The plaintiffs were the execu tors of a Mr. Noakes deceased, and the defendant was a shopkeeper residing at Deal. This was an action of trover, to recover certain property from the defendant, under the following peculiar circumstances:-About the month of June or July last a sale took place of the property of the plaintiffs, at which the defendant attended for the purpose of purchasing part of the property. A chest of antique walnut-tree drawers was put up by the auctioneer, and bought by the defendant for the sum of 4s. 3d. In the evening of the same day the goods were removed, and among them were these old drawers; while the person employed by the defendant to remove his purchases from the premises was taking the drawers to defendant's house a secret drawer fell out, containing a bag full of guineas. The defendant was present at the time, and upon seeing the circumstance, he asked the porter what he should do. The porter advised the defendant to say nothing about it, but required five guineas as hush-money. This the defendant, however, positively refused, and observed, that he had rather go to law about it than give the hush-money. The man, upon being refused his request, immediately made disclosure, and the present action was the consequence.

a

It was proved by the auctioneer, who was called on the part of the executors, that the drawers were sold, and that the defendant had confessed the guineas were there. It was also proved by a person at whose house the guineas were

counted by the defendant, that the number of guineas amounted to between 100 and 130 in the whole.

Mr. Adolphus, as counsel on the part of the defendant, called no witnesses, but endeavoured to show that the plaintiff could not succeed in the action, as it could not be proved that these guineas were actually his property; on the contrary, he contended that the jury must consider the property not to have belonged to the deceased, but to his ancestors, or to some one unknown. The guineas might have been placed there by some one wholly unconnected with the deceased.

Mr. Baron Graham, however, held that the property being found in his house, was sufficient to prove that it was the property of the deceased.

A verdict was immediately found for the plaintiff, damagesOne hundred and ten guineas.

SUSSEX ASSIZES, HORSHAM, MARCH 19.

This

Charge of Bigamy. morning the court was excessively crowded with ladies and gentlemen, to hear this interesting trial. Before eight o'clock, Maria Walton, alias Maria Wilkins, was put in the prisoner's box: she was dressed in white, with a light coloured pelisse, and wore a round black hat with feathers, and a black veil. Her countenance was exceedingly prepossessing, notwithstanding the natural anxiety of her feelings upon the situation in which she was placed. A few minutes after eight, Mr. Baron Graham

entered

entered the Court, and Mr. Gurney (special counsel) and Mr. Bolland, both for the prosecution; as also Mr. Nolan and Mr. Chitty, counsel for the pri

soner.

After the indictment had been read, to which the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and was allowed the privilege of a seat,

Mr. Gurney stated the case to the jury. The prisoner was the daughter of a respectable trades. man at Weymouth, and had been married to an officer in the army, named Cox, with whom she proceeded to Bombay, in the East Indies. Ensign Cox having died in 1802, in the year 1810 the prisoner married a Gentleman in the East India Company's service, named Wilkins, and with that Gentleman she returned to England. For reasons not now necessary to state, the prisoner and her husband separated. In the year 1816, she was residing at Brighton, and there attracted considerable notice, particularly of the Gentlemen of the army, by her personal attractions, her accomplishments, and her style of living. Mr. Walton, a very young gentleman, a native of Barbadoes, who had been sent over to this country by his mother, a respectable lady of fortune, had entered into the army at an early age, and was then quartered with his regiment at Brighton. He became acquainted with the prisoner-was smitten with her charms, and in the result, they were married. The prisoner was married by the name of Maria Cox, representing to Mr. Walton, that she was the widow of Mr. Cox. The mar

riage was solemnized at Lewes ; they lived together for a short time, and shortly afterwards Mr. Walton discovered that his connexion with the prisoner threw him into the greatest pecuniary difficulties. He was arrested for debts contracted by her, and doomed to a gaol.-Mr. Walton thought it proper, under all the circumstances of the case, to institute the present prosecution. The two marriages would be proved beyond all doubt, as would also the fact of Mr. Wilkins, the second husband, being still alive. Indeed there would be no doubt that Mr. Wilkins was living at this moment, because the same gentleman had received letters from him, dated Clonmel, in Ireland, since he had been in this town, announcing his intention of coming to England, and, down to the very hour of this trial, his arrival was expected. The prosecution was carried on by the mother of the young man, who though his prudence in this transaction could not be much praised, yet as a soldier he was entitled to every commendation. In the field of honour he had greatly distinguished himself; he had shared in the laurels of Waterloo. The jury, under the circumstances of the case, must feel it their duty to pronounce a verdict of guilty.

Mr. Maitland, clerk of the Secretary's office at the Indiahouse, produced the book of registers of marriages, births, and deaths, at Bombay, commencing the 14th Jan. to the 19th Dec. 1810.

The Rev. Mr. Burroughs stated, that he was a resident Chaplain

at

at Bombay 42 years: every marriage is registered at the church, and copies are regularly transmitted to England, after they are compared from the original register book, signed by the clergy man. The prisoner was married to James Thos. Hacket Wilkins, by him, on the 26th of January, 1810. They left Bombay soon afterwards. Witness had not seen the prisoner until he had an interview with her in Bristol gaol, where she was confined for want of sureties to keep the peace against Mr. Walton's mother. This was about three weeks ago. He knew the prisoner well at this interview, notwithstanding the length of time which had elapsed since the marriage at Bombay, owing to the celebrity of her character, and the obser⚫ vations he made at the time as to her person. This was further corroborated from the conversation he held with the prisoner at that time, when she recognized him. There were no sub. scribing witnesses to the marriage at Bombay, which was by licence. Mr. Winter, the parish-clerk of St. Peter's, Lewes, produced the register of the marriage at that parish church, namely, "Robert Baron Walton, of the parish of Brighton, and Maria Cox, of the parish of Lewes, by licence, 28th May, 1816." The witness was present at the solem

nization.

Mrs. Brierly, of the Pelham Arms, Lewes, was also present at the marriage.

Mr. Bampfield, surgeon, of Bedford-street, Covent-garden, knew the prisoner, and her deceased husband, Mr. Cox, in

Bombay, and subsequently her second husband, Mr. Wilkins, who introduced the prisoner to him as his wife. They resided at Bombay till June, 1809, when they sailed for England. Witness left India in the same fleet, and since their arrival in England witness often corresponded with Mr. Wilkins, and who was now at Horsham.

Mr. Yates, clerk to Mr. Evans, solicitor to the prosecution, proved the acknowledgment of the prisoner, that she was married to Mr. Walton, whilst Mr. Wilkins was living.

Here the case for the prosecution closed.

The Common Sergeant and Mr. Chitty then submitted two objections to the form of the indictment:-1st. That there was not a sufficient venue set out as to the first marriage stated in the indictment, inasmuch as it simply said "at Bombay, in the East Indies," whereas it ought to have gone on with a scilicet " to wit, at Cheapside in the city of London," in the usual form, so as to give the Court jurisdiction.-2nd. That there was a variance between the indictment and the registry of the second marriage. In the former it stated the marriage to have been celebrated" at the parish of St. Peter and St. Mary," whereas the registry described the parish to be St. Peter's (with an s) and St. Mary. These objections, they submitted, were fatal to the indictment.

Mr. Baron Graham thought the objections not tenable, and they were consequently overruled.

The prisoner being called upon

for

for her defence, said, that after her arrival in England, Mr. Wilkins and herself were separated, and she did not see him for three years. She then saw him in London. Previously to that she was told that he had married a second wife-a Jewess. She was also told, that her marriage in India was not lawful, there being no witnesses present at the ceremony, but the clergyman and the clerk. When Mr. Walton paid his addresses to her, she told him of her marriage in India, and remonstrated with him upon the impropriety of persevering. She had his own hand-writing to show that he was well acquainted with her situation. When Mr. Gates, the attorney's clerk, came to her in prison, he told her that no punishment would be inflicted upon her, and that the only object of the prosecution was to bring about a separation. She had never made any secret of her marriage with Mr. Wilkins, and having been informed that it was not valid for want of witnesses, she did not consider it binding. Mr. Walton was made acquainted with every circumstance of her situation, and it was only after repeated importunities she consented to marry him.

The Rev. Robert James Carr was examined on behalf of the prisoner, who stated, that Mr. Walton had made application to him for a licence. Being confined to his house at the time, he requested Mr. Walton to call in a day or two, during which period the Rev. clergyman requested his curate to make inquiries respecting the lady. Upon Mr. Walton's second application, the

witness declined granting alicence, and with the greatest consideration of kindness, begged of him to recollect the unhappiness he would give to his mother by marrying this lady. Mr. Walton was determined to obtain a licence elsewhere, which the Rev. witness observed, had he been aware, he would have prevented, by giving information of the circumstances of the objection for his refusal.

The learned Judge summed up the evidence with much force and perspicuity, and pointing out the facts to the attention of the jury, he left it to their consideration to give a verdict accordingly. The jury, after a short consul. tation, returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy.

The learned Judge, in passing sentence, observed to the prisoner, that from the frank and open manner in which she declared her situation to Mr. Walton, as being previously married, and which was partly proved in evidence, the crime with which she was charged was much extenuated, and that she would be visited with the least punishment the law in such cases had provided. The sentence was six months' confinement in the House of Correction at Lewes, and that it should be attended with as gentle treatment as was suitable to her situation.

SALISBURY ASSIZES, MARCH.

The two following causes, which were of considerable importance, not only on account of their local interest, but on account of their universal operation, were

tried before Mr. Justice Holroyd, who presided at Nisi Prius. Both related to Protestant Dissenters; the first, to their exemption from turnpike tolls on Sundays, when attending their places of religious worship; and the second, to their protection from riots and noises without their meeting-houses, even when unaccompanied by internal interruption or assaults.

Lewis v. Hammond.-In this case it appeared from the state. ment of Mr. Sergeant Pell, counsel for the plaintiff, and the proofs, that the plaintiff, being a farmer at Foxhanger, in the parish of Rowde, near Devizes, attended regularly a congregation of Independent Dissenters in that town, and in passing through a turnpike gate, called Seend-gate, on Sundays, he claimed from the defendant, who is a collector of tolls at the gate, an exemption from the toll of ten-pence demanded from him, because he was going to his proper place of religious worship at Devizes, and that such claim being rejected, and the toll enforced, the action was brought, in his name, by the society in the metropolis for the protection of the religious liberty of Dissenters, to recover back the amount of the toll so obtained.

For the defendant it was contended by Mr. Casberd, that under the particular words of that turnpike act the plaintiff was not entitled to the exemption, because he went out of his own parish to attend at a place of public worship, and because there was in such parish a dissenting place of worship.

But a case being mentioned by Mr. Sergeant Pell, where, at the

The King v. Rev. Wm. Easton, Clerk, James Jerrard, and eight other persons, for a conspiracy to disturb a congregation of Dissenters at Anstey, near Tisbury, in this county, and for a Riot.-The following were the facts of this case, conducted like the former, by the society established in London for the protection of the religious liberty of the Dissenters, as stated by Mr. Sergeant Pell, and proved by the witnesses for the prosecution. The Reverend William Hopkins, a dissenting minister at Tisbury, was invited to preach at Anstey, an adjoining parish. Of that parish the Reverend William Easton was the perpetual curate, and James Jerrard was the tythingman, but the clergyman resided also at Tisbury, three miles from the place of riot. A dwelling-house belonging to James Butt was certified as the place of the meeting of the Dissenters. Hopkins first attended in Nov. 1816; he repeated his visits, and noises were made without the house, which interrupted the worship at

the