26] 
were bound with a piece of tape 
was described in court. The knot 
that had been used was what- 
seamen call a timber hitch, and it 
was obviously such as could not be 
done by himself. There was no di- 
rect and positive proof as to the guilt 
of the prisoners ; but there was a 
chain of most suspicious circum- 
stances. pointing against Ludman 
and Hughes. The lord chief baron of 
the exchequer summed up the evi- 
dence with great precision, candour, 
and humanity. It was on the ex- 
pressions used by the prisoners that 
the proof chiefly rested, and his 
Jordship nicely discriminated be- 
tween those that seemed to arise 
from surprise, on the discovery of 
the situation of the deceased, and 
those which could only be supposed 
to proceed from a knowledge of the 
murder.—The jury retired for a- 
bout an hour, and returned with 
a verdict, finding Richard Ludman 
and Eleanor Hughes guilty.x—Ann 
Rhodes aid Mary Baker not guilty. 
Sentence of death was immediately 
pronounced on Ludman_ and 
Hughes, by the recorder. 
ait Mary Nott, Richard Lud- 
“man, and Eleanor Hughes 
were executed before Newgate. 
6 This morning Henry W ese 
th. 
ton for forgery, and John 
Roberts, alias Colin Reculist, also 
for forgery, were executed pur- 
suant to their sentence, opposite 
the debtors’ door, in the Old Bai- 
ley. 
gih Was tried, in the court of 
“" king’s bench, Guildhall, be- 
fore lord Keynom and a special ju- 
ry, an informatiog filed by the at- 
tourney general avainst D. J. Eaton, 
a bookseller in Newgate-street, for 
a libel in publishing ¢ @ book, which 
dctined the words ‘* a king” to im- 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
ply ‘cunning and craft, which 
would soon be in disrepute in this 
country :” ‘a niggard” to mean, 
“a king who had defrauded bis 
subjects of nine millions of money. — 
—Oh! Mr- Guelph, wheredo you 
expect to yo when you die?” and — 
that the guillotine should be intro- 
duced into this country, as a more 
merciful mode of punishing kings — 
and queens than by the ax, &c. 
Lord Kenyon concluded his 
charge tothe jury with observing, 
that the king was entitled to the 
same protection of the laws with 
other men; and they would consider 
whetber any pari of the king’s con- 
duct talled for such observations as — 
those which had been read to them — 
from the book published by the de- — 
fendant. His jordship thought his — 
majesty, like the judge of Israel 
(Samuel), might appeal to the ju- 
ry and say, ** Whose ox have I 
taken ? Whose ass have I taken? 
Whom have I defrauded ? Whom | 
have I oppressed ?””? The jury, after 
15 minutes consideration, returned 
a verdict—guilty. 
oth A cause was tried in the 
“court of king’s beneb, Guild- 
hall, between the proprietors of a 
newspaper called the Telegraph, 
plaintiffs, and the proprietors of the 
Morning Post, defendants. It was 
proved, “that in the month of Fe- 
bruary last, the defendants had con- 
trived to forward to the office of the 
Telegraph, from Canterbury, a spu- 
Tious French bewspaper, contain~ 
ing a pretended renewal of the ar- 
mistice, and preliminaries of peace 
between the emperor and the 
French republic. The proprietors 
of the Telegraph being thus im- 
posed on to give as ¢rue a translati- | 
on of this false frabricated intellie 
gence, and thereby sustaining much 
3 discredit 
