clerk, had such power, and, on that, issue was joined. The Crown charged that the work was not done according to the specification. The defendant says, "True; but the variance was directed, and authorised, by your surveyor, Laing." The question then became simply, was Laing authorised, or was he not; and that led directly to the construction of the instrument. If that instrument should (as he thought it ought) be looked upon in the plain straight-forward way in which all such documents should be received, it would then be seen whether it gave to Laing the authority relied on or not. On that point, he confessed, he never entertained any doubt whatever. In that instrument, Mr. Peto entered into an engagement on his part, in consideration of a sum of 165,000l. to erect certain buildings, and to complete the several works specified in plans, and according to scales numbered from one to thirtyone. These were the obligations into which the defendant entered: but then he says, "It is true I have, by the deed, undertaken to do these things, but there are other provisos in it, which put me under the necessity of following the directions of the surveyor, whatever they might be. I was bound (as the learned counsel had ingeniously, and not too strongly, put it), if Mr. Laing had thought fit to alter the plan of the Customhouse to a plan for a church, I was bound, I say, to obey his directions, and go even to that extent." He (the lord chief baron) must admit, that, in thus arguing, the learned gentlemen had not gone too far: but how stood the facts? In the first place, it was a most marvellous circumstance that so important a power as that

here contended for, was asserted on mere parole authority, or by any other less formal mode, by which the whole scheme for the buildings in question might be altered. It was most marvellous that this power should be picked out by implication instead of having been expressly declared in the instrument. Could there be any article in a contract more important than a power to alter all the other stipulations of it? and yet, instead of its being set forth in the instrument, that extraordinary power was only picked out and maintained by argument. It became necessary here to look at the articles. (Here his lordship read the contract, and commented upon that passage in it which provided for the addition to, or the reduction of, the number of works specified at the discretion of the surveyor). Was it possible, therefore, he should ask, that it was intended a power should be given to the surveyor to vary the whole scheme, by substituting one thing for another? The sound construction of the passage necessarily was, that Laing should have the power to add to or diminish, but not to vary; and most particularly with respect to the foundation, on which the security of the whole edifice was to depend. (His lordship here referred to other clauses in the deed, declaring, as his opinion, that even by the most violent and forced construction of the instrument, it gave to the surveyor no such powers as would justify Mr. Peto in substituting other works for those expressly stipulated in it; and that, for the sum mentioned-165,000l., the defendant was bound to complete the works as specified). It appeared, therefore, to him, that upon the first

issue, unsupported by any other, the Crown was entitled to judgment on all. He felt himself called upon to add, that Mr. Peto appeared to have acted throughout under the impression that he was justified in making the alterations referred to, by the directions of Mr. Laing. He regretted the unpleasant consequences to the defendant, but must declare that, upon the right of the Crown to the judgment he had just delivered, he had not, from the commencement, the slightest doubt.

Mr. Baron Hullock concurred in opinion with his lordship, that the Crown was entitled to judgment upon all the issues non obstante veredicto.

The Lord Chief Baron said, that Mr. Baron Garrow had authorised him to say, that he fully concurred in the judgment of his learned

brethren.

Mr. Scarlett begged to know, whether, even had there been no stratum of gravel in existence, their lordships' judgment would have been the same?

The Court replied in the affirmative.

PETIT TREASON.-LEWES,
JULY 28.

Before Mr. Baron Graham. Hannah Russell was indicted for murdering Benjamin Russell, her late husband, by administering to himaquantity of arsenic, at Brightling, on the 8th May last; and D. Leany was indicted as an accessary to the same murder.

The female prisoner appeared to be about 40 years of age, but was, in fact, only 31; and the man, who appeared to be about 30, was only 19.

Wm. Russell, the father of the deceased, said, he saw the deceased alive at his own house in the evening of Sunday, 7th May. He was then cheerful, and in good spirits. Witness lived about a quarter of a mile from his son's house in the same parish of Burwash. On the Monday morning, about one o'clock, he was aroused from his sleep by some dirt being thrown at his window. He got up, and opened the casement. The female prisoner was outside, and desired him to come down, and let her in. She said that Benjamin, his son, had dropt down in a fit, or was dead. The other prisoner, who was immediately behind her, said the same thing. They appeared to have come together, and wished witness to help to get Benjamin home. Witness dressed himself immediately, and accompanied Leany about three miles into the parish of Brightling, and Leany brought him to a foot-path, where they found the deceased lying stretched on his back. He was then dead, cold, and stiff. His clothes were on, and there was a handkerchief tied round his body. The spot was not far from the House of a Mr. Holloway, a farmer, about sixty or seventy rods from Gleddish Wood. The deceased was lying stretched out on his back straight, the hands close to the body. The prisoner Leany then said, that he and the deceased had been stealing some corn from Mr. Holloway's barn, and had divided it into two parcels. The sack, which the deceased was carrying, was the heaviest, and he complained of a pain in his heart at the time. The prisoner then offered to take a turn of his load. The deceased declined, and advanced up the field with the load on his back,

and prisoner, on coming up to him, found him dead, but he did not know whether he had dropt down in a fit, or died a natural death. It was then so dark that witness could not see the dress of the deceased minutely. Witness and Leany then moved the body into Gleddish Wood, and placed it on some stubble. Witness's motive for so doing was to hide the shame of a transaction in which the character of his family might be injured, by its being discovered that a son of his had been guilty of a robbery. Witness returned home between four and five o'clock, leaving Leany to follow him at some distance. In his way home, he saw a person, named Thomas Hawkins, and spoke to him. Witness did not know the cause of his son's death until the following Wednesday, when the coroner's inquest was held. When examined before the inquest, he did not give the same account of the transaction, because he understood that those who helped to move the body would be punished.

John Woodsell proved, that, about eight o'clock, on the morning of the 8th May, he was going into Gleddish Wood, and saw Leany, who told him he had found a dead man (Benjamin Russell), who had been going after a tub of gin, and he (Leany) was to have met him at eight o'clock. He said, he thought the deceased had made away with himself, but said nothing about robbing Mr. Holloway's barn.

John Sheater proved his having a similar conversation with Leany, about nine o'clock, the same morning. Leany told him, he found the deceased lying on his back.

Robert Boules, a blacksmith, proved, that about seven o'clock

in the morning of the 8th of May, he called at Russell's house, and saw his wife; Leany came in soon after; she said she had been greatly alarmed that morning by a noise up stairs, as if somebody had jumped out of the bed. She considered it a token of somebody's death, and hoped nothing had happened to her husband. She said her husband went out, between four and five o'clock in the morning, towards Gleddish Wood, after a tub of spirits, and had ordered Leany to go after him in about half an hour. The prisoner Leany had lodged in Russell's house about six weeks.

Elizabeth Elliot proved having been at Russell's house about one o'clock on the 8th of May; both the prisoners were present. Mrs. Russell said her husband had been in bed with her till between five and six o'clock that morning.

Hilder, a labourer, proved, that he went with the female prisoner to see the body of the deceased the day it was found. She said on the way, she supposed she would be forced to bury him on Wednesday, as she expected he would be very much swelled, because he had eaten so hearty a dinner and supper on Sunday. On their return to her house, witness asked her what time Leany went to bed on Sunday night? She said, why, Hilder? Witness said, " He was not in bed here was he.” She replied, "It does not make any odds to you." Witness then said, "Why, Ben (the deceased) was not a-bed here." She said, "Yes, that he was, by the side of me." Witness then told her he knew that Leany was not a-bed then, as he knew a man who had seen him. She said, "I know who told you that. It was Hawkins, curse him, he may as well keep his mouth

shut and look at home." Witness had put the questions in consequence of a conversation he had had with Hawkins. Witness had been at Russell's house the Sunday be fore.

Francis Russell, uncle of the deceased, proved, that the day the body was found, he asked Leany, whether he had been at home the night before; to which he replied, that he had, and did not get up till seven o'clock in the morning. Witness told him he had heard that he had been seen at half-past four. The prisoner then said, that he got up early to go to see his sister, but afterwards altered his mind, and returned and went to bed again. He said the deceased went out at six o'clock that morning.

Mr. Evans, a surgeon, proved that he examined the body of the deceased on the 10th of May. The mucous membrane of the stomach was in many places quite eroded. There was a considerable quantity of gross white powder adhering to it, which he analyzed, and obtained nearly sixty grains of white arsenic.

Joseph Oliver was at the deceased's house about three weeks before he died. Mrs. Russell was putting some poison, or white powder, on some bread and butter, and said it was for the mice; Leany and French were there, and saw her do it; does not know what she did with the bread and butter; she made no secret of spreading the powder on the bread and butter.

Ann Hicks said, she was at Benjamin Russell's house when the prisoner was expecting her husband home, and said she would cut his throat, break his head, or poison him.

Thomas Reef, being at deceas ed's house about fifteen or six

teen days before his death, asked the prisoner where her husband Ben was? She said he was gone to bed. Witness asked her what

made him go to bed so soon. She said, they had been falling out and fighting, and added, “I'll be up to him for this-I'll be the death of him before the summer is out." Leany was present and said, “Hush that up." She said, “I'll be cursed if I don't.”

Thomas Luck had heard Mrs. Russell say several times, when speaking of her husband, “I wish he would drop down dead, and never come back any moré."

James French, about eight or nine days before the death of the deceased, heard prisoner say, when speaking of her husband, that she would kill him, or in some way or other be the death of him. Her husband was present at the time, and on hearing her use those expressions, he went out of the room; there was then no quarrelling between them.

Robert Ellis, headborough of Hawkesborough, said, when he apprehended Leany, he found him and Hannah Russell sitting close together; he said, nobody could swear that either he or Hannah poisoned the deceased. When witness was taking the prisoners to Horsham, Leany said to Mrs. Russell," Don't you say any thing; if you don't, nobody else can.' Mrs. Russell said, "I'll try and clear myself.”— This was the case for the prosecution.

The prisoners said, they had nothing to state in their defence.

The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, found the prisoners Guilty: and they were ordered for execution.

LANCASTER, FRIDAY, AUG. 18. Alexander M'Keand, or Keand, and Michael M‘Keand, were charged with the wilful murder of Elizabeth Bates, at Winton, near Manchester, on the 22nd of May. [See page 81.]

Martha Blears,-I am the wife of Joseph Blears, a publican, residing at Winton, near Manchester; about five or six in the even ing of the 22nd of May, that man (pointing to Michael M'Keand) came to our house, and asked for a glass of beer; in about half an hour that other man, Alexander, came in; I had known him near twelve months; I had never seen Michael before; Alexander sold tea, and stockings, and other things, and was in the habit of calling in his travelling rounds; when Alexander came in, they did not seem to take any notice of each other for some time; Alexander asked for a glass of ale, and some bread and cheese, and, when I brought it, Michael said he would thank me to bring him a knife, and he would take some bread and cheese along with the other gentleman, meaning Alexander; I supplied both with more drink; I went in and out of the room several times: it was the bar; they did not appear to know each other for some time; there was a sofa in the bar; I had an opportunity of looking into the bar when they did not see me, and I saw them repeatedly whispering; they were both on chairs at this time; Alexander asked me, if my husband was at home? I told him he was gone to Manchester; they had then been above an hour in the house; he asked how long my husband would be away? I said I could not tell, but I hoped he would come back as

soon as possible; I asked him if he wanted him for any thing particular that I could do? he said, he only wanted to treat him with a glass of whisky; my husband came home about eight o'clock; Alexander shouted to him to come into the bar; he went in and sat down with them. Alexander called for two half noggins of whisky for each. My husband did not leave the room for many minutes that night, but he did leave it for a short time; when he was going out, Alexander said he should partake of another glass. They were served with two more noggins of whisky; while the others were drinking whisky, Michael had two glasses of wine, and one bottle of cider. Between nine and ten, I saw my husband lie on the sofa, seemingly very ill, intoxicated, and I saw Alexander pour some liquor into his mouth. This roused my husband, and he asked me for a glass of water. The pouring the liquor into his mouth made him nearly dead-he had no sense: he fell asleep again. I went and sat in the kitchen. I looked into the bar and observed the two prisoners whispering very close together. About ten o'clock, Michael said, I must let them have a bed, as they had a good deal of money on them, and did not like to walk to Manchester at night; I then said, if they could make shift, they were welcome; about a quarter of an hour before they went up stairs, both went out, and remained out about a quarter of an hour; Michael asked me if my husband went to bed when he was drunk? and I said sometimes he did, and sometimes he did not. Michael asked me, if I stopped along with him? and I said sometimes I did, and sometimes I did not, He then asked