Saturday 10 Apr 1819 (p. 4, col. 1-6) GAOL DELIVERY. [continued] CATTLE STEALING. [continued] Richard COMMON deposed that some time about the latter end of December last, (this witness was very cautious about giving dates) prisoner came to him and said he had a heifer among the Flatts beasts at Gillfoot which would suit witness very well for wintering. Witness went and looked at the heifer, and about three days afterwards prisoner gave her in exchange for an old cow and two cart-loads of potatoes; the heifer was brown upon the back and had black sides; no marks were upon her at that time. Sometime afterwards, witness saw prisoner on the road to Newcastleton, and mentioned his fears to him that the beast was not rightly come by, as there was a report of some having been stolen at Carlisle. Prisoner seemed to be angry, and said that somebody having an ill-will towards him wished to hurt his character. REA's name was mentioned, and prisoner said that REA had got the two beasts he had lost, and desired witness to write to REA to come and see his, the witness's, but witness did not write. About ten days afterwards, REA and DIXON, his man, came and claimed the beast which witness had of the prisoner, who happened to be present at the time. Prisoner desired witness to let REA have the beast until he found the man of whom he said he bought it. REA took away the heifer, and also a black Irish beast. Cross-examined by prisoner's counsel, COMMON said that the prisoner seemed very angry about the report, and did not leave the country, but he might if he had chosen, there was plenty of time: witness never heard any thing against his character: prisoner got his living by buying and selling cattle in a small way. His Lordship, observing the nature of this witness's evidence, and seeing by the examinations before the Magistrate that be had then sworn that prisoner told him he had bought the heifer at Carlisle, questioned him closely on that point: but he persisted that he could not recollect whether the prisoner said he got her at Longtown or at Carlisle-he believed Longtown. Court.-Will you swear that he did not tell you he got the heifer at Carlisle?-I would not say. Court.-If you don't give me an answer, I'll commit you: Did the prisoner not tell you that he got the heifer at Carlisle?-If he did I've forgot-I durst not say-it might possibly be Longtown. Court.-Now, Sir, I again ask you-and mind you have sworn it before-upon your oath, did he not tell you?-I durst not say. Court.-Have you any doubt-your shuffling in this way won't do-did he not tell you?-I think he did. Witness persevered in saying that he thought prisoner said he got the heifer at Longtown, and he thought he had always said so. He remembered being examined before a magistrate: if he then said that prisoner told him he got it at Carlisle, that would not be false.-After much prevarication this witness was suffered to go down. This was the case for the prosecution. When the Prisoner was called upon for his defence, he said that there was a mistake in the advertisement: the Clerk asked him how many weeks ago, and he took down five: it should have been six. His counsel called the following witnesses: Geo. IRVING lives at Longtown. Was at Carlisle on Monday the 14th Dec. last, and returned the same day. Has seen the prisoner casually about Longtown, at the Swan, but does not otherwise know him. As he was going to Longtown on the day mentioned, he saw a man bring a brown-backed highland heifer out of a field at a place called the Bog, between Blackford and Westlinton: this was about 12 o'clock, noon. The man and witness travelled on a little, and Adam MURRAY, the prisoner, came up. Immediately the man proposed selling the beast to MURRAY, and asked him five guineas for it; MURRAY bid him four for it the first word, and after a bit of haggling, the man agreed to take that sum. They all went on together till they came to LATTIMER's public house at Westlinton, where they had a quart of ale. There was another young man on the road with a mell (a mallet) upon his shoulder. Witness had a glass of ale and went on, leaving the others at the public house. This witness underwent a long cross-examination.-He is perfectly sure the hour was twelve and not nine, and if any body has said it was nine, that was false. When he saw the man first, he was fetching the beast out of the field, which he believed was inclosed, and had no road through it. The man did not look like the owner of the field, but like an Irishman. He did not offer the beast for sale to witness, but did to the prisoner the moment that he came up, and in 40 yards the bargain was ended; this was half a mile from Westlinton. If any one has said that the man who sold the heifer had a brother-in-law with him, that is not true. The bargain was not made at the door of the public house. It can't be true that the prisoner got the beast upon Carlisle Sands. If any person had been passing through the village of Westlinton, that person could not see the spot where the bargain was made. Witness has been more than once or twice into the gaol to the prisoner. By the Court.-He thought the man was an Irishman because he was shabbily dressed, but he knows nothing of the prisoner, nor the prisoner of him.-How came the prisoner then to find you out? A carrier told him.-How did a carrier know that you was present at the bargain? I can't tell. William HODGSON, Esq. Mayor of Carlisle, took the prisoner's examination, on the 6th of Feb., and what therein appears is a faithful statement of what he gave in. The examination was read: the prisoner stated that he had bought the heifer in question for four guineas, at Thomas LATTIMER's door, at Westlinton, of a man named BRIGGS or RIGGS, who had another man with him, his brother-in-law. Thomas ABRAHAM proved that he faithfully took down the advertisement above quoted according to the prisoner's instructions, a few days before the 30th of Jan. His Lordship summed up the evidence, and pointed out the great variety of stories which the prisoner had related of this business, no two of which agreed: and made some strong observations on the nature of the prisoner's principal evidence. The offence with which he was charged was a capital one, but in general not of that nature to render it necessary that the law should be carried into execution: still the law had wisely thrown this protection around property which was peculiarly exposed. The Jury without hesitation found the prisoner Guilty. His Lordship immediately passed sentence:-Prisoner at the Bar, Adam MURRAY.-You have been found guilty by a jury of your countrymen upon the clearest evidence of a crimc which the laws punish with death. And there are circumstances of aggravation in your case that would well warrant me in permitting those laws to take their course were I severely inclined. Although you have added to your offence by the subornation of witnesses to commit perjury-at least one witness has clearly perjured himself-I shall not permit the rigour of the law to be carried into execution. Your crime is not a light one: you are a man in a comparatively respectable station of life; and you ought to have, and might have, maintained yourself and family with credit: instead of which, you have lent yourself to a species of theft of a dangerous nature, and I should be perfectly justified in leaving you for execution. But I do not intend to do so. I should betray the best interests of the country, however, were I to permit you to remain in it. You must be banished for life, and may the mercy extended to you this day have such an effect upon you, as to open your eyes to the evil of your ways, and lead you, by future good conduct, to wipe out the stain which now lies heavily upon you.-His Lordship then, in the usual form, passed sentence of death. The prisoner, who during the whole of the trial kept up a good countenance, now drooped, and was taken from the bar dissolved in tears, and in great agitation. [to be continued]