Louisa Ramsay stood indicted for attempting to fire two loaded pistols at Lieutenant Talbot with intent to kill him or do him some grievous bodily ba m. This was an off nce of a very serious nature, and one which called for their most attentive consideration, for the offence rested in the intention. The Jary would have to consider what were ber intentions; for no matter what might have been her object-however diabolical, unless she intended, by the act, to do that with which she was charged, the im, before them could not be found. The question was this. Did she attempt to fire the pistols for the purpose of creating alarm, or out of bravado? or did she intend to commit, on Lion enant Talbot, some grevious bodily harm-and the principas point, therefore, for the Grand Jury to discuss, what was his Ramsay's intention. The same pr. ciple, the Chief Justice observed, was equally applicable to the case of Alan Ramsay, whe, stood indicted for being an accessary before the fact in the above case. Before finding the bill, the Grand Jury should be satisfied that Mr. Ramsay allowed his wife to go our for the purpos of being revenged on Lieutenant Talbot, and that he was aware of the manner in which she intended to effect that revenge.

་་

With respect to the case of Mungloo khitmugar, and Malloo chokydar, for cutting and maiming; the Jury must be satisfied in this also, of the intention of the parties to commit some grevious bodily harm. There was n doubt that their intentions were to rob the party by whom they are accused.

In the case of a British subject, named Thomson, charged with bigamy, his Lordship stated that some doubt might perhaps arise in consequence of the offence having been committed before the date of a recent statute, which specially provided for the punishment of the effence in this country, but upon the well known principle of Civil Polity, that in English settlements, as affects British subjects, so much of the Municipal and Common Law of the mother country prevails, as is applicable to the situation and condition of such settlements; he would recommend the Grand Jury, in this case, to find a bill; at the same time, if any doubt arose in the mind of either of the other Judges, as to the legality of the conviction of the charge, if proved,

the matter should be referred to Eng. land for the consideration of higher authorities.

After the learned Judge had conclud. ed his charge, the Grand Jury retired, and in a short time returned with a true bill against a female named Poonee for larceny.

While the Grand Jury were absent, Mr. Turton made a motion, that the name of Air. Claude Augier, summoned to serve as a petty Juror at the present Ses ions, be struck out of the Sheriff's list, in consequence of his non-liability to serve. Air. Turton read an affidavit made by Mr Claude Augier, stating that be is not a British born subject, (but of French extraction,) he is not a householder, nor is he worth Sa. Rs. 5,000, after all his just debts are paid. Mr. Turton observed, that the rule of qualifications stated, that a person is liable to serve as a Juror, if he is a householder and paying Fifty Rupees per mensem for rent, or worth 5.000 Rupees. The Chief Justice ordered Mr. Claud Augier's name to be struck out of the Sheriff's list for the present, and gave directions to the Clerk of the Court to make inqui. ries as to the facts of the case, as set forth in Mr. Augier's affidavit, although he, the Chief Justice, had no reason to doubt its authenticity.

Poonee was then placed in the dock, and pleaded not guilty. The indictment being read by the Clerk of the Crown, set forth, that she was charged with having, on the 11th November last, feloniously stolen from the residence of one Hurry Krisnoo, a quantity of gold and silver jewels, value above fifty Sicca Rupees.

The particulars of the case, as appear. ed from the evidence, are as follows:

On the 11th November last, the prosecutor, who resides in Jora Bagaun, was absent from home at the time the robbery was effected, and on returning at 10 o'clock at night, he was informed of the robbery, on which he proceeded to the Thanna and gave information of his loss. The thannadar, naib, and a chokeydar, returned with him to his house, and took an account of the property missing, and their suspicions falling on two of the prosecutor's servants, (one of whom is the prisoner,) they were taken into custody and conveyed to the Thanna.

The prosecutor remained at home, and during the night, the prisoner was taken back to the house of her employer, and in consequence of repeated threats held out by the latter, she produced the stolen property, which was secreted under a Tucktapose, and delivered it to the Thannadar. Besides the jewels, there were in cash 34 Rupees, 7 quarter, and a half Rupee, which were subsequently found in a box that had been partially burnt. The money was not produced by the prisoner, but by one of the prosecu tor's family from the box, from whence the jewels were taken. It used to be kept locked in the prosecutor's sleeping apartment. The prisoner had been about four months in the service of the prosecutor, and she was well aware of the contents of the box. The prosecutor estima.ed the value of the property stolen at about 700 Rupees.

The Thannadar was called and corroborated the statement of the prosecutor; be observed, that he himself did not hold out any promises to the prisoner, nor did he threaten her.

Gvina Doss, who was an inmate of the prosecutor's, was called and stated, that about 10 o'clock on the night of the 11th Nov. last, he was asleep, but was awoke by the cries of the prisoner, who stated that she had been beaten by three or four persons, and that they had made their escane from the terrace. On which witness went on the terrace, and on his way he found the box, (now produced by the naib, together with the stolen property, which was recognized by the prosecutor as belonging to him,) the bottom of which was Durut sufficiently large to admit the band.

The prisoner made a very ingenious defence. She stated that she did not commit the robbery, but one Ramsydy, an old servant of the prosecutor's, of fourteen years' standing, who placed the property where it was found. The prisoner observed, she cautioned Ramsydy not to commit the robbery, to which he observed "why should be fear, he would not be suspected, as he was an old servant, but that all the suspicion would fall on her (prisoner), and if she was to accuse him, she would not be believed." The prisoner called no witnesses, and the Chief Justice delivered his charge to the Jury. He recapitulated the whole of the evidence, and observed that there was no doubt a robbery had been com.

mitted above the value of fifty Sicca Rupees, and it was for them to consider whether the prisoner was the guilty party or not. With respect to the defence of the prisoner, wherein she set forth that Ramsydy had committed the robbery, he, the Chief Justice, thought it very inconsistent with the story the prisoner told, when she was apprehended in the first ins ance; she did not, at that period, make mention of Ramsydy having committed the robbery, from which he should infer, that Ramsydy had no hand in it, and it was very improbable, if he intended to commit the robbery, that he would tell the prisoner of his intentions. It was, however, for the Jury to decide upon the prisoner's guilt or not. After the Jury had con. suited together for a few minutes without leaving the box, they returned a verdict of GUILTY of stealing in a dwel ling house to the value of Fifty Rupees. Judgment of death was recorded against the prisoners.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1831.

BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

Thomas Martin, a youth about eighteen years of age, was placed at the Bar and capitally indicted for having, on the 4th October last, feloniously storen a silver hunting Watch, made by Manly and Co. Liverpool, No. 36,419, value £5, on the high seas, the property of Edmond Free. man Bryan.

The particulars of the case, as appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor and witnesses, are as follows:

About three months ago, the prosecu tor, who is the Captain's servant of the Duke of Buccleugh, lent to a Mr. Tucker, the third officer of the above Ship, his watch, for the purpose of keeping the time. On the night of the 3rd October last, Mr. Tucker, after his watch was over, proceeded to his cabin, in the Steerage, and after hanging the watch up therein, went to sleep, and on getting up the following morning, about 8 o'clock, he missed it.-In consequence, he in timated his loss

to the captain, who desired all the crew, together with their chests, to be searched, which was subsequently done; but the lost property was not forthcoming. After the arrival of the Duke of Buccleugh off town, constabie Abraham Pratt, accidently went on board to see the second officer, and, in course of conversation, was given to uz

derstand, that a silver watch had been Bolten from the third mate's birth.Previous to the Constable going on board, a Native named Ramchund Napit, who is a shaver on board the Duke of Buceleugh, went with another shaver, named Radamohun and the prisoner to the Police Office, for the purpose of getting a pass to enable the latter to sell the stolen watch; but the application for the pass was refused by Mr. McCann, in consequence of the names of the captain or the chief mate not being attached to the application. In consequence of Pratt's bearing of the loss of a watch, and having obtained a description of it, he went in search of Radamohun, and after finding him, took the watch, and again went on board, where it was immediately recog ized by the prosecutor and Mr. Tucker, in consequence of which he took the pri soner into custody. It appeared that the way the watch got into the possesion of Radamohun was as follows:- on the prisoner coming on shore he met Ramchund in Tank Square, to whom he intimated that he wanted to sell his watch, -on which he was informed, by the latter, that before he could do so, he must get a pass from the Police, and to the latter place they both went ; on arriving at the Police gate, they fell in with Radamohun, who, being informed of the nature of the business, undertook to get a pass without much trouble, and accordingly got a petition written out by one Neemchurn Bonnergee, after which the prisoner signed it, but failing in his wishes to get the requisite pass, he left the watch with Ramchund, observing that it would be some time before he could get the sig nature of the captain or mate, and in the interim requested him (Ramchund) to take care of it; but it was subsequently made over to Pratt by Radamohun, who knew where it was deposited. Mr. Tucker and the prosecutor both recognized the watch which was produced by constable Pratt; the former observed that the prisoner, in his application to get a pass, had signed his name Thomas Martin, but in the ship's books he was entered as Thomas Saxsly, by which name he always went on board. The prisoner merely observed, in his defence, that his true name was Thomas Martin; when he went on board o'ship, he took the name of Saxsly, because he left home without the knowledge of his parents, who would have prevented his going to sea, if they had known his intentions. He said nothing concerning the crime with which he was charged. The Jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth.

Mungul khitmutgar, and Malloo chokedar, stood indicted with having, on the 5th August last, committed an aggravated assault upon Kurreem Buz, by throwing him down, and tying a cord about his arms, and inflicting two severe wounds on his throat. O the prisoners being put into the dock, the Chiet Justice told them they might, if they wished, have their trial postponed until the Sessions, but at their request it was at once proceeded withIt appeared, from the evidence of Kurreem Bux, that on a Friday, about four months ago, he was walking about the neighbourhood of his house, which is in the same enclosure as that of the prisoner Mungul's, and, on returning home, he found the prisoners and two women making a noise, and drinking toddy.He went and expostulated with them on the impropriety of their conduct, to which Mungul replied, he would do as he pleased in his own house, in consequence of which the prosecutor took away the toddy which the prisoners and their companions were drinking, and carried it to the Thanna, where he also lodged a complaint against the prisoners for riotous conduct. On returning home he found that the prisoners had gone away, and he retired to rest about 3 o'clock, in the afternoon. A little after dusk, ungul returned home,a i asked the prosecutor if he was offended with him, to which the prosecutor replied in the negative, and commenced smoking, and after a short time had elapsed, Malloo came in and also smoked, after which they all went out for the purpose of getting more toddy, and at the request of the prisoners, they all went to Short's Bazar, where the latter observed the best was to be obtained. After the prosecutor had been smoking and drinking in the shop of the Suree, he was taken by the prisoners to some unfrequented spot, where he was tripped up by Malloo, and his arms pinioned with a piece of cord, and Mungloo holding a knife to his throat demanded what connection he had had with one Nussebund, to which he answered none. In struggling. be received two wounds from the knife. Some per. sons in the service of Mr. Kemp, resid. ing in Short's Bazar, going to his assis tance the prisoners ran away, and the chokeydars arriving, the prosecutor was taken to the Thanna, and from thence to the Police Office, as he was taxed with being drunk. Several witnesses were called, but their evidences were very conflicting; the only one that cor. roborated the testimony of the prosecu tor, as far as the seeing of the prisoners and prosecutor in company, was that of a burkindauz, named Budhinauth, who,

it appeared, was formerly employed by the Police, but was discharged about eleven years since, owing to a murder having been committed in Short's Bazar, in consequence of which, great blame was attached to him for neglect of duty, or a knowledge of the circumstance.

Dr. Vo-s was called, and stated, that on examining the prosecutor on the above occasion, he found six or seven superficial marks on his throat, one of which, had penetrated the skin, and caused a few drops of blood to flow, he did not see any marks on his arms from the effects of the rope with which they were tied.

The prisoners, in their defence, tried to prove an alibi, Mungul called several witnesses, some of whom spoke to hav ing seen him at 3 o'clock, (on the day on which the crime was alleged to have been perpetrated,) attending on his employer, at the house of Colonel Craigie, and others at his own house, from 6 o'clock in the evening until midnight. Malloo also called several witnesses, who swore to their having seen him at the house of one Buddoo Mistry, at dusk, on the above night.

The Chief Justice then proceeded to charge the Jury at considerable length; he observed that the prisoners were, in the first instance, indicted for cutting and maiming, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm, and the Grand Jury, as be, the Chief Justice, thought, had done rightly in throwing out the bill. He said that the crime was of a very serious pature, and if the prisoners had contemplated any bodily harm, it was hardly possible for them not to have effected their purpose. If they only intended to frighten the prosecutor, such a practice ought to be checked by severe punishment. In recaputu ating the evidence, the Chief Justice observed, that the whole of it was very extraordinary and conflicting, and the witnessess either on one side or the other, must be perjured. He observed, that it either was a wicked contrivance of the prosecutor's in getting his hands bound, for the purpose of mak ing the present charge, or that the pri soners were fully guilty of the capital crime for which they were originally indicted. The only corroboration of a portion of the prosecutor's testimony was, that of Buddinauth's, who, by his own confession, had been discharged from the Police, on supposition that he had some knowledge of the murder committed in Short's Bazar, and his evidence could not be so satisfactory as if it came from a person who bore an upright character. The present is a case of the greatest importance, and be conjured them to give it a

due consideration. After a few minutes had elapsed, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

Coomaree bearer stood indicted with having, on the 21st April, 1829, feloniously stolen from a dwelling house one hundred and eight Rupees, the property of William Henry Duff.

The prisoner pleaded not Guilty.

Mr. William Henry Duff, being sworn, deposed, that on the night of the 20th April, 18.9, he had One hundred and eight Rupees tied up in a handkerchief, which he placed under the pillow of his bed. On getting up the following morning, about 7 o'clock, he took the above money, and placing it under the pillow of a couch, went to recline thereon, and after lying there a short time, be again went to bed, but forgot to take the money with him. On rising about 9 o'clock, he went to look for it, and found it was gone, but the handkerchief in which it was contained was left behind. The prisoner, who was in his service in the capacity of a bearer, was in the habit of taking to him two suits of clothes every morning from the Dhoby, and on the morning the money was missing he had done so ; but on the prosecutor calling him, for the purpose of assisting in dressing him, he was not to be found, in consequence of which witness began to entertain some suspicions, and finding he did not again make his appearance, be went and lodged a compaint at the Police, where witness again saw him about four months ago. Mr. Duff observed that be was sure as to the identity of the pri

soner.

Bernard Riely was then called, and stated that he knew the prisoner; he was in 1829 in the service of Mr. Duff. Recollects Mr. Duff saying that he had lost 108 Rupees on the 21st April, at which period the prisoner absconded from Mr. Duff's service, nor did he ever return.

The prisoner, in his defence, denied the charge; he stated that he had been in Mr. Duff's service, and his reason for leaving it was, that he was severely beat by him and turned out of doors, in consequence of which he went to his country.

Mr. Duff was recalled and asked if the prisoner had been beat by him on the above night, to which he answered in the negative, and observed, that on the contrary he always treated the prisoner with a great deal of kindness. The prisoner called no witnesses, and the Jury, with out any hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty.

The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Cochrane stated the nature of the Indictment.

The Advocate General, in a brief address, laid before the Jury an outline of the case, and of the evidence he should produce in support of it, as it affected both the prisoners, abstaining, at the same time, from offering any comment which might, by possibility, give the least bias to the minds of the Jury.

G. R. Talbot. I am a Lieutenant in the 8th Regt. N. I. which was quartered at Delhi in April last; there is a mess in that Regiment; I was at the mess of the 1st Regt. N. I. on the evening of the 9th April last; I was the guest of Lieut. Corner. There were about 25 or 30 persons present. Whilst at the dinner table, a little after the dessert was removed, I heard a noise behind my head, like the click of a pistol. I took no notice of it. It was repeated; and I jumped up, Lieut. Corner did the same, rushed behind my chair, and fell to the ground with some one in his arms. I heard a voice exclaim "how dare you seize me," which I recognized to be the voice of Mrs. Ramsay. I know the lady at the bar. I do not know what country woman she is. I think I have heard her say she was an Irish woman. She is married to Mr. Ramsay. I believe him to be an Englishman; he speaks English, I have Been Mrs. Ramsay write, I look at this paper; it is written badly, but I be. lieve it to be in her hand writing.

Cross examined by Mr. Turton, Counsel for Mrs. Ramsay. I was brought to a court martial some time before this occurrence; it was on a charge of bei g guilty of indelicate conduct to Mrs. Ramsay; it was so worded; I was never, previous to that, desired by Mrs. Ramsay, not to visit at her house. I was desired by her not to visit her in August, 1830; the court martial was in February, 1831. I thought you referred to a former occasion. Once or twice I may have previously gone to the house, and been told she was ill; I believe it was so, I never went but at her own invitation. On that occasion I did go to pay a morning call, Mrs. Ramsay never expressed herself offended with liberties I took with her. There was something passed about an attempt to embrace her. I said I did not intend by it any thing serious, and I promised I would not do so again. It was between this and February, 1831, when I was tried, that I called, and did not obtain admittance. On my court martial I accused Mrs. Ramsay of improper conduct, so far as her asking me for my house, which I refused. I certainly did accuse her of grossly improper conduct towards me. I did not do so til after I was interdicted from visiting. There had been very unpleasant differences in the Regiment, and a good deal of disunion amongst the oicers; they existed from about 182s. Lieutenaut Ramsay was absent from the Regt. in July and August, 1830. I had been living on terms of intimacy and friendship with Lieut Ramsay, and yet I voted against his being admitted into the mess, because I said he would bully it. I wrote to him to that effect. There was no quarrel between me and Lieut. Ramsay. I always thought him a good natured, good hearted man, with the exception of being litigious, and bringing matters unnecessarily forward in the mess; there were others who thought so as well as myself. He was only spoken to by Lieutenant Williams and myself. He was at this time second Lieutenant of the Regiment. In February, 1831, I believe, he was senior Lieutenant. I think I have heard Mrs. Ramsay say she was an Irishwoman-she may have been in joke, but I thought she was serious. I never knew Captain Birch before he came as Deputy Judge Advocate General on my trial. Captain MacNaghten drew