THE ASSIZES.

At Bedford, on the 24th and 25th, John Eastaffe was tried for the murder of his wife, Jannette Eastaffe, in Black-grove wood, near Dunstable, on the 14tit of August, 1821. The mystery, and the lapse of time since the sup- posed murder was committed, strongly excited the public curiosity. The case fur the prosecution was stated by Mr. Sergeant Storks. On the morning of the 15th of August, 1821, close to a wood, far retired from the habitation of man, on a spot peculiarly secluded and secret, was found the body of a female, who had been unquestionably murdered. The body had been dragged by the murderer about eleven yards from the fatal spot where the fatal deed had been executed ; and the question would be, was that fe- male the wife of the prisoner ? She was a woman of small stature, dark brown hair, false curls in front, hazel eyes, large features, and teeth which pointed outwards, small hands and feet, and toes turned inwards ; her age was about thirty years, and she was dressed in apparel which would be produced to the jury. The evidence for the prosecution went chiefly to prove, that the pri- soner and his wife had been seen at Dunstable fair, at the time mentioned, but that the wife had not been seen since ; that the prisoner had said that it was impossible to live with his wife, " she was so acquainted with soldiers at

Knightsbridge barracks, and other men ;" and that he had told several of the witnesses that his wife was dead, and was buried at Chelsea. One witness thought that the body of the woman found in the wood was the same person seen with the prisoner—another said, if it was the same, that her features must be strangely altered, she had not the same gown on, and the stockings were much cleaner. The prisoner received a good character from some of

these witnesses—he was industrious, kind, humane. A person said he had had possession of the shoes of the deceased sealed up ever since the murder—

they were examined, and the initials J. E. were on the lining of both shoes. On

the part of the prisoner, it was contended by Mr. Kelly his counsel, that there was not legal evidence of tke identity of the deceased : the smother (Mrs.

Downing or Lynch) ought to have been called, who could have stated if her

daughter had a crooked finger and a protruding mouth like the deceased. Mr. Kelly also objected to the misdescription—she was described as Janett Eastatie ; whereas the evidence given, proved that she was called Jane.

The Judge reserved this point. Several witnesses were also examined for the defence ; and among them, Robert Salmon who keeps a shop at Knightsbridge. Mrs. Downing had a daughter, who went into his service in 1623. The girl's name was Jane Lynch : she remained three months. She was well conducted while in the house, but he had reason to believe she was not now so well behaved as she should have been. Her teeth did not stand out from her mouth, and she had no crooked finger. He did not see her after she got another situation till about the middle of 1824, when she appeared a street-walker. Believes she is now living in Blackfriars- road. Heard from her mother that she had been married. Charles Shep- herd, with whom the mother and daughter lodged, gave much the same evidence. A person who was represented to be her husband came to see her. " I have nut the least doubt the prisoner is the man." The daughter absconded on suspicion of robbery about April or May, 1824, and he has

never seen her since.—Mr. Justice Holroyd summed up the evidence. The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilt, and the prisoner, Eastatie, was set at liberty.

At York, on the 24th, James Goodwin, a letter-sorter and carrier in the Sheffield post-office was found guilty of stealing from a letter put into the post-office at Stafford, a bank-note for 201., enclosed as a remittance to the firm of Johnson and Sons in Sheffield. The prisoner who appeared to be afflicted with consumption, was formerly an officer in the army, and served ill the Peninsular war. He received an exceedingly good character, and the jury recommended him to mercy.

At Buckingham, on the 18th, Joseph Walker, late parish clerk of Oving, was indicted for the murder of his wife by poison. It appeared that the prisoner had lived on bad terms with his wife since he became acquainted with a girl of the name of Begot, and had on several occasions beat tier, and threatened her life. During her absence from home at a religious meeting, it is supposed he put some arsenic in a teapot, in which, on her return home, she made tea. Shortly after taking it, she became sick, and exhi- bited symptoms of having taken poison. Her son, who also drank some of the tea, was taken ill, but recovered. The prisoner received a good cha- racter from the clergyman of the parish. He was found guilty, and sen- tenced to be hanged on Monday. The culprit stood unmoved till the sen- tence was passed, when he burst into tears, and exclaimed, " I did not do it, my Lord; I did not do it !" and he fell down in the dock. J. Hook, H. Wise, and J. Green, all 21 years of age, were found guilty of stealing part of a flitch of bacon, the property of Mr. Shirriffe. They were sentenced to be transported for fourteen years. The Judge observed to Green, that it was probable his sentence might be mitigated. Wyse, after hearing their doom, said, with much effrontery, " Thank ye, my Lord ; I did not know I had so long to live !"

At Salisbury, on the 23rd, Robert Brown was tried for the wilful murder of Thomas Sherwood, at Littleton Drew, on the 11th of April last. The prisoner was in possession of a house belonging to Mr. Lee, an attorney ; he was ejected for arrears of rent, but resisted the officers; and Sherwood, one of the persons who assisted, was mortally wounded with au old Spanish bayonet. The principal circumstances are detailed in the following evi- dence. Willian Ilarding—" I am the officer to whom the warrant was di- rected ; on the Ilth of April I went with this warrant to the house of the prisoner; he was then in the garden ; I told hint I was come upon an un- pleasant business between him and Mr. Lee ; he asked me where I came from; I told him, and what I was ; I then read the warrant to him ; I went to the door and found it fast. I told him he had better give me admittance, or I must make a forcible entry. I then got an iron bar and broke open the door, and proceeded to remove the goods; other persons assisted; amongst them was Thomas Sherwood. We had got the furniture out, and I then told him he had better leave the house; and told him if he did not, we should be forced to turn him out. He said he would not go. I then read the warrant again, and we proceeded to turn out his wife ; the deceased as- sisted me; we put her out by taking her by the arms ; when we got her to one end of the room, she turned back again ; Daniel and l took hold of her by the arms, and Thompson and the deceased I told to assist ; and we got both of that out of the house. The next thing that I observed was the pri- soner making a blow at Sherwood; after he had done it, he stepped back ; what the blow was struck with, I did not see ; the deceased then came to me, and said Brown had stabbed him, and showed me the wound." Cross- examined—" Up to the time the door was forced open, there was no resist- ance. The mother, I believe, had a child in her arms when we compelled her to leave the house. I believe she was in the family way. I do not think the child was on the ground during part of the time; they had just got her out of the house when the blow was struck." Thomas Thompson—" I went to'assist the Sheriff's officer. I saw the prisoner's wife put out of the house, and saw Brown at the same time ; he had a child in his arms, and walked before his wife, and tried that we should not get her out. We told her she must go ; on getting her out of the house, Brown came back into the house again, and left the child. He then came out, and struck use in the back with some instrument ;—I had a candle in each hand ; the blow caused me to throw both candles over my shoulders; I fell to the wall ; I saw him do something to the instrument; he then struck me again in the side ; he then struck at me again with the instrument, which went right through my arm ; he then turned round, and struck forward at Sherwood in the front ; he was standing facing him. The prisoner and the deceased before this time were good neighbours." John Atkins—" I know the prisoner Brown; I went to his house two or three years ago; I had a conversation with him ; I said ' you have a very good house and garden;' he said I have had a disturb- ance about it, and if any man do interpose with me again'—he then reached down two things ; this is one of them (it was just such an instrument as de- scribed by.the former witness); • the other was an old bayonet—he said if one did not do for them, the other should.'" The prisoner, in his defence, said- " 1 did it in a moment of passion, and I am very sorry for it, seeing that my wife and children were being used so ill." Mr. Justice Park summed up, and the Jury found the prisoner Guilty. Mr. Justice Park then proceeded to pass sentence. He was afraid the prisoner had retained that feeling in his bosom for some time, which had proved so fatal to a fellow-creature ' - earthly hopes he could not hold out, he therefore most earnestly entreated him, for the few short hours he had to live, to attend to Iris spiritual concerns. The sentence was passed in the usual form, directing the unfortunate man to be executed on Friday next, and his body to be anatomised. The prisoner left the dock with a very firm step. During the whole trial, he was apparently quite composed, with the exception of now and then a slight quivering of the lip.

At the same Assizes, Nicholas Baker, a pitiable object, seventy-one years of age, was found guilty of the murder of his wife, a woman of sixty-six. He had beat her with a stick, and dragged her about till she died ; and then called in his neighbours. It appears that his motive was jealousy ; he had heard in a bay field that some than had been with the old woman twelve months before. The prisoner was ordered for execution on Friday. Mr. Seymour, of Cromwood, who was formerly convicted at these Assizes, did not come up for judgment ; and when the indictment against his servants, for conspiracy, was called on, proclamation was made in the usual way ; but no evidence having been produced on the part of the prosecution, the de- fendants were acquitted.

At Winchester on the 181.11, George White, aged thirty-two, was tried for killing and slaying Thomas M'Donald, at Southampton on the 17th June. The prisoner was a baker ; the deceased was his journeyman; and had been detected in a criminal intimacy with the wife of White, under circumstances of singular aggravation. The prisoner stabbed him, and he died of the wound. In defence, the prisoner pleaded his provocation. Mr.Justice Paris, in addressing the jury, said, that the case which they had to consider was not new to the law of England. In the reign of King Charles II., Sir Matthew Hale had laid it down, that if a man found another in adulterous intercourse with his wife, and killed the adulterer in the first transport of his passion, such an act was only manslaughter, not murder. His Lordship then com- mented upon the evidence, and said that although nothing could excuse the commission of manslaughter, yet the greatest palliation which it was possible to conceive, was afforded by the peculiar circumstances of the case. He did not think that the jury could possibly acquit the prisoner of the offence charged, as it had been proved beyond all doubt that he had caused the death of M.Donald. It was, however, a great satisfaction to him, to reflect, that after the verdict of the jury, it would be entirely in the discretion of the Judge to apportion the prisoner's punishment. The jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty. After which, Mr. Justice Park, having addressed hint very feelingly at sonic length, sentenced him to pay a fine of one shilling to the King, and to be then dischareed. A great number of respectable persons deposed that the prisoner had always been a sober, industrious, honest, and mild-tempered man, mid that his character had been in every particular highly respectable. llis conduct and carriage in Court were very becoming, and excited great sympathy. The announcement of so mild a sentence was received by a sudden and simultaneous burst of applause in Court. In a civil action at this circuit, Mr. Selwyn was eulogizing the character of an attorney, when Mr. Justice Park, with great warmth, said, that the attor- neys upon the Western Circuit were the happiest men in the world, as the most respectable barristers upon the circuit were in the habit of constantly declaring in open court, and at great length, that each and every of these attorneys was the most virtuous and honourable men in the world. Such conduct of barristers in making themselves the instruments of puffing •S' attorneys, was a most grievous waste of the public time: it was injurious to the parties whose interests were concerned in the issue of the proceedings, and, in the gentlemen who so conducted themselves, he must say (and he did say it with great vehemence), was a gross prostitution of their abilities and character.

At Bedford, on Tuesday, sentence of death was recorded against Thome,: Cobb and Samuel Jepps, aged eighteen and nineteen, for an ordinary assault and robbery on the king's highway.

At Worcester, on the 22d, John Cheese, aged thirty-three, was indicted for abusing Anne Ridley, a girl of sixteen, near Stourbridge, on the 14th of May last. The Jury found hint guilty, but recommended him to mercy. The Foreman being unable to explain to the Judge thereasons which induced such a recommendation, the Jury again retired ! and after some further con- sultation sent a written communication to his Lordship, recommending the prisoner to mercy because they believed the prisoner was not aware of the Punishment that awaited the commission of such a crime. Mr. Justice Gaselee then proceeded to address the prisoner on the enormity of his crime, and concluded by pronouncing sentence of death on him. The prisoner seemed perfectly heedless.

John Pound, aged fifty-one, was convicted of a similar assault upon a child under the age of nine. He was sentenced to be confined in the house of correction for eighteen months, and kept to hard labour.

At Chelmsford, on Wednesday, William Whipps, a lad of sixteen, con- victed of assaulting a little girl only six years of age, was sentenced to two mouths' solitary confinement, and to be twice privately whipped.

William Marshall, a cripple, and apparently above forty years of age, was convicted of a similar offence on a child seven years of age; and he was sentenced to six months' solitary confinement, and to be once privately whipped. On the Civil side, the Rev. Mr. Smythies, the owner of a farm situated near Hampstead, which many years ago he let to Mr. John Finnan, failed in an attempt to establish a guarantee of'' the rent on the part of Mr. Benjamin Firman, the tenant's brother. The tenant died in 1822, leashes an arrear of 600 or 700/ ; and the plaintiff, by the advice of his attorney, had recourse to measures of great severity against the widow. She appeared in court as a witness, buried in deep affliction ; and her testimony was continually in- terrupted by bursts of grief. These circumstances excited a popular sym- pathy unfavourable to the plaintiff; and the verdict for the defendant ap- peared to give universal satisfaction.

Mr. Whittaker, a carrier between Braintree and London, obtained one farthing damages against the landlord of the Bell Inn in Braintree, for forcing the stable door to procure stabling for the caravan horses of Mr.

Atkins, who travels the country with wild beasts. It appeared that the

landlord of the Bell had previously applied to Whittaker for leave, and that there was no positive refusal.

The case Belcher v. Philbrick was an action to recover the sum of 71. I4s., which the plaintiff alleged that he had paid on the defendant's account, and under his authority. From the evidence it appeared, that the defendant, on the death of his son, wrote to the plaintiff, requesting him to give an order to some undertaker to supply a hearse, &c.. Gar his interment. This request the plaintiff complied with, and, through his agency on behalf of the defendant, the funeral took place. Some time afterwards, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had neglected to pay the expense of that funeral ; and, on meeting him accidentally, he took occasion to observe, " Why I understand that you have not paid the undertaker's bill yet." No," said the defendant, " I have not." "But you do not intend to deny that I was authorized by you to give the order ?" "No, I do not deny that ; and you may pay it, if you like, but I will not." This conversation having taken place, and the plaintiff not liking the idea of Mr. Spooner (the person on whom the supplying of the hearse devolved) bringing an action against him for the amount in ques- tion, thought he had better pay the sum himself, and take his chance of re- covering it again from the defendant. Mr. Gurney, however, contended that the plaintiff had paid the money suo periculo, and that in the face of the de- fendant's warning, "You may pay it if you like, but 121411 not," the plaintiff had no right of recovery. Mr. Baron Garrow said, that though the jury might think it natural that the father should be required to pay for the fune- ral of his son, yet they were bound to look at the case as it affected the ge- neral interests of the community; and it had been well observed by Mr. Gurney, that if any body was allowed, in the face of a caution to the con- trary, to make himself the creditor of another individual, it might lead to very injurious consequences. The jury, after deliberating for a minute or two, found a verdict for the defendant.

At Northampton a farmer, of the name of Stanton, brought an action against Jervis, also a farmer, to recover compensation for the loss of his sister's services, in consequence of her seduction. It appeared that Miss Stanton (who was thirty-two years of age) was visited by the defendant ; and although he never made any direct peelnosal, further than expressing great regard for her, he succeeded in persuading her to grant him the last favour ; observing, that it was of no consequence what passed between them. She afterwards refused to have any further connection with him ; but on his threatening to expose her to the world if she refused, the intimacy was re- newed. She became pregnant ; on communicating which to the defendant he said she must be mistaken, she had taken cold, and wished to procure some medicine for her. From that time he neglected her; she was delivered of a child; and she had not seen the defendant since. Her brother paid all the expenses, amounting to 41. Is. The jury returned a verdict for the plain- tiff to that amount.