Colonel Murray, who had known him since the year 1812, and spoke in the highest terms of his character as a quiet, mild-tempered man.

Mr O'Connell, who had known Mr O'Callaghan nearly all his life, and Mr Charles Stewart Radford, deposed to the same effect.

On the part of Mr Newbolt, four witnesses appeared. Mr R. Baldwin had been intimately acquainted with his family for a great number of years, and with Mr Newbolt since the cessation of hostilities, for two years, and for mildness, humanity, and gentle manlike conduct, he gave him an excellent character. Mr Caslon, Lieut. Thomas Burke, and Captain John Allen, confirmed this statement.

For Mr Phelan. Mr Woods, who had known him twelve months, considered him to be a humane, honourable, and kind-hearted man. Mr Baker, Mr O'Brien, and Mr Tubb, gave him a similar character.

Mr Justice Park, precisely sixteen minutes to twelve, commenced his charge to the Jury. He began by observing, "That the three unfortunate gentlemen at the bar, stood charged with the wilful murder of Edmund Bailey, by shooting him in a duel. The crime, as laid in the indictment, was, as they would perceive, that of murder; and the Jury, he had no doubt, were well aware, that the feloniously killing or taking away the life of another person, in order that the same should constitute murder, obviously supposed the person who had done

so to have acted from malice, either expressed or implied. It might be expressed by words, gestures, and actions, or implied in the circumstances attending the transaction. The circumstances which accompanied this most unfortunate and lamentable event now before the Court were, no doubt, fresh in the recollection of the Jury, and the numerous audience; but he should feel himself indispensably bound, nevertheless, to go over them, and the way they had been detailed in evidence, to prepare the minds of the Jury, for afterwards applying to them the ob servations he should feel it his duty to make at the end of his recapitulation of the facts of the case. He had therefore nothing more to say till he had discharged that part of his public duty. [Here the learned Judge at great length recapitulated the evidence. He then observed, that, as in every other case, it was indisputably clear, that all who were present in a case of murder, either aiding or abetting, were equally guilty with the person who committed the act. In a duel, for example, where a person might be killed by the firing of a pistol, and when others were present who acted as seconds to the combatants, the law held all of them equally guilty, though the trigger of the pistol was only drawn by one. So tender and so careful was the law of England of the lives of the King's subjects, that all homicide was supposed to originate in malice, except something directly the contrary was proved, or that such circumstances had taken place as would fully take away the sting of malice. The law had certainly very wisely, in many cases, provided differant extenuations of the crime, which crime might properly be justified under peculiar circumstances. It was, however, for the Jury to say, whether, in the present unhappy and deplorable case, there were sufficient appearances

to take away from it the sting of malice. It was his public duty, however painful it might be to his own feelings, to state to them, as far as he knew from his various readings, what the law of the country was, as regarded duels. It was particularly important he should do so now, as, from the crowded state of the Court, he sincerely hoped the law on that subject might be promulgated. Happy for society, happy for individuals, would it be, that those persons, who thus voluntarily exposed themselves to danger, would reflect but for a single moment, not only on the awful jeopardy in which they placed themselves, but on the painful duties which they thereby rendered it necessary for others to execute. They would probably feel more advantage from such a short but serious reflection than tongue could describe. In cases of duel, there was no necessity for malice, as in other cases of murder; for, if in them a deliberate intention was shewn of doing bodily harm, under the pretence of vindicating injured honour, and if death should ensue, the law held that to be malice; and this kind of malice came directly under the description of malice expressed. Lord Hale, one of the greatest criminal lawyers of this country, and one of the best of men that had ever adorned society, had laid this down to be the law, and indeed it was well known to most of those who heard him, that in a recent case, about ten or eleven years ago, in the King's Bench, a most learned and amiable Judge, now no more, had fully laid down the law in the very same way, thinking it was proper to do so, in that manner, for the benefit of the public. In his learned and valuable work, the Lord Chief Justice Hale held, that if A and B should fall out, and in the moment of passion fight a duel, that was not murder, but merely

homicide; but if they should appoint a time to meet, and during the interval, time was allowed for reflection and deliberation, then that was clearly murder. The very same opinion was held long before Lord Hale's time, by Sir Edward Coke, who was Chief Justice of England in the time of James I. Mr Justice Foster also laid down the same opinion as law, for he considered dueling to be murder, as it was in such cases founded on a principle of deep revenge. It was proper the Jury should observe the striking words of the Lord Chief Justice Hale, and apply them carefully to this case. The murder so committed, consisted, as that great and good man so justly observed, in the deliberate act which was manifested by the time allowed to intervene between the quarrel, and revenge taken by the injured person. The same was the opinion of the late Mr Justice Blackstone. It was only justice to say, that when a man deliberately sought the blood of another for a private quarrel, he was completely guilty of murder, but if the duel was suddenly fought, the crime was reduced to manslaughter. He hoped that in these quotations he had made himself intelligible to the Jury and the Court, and he would only again repeat his earnest wish, that the law in this case were more generally known. With regard to the unhappy gentlemen at the Bar, he felt himself bound to say on his solemn oath, that if the Jury were satisfied the crime was the effect of deliberation, the whole three were guilty of murder. It would be an insult to the Counsel for the prisoners, and an equal insult to the good sense of the Court and Jury, to throw out a single doubt respecting the deceased having been killed by Mr O'Callaghan. To doubt that was morally impossible. If the Jury were satisfied the seconds, as they were called, were there, they were

equally guilty with Mr O'Callaghan. From the evidence it was clear they were there, to see that, in the language of these gentlemen of honour, fair play was used, but they were not there for the purpose of preventing it. In the daily newspapers cases were often seen, and seen with pain by every friend of humanity, of challenges being sent two or three days before the duel was fought. Such were cases of cool, wilful, deliberate murder, but it was the province of the Jury to say, whether such was the case here. Probably the quarrel might have begun at a tavern, or a theatre, and the individuals had gone to the fatal spot with their blood warm. That was also for the Jury to consider. A higher character than that given to Mr O'Callaghan, could not be given to any man. It appeared that he was the friend and companion of the deceased. Perhaps he had been insulted by the deceased, and felt, as every man more or less did, that the stings of a friend are more severe and goading than those of an enemy. On this ground he might have felt the reproaches of his friend to be painfully oppressive, and might therefore, in the moment of irritation, have gone to the field without thinking what he was doing. The time allowed to deliberate might not have been granted, but the Jury had to determine that. If, on the whole of the case, the Jury entertained honest and conscientious doubts, they would, of course, give the prisoners the benefit of them, especially considering the very excellent characters they had received, and he was sure, in no instance ever before a Court, had a better character been given to any person than had been given to the whole three. They were respectable in their appearance, and they had called a most respectable host of witnesses as to character. One observation more, and he should conclude. It was to be

deeply lamented that men, who had borne such admirable characters for humanity and gallantry, in the service of their King and country, should have so far forgot, not only their duty to their country, but to themselves, as rational, intelligent, immortal beings, as to expose not only their own lives to danger, which lives they had received from an all-merciful Creator, but also to expose another individual to the awful peril of rushing into the presence of Almighty God, in an unguarded, and perhaps unprepared moment. That was an alarming idea, to which it would be well for such persons in all time coming to attend ; yet it was most lamentable to see the present spirit of the times for duelling. Such were the observations he had felt himself bound to make, and such was the painful nature of the case before the Jury. They were now to decide

they were now to declare, whether the gentlemen concerned in this most deplorable transaction were guilty of Murder or Manslaughter. The case was of the deepest importance. It was important to the public-important to the prisoners. Happily it was in the hands of the Jury, and he trusted sincerely from his soul, that that God who searched the hearts of the children of men, would lead them to a right verdict. To acquit the prisoners was impossible. The only verdict was, that of guilty of Murder, or merely of Manslaughter. May God lead them to do right!"

The Learned Judge concluded this most impressive address precisely twenty-seven minutes after twelve, and the Jury then retired to consider their verdict. While they were out, the prisoners sat down in the box, and appeared deeply involved in thought. În fourteen minutes the Jury returned, finding them guilty of Manslaughter.

MARIA WALTON, FOR BIGAMY.

Sussex Assizes, Horsham, March 19.

This morning the Court was excessively crowded with ladies and gentlemen, to hear this interesting trial. Before eight o'clock, Maria Walton, alias Maria Wilkins, was put in the prisoners' box; she was dressed in white, with a light-coloured pelisse, and wore a round black hat with feathers, and a black veil. Her countenance was exceedingly prepossessing, notwithstanding the natural anxiety of her feelings upon the situation in which she was placed. A few minutes after eight, Mr Baron Graham entered the Court, and Mr Gurney (Special Counsel) and Mr Bolland, both for the prosecution; as also Mr Nolan and Mr Chitty, Counsel for the prisoner.

After the indictment had been read, to which the prisoner pleaded, Not Guilty, and was allowed the privilege

of a seat,

Mr Gurney opened the proceedings by stating, that the prisoner was the daughter of a respectable tradesman, and was married very young to a Mr Cox, who lived at Bombay, in India, where he died in 1809. The following year she was married to Mr Wilkins, at Bombay, when they shortly afterwards returned to England. For a considerable time the prisoner lived at Brighton, upon their separation, where Mr Walton became acquainted with the prisoner, and was so captivated with her person, that he fell in love with her, and they were married at Lewes in 1816. Mr Walton had been thrown into gaol in consequence of debts contracted before marriage. He was a young man of military fame, and had acquired glory by his bravery in the memorable battle of Waterloo. He would call witnesses to substantiate the fact of the bigamy. The

prosecution was carried on by the mother of Mr Walton.

Mr Maitland, clerk of the Secretary's Office at the India-House, produced the book of registers of marriages, births, and deaths, at Bombay, commencing the 14th January to the 19th December, 1810.

The Rev. Mr Burroughs stated, that he was a resident chaplain at Bombay 42 years; every marriage is regis tered at the church, and copies are regularly transmitted to England, after they are compared with the original register, signed by the clergyman. The prisoner was married to James Thomas Hacket Wilkins by him, on the 26th of January, 1810. They left Bombay soon afterwards. Witness had not seen the prisoner until he had an interview with her in Bristol gaol, where

she was confined for want of sureties to keep the peace against Mr Walton's mother. This was about three weeks ago. He knew the prisoner well at this interview, notwithstanding the length of time which had elapsed since the marriage at Bombay, owing to the celebrity of her character, and the ob servation he made at the time as to her person. This was further corroborated from the conversation he held with the prisoner at that time, when she recognized him. There were no subscribing witnesses to the marriage at Bombay, which was by license.

Mr Winter, the parish clerk of St Peter's, Lewes, produced the register of the marriage at that parish church. namely, " Robert Baron Walton, of the parish of Brighton, and Maria Cox, of the parish of Lewes, by licence, 28th May, 1816." The witness was present at the solemnization.

Mrs Brierly, of the Pelham Arms, Lewes, was also present at the marriage.

Mr Bampfield, surgeon, of Bedfordstreet, Covent-garden, knew the pri

soner, and her deceased husband, Mr Cox, in Bombay, and subsequently her second husband, Mr Wilkins, who introduced the prisoner to him as his wife. They resided at Bombay, till June, 1809, when they sailed for England. Witness left India in the same fleet, and since their arrival in Eng land, witness often corresponded with Mr Wilkins, and who was now at Horsham.

Mr Yates, clerk to Mr Evans, solicitor to the prosecution, proved the acknowledgment of the prisoner, that she was married to Mr Walton whilst Mr Wilkins was living.

Mr Nolan addressed the Court, and urged a variety of objections as to the validity of the marriage with Mr Wilkins, and contended that the record on the indictment did not give a value to the preceding contract of marriage in India, as the Jury could not try it in a civil or criminal capacity, and upon these grounds the indictment could not be sustained.

Mr Chitty followed in a similar course of argument.

The Learned Judge overruled these objections, but at the same time reserving his opinion for a further argument before the bench of Judges, if the Counsel for the defendant thought fit.

The prisoner in her defence stated, that she was married to Mr Wilkins in India, and that on their arrival in England he became involved in his circumstances. A separation ensued with mutual consent, and an agreement to that effect was entered into; that when Mr Walton paid his addresses to her, she told him of her circumstances, and also, that by the opinion of her professional advisers, she was repeatedly told that her marriage with Mr Wilkins was illegal, owing to there being no witnesses present at the solemnization. She declared her innocence of

having inveigled her second husband to a marriage, and for a long time resisted his importunities.

The Rev. Robert James Carr was examined on behalf of the prisoner, who stated, that Mr Walton had made application to him for a license. Being confined to his house at the time, he requested Mr Walton to call in a day or two, during which period the reverend clergyman requested his curate to make inquiries respecting the lady. Upon Mr Walton's second application, the witness declined granting a license, and with the greatest consideration of kindness, begged of him to recollect the unhappiness he would give to his mother, by marry. ing this lady. Mr Walton was determined to obtain a license elsewhere, which the reverend witness observed, had he been aware, he would have prevented, by giving information of the circumstances of the objection for his refusal.

The Learned Judge summed up the evidence with much force and perspicuity, and pointing out the facts to the attention of the Jury, he left it to their consideration to give a verdict accordingly. The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy.

The Learned Judge, in passing sentence, observed to the prisoner, that from the frank and open manner in which she declared her situation to Mr Walton, as being previously married, and which was partly proved in evidence, the crime with which she was charged was much extenuated, and that she would be visited with the least punishment the law in such cases had pro. vided. The sentence was six months' confinement in the House of Correction at Lewes, and that it should be attended with as gentle treatment as was suitable to her situation.