28.—At the Norfolk Assizes held at Thetford, before Mr. Justice Richards, William Hardiment and Benjamin Neal, who were concerned with James Johnson in the murder of Mr. Baker at Wells-next-the-Sea on October 11th, 1817, were put upon their trial. Hardiment had evaded apprehension, and at the Spring Assizes in 1818 the bill charging Neal as an accessory was thrown out by the Grand Jury. Several witnesses now deposed to having seen Johnson and Hardiment in company at about the time of the murder, and two persons confined in Aylsham bridewell at the same time that Hardiment and Neal were prisoners there gave evidence as to hearing conversations between the two when planning the murder. One of these witnesses (Thomas Robinson), on December 24th, 1821, met Hardiment at Beverley, in Yorkshire, and gave information which led to his arrest. The jury found Hardiment guilty, and acquitted Neal. Hardiment was executed on the Castle Hill, Norwich, at noon on April 1st in the presence of an immense crowd of spectators. “Not more than three yards from the gallows a boy was knocked down by a gentleman who detected him picking his pockets.” —At the same Assizes, before Mr. Justice Richards, the cause Lock, D.D., _v._ the Bishop of Norwich was tried. In consequence of simony alleged to have been committed by the Rev. Dr. Lock, the patron of the advowson of Hilgay, the Crown had seized the living and presented the Rev. Dr. Hewlett thereto on April 6th, 1819. This action of _quare impedit_ was instituted by the plaintiff to try the right of the Crown to such presentation. The defendant raised three pleas: (1) that the Rev. John Royle being seized of the living of Hilgay it was corruptly agreed that Lock should resign the living of Compton Martin, in Somersetshire, and cause him (Royle) to be presented to it, and also that Lock should pay Royle the sum of £12,900 for the advowson of Hilgay, and that in consideration of the promises Royle should resign the living and cause Lock to be presented to it. (2) That Lock being seized of the living of Hilgay did corruptly agree with one James Craddock, that in consideration of the said Craddock paying to him the sum of £25,000 he (Lock) should convey to Craddock the advowson of Hilgay, and also resign the living and cause him (Craddock) to be presented to it. (3) That Lock, being seized of Hilgay, having presented Craddock, did corruptly agree that, in consideration of Lock abandoning certain proceedings in an action for debt against Craddock, he should forego proceedings upon a bill of indictment for perjury preferred by Lock against Craddock, but Lock corruptly prevailed upon Craddock to resign the living in order that he (Lock) might present himself to it. The jury gave a verdict for the Crown generally upon all pleas. The Judge: A very proper verdict. It is very disgraceful dealing, gentlemen.