The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-17 00:00:00

JANUARY 17, 1857. This closed the case for the prosecution. On Thursday Mr. Sergeant PARRY opened the defence in favour of Pierce, grounding his argument on the authority of Lord kbinger and Baron Alder. son, of the right of Pierce to an acquittal, upon the point that tie evidence of the accomplice, Agar, should be corroborated, not merely to the facts of the case, but also with reference to the person of the accused against whom the evidence lay, and also in all material and substantial particulars. The learned sergeant then proceeded to analyse the evidence, and contended that it did not sufficiently establish Pierce's guilt in reference to the perpetration of the robbery. On no one occasion of the journeys up and down the railway was Pierce, though well known, recognised. Neither was there a tittle of evidence to connect him with the reception or sale of the gold. It was abso. lutely necessary that Agar should be fully corrobo rated in the most material parts of the case, but there was a total absence of corroboration, which, if Pierce had been engaged in the robbery, could easily have been obtained. Referring to the 100/. note which had been traced to Pierce through Raffan, whose name appeared on the back of it, be must remind the jury that it was not changed until November, 18.55, six months after the robbery, and after Agar was arrested. Who was to say that this was not one of the notes left by Agar with Pierce for the support of Fanny Kay, and now by Agar's malignity turned into evidence against the prisoner? Mr. GIFFARD next followed on behalf of Burgess, and with great ingenuity endeavoured to prove the improbability of Agar's story, so far as concerned his frequent journeys undiscovered up and down the line to tit the keys of the safe, and upon the utter improbability of three men, on the night of the rob bery, being able unobserved to secrete themselves in the bullion van, and to get out without creating re mark. The learned counsel then proceeded to com ment upon the statement made by Agar, and said that if Burgess and Tester were really concerned in the robbery, it appeared to him they had no necessity for the assistance of Agar, but if they had the guilty intention to commit such a robbery as this, they had every facility for the commission of such a crime by themselves, and there was not the least necessity for them to introduce any strangers into the transaction. He was instructed that Burgess knew no more of the robbery than the jury did, and he submitted that nothing was mere probable than that the robbery might have been effected while the bullion boxes were upon the quay at Folkestone, during the night. It appeared to have been the custom for the bullion chests to be placed in this position, and he asked if anything was more likely than that a person who was prowling about for an improper purpose should be come acquainted with the fact, and embrace the opportunity to commit the robbery during the period that they were so left. He contended that there was no evidence to show that the robbery was actually committed in the manner spoken to by Agar, and that, for anything that appeared to the contrary, the robbery never was committed as Agar suEgested; but that it was equally probable that the robbery was effected after the bullion chests had been removed from the train, and that Burgess, con sequently, knew nothing whatever of the matter. Mr. Sergeant BALLANTINE then followed for Tester, taking much the same ground held by Sergeant Parry, that there was not sufficient evidence to identify Tester in connection with any one fact, of Agar's statement, so as to fix upon him the guilt of complicity. He observed upon the absence of any esidence to show that Tester had any control what ever over the keys of the bullion chests. It was not even pretended that Tester was seen with this black bag on the night the robbery was committed, but it was merely said that it was about the time, and from this fact the jury were to infer that he had a portion of the stolen gold in his possession. Supposing the statement to be true, how could they account for his conduct in going to the Greenwich station instead of at once proceeding to his own residence, and endea vouring to avoid observation? instead of doing so, however, he actually went to the clerk and fixed his attention to the fact of his having gone down to - Reigate after business hours, and to his having a Llack bag in his possession that contained something heavy. No witnesses were called, and this concluded the case for the defence. Mr. Baron ..ilartrist then proceeded to sum up—expressing his opinion in favour of the rob bery having been committed between London and Folkestone, and, going through the whole of Agar's evidence, pointed out those portions in which it was corroborated by other witnesses, from his account of the visits of himself and Pierce to Folkestone to the consummation of the robbery, the return to London, and the division of the plunder, Having thus pointed out those parts of Agar's evidence confirmed by other witnesses, the learned Baron dis missed the jury at a few minutes to five o'clock to consider their verdict. , In ten minutes the jury returned a verdict of Guilty . ' on the second count (simple larceny) THE PRESS. against Pierce, and " Guilty" on the first count against Burgess and Tester. The prisoners having been placed at tho bar for judgment, Mr. Baron MARTIN proceded to deliver judg ment—remarking in peculiar and severe terms upon the villany of Pierce's conduct toward.: Fanny Kay, and the folly and crime of Burgess and Tester suffering themselves to be drawn into a scheme of plunder. The learned Baron, regretting that he could give Pierce no heavieepunishment, said to him : I do declare that if I stood in that dock to receive sen. tepee f should feel more degraded to be in your place than in that even of either of your associates. You had been long connected with this man Agar; he trusted you, and he gave you 3,0001. stock to be invested for the benefit of his child and its mother, together with 600/., his share of the produce of this robbery, and the rest of the gold which had not been sold. In all you must have got out of him about 15,0001. This you stole and appropriated to your own use. It is a worse offence, I declare, than the act of which you have just been found guilty. I would rather have been concerned in stealing the gold than in the robbery of that wretched woman—call her harlot, if you will—and her child. A greater villain than you are, I b.-lieve, does not exist. He then sentenced him to be imprisoned for two years, the first, twelfth, and twenty-fourth months to be passed in solitary confinement—Tester and Burgess to be transported for fourteen yea's. In connection with the gold robbery and the dispo sition of the Turkish Bonds, au action was tried in the Lord Mayor's Court this week between Pierce and Williamson, the police officer, for the possession of the Turkish Bonds belonging to Agar, but seized in Pierce's house. The Recorder held that as the goods were in the custody of the law they were not attachable until after the trial of the plaintiff. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Bodkin applied for these Bonds on behalf of the Company. Mr. Baron Martin expressed an opinion that by right they belonged to Fanny Kay. THE FORGERY GANG. THE reexamination of Saward and Anderson took place on Wednesday at the Mansion-house, when the principal witnesses for the prosecution were called to corroborate the statements of Atwell. Mr. Doe, an ironfouuder of Osborn•street, White chapel, deposed that on the night of the 21st of December his premises were entered, and an iron safe broken open. He missed eight returned paid cheques and two blank cheques taken from his cheque-book, the counterfoils of which he produced. The cheques for 46/. ns. and 951. produced, bearing his signature, were not in his handwriting. The lodging-house keeper of Leman-street, Good man's-fields, identified Anderson as the person who, under the name of Davis, took apartments in her house last January. Davis, the porter at the Hing's Arms, deposed to having been employed by Anderson to get cashed a cheque for 93/. on Messrs. Barclay. Elizabeth Evans, the young woman with whom Atwell lived, identified Seward as having visited Atwell in her presence early last year, and as having left behind him a parcel of nine cheques, now iden tified by Mr. Ash, an ironmonger of Upper Thames• street, whose house bad been robbed in February, 1556, as the nine cheques on Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co., stolen. James Humphreys, Chapel-place, Islington, green grocer, deposed, he was out of situation in the month of February, 1856 ; he advertised for a situation, which was answered in the name of Hammond ; in consequence of the letter he went to Oakley-crescent, and saw a person who he believed to be Anderson, who engaged him, and sent him to the Camden sta tion to look after his luggage; when he went back to Oakley-crescent Anderson sent him with the cheque for 91/., produced, to Smith, Payne, and Co.'s, where it was stopped. Mr. Mullens said he did not propose to call any other witnesses that day, but asked for a further remand. The prisoners were then remanded until Wednes day next at half-past twelve. JUDGMENT in the famous ease of "Swynfen v. Swynfen " was delivered on Monday at the Court of Common Pleas. This case, it will be remembered, was before the court last term, and excited consider able attention. The plaintiff, Mrs. Swynfen, claimed an estate worth about 80,0001., but on the trial her counsel, Sir F. Thesiger, had, as she said, compro mised the matter without her sanction and against her wish, and she refused to carry oat the terms of the compromise. An application was made for an attachment to compel her to carry out the arrange ment, and judgment was now given upon the question whether the rule for an attachment should be made absolute. Mr. Justice CROWDER delivered judgment, pre facing his argument by an intimation of bis opinion :-- The attachment is brought against the plaintiff for not performing an agreement embodied in an order of Itist 59 rins, which has since been made a rule of court. It seems to me that there is no sufficient proof of a valid agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to warrant the order of ni.a prius, and that therefore the rule of court founded upon it cannot be enforced by attachment. The plaintiff contended that this agreement was entered into by her counsel, Sir Frederic Thesiger, without her consent, and contrary to her instructions. She refused to perform it. The defendant contended that-Ist. Sir F. Thesiger had a -pecial authority to make it on behalf of his client. 2ndly. That even if he had no special prior authority, the plaintiff had subsequently ratified the agreement. 3rdly. That, independently of any special prior authority or subse quent ratification, Sir F. Thesiger had an implied general authority arising from his position as counsel to bind his client by that agreement. Mr. Justice Crowder entered at great length into the arguments on both sides, bat before doing so alluded in the follow ing manner to the unjustifiable language used by the counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Kennedy, against Sir Frederic Thesiger : Before adverting to the affidavits, I feel bound to express my decided reprobation of the unmeasured and unwarrant able language uttered by one of the learned counsel who argued this rule for the plaintiff against Sir F. Thesiger, directly charging him with the most dishonourable con duct. It is hardly necessary to say that such an unjusti fiable attack could not have the slightest tendency to injure the well-established reputation of Sir F. Thesiger in the minds of this court, nor indeed could have any other effect than that of damaging its author. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that Sir F. Thesiger remains entirely unsullied in this transaction. The learned judge then proceeded to deliver his judgment against the rule on three grounds:-Ist. That Mrs. Swynfen never gave any special autho rity to her counsel to make the arrangement concluded. 2. That nothing in her subsequent pro ceedings amounted to a ratification of what had ori ginally been done without her consent. 3. That her counsel, apart from any special authority or subse quent ratification, had no general authority, arising from the mere relation of counsel and client, to com promise a cause against the client's wish or without the client's consent. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said that the opinion of his brother Crowder left his brother Williams and himself no doubt as to the propriety of not granting an attachment in this case. As the validity or inva lidity of that agreement could be decided elsewhere, they were anxious that the case should be as little prejudiced as possible by anything they might say. They, therefore, abstained from discussing the matter further, and they would only notice the affidavits for the purpose of expressing commiseration for the state of that man's mind ‘‘ho could find in them any thing to the prejudice of that distinguished advocate Sir F. Thesiger. The rule for an attachment would therefore be discharged, but inasmuch as no fault could be imputed to the party making the applica tion, they all agreed that it should be discharged without costs. Rule discharged. Mr. }linos, the Coroner for the Duchy of Lancaster, committed suicide last Friday night in his lodgings in Crozier-street by swallowing nearly an ounce of essential oil of almonds. From the evidence adduced it appeared that the unfortunate gentleman had suffered severely from a diseased brain and general depression of spirits. The medical evidence as to the cause of death was conclusive. Mr. W. J. Payne, jun., barrister-at-law, of the Temple, said he knew the deceased very well, and since 1849, in consequence of his bad state of health, had acted as his deputy in holding inquests in the Duchy of Lancaster. During last week witness received two letters from the deceased, complaining of illness, which he acknow ledged on Thursday. Mr. Payne added that about two years ago Mr. Higgs, while suffering from severe illness, asked whether witness saw any harm in a person, whose life was a burden to himself and of no use to others, shortening his existence. The Coroner having remarked on the melancholy nature of the case, paid a well-deserved tribute to Mr. Higgs's memory, and left the case to the jury, who instantly found a verdict of " Temporary insanity." THE LAMBETH MURDER has this week assumed a new phase from the singular prevarications of the husband of the woman, Mr-1. Bacon, charged with the murder. Mr. Bacon, in his statements to the police, has not been at all consistent, and the discovery up( n his left hand of a long, deep, straight, fresh cut, about which be has prevaricated a good deal, has attached to him a certain nnplettssnt suspicion. Inspector Young is prosecuting his investigations. HORACE MONTEFIORE. charged with the forgeries at the Cape, was discharged on Thursday for want of evidence to warrant committal. On leaving the court he was arrested by a sherifrs officer for debt. A YOUNG TAILOR blew out his brain ,- t 4, Bar• nard's.inn, on Tuesday, because tho the chambers refused to marry, him. a verdict of " Temporary insanity ' was wins at t 4, Bar. servant girl cf At the inque.t . retarn•d.