, fur an alleged false imprisonment, in Decem ber, 1809. A charge having been made against the plaintiff, that he had used expressions, tending to excite disobedience and mutiny, he was committed to prison by the defendant, and afterwards tried by a General Court Martial, and acquitted.— The damages were laid at 5001. Mr. Serjeant FR F.RE opened the case for the plaintiff, in a speech which lasted upwards of three hours, the principal part of which time he was occupied in making observations on Mr. Whitbread, complimenting him upon his industry and activity —but descanting fully and freely, In terms serious and serio comic. upon him as a Member of Parliament generally, and as Member for Iledi ird particularly, in which place he described him to be in the centre of his fame and power. He remarked upon his general political principles and conductl—ridicided the plans he protxpied to Parliament for the akenition of the Poor Laws, and the general education of the people, and the plan of establishing a school In his regiment, for teaciting the non-com • missioned °facers and drummers to read and write—declared that obedience could not be claimed by an.officer to a command to attend school for the purpose of Instruction--that an unjus tifiable deduction had been made from the pay of the men, for the purpose of making a job for the, Serjeant-Major—in short, lie set forth 4 case of great oppression against the defendant, Bailey, with the concurrence of Mr. Whitbread; but acquitted them both of any intentional malice, or wish to oppress the plaintiff, Wardon. Upon th e cross- ex amin a ti o n o f o n e o f t he ` plaintiff, for the plaintiff by Mr. best, the following questions were asked, and answers made : Q. Have you not ateeme time, said to Mr. Bedford, a respect able inhabitant of this town, that very handsome offers had been made from the fountain head, Mr. Whitbread, to compro mise .the matter P—A. I might have said so; I don't know whe ... ther I did or not. • Q. Did you, or did you not say so ?—A. I did . say so ; but it was only , in jest. • ' • • Q. ,Was what you said true or false I told Mr. Bailey si A/4;3 • in the presence of Mr. Bedford, some days afterwards, that it was all wrong. Q. Do you mdan by wrong, falsel.—A; I do mean it was false; but 1 only said it in joke. Q. Did you not say that your brother would be backed by as great men as were on the other sidel.:.-01. I did; but only meant we should have as good lawyers.- Ihree or four non-commissioned officers of the regiment were examined, who had refused or neglected to attend the school. They were all asked in cross-examination whetler, when they had beets told of the establishment of the school, and of the intention of making a deduction froin s their pay for the support of it, any one of them had remonsrated or refused, or expressed any dissatisfaction at 411? To which they all answered no. '1 hey were asked win.rher any deduction had ever been made from their pay, or any payment demanded from thcni on that account ? to which they likewise answered uo.—The plaintiff's case being closed, Mr. S...rjeant SELLON addressed the Jury for the defendant, and shewed the expressions used by the plaintiff to have been in the highest degree mutinous, and that to have passed over such an offence would have been greatly blameable. Under tie direction of the Judge, the plaintiff was non-suited. —par. KENT. SMITH V. RUSSET.. This was an an action to recover damages for an assaith. Mr. VA ft ROW (Tened the case. with great gravity; and stared that the plaintiff was a medical gentleman of con,iderahle ca• lints, who had settled at Dover with a view of obtaining prac tice in that town. The d fondant was a publican resident there, and it happened that he had a servant who 7.-. , as afflicted with the itch. His client was called In, and cured her, ibr which he of course espected the payment. The &fent:antis wife, however, most egregOsly.abused the plaintiff, ,-nd on a subiequent-day, .the delett4int dr.)* his elbow into the p7ai,n dirt stoniaCh, so, is to butt him very mtat t. and again as,aultl4 him upon anbther ocossion.—Two witnesses p: ..ved the as sault 'first stated, that the defendant thrust his tatiow in 1)r. stn:to's stomach, but negatived the latter aliflilllol.43h CrOVS , • examination, they said they did not knowiiow Drc , sinijtis he• came a doctor; he gave physic r, the pi: )14:- at Dovtr, but nrght be nothing more than a surgeoi4.—Mr. Seijeant 'Sliep• haru, to prove the Doctor's literature, produced his bill, a paper which had be e n p r o ve d by our o f the wit: e-ses, and which began as follc,ers .r aG , nierkstrell astiniesseist for curing • the oid surrante of thi• /it'Lch." tre also stated, that the plain tiff had indicted the defendant arthe Dover lessions, and whew examined there on hip oath, my - Learned Friend tasked the We tor where he got his diploma / Wheii his answer litl-raliy Was, that he had got his deplortr of the Mayor of Gue..nsey. De plorable it was, indeed, that such a fellow tilf . auld go about poisoning his ajesty's subjects; but he trusted tho hie) . would mark their opinion of him, and action by a farthilig.damaps, or if they went further, it would he to give the knave a groat." —Verdict for plaintiff—Damages Ow Fartkiag. THE KING V. PHILLIPS AND ()VIERS. This was an indictment against Phillips, Ban foot, and East land, a Custom-house Offi::er and his two Assiaams, for having extorted a suns of money from one I'ymm, in 0. - eer to release a quantity of Bandana handkerchiefs, which they had seized of him. The account winch Pymni gave of the transaction was as follows : That he was servant to Captain Le Blanc, of the Lord Wellesley Fist Indiaman, and in July last he arrived &oar India. He was coming up to London it) a poia-chaise ; when, .near Shooter's-hill, the three defenelatita jutneall out-of a heeil!,e and stopped the chaise. They said they we-e revenue offietrs,-ant,l would search the chaise. He askosl to; -their authority ? But Barefoot, the officer, made no reply, but jumped directly into the chaise, and began a rummage. tie found his bag in which he had stowed away his Bandanas, upon Which he called.out to his companions, ee here is a prize," and declared his intention of seizing chaise, horses, and all. The witness I )egged very hard, and told them, if he had to pay for the adjs.: and horses it would ruin him. t He.alin begged for his, Bandanas, and , ffered ail the money he had about him, aasoUnting to thirty dollars and four guineas. They at fi.st relented, and he put up his money. At length Barefoot said to his companions, " this is a poor fel -1o w, let us take all his money and let him go." He accordingly gave them the thirty dollars and two guineas ; Barefoot having returned him two._ The next day he saw them at Deptford, when they • and swore they . ver had seen him them believed they that they were they really vie secution was theiVfare guilty. I • 4 4 % Y • • . ~:. M J ~ ~ `. denied all knowledge of hirb, and sviore they vet: m before in their . lives. "'Upon this he told them 4e Ley were thieves, and not officers. The result was, 'ere taken into custody, and the fact turning out that were in the employ of timgoveliite a the present Is commenced. • re aUfoupd guilty. '