JAMES BULLOCK, JAMES BULLOCK was capitally indicted for feloniously secreting and embezzling the effects of his creditors, he being a bankrupt, with intent to defraud the said creditors, and to convert the same to his own use, against the statute. Mr. Gurney stated the case to the jury; and after detailing the facts with great accuracy, and charging the prisoner with the embezzlement of property to the amount of one thousand two hundred pounds, and upwards, he concluded by saying that the offence imputed to the prisoner was the result of the most criminal artifice and deep deliberation, and that the creditors would have compromised their duty to the public, and the justice due to them selves, had they not prosecuted the present indictment. The jury, he added, might pity the man's infirmities, but, should he make out the charge preferred in evidence, they were bound to find him guilty. The first witness called was John Hubbard, clerk and cellarman to Messrs. John and George Cowell, who proved the petitioning creditors' debt, amounting to one thousand four hundred and seventy-two pounds, for rums and brandies sold to him. William Bryant, the prisoner's travelling clerk, proved the act of bankruptcy, and James Tracey and James Mabbs proved the prisoner's absconding from his counting-house, in Scot's Yard, Bush Lane, and from his country-house at Dulwich, to avoid the pecuniary difficulties into which he said he had fallen. The last witness also proved that the goods were carted away from the countryhouse, under the prisoner's direction. Evidence was then given of the prisoner's surrender on the first and second meeting, and that before the third he had absconded. Anthony, the officer, was then dispatched to Leith, where he apprehended the prisoner, passing under the name of Brown, and claiming in that name seventeen packages, which had been shipped in London on board the Leith packet, containing effects, which the prisoner was bound to have surrendered under his commission. Mr. Griffith Jones proved the prisoner's statement before the commissioners, that he had paid him a thousand pounds and upwards, a debt due to him, to be false, the prisoner never having been so indebted to him. Mr. Thomas Wilde deposed that the prisoner deposited with him certain securities, rums, wines, &c. upon which he lent him eight hủ.dred pounds, giving him a check upon the house of Prescott and Co. for the amount. This money the prisoner placed in the hands of Messrs. Herries and Co. Bankers, in St. James's Street, in the name of J. Brown, of No. 11. Chapel Street, Park Lane,' and in four days after he withdrew the whole amount, and carried it with him to Scotland. This money was found in the packages, and constituted part of the effects. A variety of other evidence was adduced to corroborate the various embezzlements, and to show the felonious intention of the prisoner to secrete his effects from his creditors. The prisoner was then called upon for his defence, when he addressed the Court and jury at considerable length. He began by complaining of the hardships and partiality of the statute upon which he was tried-a tradesman, he said, that secreted effects to the amount of twenty pounds after an ill-natured creditor had struck a docket against him, forfeited his life; but the nobleman and the gentleman, through whose dissipation and want of honesty tradesmen were often reduced to distress and misery, might embezzle and secrete the effects of their creditors with impunity, live in the rules of a prison with their produce, and still remain free from the operations of the statute in question. With respect to his motives, and his reason for not appearing before the commissioners on the third meeting, and also for his absconding, those he should explain in few words:-He felt a full assurance that the commission :ad not been legally issued against him, and he considered every step subsequently taken upon that commission as informal and invalid :-he believed himself solvent in his circumstances, and he had no intention of defraud. ing his creditors. As to the disclosure he made the first and second meeting before the commissioners, it was made under duress and restraint; and as he had been informed that at the third meeting it was likely he should be committed to prison, and the seal put upon the whole of his property, he determined on quitting London, as the only means left him of providing bread for his family, and supplying the necessaries of life to his aged parents. He added, that it was his intention to have returned from Scotland at the commencement of the term in November, and to have surrendered himself in discharge of his bail; and concluded with observing, that, as a tradesman, he looked to the jury for a humane interpretation of his motives; and, as Englishmen, he expected from them justice tempered with mercy. The prisoner then gave evidence of a docket having been struck against him previous to the commission in question, and consequently that the second commission was a nullity. He also proved a sufficient petitioning creditor's debt to support that docket. Those on the part of the prosecution endeavoured to show that the first docket was a contrivance in the furtherance of the prisoner's design, that of secreting and embezzling his creditors' effects. The judges on the bench (Heath and Le Blanc) concurred in opinion that the commission had been legaly established, and that the prisoner had in no way impeached its validity. Mr. Justice Heath then summed up the evidence; and having commented upon the whole of the prisoner's conduct, his changing his name, and subsequent flight to Scotland, concluded by saying, that charity itself could not suggest a doubt in his favour. The jury found the prisoner Guilty-Death. He was genteelly dressed in black, and exhibited uncommon skill and ældress during the progress of his trial. The court was extremely crowded, and the trial lasted nearly the whole day. MARGARET CRIMES, ALIAS BARRINGTON, AT the Old Bailey, on Saturday, the 14th of January, 1809, Margaret Barrington was capitally indicted for falsely taking an oath before Dr. Coote, Surrogate to the Judge of the Prerogative Court, Doctors' Commons, to obtain letters of administration, in order to receive twenty-four pounds, one shilling, and sixpence, prize-money due to one Thomas Rotten, late a private in the 87th regiment, and a supernumerary on board the Eurus frigate, at the time she made various captures in her voyage to the West Indies. The prisoner appeared to have been connected with two persons of the names of Vaughan and Knight, the former of whom was hanged, and the latter transported for life, for similar offences to that she was charged with. In her defence she persisted in the story of her marriage to Thomas Rotten; the only thing she was to blame in, she said, was presenting a fabricated certificate, which she confessed Knight made for her; but she was told she would not get the prize-money without it, and at Dumfries they kept no register of marriages. The judge summned up with great humanity; and the jury, after consulting together for some time, found a verdict of Guilty. On a motion of her counsel, she was again put to the bar, and pleaded, in stay of execution, that she was quick with child; upon which a jury of matrons were impanelled, who retired with the prisoner and Mr. Box, assisted by a surgeon of eminence, who were also sworn. After being absent about fifteen minutes, they returned a verdict, that she was not quick with child; whereupon the recorder, in a most solemn and pathetic manner, exhorted the prisoner to make the best use in her power of the short time allotted to her in this life. The unfortunate woman was taken from the bar in convulsions, but next day appeared resigned to her fate. She was executed before Newgate, February 22, 1809. COLONEL SPEED, TRANSPORTED FOR BIGAMY. JOHN SPEED was a lieutenantcolonel in the British army, having graduated through all the subordinate stations, from ensign to that honourable rank; and we have no doubt but his services deserved such an elevation, though we must lament that neither a proper sense of what he owed to his character as a inan, nor to the army of which he was a member, could prevent him from committing an offence against decorum and law, which subjected his person to merited punishment, and his name to obloquy and disgrace. In the year 1785, when he was only an ensign in the marines, he became acquainted with a Miss Nel son, whose father was an alderman of London, and who had the honour, at one time, of filling the civic chair. After an interval of courtship, he was married to the young lady on the 14th of September, at the parish church of Furneux Pelham, in the county of Hertford. He continued for some years to live with his wife, by whom he had several children; but, in consequence of gross misconduct on his part, his amiable consort was reluctantly obliged to seek refuge with her father from his tyrannic and inconstant temper. In the year 1792 articles of separation were signed between them; and his wife endeavoured to support herself, while he was sent on foreign service. In 1799 he returned to his native country, when he went to lodge at the house of a Mr. Thorn, a respectable market-gardener, near Putney, who was blessed with an amiable family. His second daughter at tracted the colonel's notice; but, as nothing but honorable terms would be listened to, he represented himself as a single man, and proposed marriage. A lieutenant-colonel was an object not to be rejected, and accordingly the unsuspicions girl gave him her hand in wedlock. For five months she continued a happy wife, when orders arriving for the colonel to join his regiment in Germany interrupted their coun bial felicity. They parted with every expression of affection on her part; and, as she was in that state in which ladies wish to be who love their lords,' she conjured him not to omit assuaging the privations of absence by frequent letters, which he promised, with seeming sincerity, to send her. But he harboured very different intentions, and on his ar rival in Germany sent her a letter, to inform her that she could neither look to him for support nor protection, as he had a former wife living. He adhered too faithfully to his hardened resolution, and never contributed to the maintenance of the woman he had deceived or the babe which she brought him. Several years elapsed, during which nothing was heard of the colouel; when he, thinking that his villainy was either forgotten or forgiven, ventured home. Justice awaited him; he was apprehended, and indicted at the Lent Surrey assizes, in 1809, for marrying Aune Thorn, his former wife being still living. The facts being proved, he was sentenced to transportation for seven years. CAPTAIN JOHN SUTHERLAND, comment upon our recommenda tion. was IN the discharge of our duty we have frequently enforced the necessity all men lie under of governing Captain John Sutherland their passions; and have generally commander of the British arined ilustrated our remarks by exhibit- transport, called The Friends.” ing the ill consequences which re- On the 5th of November, 1808, his sult from a want of their proper vessel was lying in the Tagus, about contral. But, if the reader is not a mile from Lisbon. with no one on yet convinced of its importance, we board but a negro manner and the request his attention to the follow-cabin-boy, named Rehard Wilson, 31 case, which we think a very the captain himself and the remain200d, though a very melancholy, der of the crew being on shore. |