THE ASSIZES.

At Oxford, on the 13th current, John Green was convicted of horse-steals ing, and sentence of death was recorded. It appeared that lie was one of the last surviving members of a gang of horse-stealers, who have long been formidable to the magistracy and inhabitants of the Midland and Southern counties. He has, however, turned approver ; and in this capacity he has contrived to render himself useful during the present Assizes. tinder these circumstances, hopes were held out that the extreme pdnishment of the law would not be carried into execution.

On the following day, a young man named Harrison, was charged with a violent outrage on the person of Maria Powell, a girl of nineteen. The evi- dence for the prosecution was nearly as conclusive as any evidence could be ; but. in favour of the prisoner something like an alibi was made out. In this conflict of testimony, the Jury found that the crime had been committed, but that Harrison was not the person. The Judge decidedly approved of this remarkable verdict, under the peculiar circumstances of the case.

A civil case of a singular nature was tried at the Oxford circuit. The plaintiff was Mr. Daniel, a gentleman of the law, and the defendant a Mr. Robertson, son of a boarding-house-keeper in Gloucester. The plaintiff and his family had resided in Gloucester for some time last year ; but in the month of December Mr. Daniel was obliged to leave that city for the conti- nent; and before his return about the latter end of that month, Miss Eliza Eugenia Daniel, his daughter, had formed an intimacy with the defendant, a fine, handsome young moan, of whom the father knew not even the name ; the consequence of which was an elopement to Bristol, where they were mar- ried by banns. The young lady immediately returned to her father's house; but the marriage having been discovered by a friend of the family, she avowed all that had taken place. The defendant then came forward, claimed her as his wife, and carried her to a cottage near Cardiff, where they continued to reside until her death, which followed soon after. In the meantime, the plaintiff; though offended at the connexion which his daughter had made, expressed no angry feeling towards her, but on the contrary, in a letter which he addressed to her under the title of " Mrs. James Robertson," he expresses himself thus : " By the permission of Heaven I am come to see you again in this teansitory world. I do not approach with any other feel- ings than those which nature and the mercies of Heaven towards myself in- spire. Notwithstanding this declaration, which is true, I cannot at present consent to an interview with your husband. Vhat good conduct towards yourself, &c. may in time bffeet, if I should live much longer, is a subject rather of wish, than of immediate anticipation." Another letter addressed in the same way, concludes " with best wishes to you and yours." lii March Mrs.Robertson became ill. Her father hastened to her dying couch, and for some days sat at Mr. Robertson's table on friendly terms. On her death, Mr. Robertson voluntarily offered to Mr. Daniel the keys of the de- positories which contained the trinkets belonging to his daughter ; but when that gentleman proposed to place a plate upon the lid of his daughter's coffin, describing her as the daughter of Edward and Mary Daniel, without any allusion to her being the wife of the defendant, the defendant (according to the statement of Mr. Daniel's counsel) immediately made a demand of 300/. upon the plaintiff; and when it was resisted, lie refused to give up any of the articles contained in the boxes, or even to allow the body to be removed, although the plaintiff had offered to pay the expenses of the funeral. The defendant was thus left to bury his wife in any manner he thought best. Mr. Daniel now appealed to a jury, under the form of an action of troves, to have the marriage set aside, and the articles restored to him which the de- fendant retained under the assumed name of husband. The ground out which the father sought to establish the nullity of his daughter's marriage, was that the banns were published, not in the names of " Janice Robertson and Eliza Eugenia Daniel," but between James Robertson and " Eliza Da- niels." The marriage was witnessed by one of the deceased lady's brothers, who wrote his natne with an s; but the misnomer he attributed to the con- fusion of the moment, as he had never done it before or since. It was shown by the overseer of the poor of the parish, and by several tradesmen, that the name was frequently spelt Daniels without any fault being found. The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff; who thus obtains possession of his daughter's trinkets, and affixes a stigma on her memory that the grave cannot cover.

At the Norwich Assizes, Mr. Costerton, a respectable merchant and water- bailiff in Great Yarmouth, brought an action against Mr. Yetts, also a mer- chant, for certain defamatory and slanderous words which he had spoken against the plaintiff. Both parties enjoyed the friendship of a lady named. Hope ; and it was to her that the defendant first broached his slanders. Mr. Yetts told her that the plaintiff was a peculator and a delinquent, and that he could prove it ; and gave her particular directions to repeat the imputa- tion to Captain Manby, and farther, to say to the captain that he would show that the plaintiff was unworthy of his friendship or society. The imputatiori was repeated, as desired, to the gallant captain, and by him to die plaintiff: The defendant, so far from retracting his words, entered a plea of justifica- tion. He however failed in his evidence ; and the jury gave a verdict against him—damages, 73/.

At the Western Assizes, held at Wells, a man was charged with having a horse in his possession, knowing the same to have been stolen. One of the principal witnesses was the thief Green, whose conviction is already men- tioned, and who, it appeared, had actually stolen the horse himselt: The Judge refused to take the evidence of such a polluted wretch, and directed the prisoner to be acquitted.

A boy, aged only fifteen, but who had twice before been convicted of felony, was now convicted of having stolen various household articles, and. sentenced to be transported for lite. His mother is a very abandoned wo- man ; and such has been the force of her wicked example, that, of four sons, three have been condemned to perpetual banishment.

Two men were convicted, on separate charges, of highway robbery in the neighbourhood of Bath ; one of the robberies was committed on the person of a lady. The Judge remarked, that, in consequence of the frequency of crimes of this kind at Bath, which rendered it dangerous fur ladies to walk in the neighbourhood, unless protected by a friend, he should certainly en- force the law to its fullest extent against the offenders.

A woman was arraigned for havitag murdered her infant child, by dashing • its head against a bed-post in the gaol of Shepton Mallet, where she had been confined on a charge of theft. The facts of the murder were clearly made out ; but it also appeared that the unhappy mother was in a high state of mental derangement ; and she was acquitted on that ground, but ordered to be detained.

At Gloucester, on the 18th, John Hunt was tried for the violation of Ruth Phelps, an idiot girl, aged twenty-two. Such is the imbecile state of the prosecutrix, that she can neither dress nor undress herself, though she can help herself to her victuals ; she can say " yes" or " no". when asked a question, but she is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or between summer and winter ; she sometimes laughs, but never el-ice; it appeared, however, that she was accessible to the feeling of pain or pleasure, as she had been known to complain when she was ill-used by boys. The girl was in court, and presented a sad spectacle of idiotism. Baron Vaughita remarked, that, as the injured female was susceptible of pain and pleasure, though otherwise very imbecile, she was not such a one as the law considered an idiot. As there was no evidence of the slightest resistance on her part, the Jury were directed to acquit the prisoner. He was before tried, along with two others, fora similar offence.

A respectable-looking man, named Flower, was charged with having two pigs in his possession, knowing them to be stolen. The proprietor of the pigs said, that on the evening of the 22d May, they were safe; but next MOM. ing they were gone, though the fastenings of the sty remained the They were traced tu within a short distance of the prisoner's house. The proprietor's wife went to the prisoner's slaughter-house, and there saw the

carcases of two pigs, which, though a good deal mutilated about the head and ears, she had, from a mark on the tail of one of them which had been eaten by vermin, little difficulty in identifying as her husband's. The husband was positive the pigs were his. The prisoner, on his way to the magistrate, said, " Curse thee, thou canst not swear to the rings in the noses." The prisoner had cut off the noses of the pigs. Verdict, guilty ; sentence, transportation for seven years.

William Werret was charged with horse-stealing,. The stolen horse was traced by the owner to a distance of nearly eighty miles, where he found it and another horse •grazing in a lane. The prisoner was in a public-house when the alarm was given, but made his escape. Ile was afterwards seized by a constable, on which he said, "God Almighty bless you, do not take me, it cannot do you any good." In the scuffle, the prisoner hit through the con- stable's thumb ; they fell on the ground, when the prisoner bit the constable's side twice, and took a "lump of flesh " out each time. In a subsequent con- versation, the prisoner admitted that he had the stolen horses in his posses- sion; that he knew he must cross the water for the offence; but that he would be content if he could but escape the " narrow bridge." The Jury

found the prisoner guilty. Baron Vaughan, when directing judgment of death to be recorded, desired Werret to understand that it was (ally the aim-cure tui a witness described as material for his defence, which preyented him from sending the prisoner to that ‘' narrow bridge " which he had anticipated and feared. The prisoner is an old offender. His wife, the mother of five children, pleaded for a mitigation of the sentence. The Judge replied that her husband had been mercifully dealt with.

Jane Walker was sentenced to a short period of imprisonment for the theft of a pound of bacon. The prosecutor's wife saw her with the bacon in her basket, charged her with the theft, and had her taken into custody. The thief begged for mercy for the sake of her babe, which she had in her arms. The woman kindly listened to her appeal; but the prisoner no sooner regained her liberty, than she employed an attorney to threaten proceedings for false im- prisonment. In self-defence, therefore, the prosecutor brought her to trial.

At these Assizes, (Gloucester) William Henry Alpin was tried by indict ment for libel, the circumstances of which were stated by counsel as follows. The prosecutor was Mr. Samuel Young Griffith, the proprietor of the Chelten- ham Chronicle ; and the defendant had been his assistant, but he had with- drawn himself, threatening revenge because an advance of salary had been refused. The prosecutor had formerly been employed as the secretary of a Mr. Webb, a man of eccentric habits, who went about through the country seeking for objects of distress whom he might relieve. The libel was con. tamed in a pamphlet puldished by the defendant soon after he withdrew from the paper, entitled " The Life and Adventures of James Webb, the noted Philanthropist ; together with the birth, parentage, education, and life of his equally notorious secretary, detailing their most extraordinary adventures at different places, collected from the manuscripts of the late Miles Watkins." This production he caused to be printed in London ; and he gave directions for the circulation of it among the booksellers in Cheltenham, and adopted all the usual means to make it public, and ensure its extensive circulation ; a copy of it had even been sent to Mr. Griffith's father-in-law. The counsel for the prosecution read some of the many libels which this production con- tained, and explained them to the jury. The prosecutor's name was Samuel Young Griffith. In the libel lie was described as "Young Zamiel Gripeall." Some of the passages of the pamphlet gave a most odious description of the person of the prosecutor, and ascribed to him from his earliest age, cunning, cruelty, dishonesty, selfishness, and the most odious propensities which degrade human nature. He was represented to have acknowledged, '. that he had never placed before Mr. Webb one genuine petition or one r cal case of distress, but that, as beggars hired children to extort compassion, so he had been in the constant habit of hiring petitioners, at a small sum, to appear round the door of Mr. Webb, and that whenever a case of real dis- tress was forced upon. him, he had frequently given a pound or two out of his pocket, for which lie had received 100/. from Mr. Webb ; and that where 50/. had been given, he had appropriated to himself 500/." The evi- dence of printing and publication having been given, Mr. Griffith was sub- jected to a rigid but unavailing cross-examination as to various circumstances which were alleged to haVe occurred while he was in the service of Mr. Webb. No defence was attempted; and the jury found the defendant Guilty. It appeared that Mr. Griffith had, at the last assizes, brought an action against a Mr. Gardner in Gloucester, for circulating this book ; but it was compounded, Mr. Gardner submitting to a verdict of 1000/. damages, to make an apology, and say he was exceedingly sorry he had ever mixed him- self up in such a villainous transaction.

John Highfield, who was found guilty of forging a deed at the last assizes for Staffordshire, was executed on the 16th, in front of the county gaol. Up to the latest moment he denied his guilt, declaring that the deed was a

true one. Since his condemnation, his wife, the son who is at large, and several of his daughters, had interviews with him. At one of these inter- views, one of the daughters, alluding to the claim of the executioner on the clothes of a criminal, gave this filial advice—" Father, if I was you, when I went to be hanged, Fd pull off all my clothes except my breeches, and go up naked." On Friday, his elder brother, William High held, who was con- victed with him, and is to be transported, as also his three sons who are in prison, were suffered to have an interview with him : with the exception of one of the sons, they manifested little or no feeling. The malefactor pre- pared the following curious document as a dying speech.

" Aug. 11, 1828.—It is my last dying confession before I die, for them that swore false against me at my trial in 1528, at Stafford. I lost my life for that. Young Seekson, of Stafford ; John Dent, of Hanley; Charles Brown, of Millmeese ; W. Lockley, of Lockley-wood ; John Batleston, of Drayton ; George Vernon, of Stowe; Thomas Manley, of Newcastle, a bum-bailiff; Elizabeth Hodson, Thomas Hulmly, of Croxton ; James Hawley, John Hawley, Joseph Hawley, Ann Hawley, of Mill- ineese. John Hawley cannot write none. James Hawley writes very bad ; and the first three years James Hawley always said it was his father's writing. They filled his belly with gin and ale every day ; he turned his mind ; and I lost my life wrong in Stafford, on August 16. I wrote this on the 11th August, 1828. John Highfield, of Bownes, in parish Standon, county of Stafford, and, I desire you will put it in the Newspaper of Stafford, and as all right as this is wrote. They all talking about the last deed, and they swore false about it ; as good a deed as ever was made by Joseph NVard, of Millmeese; John Highfield, of Rowns, both in the county of Stafford. I took James Pearson, of Burslem, a copy, to make in a large sheet of paper, and he wrote it out of the last deed. This John Highfield is about 56 years of age, and stands two yards high ; very lusty man as any in the county ; very clever and stout in anything, and so you will find him to die. So no more at present from me. What if I had 2k) deeds made It was not signed by Ward nor no man else 5—that was my loss for being a silly man. I went to William Lockley three times, and he refused to make it ; and, as many times I went, he said his master was in London, and he durst not make it without orders by him. But the will is forged by William Lockley and Joseph Wailars. Mr. Halse never signed it ; Lock- ley made it and signed it himself, and put Mr. Ward in the parlour. The will is forged by Locides, in 1817. That is wrong—I knew it."

Highfield wrote two or three other papers for the direction of his friends, principally as to how he desired to be buried: he was to be taken to the church in a waggon, and he desired a cart-load of slates from a particular quarry to be laid over him.

At the Bristol Assizes, on the 20th, Mr. James Acland, editor of the Bris- Julian, was indicted for the publication of four libels, in successive numbers of that paper, against some of the Corporation of Bristol. We give a sample

of two of them. The first, libel was part of a fictitious process, in which the Mayor of Bristol is supposed to be on his trial in his character as a ma- gistrate and a man, before Chief Justite Equity, and a jury. The deliver- ance of the jury was—that the Mayor of Bristol "is ignorant of the law without knowing it ; perverse in judgment without owning it; a partisan against the cause of right and of justice, and, therefore, incompetent duly to discharge the duties of a magistrate ;" 2dly, "That Gabriel Goldney merits the censure and contempt of his fellow-citizens, for lending his aid to a body already too powerful—for relinquishing his proper sphere of utility and citizenship for the more brilliant but more dangerous course of corporate dishonour, and magisterial infamy." The second libel professed to give an analysis of the character of the Magistrates in this form.

Magistrates. Character. Justificatory Observations.

Gabriel Goldney, Esq Wicked. Opposed to the people—seeking the de-

struction of their rights.

Thomas Daniel, Esq. Unfaithful. .... In misapplying the talents intrusted to

his care.

Sir R. Vaughan, lint. Wicked... .. .... Aiding in the subversion of popular pri- vileges. William Fripp, Esq..... . Unfortunate.. ... As the father of an unjust Magistrate. John Haythorne, Esq Worthy The friend of the people—a just judge.

Henry Brooke, Esq Weak. 1. Not daring to be for us — therefore

James Fowler, Esq Weak. ) 1. against us.

W. Flipp, jun. Esq. Vicious. ..... The unjust advocate of private trial in

a free country. G. Hillhouse, Esq 'Wicked... ...... One of the subverters of public rights. A. Hillhouse, Esq Weak. 5 Not daring to be for us—therefore J. George, Esq.... ....... Weak. ) t against us. John Barrow, Esq..... ..... . On his probation.

• The only evidence adduced was that of publication. An attempt was made by the defendant to chew that his copies of them could not be received in evidence, as they wanted the stamp required by law ; but Mr. Justice Park overruled the objection. Mr. Acland, who conducted his own case, complained of the constitution of the special jury, some of whom were either members of the Corporation of Bristol, or in some way related to members of the corporate body. He endeavoured to justify the libels. In particular, he asserted that the decay of trade in Bristol, and the inferiority of that city to Liverpool, were the consequence of the taxes levied in Bristol by the corporation upon such articles which

the corporation of Liverpool left perfectly free. The prosecution, he said, would have been abandoned on his making an apology for what he had written; but his answer to this amicable proposal wa$, that the co2poration should pay 500/. to the Bristol Infirmary, and beg Pardim of the public for their misconduct in the administration of their offices and of the funds of the corporation ! The jury found the defendant guilty.

At the Appleby assizes, an ill-looking fellow named Hornby, was indicted for having broken out of the prison of Appleby while undergoing a sentence of imprisonment. One evening, after the gaoler undid the door which led to their cells, the prisoner and two others set upon him, flung him into a cell, took the key from him, and shut him up. They then made to the front gate, made use of the key to gain egress, and eventually the prisoner escaped, but was taken again next morning. One of his companions escaped also. The other was caught before he left the prison. The prisoner, and John Wales, one of his partners in the escape, were found guilty, and both sen- tenced to be transported for life. The third prisoner had been already sent out of the country. Jane Chonley, a young woman, was arraigned on the coroner's inquisition, for the murder of her bastard child at Kendal. The death was alleged to have been caused by smothering the infant with a blanket, but the proofs of guilt against the mother were far from conclusive. The grand jury ignored a bill of indictment for murder. Mr. Courtenay, upon the prisoner's arraign-

ment, took a successful objection to the inquisition. It assumed the death to have been occasioned by a certain flannel and "other means," and throughout referred to the " said " means. This was informal and uncertain. Mr. Baron Hullock held the objection valid. "The sin of these inquisi- tions," his Lordship observed, " was the great pains which were taken with them : if coroners were less recondite, they might be more correct."

The present assizes have been remarkably signalized by convictions for atrocious murder.—At Maidstone, 1; Exeter, 1; Lancaster, 1; Shrewsbury, 5; Buckingham, 2; Bu my St. Edmund's, 1.

At the Roscommon assizes, oil the 24th ultimo, some men were placed on their trial for the murder of Mr. Cox. The jury was composed of eight protestants and four catholics. When they were enclosed, the protestants were unanimous as to the guilt of the prisoners ; but the catholics were equally well convinced of their innocence, and hence the trial was rendered null, and the prisoners escaped. The cathodes' made the return of the ac- cused persons to Roscommon, the occasion of rather an indecorous triumph.

At the Clonmel Assizes, on the 9th, Hall, an innkeeper, brought an action against Graham, a toper, to recover the price of certain quantities of punch which he had swallowed at sundry times. Sir John Falstaff's achievements in sack were nothing to Graham's doings in diluted whisky, for the bill, with one or two exceptions, contained nothing hot" punch, punch, punch," from beginning to end, to the number of three hundred tumblers. To defeat the publican's claim, it was contended, that he could not recover for small quantities of spirits sold upon credit ; on the other hand, it was maintained, that punch was not spirits, insomuch as it required the accessaries of water, sugar, and lemon to constitute the beverage. The Judge inclined to the former view of the case, and the claim for the punch was dismissed.