Summer Assizes.
(Bfefore Mr. Baron HULLOCIt.).-- Thinuz& Schoihqlrpe, aged 25, wa-s put to bar, chasrged wvith having; ~ on Tuesday, the Ist of 3une, 1824, at Temple Hirst, in the uarisbh. of Dirkin, in the West Riding, forcibly violated the person of Jaue Rockett, the wife of John Rockett. Jane RtOckett was the- first witfiess,61aled.-Shec said, aut the wife ofJohinRockett, of Temple Hiret.' I live insahouse belo'nging to the prisoner: His fathier a-daibaother -live at Temiple Hlirst; and he lives i~ith them,. )Iy hus,band i a labourer upon their fani.t I also do woik upioil.t Mly husband left me in bed on Tdesday, June 1, at 5 o'clock. I was in the house alone. ..I got tip about seven o'clock intemarning and dressed myself. Abotit half-past seven o'clock I went and laid down again in my clothes on the bed, becaiuse I wgs poearly.- Whilet I was lying down, Theompa Sclio- thor?e cAmhe itbto pny roqm about eight "5clock. He was against the bedside before I heard him. He asked me if I was niot going to get up, to'go'-io'work. I replied that I was -not, I was too poorly. I thenbegan.- to get up), but hie weuld not let mne. I suceceeded, now- evr "ngetting.up from the bed. He then threw me down upon it. 11 resitetd him. He got,uton the bed. LT'he witness was here examinifed as to the pAiticulari, but it was a long time before she could be prevailed upon by thle Court to give any answer.1 He was in the place with me about half an bour afterwards. After the deed wa,sperpetrated, he gotu~' ,and sat do;vn bfethe bed-side, I sat dlown beside himi on the bed, loe he would nqt .et me go froni him. We conversed togethier. He wanted to give me some money not to tell mny husband of what lie had done, I cried out loudly, There is an uninhabited houise between my house and that otf my next neighbour Easenbvy. Easenby is a miarried man, and has children. aZ qurero a ou la elapsed, thie prisoner went away, be- catuse Ilie hZ:!Wd somrebody cormin.e in by the back-door. IL was My husllrntd. Prisoneia rent out ofmybhedchainber into one adj,oiiin~ it. I hieard the noise mly hu~i!`ul. osade in entering, because bath the f'ront- and back door wvere lockeQ :,,d b'rAuse my husband Iopenied the back-dibor withi his spAdc. I Nitness was ig&ti ai;kcd to describe the patticulars ofthtle rape, but. was silent for some m-inutes.I Mr. ~on HLLOCKtoldthe wtnes thlat he could not allow thewhoe dy t bewased n cnseuece ofher silence. Ifshie re- fusd t anwer sh mut el~e;heconeqencesi. She hiad already tol hr sor t th iiiaisraes ndtothp Qr4nd Jury, or she couti othav ben laed n he itess-box. She'need not be The witness then, withi great apparent reluctance, detailedi fuirthier particulars, but not sufficient to constitute legal proof of the crime charged. She stated that she had been maarriecd about a year, and had had one child. The case svus accordingly stoppedI by thie learned Judge; the Jury returned a verdict ot STot GuWy,tf and the Judge ordered the prisoner to be discharged immniediately. .S'usnunas, the wife of Johii Turpin, late of the towin of K~ingston- upon-H ull, was placed at the bar, charged by the Coroner's inquest On view of' the body of Ann, thle wvife of' I Ta rin, lying dead at the parish of St. Mlary, in the said town, with thec wilful murder of thle said Ann Turpin by poison. The pritoner pleaded ~' not guilty." place between the counisel for the prosecution, those for the de!fence, and the learned Judge. It was hield in a whisper, and therfoewe cano communicate the particulars of it. The result of it was, that the trial was postponetl to the next assizes. Wie under- stood thst thiereason forthiis postponementiwas, that the principal witness against thec prisoner, who is her own daughter, is not of sufficient age at present to understand the nature and obligation of anAoatah. Abaarn Bairstan, agedl 60, was put to the bar, chaTged withi the wilfutl murder of- Sarah Bairstan his wife, in the parish of Bradford. The indictment was read over to the prisoner by the clerk of the atraignsR. As soon as it was finished, the turnkey, who hadi broughlt the prisoner into) Court, infornietli iis Lordship that the prisonier did nor speak. Ile had never heard haim say a word sinice he had en- tered inito the pirison. M1r.B3rO1H11LLOCK (to the turnkey.)-Docs he understaisd wlint is saidt to hlim ?.-.I thiink not. Does he not speak ?-I rever hecard I1im ; he mumbles some- thilng sometimes, out nothirng articulately. Does he seem to licar ?.--le does not take any notice at aniy tinie of any thing: ho stands as he does now. The prisoner, who is a dtall and heavy-looking man, was at this mioienit casting a vacant idliotic glance around the couirt ; he ap- peared totallv insensi.ble of the serious nature of the proceedinigs, which were tfien openiing against himi. M5r. Baron IIUrLLocK.-Prisoner, do you hiear whnat is said to yan ?-No answer. Didl You hiear the i2dictmerit whiich has been read over in your presence ?-No answer. Do you hear what this gentleman (pointing to the clerk of arraigns) hias said to you ?-Still no anstwer. Do you hear what I say to you ?-The prisoner cast a look at the turnkey, but said nothing. tThe tur-key again assured thec Judge, that be had never heard the prisoner utter a syllable since lie had beeni in his custody. ,Ir. ALEXANDER who was counsel for the prosecution, maide some ob.Nervation t.o th Judge which we did not hiear. Alr. Baron HuLLOcic repliedl-There may be no doubt, perhaps, as to the result, if the inan be tried ; but I cannot try huni until lie hias pleadied. iA jurv was then empanelledhby ordler oftelse Judge, to try whethier the prisoner stood mnute fraudulently, wilfully, and obstinatelyv, or by [the act and providlence o)f God. Mr. HARDY told the jury that he would very soon convince thiem that the prisoner stood mute by the visitation of God. Jerenmiali Hailey..-I- kcnowi the prisoner very well. I have known him upwards of 50 years. I knew his deceas'ed wife. They had aL very niumerous familyr; the children were brought up very respect- ably. Fe has been in the state of mind which .he now appears for 10 years. He has beeni under the care of liia sons for that tinle; they were very affectionately careful of him. Whilst he was sane, Isis wif'e and he lived very respectAbly and comfortably toge-ther. I have not heard him speak for several years. He is not capable of giving, any ration?l account of any, thing. lie can say "yes" or "1no." The last timne I heard him speak, I askced him whether he knewi m-e. He said"1 Av;" but I think he did not knoew me. ther for the last see Ier . I a sur'e-t_haxt h osntu rtn the indtictmenit which has, just been read to hiim. I haye not, heard Iiim speak except one or two wvordis in the eourse of the last seven yeats. I have seen him since lie was cominitted to York Castle. I tried to get him to speak. He mnuttered what I took to be, "1 Be quiet, be quiiet." I then put several questions to buit, but he re- mained silent at first, anid then ran out of mny gate. it is two years since I over heard him say any thing but what I IL.Ve jUSt told YOU. I couldi iiot tell no reason why he nloes not speak nobbut that he is nout of his mind. I cannot give any account on wliat account he standa mute. I think it is not from malice end obstinacy, but from indisposition. Josephi Bairstan.-l am another son of the prisoner. I kneiw that he has been about 10 years out of his mind. For the last seven years f have not heard himi ask or answer any question. I scarcely ever counii get him, to give nme an answer. I have seen himi sinice lie came to York. He did not speak to in'e thell, but ran out of my gate. I think that it is fromn indisposition that he now stands niute'. Ile was in thie iasne condition as he now is about .34 Years ago. M1r. Baron HULLroCsr.-YoU cannot knoa that of youir own, knowledge, and therefore may as well hold your tongue. The witness..-I was so informed by mny mother. Mlr. Baron HU LLOCK then addressed the jury. He told them that the prisoner, as they hacd seen, had not answered to the indict- ment,or, in other words, had not pleaded. The question which they had todecide was-whiether the prisoner was standing dilfully or per- v'ersely mute, or whether he was labouring under sonie malady or fnhpstonent'UPOn hlal bY that Providence to whose dispensa. tions we must all huimbly subm-it. If they were of opiniion th~at thle prisoner was standingvwilfully and perversely mute, his silence would be considZired equivalent to a conviction, and a verdict 6f"I guiilty" wouldl be recorded against hlim; but it they were of opinion that he was mute from indisposition, then a plea of "1not guilty" would be put upon the record by the ogicer of the court. The jury immeidiately tbmund b3r their verdict that thie prisoner stood mute by tec visiitation of God. The prison'er was then Ordered to be arraigned on the coroner's m Befsore opening the ca-se against the prisoner, Mr. ALEXANDER ordered John Steadi to be called on ilila recognizances. He was c-alled accordingly by the crier of the Court, buat did not appear, Mlr. AI.EXANDE1t said, that antler other circumstances lie shouldI have felt it necessary to enter into else particulars of thiis painful case ; but as he founid that a principal witness on the part of' the prosecution did not appear, he shoulid not proceed with a ca-se which without that witness he could not establish. Air. Baron HULLOCK.-Are there ni, other witnessesP *Mr. Ar.EXAtXDEe.-SCeMerl ;butt otily one who can speak to the fact of the mortal blow being inflicted by the prisoner. Mr,Baron Hl ULLTOMc.-Lett CIs other witnesses, however,be called, as I slhall order the recognizrances of those wi ontapa ob estreated.whdontaprtob They were called ac-cordingly, and all appeared. Sir. ALEXANDER again declared that be lie could not go on with this case without the appearanice of the wilness Stead. Mlr. Baron l-IULr.oci;r then toldi the Jiury thiat thley mmist acqutit the prisoner, fie sliould' certainly order the recognizances of thle witness SteAd to be estreated. That witness ouight to have been brought to York at all event!,. The consequence of his absence was that he (Mr. Baron Hullock) was precluded from taking those Inca.. suresi with regardI en him whichl the safety of his Mlajesty's subjects required. He shiould certainly not allowi thie prosecuitor hi, costs. 31r. ALEXANDER assured the learned Judge that his clrient had made every effort to obtainithie presence of Stead upon this occasion. Mr. Baron HULLOCK.-Was hecservedI with a subpen-a to attend these assizsts? Mlr. AL EXANTDETR replied that he was not. He had only been bound over on lIis recognigiauce to appear. 'r'he: consitable of the parish had bean desired to look after Iiim to procure his attendance ; but it was understood that he hiad left hiis usual place of residenice, in ortler that lbe might not bie compelic4 to appear and give evidence at this triAl, The Jury thien returnedl a verdict of Nrot Guilty. We understoo00 that the learnedI Judge afterwards agreed that the prosecutor should be allowedl lils costs. SATURDAY, AUG. 7. MIOLLOY V. SWALLOW THE YOUNGER, This was an action for a breach ef promise of mllarriage. Air. BLACKBURUr opened tie pleadings. Mr. BROUGHAMt old the jury, that they beard the subject matter of this action from his learnedfriend, andit was nowhis duty todetail to them as concisely as possible, the circumstanCeS out of which it hlad arisen. He did not stand before them as the advocate of a person moving in a distinguished situation in life; his client was in that respect, in a very difhrent condition from the defendant, who occupied the rank of a gentleman, and moved In the frst society in that country. It was the misfdrtune, however, th ung woman, who, conipared with the defendant, was in very numble circumstances to have fallen in his way at a time ofh life when he was enabled to inflict upon her the greatest injury next to seduction (which' had not occurred in this casc! tltat man could by any possibility inflict upon woman. Sarah Molloy, the plaintiff, was the daughtcr of poor but respectable pa- rents, living withiin six or'seven miles of New-lall, the seat of the defendant's father. That itidiyidual was a person of great veAlth, which he had acquired as aqe4 irommonger. lie was still living; but his son inheriteil a propetty tnder ihe will of a eelsa. tion which he was instructed to descrtbe as yery ample. Thbis yoixug poman, Saral llollov, previously to lhvinig in the dIefen- dants fam 1y, had lived as servant in the neighbouring co4aty of Derby, mi the very reppctable family of Sir G. Sitwell. She had there acquired a high claractor, when a misfortune befel her, which sometimes from the ine*perience of the sex, befel young women of higiser rauk and better education-she was seduced by a servanr, who was much superior to her in age and artifice. He did seot wish t6 keep back tbat tircum. stance froM tlte jury, on thecontraTy, he stated it fully analat once to thler: shehbad achild-a circumstlance which he understood had been comnmunicatedl to the defendant at a very early perirod of their. atttachment. Sbe was a'wonlan of great personal attractions, asse, save in the Point to, which he had just adverted, of unimpeachable character. He would prove that when sihe went to live in the dce- fenalint's famnily4 the knowledge of thie misfortune which hiad befallen her was not withheld from them. Whilst she was living therc, sh~e gave perf'ect satisfaction to all parties,.antd made an iimprcssion ons the defendant wvhich gradually ripened into affection, -and finally, led to -that promite of usnarrihege whichi formed the basis of the present action. Whether st was owing to his superior tank of life, or whether it was because be had before broken many suchi pro.. usises, and wished to aen-ainee tllis young womnan that he did not mean to break this promise, he could not tell; buat it did so happen tha tosatsfyher mind this promise of mariiage was given in writ- hng Sle went to his fath,er's houisein thenmontit of June, 1823;and somie timeien thelast spring,lhe believed in the -monthaoflastAMarch, wh irote to.her, stating his intention to marry her; arid, in order to convince her how solemn those intention., were, he.- assured her that he would either mnarry her, or, in defauldt of marr~ying her, would forfeit half' his property. Mfr. Justice BA"t,YLE.-.What is the age of this young mar ' Air. BssOUGsAAr....Twenty-ix r tenty..sevtn. Mir. SCARLErTY, (whIo was3'for the defendan.)-If he be, he lIs not yet, reached years of discretion. Mfr. B1souGnAmt.That made no matter to himn. He said' that the defendant had wvilfully and knowingly deceived this young woman;, thia hie had raised lier expectations, and glained her affec- tions, for n purposewhi3ch heheliev,ed tha.ther virtue had defeatedl; andt hie ought not now to be held harmiless, becauise the defendant's cias. tity hadheld outt against himn. If, h'owever, it was attemnpted that dlay, as he partly aniticipated, to srreen the defendant froma punish- ment, oni thec pl~a of indiscre'tion, arrived though he haiil at the tog.- tSure age of 26 or 27, and wasi six years oldier than the youingwoman whom he had attempted so inveigle, he trusated tha,hist Lordship weeold tell themn, thiat if hie hiad been fo-olish, it i as not right to make othiers pay for hiis indliscretion ; 'andc that it was mote proper (1thatile effects of his guilie shoultl be visited on, his head than on that of an uno5fnding youing woman. It waIs somlething too muclh to think of allowing a man of rank-, who was Younig and indliscreet, to beguile the affections of fs. young f'emale, anid then afterwards to turn round, and, withiout her hiaving gie himn any cause to change his plan, to fruistrate her hopes, and to dis- appoinit her tenderest expectations. lie would now readl to tdliem a letter, which was more after the usual fashion of a dleclaration of love thian the first clocument wkich he bad mientione-d tb them. That letter was written in the course of the last spring, and in order to render it imore intelligible, he wvould premise to them- that a brother of' the defendant had married a fellow-servant of the plaintiff's, whiom he should that day have occasion to call before them us a wi!- ness. ~ Avly dear Sarah,_I hope you will feel by no means siurprisedI by my declinDing to mieet you at 8 o'clock;, but my reason for not wishing to comre, is on accouint of a report of your being at Grimesthorpe yes- teirday. I have been.told I shiould be runniing away with you very soon. Unider these circumistances, I think it's better net to mect on the road, but defer it until J. S. and wife (that was, Jolhn Swallow ead.his wife) hatve got into their house, where I hiope to have the pleasure ofnmeeting you. Myv iother questioned ine abo'as you, but got no more titan twelve-pecrce to the shilling,"f Meaning, by thtat hoimely phrase, saidI Mr. Broughamn, that Ihis na)ther was not aisle tei diUssuide him from hip. Putepose. Mlr. Justice BAYL.EY...Twelvepence or a shiiling9 will be just whiat your clirent will get, Air. Brougiamn. Nir. BicouGiirtat-.Itmy clienteels twelve.ponce toevery shilling which an hottest jury will give lier for the injury which she has re. ceived, I shiall be satisfied, mny Lord. Ai r. Julstice B AT L E Y- TIt is iiarriage musstI har,e broug tmsei and rotifusion upon hiis famrily. isr M1r. BROX;G tIAs.-To be suire it must, my-v Lord. IMr. Justice llAYLEa.-Thert would it not be better ouit of court to cotisider- Mr. BILOUGsrAs (Witnl considerable warnitliof manner).-Thie defendlant must have known, and it is rny case, that such a marriage miust be productive of misery to his famlily : he wvished, however to prosecute it, miny Lord; and my client is n'ot to be the 8uettfer for hiis misconduct. Air. Justice BAYL.FY.__" Da not be angry, Mr. Broughatn; I meant all forthe best." Thien, turisin.grotind to the jury-" Gentle- -nen, I seldlom interfere to stop a caute ecPt when f think thar it weill be for the interest of' all parties t l o I shall, hoiwever, re- frain fromi interfering in this manner again, at alt evetiss." Mr.-BROUG.uAa.-I know that your Lordship, when you hear this case, will be the first to tell thec jurzy that the question of die. mnages is entirel" va question for7 their considteration. I shiall, therefore. Proceed witkithe letterlIwas reading. TIhe defendant goes onl-"'There was nothiing said to me by InY f'attier when I got home, as I have no doubt tie lhad already founul out it was like throwing chaff againstthse wind." [Chaff'ag-aiuist the wind! saitd the learned counisel. Y'ou see,gets- tiemien, fromi this expiression what tils family were inclirneI todo They were determined to give every Opposition to this marriage, and I own they, were justified in so doing. The defenidant, however, told them that hc was preparedi to mect suichiorposition. His ex- pression was, that it was as useless for isis Parents to resist his wishies as it would be for thieni to fling cha-ff against the wind, anid to expect that the wivtl, would not blow it back again. If such wras his fan- getage towards his patents, whiat mitet it not hiave been to this- youtsg woman si sall not. preEendl to dtescribe it, gentlemnen I sliall only say that she believedi it ; that, or, his asseve'rations of love, repeated with all the w-armth and eniergy, of passion, sti yieltded up) to bhim her afflections ; and site believedl nis protestations the mnore, because she knew that hiis brothier had mnarried tier fellow-!servant. Gentlemen, the result wag, that.they entered into a mutual pledge to miarry one another ; and that is the foutidation of this action: for whien one partv breaks a pledge of suich a nature, anid the other party keeps it, thepary kepig i isenttle tor.cover from the uth'er, for thE breac of't, acompnsatin indamaes. he letter thlen proceeds1- My dar irl,I sncerly ope ou Illmatke youirself as comfosrt- ableas ossbleutidr te peset cicumtanes;buts'oet mnay resl assued, I hallnevr frsak yo, wich hoe will c6isfort y-ou in the imeof roule.I hpe t se yo ths wek,whichi will be thE greatest Pleasure to me. Rlehard A slton has beatltnsworth yes- terday, atid they arc to strt thiis morninig, therefr I trust you will not be imnprisoned so long as you exo~tet. lWitbet wisbes for youT toture comiiort arit tiappiness, I remain your eve fatful true lover, " P SIVALLOW, Jun." Thien (said Mr. Briougham) came this Postscrtpt-." hope to have the pleasure of calling you wife very soon, svhen I hope all You: troubles wvill be over." The learnedl counsel then continued : The affair went on in thlis manner for somne dine, whien at last the defenidant, af'ter finthing that he could not triumtph ove., the plaintiff's virtue, or recollectinig that hie oghit. not so dis- appoint the wiv shes of his parents, broke off thie connexion whlich lie hadl been abouit to fonsi, Yet even then be onide1 no IMJ~U tation against her chiaracter ; he wrote her a le,ter in whieft tie acknowvledged that tIe was usting her very iat properly, but still declared his intention of leaving her zus he found her, with liis prormise unperfor-med. Ile shouldi read it for, the purpose oh' showing that the defe:.adant was fuilly acquaintedl with the misforture, which she hoad experienced; indeed, It would hbave been a I-ost odio.ms piece of hy'- pocrisy hade he imputed that to her as his reason of bre4kfing off tlieir marriage. Th'le letter began thusta Mi~,ss Saxah Alolloy,-.AIter I saw you at Sheffield yesterday, I lhave weiehed the matter well over, and af'ter having well consideo r. ed every thing, I am fully persuaded of the very gKreat inmpropriety in myv nmarrying you, as it would set all imy fritods against use ," LTba t was a inatter, said the learned counsel, of' which he ought ste have thought, before lie delutded this girl with so many false hopes antiexpetatins:but e gos on-" hichi I ails sure would rmake us away uncmfotabl, I is y itention not to mrarrv units, my rieds re uit ageeale mih lay,whicli I ani sur'e would not e Ste asewit yo. Ihav ihretse etemised.not to deceive you ny otei"-lhsa isa prttyfre conesson,continued ttit leanedcouire, tat e hd dceied er efIe-" but caFdidly to tel you my senitimetit. I muset conesIhv acted very irnpro~ perly towards y-ou before, wvhic savt great rproach to me.",- [So undoubtedy it is, genitlee,at aml glad to have it frota hisowen mouth.i-"- Neverthels,itwud be ikte grea test foll) and madness to run hieadlong inoiunlman by marrying a pr son inferior to mnyself; whichi I arn deterPnined nieve oea Yhad mutch rather remaits utnmarried than do that; but I hope I shall have sufficient sense to guard againist thiat. Ttherefore II hope you will not trouible yousrsIt' aboul.time anid shall be glad to hear of your fu.- ture welfare'and happiness. i remain ala-ayes a well-wisher, " 11- SWALLOW, JUn S. df. will ask youa for some, papers,which I hope you will be k'rnd enough to let hiim have." The learnied Coatisel thien proceeded!:-If tlitey were of'opinion thnt a person), because he hail 8,0001. or 10,0001. in Isis pocket, had a righit to treat a poor, but respectable, young womani in tidis manner, and thien, because he was wealthy, to fob her off withi one shiiling, pay.. ing every attentioil to his ow~n coiiifoits, and none at all to hers,'at the erymomeshewas dmititi tht he had used her very it-npro- perh-ifn sch acas asthe resnt She lould think that nominal danage wold atify ustce,huesholdsay of them tiat they were givng vedic suh a noothr 1 hoest men wouldi give, and such as h cold ot ntiipae t-ou th actetiess whichi the -haid hither.. to sown ii he curs Of he ssiss.ie wouldl show irorm the con,. versations of the defetndani, and itndependently of the letter which lie hadjiuet read to themn, the e-stimnate wvhich the defendant hiad imade of thie injury wliceh he liad d:'ne this girl, and the reparation wvitich he ou,ght to inake hier. When othiers ivere taixinghIiin with the iiapro- pricty of his cetiduct and telling hiin that he ought to maarry this girl, he said, " iNo, iCe uwould no~t marry her, but he thou-'.it that he ought to pay her a large sum,i of mioney." Now lie would advise the jury to take from thse defendant hintself isis own judgment upon his owni conduct. Hei hail nowv opened the whiole case to--themi he. hiad told thiem that the defendlant had promiised to give thie platintiff etalf his forstaue if he did not marry her. It was not to recover that sui,i that this aesiots was brought, bitt to recover suelh a reparation in daimages lot the breachi of the defendant's promise, as the)' thought that hie ought to pay in common honesty andi justice to the plaint'iff: The learned counsel thecn called thie fo)lio ilug witnmes es Vi-s.Asilsford examiined by Ir. BLACwBuaNl.- i ve atGritines- thorpe. I know - Hichiard Swallow, theyounger: be is about 283years of age. I have known biss for twenty years. Ontsite th ofApril last I was with the defendant at his colliery-offlce. The defendant's brotnter was aLso there. Ilis brasther gave the dofendalt a note fromit the plaintiff. Defendant read it He shovied use it; he said there was a certain sum mentiotted in the note, but he could not give it. He asked Mr. G;Ossop, the book-,keeper at his father's colliery, when we met him the next morning. what it would be best to do about this concern,fasd AIr. Glossop told hint that the best thing he could do would be to marry the plaintiff. He said that he wvould not marry her ; but that be would give lher 5001. At that time I think his brother was present. I know the defendant's estate at New-halL I should suppose it worth from 6,0001. to 8,0001. Cross.examined by iUr. SVAIILETT.-I am a builder. Ididh keep an inn, but I gave it up last AMonday. I went with John Swvallow part of the way to Rothmerham, to help li'm to get married to. his fa. tlier's maid. Neither of them lived in that parish. John Swallow sometimes drank at my house. I cannot exactly sav whether he was in the babit of drinking excessively. LIe ncver slept at ny vhouse before hiis narriage: lie hias since. His tended wif alled at my house just as she was geing to 'n married, MIr BRoTsHAst--Wlhat passed betwoen the witness and Ri- chard Swallow and his wife cannot be evidence against the p:aintiff. The witncSs continued.-John Swallow never told tne that his fit. ther was ignorant of his siiarriage. I know that he was refused alioence atSliefdield. I let tlienm a cottageon their marriage. On reading the note I nientioned just now, 1 lcarned.that this innocent girl aslted 4,0001. Of tle defn;dant, nd sai:l that she would give him back her writings oin no other condition. It appeared from the note, that she had been the defendaznt on the motnig of' that day. At this time the de- fendaiit's brother, John Swallow, wan sving in my house. Defnd- ant's brother was married on the last Saturdal in Marchli and this conversation was held on the 6th of ApriL P.ichard Swallow, the defendant, has-not to my kniowietre passed in the neighbothrhood as a young man of weak intellect 1 do not consider himt as such. -He is not so clever int he collierv business as his brother,' biat he - is superior t him inm the farming line. I do isot tiik he has acted Very cleverly in gizving this letter to this vtegwmn Ihe thatat he tme ms nte as ut into his hatid2. that plaintiff' Tzs irt the service of defendant's lather. I asked hiim why he bad pei his writings into the hands or this young woman. I dd otel him he was fool for doing so, thoughl I thought in id notn mid thlat lie was one. I told -1dm not o ieh rayIL itwns rntot muchi. John Swallow told him mth be ipght ,s lliv'eiere, but did noteay, heitheer did bis wife say at&pb o mshgr writn. eOiudbylA a 11sir4rnow II-Swall6wis hand- wrtn.Those three notes are writtert by him. 'He massnged his own farm,~ wvhich is~of. considerable mextent,-for three or foay years. He has now let it. He has managed the-collierY eversae ie ,, ofage I canot peak to his age withina d year or two; bimt I be~- lieve he is 26 or 127. He. still has the management oftecolry It is a month or t wo since I saw hitt Od r Swalois csolliery any usiess e hs reire : le :Osli the liwnallo~~, Hisi La-i thrrymadtress bertfhis proetrty. hcasn'th sayowhethierhe asoiates, with the farmers ofrthe neighbourhood . I think nor. I did ritc per. ,suade R. Swallowv to marry theplaintifL- MVrs. MAarthra Swallow, examined by Mlr. BlloUGHA3LI am wvife to the defendant's brother. I wat mnarried on the 27thl of Mlarch last; I had lived before in his father's famiuly. I knew Sarah lol1.. lov when she lived there. She came there about five Weksate did. I went io June, 9, 1823. I have seen her anid e. Swallow eo cetlier frequently. They were often alon oehrwia P- s u tor-e I have seen themn go Out together wit onetonetbody elsbeint,gin themi coman.It was about the latter end of thfe year that this intimacy whch r peak of commenced between them. I recollect that Ionc, heard defendant prormie to isiarry plaintiff after I wa rmaried. That was at MIr. Ashiord's, o h Sn a t'raj.I a a. riedon the 27thof,Mlarch. olanti Ie-wndmar that he would rn ~ had been saingt himi, in mny pre&ence, tPreohe wt.ldHen repl,ied, that he never would. She said tohi,ta li nce 'ke would persusde hm noto aehe;h s l e woulde not b y hm;hewul hr her e saild mih i f e ifhVi e ar e. H lo'ished he liig aper dic nolar e.H adta edid ntwant at ir.Asfor'sNobody was presn at that ol Mr. 1It Swallew~, Sagab X,ol11Y, the- Plintf' r hiusband. We all entu to drink tea at in itner' csrveabtonu in the evening. I hvuners'tood that Sarah hadarsau6, cO child-before sheestate rintoold Mr. Swallow's famfly. heodm so herself. I hiad a conversation about'it with defendan ttem. ter end( of the ea,lie askedtrueifthaitSahhdhd a cnild and i' tld him she had. lt1e retplid hthesol o thinik t'he worse of her for it, if she conductedere'welheft. Croass-examnined by Air. SCAaLETT.-I came to Mlr.Swlo' inpl h-eftI ai nea~rly 2-ty ears of a~ now.lIhdbeni two plaes efoe.I was urermaid in alo' os.Jddnot win the affections of' my husband so soon a isSrhwi tile affections oftdefendant. She was thefirst to apiat. heidnot tell mei of it, but I found it out myself. I odhrta h had clearly caught him. That circumstmance did noPt pt it into my head to boausband..hunting too. The plaintiff came with me ito. Yok.heas te liousemaid in the fantiilv. She first told m i hier little mnisfortune a few days after' she came. shme tol me rt was the butler who c'aused it-.she did not know at the time that he was a maried man. Shie toldi me that she left Sir GI. Sitwell' family oni accunt or it. I didl not tell my mistress of the isrt wheni I rouind that Mtr. Richard ,s Isweet on Sarah. I never mentioned my ownlve4iir :.r 'to his father or mnother. I m-entionied themn to S;atan Wsnd IRichiard. I left my -service to be married. I left on Thursda,. and was married on Saturckay. The clergyman refuised us a liceneec at Shieffield, becauise we wished to be married priv-ately, and hle did not wih to offend old Air. Swralow. We then wenit"to Robthriiatn beor we went there, we went to Ecclesifield-we coulzd nort4, licence there. We tye l night at Branrtsfield. Air. AA3 er as with us. The plaintiff' left her service the day after our marriage. Old Mlr. Swallowy turnea her away, because he thought that she keoformarriage and had not told him of it. She told me that Ithle def'endant gave her his writings for satfe-kee-ping in February. IShe showed me sonse timie after a written promise of man-arraeSfie didl not sav that -he had got h;m secure, and lie niuts- eithrmar her or forfeit allI his prOnrlrty if be refused. I did no ret awiti promise from John. I did 'norask for one. Defiendanttoldrnmethat he had given her this prom~ise withiout a solicitatien; on her part. I never sal mev cap at m-y bruther-in-law.-He was not the first object of my -affecrions. 1 do not think himi a ninny. John wa_s sober whlen h., mrarried me. I have let him in late of' ai eveninz, between II rid 12 o'clock at night, whenr the family wvere in bed. John swallow (lid -lot know till a"tcrrihis marriage that plaintiff had had a Child. Pl'aintiff showed me the letters v'rhich she had receiv-ed from the de.- fendant RicIialrd. I tolti her of my love-affazir wvithi John, anti she told me ofther love-aflair wvith Richiard. Wie didl not, tell them either to my miaster or mis russ. I did nat ad ijasefedn to keep j promi..e to plaintiff. )fr. Parker, defendant's uncle, is a inagistii ete, and a sian of great fortunle. Re..exatnined...y h lusbandi is not here ; he has recently mnet with ani accident; he has broehiace.Iews2 easod las Mach.He vesatNew-hall wiith -his father and miother. li Ihas the management of the collierv, hut hiis father looks over hintr a little. Phititiff is j ust 21 veaers of age: -she is r.ot ov-er and abo"ve good-looking. I has's seen handsomer girls. The promise of marr*ae was then put in, anid also th.e two letters to which ll.r. Brougham .iad referred in thte course of l'ls speecs, Thle promiise of marriage put in was as followvs I, Richard Swallow, juni.. of Newhall, near Sheffield, de here. hy promise to miarry, Sarah Molloy, or other%v.i~ forfeit all my Pro-. perty, in ease I should refuse to merry rthe said Sarah MUolloy." .Mr. SCAaRLETT then addressed the jury for the defendant. He commneFiced hi-, observatiensby remaring that one pare of this cas,e ha enleft ipretbhslearniedf?riced. He was surprised that his learned friend had not wooedA up the singulaar drama which he had just been acting bef'ore their e vec tby a scenie which was sel.. dozn omitted in such cases, and which gienerally consisted of the tears ancti misery of the deterted lady. HIis learnitl friend had ex- h austed atll his pathos in telling them. that this young womian had been betravel3, but not dishonoured , i-v the deffendant-thrat all her affections fiad beeni witl,eredehIat all her hopes had been frustr-ated, and that all her propects in life had been blighted i'v the falseheart'.. edness of the defendant. He had not, however, told th-emit huw she had deported hersellfaince she carme to York, whcre it "was in ev',- dence -that she nl,w was with her witnecsses, thiough he might ha. shown, if he copuld, that she was at present so dejfected tha se oud not be pre'ileI on to show hier ~ace in the courL. at exhibit to the Jury tiiTat beauty which hadl produceni so dtep an ini.. pression, not only on the defendant. but alwoon Sir G. Sitwell'sbuttler. His leamel friend, in hiis addres~s to them. liad observed, thai s-be defe-ndant deserveid to hr piunished for his guile, if he had acte-d to.. wvards the plaintift deceitfully, or for his folly-, if he had acted idol.. ishly towards her or his ow'n family-. The question of gnuii, tc- thouglr, was a quettion whic:h, ub'ove all otihers, it becamie hiis le-arned friend to shunk. For had his client acted without any ap-. pearance of guile? Ile did not knaow what their opinion mnight be upon that gubject, but he kneNvwhvta it ought to be. Let thieM loD at all the circuimstances of' Lhis case. The plaintiff' camne to live with the defendant's faLther u-sa hired servant, in the monthi of June, anrd before the ensd of the v'ear she had the good luck to captivate tlie elde-st son of tke family, and the heir of its possessions. If she had been a woman without guile, if' she batd been an innocent vruu woman, if'she had had pure'thoughtts and good intentions, the firat thiing that she would h-ave done wvould liave been to go to bet mis-. tress and inform her of her ton's unfortunate passion, Instead of' doing tliis, she comimunicated only with her Melotv-servart..she ace 1told by her that she had miade at good catch, and the result wais that itisired the other with a desire to captivate the other son, in which site had, unfortunately, for ithe family. pr(cved bet too sue.. Iceasful. Wi-at ! could they believ-e that the plaintiff was a woman without guile, whien they recollected the mianuter it wvhichi that written promise o-f marrixage most have bDeeni obtained fromn the daefedtant, whenrt tey recoillected that she had got possession of all his papers, and thtat slhe had refused to ive tt-sin up for a lees sum than 4.OOL ? Were not these damniing facts, proiring beyond dispute thiat the plaintiff was most conversant with all thesie princi?Le-s, which whien thev inhabited a female bosomi, rendlered liar the miost deccritful and dangerous,of'all (jod's creatures? IBut this was not allthe charre which he had to makce against. the ulaintiff.Ilie ConLended that there liad been a conspiracy, between the plaintiff, the present -rs. Zslartha Swallow, and Alr. A~shford. to inveigle the sons of Alr. Swallow into most degrading miarriages. Thiis weas evident even from thec letters which had been put it oti behialf of the plaintiff. Itx those letters she said that ishe would not give up the def'endant's papers, which he coul-d never have voluntarily surrendered to her, 'but which shae must have extorted front himn be artifice. fitr a lss surn. thati 40001. ? That uroved hier innocence...tltat proved her wish to mnarry the man of her affections, no, it could not be mnoney thtat I he wanted;- she was too wretce olo~frary ~ thing except to be restored to the man of herthd liat. ouldngtforbee tttoete cas e ?Certainly nor-.--it was quite hevibelieve that tol be rthe I ed was money, money, money. Ile called their- attention to -he v ery costive manner'in whlich the plaintiff`s witnesses lied iwithfheld thecir opinions with regard to the itoteliectual powers of tile defendant. One of thiem, however, had said..Y I did not tell him thiat he was a fool for giving the piaintiff his papers; but uutloubtedly I thouiglt him, one." Now the truth was, that tihe young m-an wais of' weak intellect, and had !allen an ease' prey to the arts of a very artful and desigmtig y-oung woman. Did they want any bette pros;f of it titan his deelaratian upon hearing of hier laintog i-ta a bastad child, that he should not tltink the worse of' her for thaL, if slat Con. ducted hierself decently in future ? If they were of the. sam opinion, they would undoubttedly act uPon it i estim ating their damages; but if they were of a different opinion, they would shate itibv find- iga verdict, for the defendant. " f she Conducted herSel wI inreafrer`..Wh3 there was the rub Iif once a female slipperd, she never did conduct heirself well afterwards. He submnitted to the jury that the def'endant ini this case was not of cotupetent in- tellect to inake a promuise. If he had made a promise, what was it ?- To give her half' Itis fortune, it lie did not miarry hler. WkOald they by their verdict give damages to any titilng like that araour, C-ertainly not ; thec suipposition was too absurd to be entertaitlea-w momenLt. There was in law a bargain that was called '" a-cathing bargain," and which wams consiidered so frauduhlent that it too&4j.ars he enforced. T'he present contract was a bargin of that nature, if ever conitract was. The plaintiff ouglht net, thrfoe1o3ee Ve o benefit f'rom the bargain into wliich shae had at edhi wee- anu toolish young gentleman, and the verdit ough. to be for the defendant. He viewed the plaintiff's conduct in no other light than the attemnpt of an artftl womnan to allure a weak young man into marriage, the failure of which h-d excited no more afflictiowin her noinh than it iad in the i:n3d ofanyofshejury. Hedeserrved, tbere. fore, no datiniges, and he trusted that she would eccive none at their hands. There had been no tender affections blasted, there had been no delcate sensibilities violated, Slie bad not beeh awni4 by the loss of any society on the part of the 34unjg man forcwhoae embraces sihe so eagerly panted. H --trasted thas their verdict of that day would rot only disappoint her explecaations., but also the tations of her attorney, by being returned in favour of thfe diteendnt. itr, Justice BAYLEY, in summsiisgup the evidenee, told the jury that the question of damages was cntirely for their eonsideratbio4 and that it would be uueonstitutional for him to sav any thinggLu to the anmount of tbem. He would, however, point out to the rtlid considerations which they ouglit to punrsue in estimating themn; Tbe learned Judge did so at some length, but rvant of time psevertt us. from reporting them.-Verdict for theplaintif-Danages QOL S't7MMR1? ASJRS2BS. YORK, FRtIDAY, AaUGUST 6-.