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

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

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

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

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

SALISBURY ASSIZES, MARCH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the

the several times when he so attended, until the 31st of Dec. 1816, the time particularly stated in the indictment. On that evening he went about six o'clock to preach, when 70 persons were assembled without the house; the night was showery and cloudy, and the ground wet. Among the persons assembled were the several defendants, and also Mr. Easton (the clergyman), and Jerrard. The mob were supplied with cow-horns, large bells, and various discordant instruments, and, encouraged by the clergyman and peace officer, made a most clamorous and terrific noise. They paraded about nine yards from the house; and, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the high-constable of the hundred, who attended the meeting-house, and other respectable persons, they persevered in their disturbance, until the minister could not be heard, and he was compelled abruptly to discontinue the religious service. On the return of Mr. Hopkins, he was followed by the same mob, amidst execrations, noises, and their horrible music, for half a mile, to the boundaries of the parish of Anstey.

Mr. Casberd, for the defendants, endeavoured to convince the Court and jury that there was no conspiracy, and that, as the people did not enter the house of meeting, nor personally ill-treat the minister or congregation, there was no riot.

But Mr. Justice Holroyd interposed, and declared, that as to the conspiracy the jury should decide, but that the proof of a most indecent, unwarrantable,

illegal riot, was distinct and uncontrovertible.

Mr. Sergeant Pell then stated, that the Dissenters, from lenity to the clergyman, not by way of compromise, would not press for a verdict for the conspiracy, but only for the riot, and for which they would certainly bring up the defendants to London for the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, during the ensuing term.

At this liberality the judge and the Court expressed satisfaction, and the jury returned a verdict of Guilty of the riot against the Rev. Wm. Easton, James Jerrard, and seven other defendants.Salisbury Journal.

and then was, with great dexterity, interrupted in its course, and driven in upon the premises. The prisoners appeared amongst the bullock-drivers. Rippon was the most remarkable for activity, and the other prisoners, with the exception of Allan and Buckey, seemed to improve under such a leader. The workmen, upon finding that entreaties would not do, used threats to induce the bullock-drivers to leave this kind of diversion. The menaces of throwing hot-water and firing upon them produced no effect. At last blank cartridge was fired, but that plan of defence being as ineffectual as the other, the workmen let off a little small shot, and wounded three of the mob, but not dangerously. Their impression at the time was, that the bullock was driven in for the purpose of creating a confusion, during which the property of their master might be diminished. Still the drivers continued their labour at the beast, and at the windows of the premises, and at the workmen who formed themselves into a body, and struggled to shut the gates. Here the bul lock drivers had an opportunity to show their power. They had large bats upwards of 6 feet high, and thick enough to disable a man wherever they should descend upon him. Rippon exclaimed, in the midst of his activity, "Now is the time to come in, my boys." A desperate contest ensued, which would have ended in favour. of the bullock-drivers, had not the police arrived and turned the fortune of the day. Mr. Racine exerted himself for the preservation of his property, but was desperately beaten. Upon reach

ing a shop in the neighbourhood, which he did with difficulty, he fainted. Seven of the workmen were dangerously wounded. The poor bullock was driven in so desperate a manner, and goaded so cruelly, that it ran mad; and after having tossed several peaceable persons, fell down dead. The vagabonds have been in the habit of bullock-driving in these premises three times a year. The property of Mr. Racine is easily removable by ruffians constituted as the bullock drivers were on this occasion.

The jury retired, and in half an hour returned the following verdict:-Rippon, Yardley, Chisholme, and Howells, Guilty; Buckey and Allan, Not-Guilty.

The Chairman, in passing sentence, expressed his astonishment at the indifference manifested in the part of the metropolis where this shameful scene occurred, to practices attended with so much danger, and declared, that those who had engaged in such vile disorders were much more brutal than the poor animal they had hunted to death.

The prisoners were then sentenced to the following very mild punishment:-Rippon, 6 months' imprisonment; Yardley and Chisholme 3 months' imprisonment; Howells, one month's imprison

dicted having been arraigned, and refusing to join in their challenges, Edward Bradley alone was put upon his trial.

Mr. Smiley stated the case on behalf of the prosecution. The murder of Mr. Norton Butler, two or three years ago, he said, had led to the crime which was the subject of the present prosecution. A person, named Daniel Maginnis, had been charged with the murder of Mr. Butler; after evading justice for a long time, he was taken prisoner, in the summer of 1816, and was tried and convicted of this crime at the Lent Assizes of 1817. George Balfour was suspected of having given information which led to the taking of Maginnis, and for this offence it was determined, by the prisoner and his associates, that Balfour should be put to death.

Owen Breeson, John Maginnis, and others, related the particulars of this murder. The substance of their evidence was as follows:

They received summonses to attend a meeting on the night of the 1st of October, which they were afraid to refuse, lest their own lives should be endangered. They joined a party, consisting in all, of a hundred at least, assembled near Glengannon-bridge; they were under the bank of the river, some sitting, and some lying down. It was a moonlight night, but not very bright. A man came over the bridge along the road from Carn, whistling, which the witnesses understood to be the signal that Balfour was coming. In a very few minutes after Balfour came by himself along the road, in the same direction. The party, on this, drew

near to the bridge, and just as Balfour had passed over it a man rushed forward and seized him, and dragged him back a few paces. Balfour raised his hand to his hat, and said, “ Boys dear, what you please," which were the last words he spoke. The person who had first seized him immediately gave him a stab with a sword, which he drew from a cane, and instantly the whole party rushed upon him with various weapons, every body striking him that could get at him; they dragged him off the road into the hollow, and when he was despatched, a rope was put round his neck, and he was dragged to a flax-hole at some distance; the body was thrown into it, and a man jumped on it to sink it.__It was then covered with sods. The prisoner was present at the whole of this, assisting and encouraging the rest. When all was over, the prisoner administered an oath to several of the party to keep secret all that had passed. This was not taken by all the party, nor by the witnesses. On the crossexamination of these witnesses, it appeared that they had given their informations voluntarily, and without any charge having been made against them. They admitted that they had been highly criminal in being present at the murder, but said they should have been in danger of their lives if they refused.

The prisoner produced two witnesses, a maid-servant, and a son of his, a young boy, to prove that, on the night of the murder, he had not been out of his house from night-fall. These witnesses were cross-examined at considerable length.

He