on account of mamma's illness that I had been sent for home; Mr. Wakefield said, that the circumstances stated in the letter to Miss Daulby were not true, and that they had been stated in order to prevent Miss Daulby from suspecting the real cause of my being sent for. I don't distinctly recollect what he said about the place where my papa was at the time. He told his servant, shortly after, to tell the other gentleman to come in. The servant was, I believe, the same person who had attended me from Liverpool to Manchester. The other gentleman then came into the room. He was Mr. William Wakefield. I had never seen him before. I then stepped into a carriage. My reason for going into the carriage was, that I imagined I was going to meet my papa. I was taken as far as Hali fax. Both the Mr. Wakefields and the man-servant accompanied me. Edward Wakefield said that, if we did not find any letters, or see my papa at Halifax, we must go on to Kendal, where we should be sure to find him. I went on to Kendal. I had no other object in going there but to find my papa. I stopped awhile at Kendal, and then proceeded to Carlisle. At Kendal, Mr. Wakefield read a letter at the window of the carriage, and his brother looked over it, but I did not see it. After reading it, Mr. W. Wakefield said that my papa was not there, but had gone forward. At the next stage Mr. W. Wakefield said, that he had received a letter from my papa, commissioning him to communicate to me the state of my papa's affairs. He said that a bank had failed at Macclesfield-Ryle and Daintry's bank-that my papa had been almost ruined, but that an uncle of his (Mr. Wakefield's), who was a banker at Kendal, had lent papa the sum of 60,000l. He said that that sum had relieved papa for the time, but that afterwards the Blackburn bank had failed, and that my papa's affairs were at that moment in a worse condition than before. He said that his (E. Wakefield's) uncle had demanded security for the sum lent to my father, and that the security was to be the estate of Shrigley, and then my papa might be turned out of doors any day. He said, it had been suggested by Mr. Grimsditch, that he (Mr. E. Wakefield) should be my husband, that then the property would be mine, and it would be in my power to turn papa out of doors if I liked, but of course I should not think of doing that. This passed on the stage from Kendal to Carlisle. I gave no answer to the proposal then. Mr. Wakefield frequently said, he was desirous of knowing what conclusion I had come to. He said that I should see my papa soon, and then I could consult him. Mr. Wakefield said, my father was attempting to cross the borders, because the sheriffs'officers were in pursuit of him. We next arrived at the Bush Inn, Carlisle. When the carriage stopped, both the Messrs. Wakefield left the carriage. They were absent less than an hour. I had been travelling from the time I left school in the morning until I arrived at Carlisle. We then left Carlisle. After we had left, and after drawing up the carriage windows, Mr. W. Wakefield said, that he had something of importance to communicate to his brother. He then told his brother, that he had seen my papa at Carlisle; that Mr. Grimsditch was with him, and that he was then concealed in a small room at the back of the house-that he had made two attempts that day to cross the borders, but could not. Mr. W. Wakefield said, that the persons, whom I had seen round the carriage-door at Carlisle, were sheriffs'-officers in search of my papa-that Mr. Grimsditch had entreated that he (Mr. W. Wakefield) would not stay in the room, or my papa would be discovered, and that Mr. Grimsditch had at last taken him by the shoulders and turned him out of the room. He said to me that my papa requested me, if I ever loved him, that I would not hesitate to accept Mr. Wakefield as a husband. I then consented. I was induced to consent by the fear, that, if I did not, my papa would be ruined. I believed what they had told me. We then went into Scotland. I then repeated my consent in the presence of some persons there. Mr. Scarlett addressed the jury for the defendants. Miss Turner had been described to be a girl of quick apprehension and sagacity. Could such a person have been deceived in the manner, in which it was attempted to be shown she had been? When at Manchester, she had known that the horses' heads had been turned to Oldham, and not to Macclesfield, and yet it did not appear that she had requested any explanation of that circumstance. The young lady had concurred in promoting the marriage from the first stage from Manchester down to the period of the marriage itself. He would bring witnesses who would show, that, from the first stage from Manchester, Miss Turner had been full of gaiety and alacrity, that she had never ceased expressing her pleasure and satisfaction, and that they had never witnessed in any person a greater degree of cheerfulness and joy. It would be proved, that, before the marriage, she had sat upon Mr. Wakefield's knee, and that she had gone through the ceremony, not only without reluctance, but with an alacrity and impatience seldom witnessed even at the place where her marriage had been celebrated. The evidence would go on to show, that, after the marriage, the same behaviour had been exhibited by Miss Turner; that she had displayed the same joy; that, at Calais, she had been seen hanging upon Wakefield's arm in the most affectionate manner, and that, up to the very period of their separation, they had been a very loving couple. These facts would be proved not by one or two witnesses, but by persons brought from every point of the road along which they had travelled both before and after the marriage.. Would it not, then, in some degree qualify the imputed offence, if he showed that all that had occurred, after the first step, had been accomplished with the consent and concurrence of Miss Turner? Mr. Baron Hullock expressed an opinion, that, if Mr. Scarlett should succeed in proving all that he had stated, he would not touch the case, which, in his (Mr. Baron Hullock's) opinion, had been satisfactorily made out against the defendant. He would, however, hear the evidence. Various witnesses were then called. Among these, David Laing, the celebrated blacksmith of Gretna-green. He was interrogated both by Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Coltman in succession. Do you see them in court? Why, no I cannot say. What did you do? Why I joined them, and then got the lady's address, where she come from, and the party's I believe. What did they do then?-Why, the gentleman wrote down the names, and the lady gave way to it. In fact, you married them after the usual way?—Yes, yes, I married them after the Scotch form, that is by my putting on the ring on the lady's finger, and that way. Were they both agreeable?O yes, I joined their hands as man and wife. Was that the whole of the ceremony-was it the end of it? I wished them well, shook hands with them, and, as I said, they then both embraced each other very agreeably. What else did you do?-I think I told the lady that I generally had a present from 'em, as it be, of such a thing as money to buy a pair of gloves, and she gave me, with her own hand a 20s. Bank of England note to buy them. Where did she get the note?How do I know. What did the gentleman say to you?-Oh, you ask what did he treat me with. No, I do not; what did he say to you?-He did nothing to me; but I did to him, what I have done to many before, that is, you must know, to join them together; join hands, and so on, I bargains ed many in that way, and she was perfectly agreeable, and made no objections. Did you give them a certificate? -Oh! yes, I gave it to the lady. Here a piece of paper was identified by this witness, purporting to certify, that Edward Gibbon Wakefield and Ellen Turner had been duly married according to the form required by the Scottish law. This paper, except the names and dates, was a printed register, at the top of which was a rudely executed wood-cut, apparently, of the royal arms. Did the gentleman and lady converse freely with you?-0, yes; he asked me what sort of wine they had in Linton's house, and I said they had three kinds, with the best of Shumpine (Champagne.) He asked me which I would take, and I said Shumpine, and so and so, while they went into another room to dine, I finished the wine, and then off I came. I returned, and saw them still in the very best of comfortable spirits." Mr. Macneil, the sheriff depute of Perthshire, stated, he was acquainted with the legal form of Scotch marriages; had been in court during the examination of these witnesses; and, taking the facts as stated at Gretna, they constituted enough for a marriage to be valid in the law of Scotland, taking into consideration the evidence of Miss Turner. This witness, on cross-examination, admitted, that, though he thought this marriage valid according to the principle recognized by repeated decisions of the Scottish law, yet he had never heard of a reported or unreported case which resembled the present in all its circumstances. He knew it to be, by the civil law, a high offence to carry away an infant; but he thought, to constitute the criminality in a legal sense, there must be an application of force-that mere deceit in representation was insufficient. He knew a case in which a lady had been married according to this form, but the husband not afterwards thinking it binding, tacitly permitted a separation, and she married again, and had two chil, dren by the second connection, during the subsistence of which the parties were often visited by the first husband, and yet, afterwards, when by the death of her father she acquired a considerable inheritance, the first husband reassumed his rights, and the marriage in the way he described was held to be valid.* Mr. Baron Hullock charged the jury. In adverting to the separate cases of the defendants, he thought the jury could entertain little doubt of the guilt of the two Wakefields: but the case as regarded Mrs. Wakefield stood on a different ground, as she might not have known precisely the arrange ments and full intentions of all the other parties. His lordship was proceeding to sum up the evidence in detail, when he was informed by the jury that they had made up their minds upon the facts. After a conference among counsel, it was agreed to take a verdict of not guilty upon a third count of the indictment, which charged the use of force, there being no evidence to sustain that part of the charge. The Jury, after retiring for twenty minutes (only to consider Mrs. Wakefield's case), returned a We believe that, in the case here referred to, the judgment of the Court of Session was, in May 1828, reversed in the House of Lords. verdict of Guilty against Edward Gibbon Wakefield, William Wakefield, and Frances Wakefield (the wife of Mr. Wakefield, the father of the other defendants.) On the following morning, Edward Gibbon Wakefield and William Wakefield, were again indicted under the statute of the 4th and 5th of Philip and Mary, for the abduction of Miss Turner. They withdrew their former plea of "not guilty," and pleaded 'guilty" to the 5th count. COURT OF KING'S-BENCH, MON- Mr. Sergeant Cross prayed the judgment of the Court against Edward Gibbon Wakefield and William Wakefield, for the conspiracy. As a noli prosequi had been entered as to Mrs. Frances Wakefield, judgment was not prayed on the other indictment. The sentence of the Court was, that Edward Gibbon Wakefield be confined in Newgate for three years, and that William Wakefield be confined in Lancaster Castle for the same time. An act of parliament was passed to annul the alleged marriage with Miss Turner. OLD BAILEY, FRiday, June 1. William Sheen was indicted for the murder of "his infant son, William Sheen, alias Beadle, on the 10th of May last.” Sarah Pomeroy.-Is landlady of a house in Christopher's-alley, Lambeth-street, where the prisoner and his wife had lodged for nearly two months. Was at home on Thursday, 10th of May. In the evening the mother of the child came to witness; she said He something which induced witness to go up stairs to the top room, which was occupied by the prisoner. As soon as witness entered the door, she saw a child's head on the table. It stood on the table, on the neck part; it was completely separated from the body. [Here the witness was much agitated.] When witness saw the head, she ran to the police-office for assistance. When witness left the room, there was no one there. The mother went up with witness. When she ran out of it, she ran into the office, which is about three doors from the house, and got the assistance of Mr. Dalton, the officer. went up stairs, and witness followed him to the room where the child's head was. The child's head was then in the same position as before. Did not examine the head, but saw blood upon the table. The floor was covered with blood. The body of the child was on the foot of the bed, covered with the counterpane. Mr. Dalton found it. Saw the neck of the child, which was covered with blood, and the head was off. It was dressed in a blue bed-gown; knew the child when it was living; it was living with Mrs. Sheen; it was a male child, about four months old; had no doubt that the body found under the counter pane was the body of the child; witness had known it alive; did not look at the head of the child, so as to see any mark upon the head; it had no hair upon it; did not see the prisoner that evening; he had lived with witness two months, and she had never heard any quarrelling between the prisoner and his wife. Wm. Sheen, the father of the prisoner, stated, that the prisoner came to his house at about eight in the evening he thinks, on the second Thursday in the month. He was then in his shirt sleeves. He had not got his hat on. Witness asked him, if he had been fighting; he answered "yes." He then said that he had been fighting with some Irishmen in a skittleground. He said that the parish officers had been after him for relief for his wife and child. Witness went with him to Mr. Pugh's, Carnaby-market. On being asked whether the prisoner had said any thing about a knife, the witness hesitated for some time, and then said that he did not recollect. He was taking a glass of gin at Mr. Pugh's, and did not attend to it. Went to Mr. Pugh's for a coat and hat for the prisoner. He had 10s. of Mr. Pugh to put into his pocket, until he should get work. He got a coat and hat of Mr. Pugh. Witness left him in Oxfordroad. He said, that he was going to Barnet. Prisoner said nothing more, but they shook hands and bid each other good night. Did not see him again, till he saw him in Newgate. Prisoner had been married about five weeks. His wife had had a child two or three months before they were married. Her name was Beadle before she was married. She had gone by that name previous to her marriage. Robert Davis, an officer of Lambeth-street police, went to the prisoner's room after the deed had been done. He found a fustian coat on the floor, towards the back of the room, opposite the window. It had blood upon it. [It was here produced, and caused an universal shudder throughout the court]. The blood was on both sleeves, and on the front; |