The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-07-31 00:00:00

A CURIOUS ACTION IN PARIS.

M. Laferriere, a journalist, who happens also to be
an advocate, has brought a curious action against M.
Pietri, Prefect of Police (says the Paris correspon-
dent of a London contemporary). He was one of the
many citizens arrested on June 10, on a charge of con-
spiracy against the safety of the State. He was kept
in prison till June 15, and then discharged " provi-
sionally." Since that time he has in vain importuned
the Judge of Instruction to go on with his case, and
there being, in point of fact, no case against him, he
has taken the audacious resolution 0f bringing an
action for false imprisonment.
Firt of all he applied, according to law, at the
office of a Juye dc Pain for a summons calling upon
M. Pietri to appear, as a preliminary step, in a Court
of Reconciliation. The clerk, when he heard the name
of the defendant, stared at him with amazement, and
refused to grant the summons. He then, in the ab-
sence of the Jaye de Pair, waited on his deputy,
who knowing more law than the clerk, did not
positively refuse, but asked for time to consider.
Thereupon M. Laferrii.re said he would not brook
the delay, and that he had found means to go
directly before the Civil Tribunal without first
passing before a Justice of Peace. According to
his law this course is not necessary where there are
several defendants. Ile, therefore, drew up a de-
claration, not only against H. Pietri, hut against
M. Simmonneau, the Commissary of Police, who
ai rested him, and M. Brandeth, the gaoler of
Mazes, who kept him in custody. He undertakes
to prove that M. Pietri maliciously and illegally
arrested him without any avowable evidenee4 that
the Commissary of Police, of his own authority,
took him to prison, whereas his only warrant was
to take him before a Judge of instruction; and
that the gaoler of Maras illegally kept him in custody
for three days before he was regularly authorised to do
so, and on the simple verbal authority of M. Stmmon-
neau. M. Laferri2Te lays his damages against the
Prefect of Police at 10,000 f., and against the other two
defendants at if. each. He contends that the permis-
sion of the Council of State is not necessary to sustain
this action, inassnuch as the defendants were not acting
as functionarieswithin the meaning of article 75.

TRIAL OF A FARMER FOR WIFE
MURDER.
At the Lewes Assizes the Lord Chief Baron tried
Jeremiah Stubherfield, a farmer, who was indicted for
the murder of his wife at Ashburnani in May last.
This was an extremely painful case, as it rested on the
evidence of a child of the persons concerned. Accord-
ing to his account, when he awoke in the morning he
saw his father kneeling over his wife and squeezing her
throat. The child stated that he said, "You'll hurt
her," and that his father said, "You hold your tongue."
The poor woman was found to be dead. The pri-
soner appeared to have lived on affectionate terms
with her, and, so far as appeared, there was no
motive for such an act. Insanity seemed to have
been hereditary in the family, for the prisoner's father
was some years ago sent to a lunatic asylum, and his
grandmother committed suicide. Ttie prisoner himself
had, however, shown no particular signs of insanity,
but having been for some months much depressed in
spirits, his friends had been on the alert, fearing that
his mind might become deranged, as his father's did.
After a few witnesses had been called, the jury found
him "not guilty on the ground of insanity."

In connection with the above sad case, the Daily News,
with a desire to prevent a similar tragedy by arousing atten-
tion to premonitory admonitions, remarks:—
It is very painful to note an increase of cases in
which verdicts are given upon grounds of insanity.
At Lewes Assize on Friday a farmer was charged with
the murder of his wife in May last. It appeared from
the evidence that the prisoner had lived on "affectionate
terms" with the poor woman who was strangled by
him in a sudden fit of madness. Then there was that ,
sad occurrence at Rottingdean, where a child was
thrown over a cliff by a nurse only recently libe-
rated from an asylum. It is hard to believe that
these people did not exhibit premonitory tokens
of their terrible privation of reason. There is,
we know, the strongest prejudice in certain classes
against even recognising this visitation, and it is
appalling to think with what recklessness men or
women of this order will intermarry with a full know-
ledge of consequences, including perhaps a series of
ferocious homicidal paroxysms. The question of in-
terference is one, of course, that should be cautiously
raised, but it would be well if in some manner a
healthier tone of feeling on the subject prevailed.
There is no story in literature more pathetic than the
tale of Lamb's care of Bridget Elia, and yet with
all his care we know the desperate affliction which
fell upon them both. Dr. Winslow and others have
registered many of the warnings which precede mad-
ness, but it should be remembered that an hereditary
taint is not alone a warning to those who have reason
to fear it in themselves but a misfortune which may
involve responsibilities necessitating an austere self -
control. The Rottingdean case has another moraL
Should latients from lunatic asylums be given the
charge of children, especially when it is notorious that
in seasons of cerebral excitement their conduct is
vicious and hysterical; and when a calamity occurs
through want of thought and judk,ment in this way,
who is morally in part acnaintable for it?