Culprit.

Crime. Punishment. Pulling Mr. Plank's • spectacles off his I A drunken Irishman { Three months'

imprisonment.

nose... DD • • • •

Having two outside passengers more than I

• Windsor coach driver 1101. fine. licensed . . . . j e. Beating a sailor boy, with a thick rope, An East Country ship 51, fine. for a quarter of on hour, until he was

all but dead.. contain.

The nice proportion in which, as the offence rises in enormity and the criminal in respectability, the punishment diminishes in amount, i makes the above examples as instructive as any we have for a long time past noticed.

• The head Officer of Marlborough Street Police Office.

Lame GRESLEY'S JEWELS.—Kennedy, Quin, and Dunworth, who have been in custody for several weeks, charged on suspicion of having been concerned in the robbery of Lady Gresley's jewels on the 28th of April last, underwent a final examination on Wednesday, at Hatton Garden Office, and were fully committed to Newgate for trial.

THREATENING A Baanisran:Mr. D. Loveday, of Connaught Terrace, Edgeware Road, was held to bail on Tuesday at Bow Street, himself in 2001. and two sureties in 100/. each, in consequence of having sent a threatening letter to Sir Edward Sugden, for some professional liberties which the learned gentleman had taken in a Chancery suit in which Mr. Loveday was a litigant.

UNJUSTIFIED REPORT.—At the Salop Assizes, the case Mountney v. Watton was tried. It was an action for a libel inserted in the Shrews- bury Chronicle, of which the defendant is printer and proprietor. It would appear, that in 1828, the plaintiff was apprehended on a charge of horse-stealing; but being taken before a magistrate, the evidence did not warrant his committal for trial, and he was discharged. In the Shrewsbury Chronicle was inserted an account of his apprehension. From any thing that appeared on the trial, we do not gather that the paragraph contained any false representation ; but Mr. Justice Patteson told the Jury, that, as the defendant had not justified the paragraph, they must believe that he had not the means of doing it, and that there- fore the libel was not founded on fact. Under this direction, the Jury, after much hesitation, gave the plaintiff a verdict, with one farthing damages. This verdict saddles the defendant with the costs ; which

seems to have been the object. •

ARSON.—Mr. Gower, whose case was described at the time of his com- mittal, was tried at Croydon on Tuesday. The direct evidence against him consisted solely of that given by a fellow named Borer, who told a long story about seeing Mr. Gower get out at the window of the house (Portly Farm, Catterham, Surry), on the 2nd August last, with a pipe in his hand, and proceed to the thrashing-machine; to the thatch of which he set fire with the bowl of the pipe, and having done so, again got in at the window at which he had come out. Borer, it was admitted, went home, leaving the thrashing-machine shed burning; of which lie mentioned not a word to any one ; and when he was told of it next day, he expressed very great surprise. Borer was proved to be a person of infamous character, a common thief, and employed in stealing wood from Mr. Gower at the very time when he pretended to have seen him set fire to the barn. It appeared that there were some Irish labourers sleeping in the barn at the time ' • and a suspicion was entertained by Mr. Gower, that one of them, who smoked, had set fire to the barn Two days after the fire, he made Borer search among the ruins, to see g there were any remains of a tobacco-pipe ; and Borer pretended to find a broken one, the bowl of which was, however, clean, and the pieces did

not fit each other. A person who dept in the farm-Luse, on the night in question, was awake at the time the flames first broke out, and gave the alarm ; he heard no previous noise. Some collateral circumstances —such as turning out the horses on the previous night—were satisfac-

torily explained by witnesses, who proved that it was necessary, and that, moreover, Mr. Gower was not even aware that it had been done. But the strongest part of the exculpatory proof was the fact, that Mr. Gower was a bankrupt at the time—that he was acting as servant to the trustees, and had every imaginable interest in the preservation, and none in the destruction of the property. Mr. Gower put in a written defence, in which he described the evidence of Borer as "a wicked in- vention, with a view to obtain the reward which had been offered, and unsupported by the testimony of any other witness." He explained the loss he had sustained by the calamity, and complained of the treatment of the Magistrates at Catterham, before whom he was examined on this charge, and committed for trial. He had been four months, he said, in gaol on a capital charge, made by a man who was a convicted felon, and had been a thief between twenty and thirty years—who admitted he had robbed him on the night in question. The Magistrates refused to allow him to bring witnesses before them to refute so infamous a charge. Ile asked them only for a day; but they could not conveniently spare time to attend another examination, and he was sent off to a gaol "upon evidence on which no rational being would hang a dog."—We do not, by the by, admire this concluding argument, if by dog be meant any dog. We believe that the evidence required by a country magistrate for the conviction of a dog of respectability, unless where the charge was for poaching, would be much stronger—and not improperly so, seeing that a dog cannot plead for itself—than for the conviction of an unqualified Christian. Mr. Gower offered the most ample testimony as to his character. The Jury did not stop to hear them out, but delivered an instant verdict of acquittal. The acquittal was received by the crowd outside with three tremendous cheers. Mr. Justice Gazelee fully con- curred in the verdict, and expressed his surprise that the Grand Jury could find a bill on such evidence. It was stated, that of the Grand Jury, seven were for a true bill, and five against, and that the commit- ting magistrates formed part of the seven ! MURDER AT COVENTRY.---OH Tuesday, Mary Ann Higgins, a young woman aged nineteen, was indicted at the Warwick Assizes, for the murder of her uncle. A lad named Clarke was charged as accessory. William Higgins, the deceased, was a man in a humble station of life, who had saved a little money, upwards of 1001. of which be had placed out at interest. Upon the death of his only brother, who left four or five children, the deceased, himself being unmarried, took one of the children, Mary Ann, to live with him, and reared her as he would his own child, intending to leave her the money be possessed at his death. About the beginning of the present year, a courtship commenced be. tween the girl and the prisoner Clarke, who was an apprentice at the watc&factory of Messrs. Vale and Co. at Coventry; in the course of Which -he evidently acquired considerable influence over her. He was on several occasions observed in possession of more money than usual, including one or two guineas,—a denomination of coin of which the de. ceased's savings were supposed principally to have consisted; and he boasted that he had only to go to the old man's house whenever he wanted money. On Tuesday the 22nd of March, the female prisoner went into a druggist's shop, and asked for twopennyworth of arsenic to destroy rats. The young man in the shop told her that she could not have it, except in the presence of a witness ; upon which she went away, and did not return. She afterwards went to another slop and made a similar application ; to which she received a like answer. Upon this she observed, that she did not know what she was to do, as she came from the country. She added, however, that she had a sister residing at Coventry, and she would go and fetch her. She then left the shop ; and when passing through Spon Street, she met a girl named Elizabeth Russel, who told her that she was going to the factory (Vale and Co.'s), upon which the prisoner said, " Just come with me as far as Messrs. Wyly's, the druggist, and I will then accompany you to the factory." Elizabeth Russel asked her what she wanted at the druggists' ? To which she replied, that she wanted some arsenic to destroy rats. The girl accompanied her to the druggists' ; where she received the arsenic in her presence, with a label upon the paper, having the words " Arsenic —Poison " printed on it. Next morning, she hastily called up a neighbour, a Mrs. Greene, to state that the old man, her uncle, was very ill. Be was then on the niece's bed, apparently in a state of stupor ; in a short time after, he was discovered to be dead ; and, from certain appearances, it was suspected that he had been dead for some time be- fore Mrs. Greene was informed of his being ill. In the course of the morning, a Mrs. Moore came in to inquire after the deceased ; and, on the girl's going out, as she said, to purchase mourning, Mrs. Moore be- gan to put the chamber into order. In doing so, she found two basins with pease-soup in them, in one of which was a quantity of white matter. The suspicions of the female were awakened by this circumstance ; and the contents of the basin and of the stomach of the deceased were, on her suggestion, examined by a surgeon ; who found in the contents of the stomach the most indubitable marks of arsenic. It appeared that the girl, after she was in custody, confessed to the officer, that she had put two tea-spoonfuls of the poison in the soup, before her uncle took it. The evidence against Clarke was very weak and inconclusive. He had merely been in the house the previous evening, when the old man took the soup ; a fact of which he made no secret. The Jury acquitted him, and found Higgins guilty. The wretched girl was executed on Thursday, at Coventry.

A MORAL Mossrcit.—A man named Hogsden was convicted at the Croydon Assizes, on Wednesday, on the clearest evidence, of violating his own daughter ! The girl, who was of an extrehiely decent ex. terior, had, it appeared, hail a,child in consequence of a previous assault of the same infamous and brutal kind. The night before the commis- sion of the crime, Hogsden had passed by the grave of his mother, who had been buried the previous day, and whose remains he was watching, for fear of their being carried off.

MURDER IN IRELAND.—At the Down patrick Assizes, on Wednesday last, Charles Clarke, and Agnes Clarke his wife, were indicted for the murder of Daniel M'Connell, of Ballylesson, in the county of Down. The principal witness against the prisoners was their own daughter, a child between eight and nine years old. The following is the substance of the examination. "Remembers the great snow last winter. Re- members a man coming to her father's during the great snow ; he stayed there all night. Did you hear any thing in the course of the night ? I heard shouting. What did the man shout ? He shouted murder.' Did you see the man again ? I did. Where did you see him again ? On the floor. How long after the shouting ? I do not know. Where did you see him next ? I saw him put into a shough. Who put him into it ? My father and mother. Do you know where they took him from ? Out of a chest. Where was that chest ? In the room. When you heard the shout, where were your father and mother ? . In the kit- then. Where did you sleep ? In my father's lied that night. Was that bed in the kitchen or room ? In the room. Did you see ally thing done to the man ? No. Where did the man sleep ? In the corner of the kitchen. Did your father and mother go to bed that night ? Yes. Did you hear or see them getting up again ? No. 'When you heard the shout of murder,' was your father in ? He was out of bed. Was your mother out of bed ? Yes. Where were they when you heard the shout ? In the kitchen. Do you know how the man was dressed ? In black clothes. Did you see any of his clothes after that night ? Yes. Where ? On my father. Did you, after that, hear your father and mother talk about any things ? Yes. About what ? A man. What did they say ? I do not know. Did you hear them talk about any things of his ? Yes. About what ? I do not know. Did you hear any conversation about a razor? Yes. What conversation ? That my father was going to sell one. Did he say to whom ? Yes, to a boy called William M'Combe. Did he say what he got for it ? Yes, six- pence." It was also proved, that the prisoners had offered a body for sale at the Infirmary, and had sold some of the deceased's clothes. They were both found guilty.

ExEctrroar.—On Friday last week, George Garnett, convicted of cutting and maiming John Williams, at Portsea, suffered the extreme penalty of the law at Winchester.—Hampshire Telegraph.

RIOTERS Al' ERTIIYIL—On Friday last, the Sheriff of Cardiff received a reprieve for Lewis Lewis, and a notice that his sentence was commuted to transportation for fourteen years. Every preparation had been made for the death of Richard Lewis—his coffin had been prepared, his grave had been dug—when fortunately a respite for a fortnight arrived on Thursday last. Great exertions had been made to obtain this. It is un- derstood that the sentence will likewise be commuted. Serious doubtsare entertained of the truth of the charge agai nst him—the only very serious one —of having wounded one of the military. The reprieve was obtained by the zeal and indefatigable exertions of a gentleman of the Society of Friends.