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. "Who are you, Laing?-Why, I live in Springfield. . Well, what did you do in this affair?-Why, I was sent for to Linton's, where I found two gentlemen, as it may be, and one lady. not. Did you know them?-I did 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 bargain 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 children 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 arrangements 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. 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 Wake field, judgment was not prayed on the other indictment. The sentence of the Court was, that Edward Gibbon Wakefield be confined in Newgate for three be confined in Lancaster Castle years, and that William Wakefield for the same time. An act of parliament was passed to annul the alleged marriage with Miss Turner. soner. came to his house at about eight something which induced witness in the evening-he thinks, on the to go up stairs to the top room, which was occupied by the pri- second Thursday in the month. WitAs soon as witness entered He was then in his shirt sleeves. the door, she saw a child's head He had not got his hat on. ness asked him, if he had been on the table. It stood on the table, on the neck part; it was fighting; he answered "yes." He completely separated from the then said that he had been fightbody. [Here the witness was ing with some Irishmen in a skittlemuch agitated.] When witness ground. He said that the parish saw the head, she ran to the officers had been after him for repolice-office for assistance. When lief for his wife and child. Witness went with him to Mr. Pugh's, witness left the room, there was no one there. The mother went Carnaby-market. On being asked whether the prisoner had said any up with witness. When she ran out of it, she ran into the office, thing about a knife, the witness which is about three doors from hesitated for some time, and then the house, and got the assistance said that he did not recollect. He was taking a glass of gin at Mr. of Mr. Dalton, the officer. He Pugh's, and did not attend to it. went up stairs, and witness folWent to Mr. Pugh's for a coat lowed him to the room where the child's head was. The child's and hat for the prisoner. He had 10s. of Mr. Pugh to put into his head was then in the same position as before. Did not examine pocket, until he should get work. the head, but saw blood upon the He got a coat and hat of Mr. table. The floor was covered with Pugh. Witness left him in Oxfordroad. He said, that he was going blood. The body of the child was to Barnet. Prisoner said nothing on the foot of the bed, covered with the counterpane. Mr. Dalton more, but they shook hands and found it. Saw the neck of the bid each other good night. Did child, which was covered with not see him again, till he saw him blood, and the head was off. It in Newgate. Prisoner had been was dressed in a blue bed-gown; married about five weeks. His knew the child when it was living; wife had had a child two or three it was living with Mrs. Sheen; months before they were married. it was a male child, about four Her name was Beadle before she was married. She had gone by months old; had no doubt that that name previous to her marthe body found under the counterpane was the body of the child; riage. 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 officer of Robert Davis, an 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; the sleeve was soaked, and other parts splashed; knew the prisoner before this happened; had seen him often, and observed his dress; had seen him wear such a coat as the one produced; had seen the prisoner two or three days before the 10th of May; could not say what sort of coat he wore then; had seen him wear such a coat about a week before. Witness had marked the coat, and locked it up in the police-office, and it was the same; looked at the child's head as it was on the table, and examined it; found a mark on it, a sort of dent, and a little bruise on the front of the skull. In consequence of instructions, witness went in pursuit of the prisoner, and found him at a farm-house, called the Lanehouse, in Radnorshire, in Wales. It was on Thursday the 17th of May. He was in the lower room of the house, in the chimneycorner. Had searched the same house at three o'clock on the morning of the same day; could not find him then, but found him at a little before ten o'clock in the morning. When the prisoner saw witness, he said, "Oh, Davis, is that you I will go away with you." Witness took him to an inn in Pennybout; took him to Radnor; while taking him there heard an old lady, who appeared to be the landlady of the house, say to the prisoner, "In God's name, how could you do such a cruel thing?" Prisoner replied, "It was not God, it was the Devil." When on the road from the farm-house to Pennybout, witness asked him how he came to be guilty of such a thing, and he did not give him any answer. Witness told him, when he had got out of the farm-house, that he took him into custody on suspicion of murder. He said, "Very well, Mr. Davis." That was before the landlady said any thing to him. At Kington, Herefordshire, witness saw the prisoner change his shirt; the shirt was bloody; it was stained with blood on the left sleeve and on the breast; it seemed to have been worn a long time; did not, during the journey, make any threats or promises. Witness heard him say, "Oh, my poor mother, when she knows I'm taken, it will break her heart." Sarah Pomeroy had heard the child called "William." John Sutton produced the baptismal register, in which the child was baptized as Charles William Beadle. This, it was submitted, was not evidence to prove that the child mentioned in the indictment was the same which had been murdered. The name in the indictment was "Wm. Sheen," when the register proved that it was "Charles William Beadle," consequently no identity was proved, as the register was evidence that it was Charles William Beadle. Mr. Justice Holroyd gave it as his opinion that the objection was fatal to the present indictment. The prisoner must therefore be detained till another indictment could be framed. The Jury being asked by the clerk of the court to deliver a verdict of not guilty, the foreman seemed in doubt, and observed, that, if they were compelled to find a verdict of not guilty, they must do so; but they would not do it on any other account than a point of law. The learned Judge then explained, that he was as sorry as themselves that the indictment was not effectual. It could, however, be remedied by a new in |