The Express.
London, England, 1862-03-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT. —eilltlJeSFOßD, Masai 11.
The commission for the county of Essex was opened in
this town on Monday, and the business, especially that on
the criminal side, is very heavy, there being fifty prisoners
for trial, and two of them are charged with wilful murder.
Another WO of murder from Dunmow is under inveatiga•
Lion, but it is not likely to be disposed of at these assizes.
The gaol calendar also contains a number of other very
serious charges, and there is an unusual amount of cages of
arson. The cause list contain' Z 2 entries, live of which are
special jury cases. Lord Chief Justice Erle presided on the
crown side, and Mr. Justice Wightman at nisi prius.
CROWN MOE.
Mr. Thomas Merchant Tonkin, a medical gentleman of
high respectability in the county, surrendered to answer •
charge of misdemeanour, in having unlawfully entertained
and harboured a lunatic in a certain house at Witham, the
same not being licensed as a receptacle for lunatics, contrary
to the statute, &c.
The defendant pleaded guilty.
Mr. C. Pollock, who, with Mr. F. H. Lewis, appeared
for the prosecution, said that it had been instituted
under the authority of the Commissioners of Lunacy,
but be thought it right to state that there did not ap-
pear to be the slightest grounds fur supposing that
the defendant had acted otherwise than with the greatest
kindness and can towards the unfortunate person who wee
the subject of the inquiry ; and, in point of fact, the extent
of hie offence appeared to be that he had been guilty of •
technical infringement of an act of parliament. Under these
circumstances, although the Commissioners of Lunacy had
felt it to be their duty, having in view the necessity of
preventing, by all the means in their power, the possibi-
lity of persons who were in the unhappy position of
lunatics being subjected to improper treatment, to insti-
tute the present prosecution ; still they did not think it
was • case that called for the infliction of anything in
the shape of punishment, and on the part of the prosecu-
tion he should be content if the defendant entered into Lis
own recogoirances to appear and receive the judgment of
the court if he should be called upon to do so.
Mr. Philbrick, who was retained with Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., for the defence, said be thought it right to add • few
words to what had been stated by his learned friend who
appeared for the prosecution, and to inform the court that
the gentleman whose reception by the defendant had led to
the present charge being preferred against him, was formerly
suffering under • descnption of insanity known as melan-
cholia, and that, having formerly been the inmate of another
asylum, he was discharged as cured by the authority of Dr.
Winslow,but &relapse taking place it was considered the better
coarse to place him in some private establishment, rather
' than a lunatic asylum, and that this was more calculated to
procure his speedy recover r, and he was thus placed under the
charge of the defendant with his own consent, and under
the advice of Dr. Travers, an eminent physician in London,
well acquainted with all the forms of the melancholy ma.
lady under which he was suffering. He could able able
that it was admitted on all bands that the defending ins
• highly respectable gentleman, and that he had taealied
unfortunate patient with the utmost skill and humanity.
Chief Justice Erie said he was very glad to hear that time
was not the learnt suggestion that the unfortunate patient
had been treated in any respect improperly, bat
at the same time it was a very proper prosecution, and it
was extremely necessary that the public should know that
persons in this unhappy condition could not be received, or
allowed to remain, in any establishment that was not duly
licensed, and under the supervision of those who would take
care that they were protected from all risk of being im-
properly treated.
The defendant then entered into a personal recognizance
of 100/. to appear and receive the judgment of the court if
he should be called upon to do so, and was discharged from
custody.

➢[tnca 12.

Henry Fry, slim Williante46,Henry Rayner, 30, and
Henry Nightingale 47, three powerful labourers, were
charged with burglanoualy breaking isto the dwelling-house
of W intern Bird, and stealing 121. in gold and silver money,
and the indictment also charged the pun with using
personal violence to the prosecutor at the time of the com-
mission of the robbery.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. Meadows conducted the prosecu-
tion ; the prisoners were defended by Mr. Codd and Mr.
Pearce.
The prosecutor stated that he kept the Hop Pole public.
house, at Lambourne, near Romford, and on the night
of the 21st of January he fastened the house up as
usual, and he and his wife retired to rid. About 2 o'clock
no the following morning they were awoke by hearing •
great noise in the lower part of the house, as though some
one was breaking in, sod immediately afterwards there was
the sound of footstep. of several men coming up the stair-
case. The bedroom door was then forced open and four
men entered the room. There was • candle burning, and
he celled cut to the men, " What is your game ? " The
encesent be said this one of the men, whom he believed to
be the prisoner Fry, struck him with his fist and knocked
him beck on the bed, and told him to be quiet. They then
asked him for the key of the cupboard where he
kept his money, sad be gave it to Fry, and he
landed it to one of the other men, and the
cupboard was opened, and they took out 11. lie. 6d. in
silver, and they also broke open • box in which some club
mosey was kept, and took out of it about 81. in gold and
diver, and they also took 2/. in gold from another box.
Hie wife was in the room all the time, but she had con-
cealed herself. He had no doubt that the prisoners were
three of the men who were in the room, and he bad known
Nightingale for twenty years, and he was hie wife's brother.
Nightingale had lodged in his house, and be knew where the
dub money was kept.
In cross-examination the prosecutor said that two of the
men had their faces entirely concealed by something black,
but Fry's face was only partially covered, and he was quite
sure he was one of the men. He was also quite positive
as to the, prisoner Nightingale. After the men left he
looked out of the window and saw them all four going
away. Two of the men struck him, and when he fell back
on the bed they covered his face over with the bed clothes,
and just before they went away they told him that he had
better lie still for one hour, or it would be worse for him, or
something to that effect.
Mrs. Bird, the wife of the prosecutor, who still appeared
to be suffering from nervous excitement and terror in come
uuence of the occurrence, mid that she was awoke by hear-
ing the noise, and when the men were coming upstairs she
was very much frightened and got under the bed. After
the bedroom door had been forced open a short time one of
the party, whom she recognised as the prisoner Rayner,
looked under the bed. He had a candle in his hand, and
she saw his face distinctly. She did not see either of the
other men while they were in the room, but she beard one
of them call out to hie companions, " Don't do any harm
to them." She recognised the voice as that of Nightin-
gale, who was her brother.
A number of witnesses were then examined, whose evi-
dence went to show that all the prisoners and a fourth
MO were seen close to the prosecutor's house, and coming
in • direction away from it, on the morning of the burglary,
sod that immediately efterwards they were in possession of
gold and silver for which they accounted in a very contra-
dictory and unsatisfactory mariner. It was also
proved that upon the police making a search at the
house of Rayner, they found two split rings
that had been upon • watch which was stolen
from the prosecutor on the night of the burglary,
and also a life preserver and a large horse pistol. They also
found in the house • " wide awake" hat, which was identi-
INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Meats 12. fled as having been worn by the prisoner Rayner on the
(Before Mr. Commissioner Nichols.) night the outrage was COlMNitted.
IN RI JOHN JANES NAWKINS.—JODGNIXT OF THREE TZARS. l'he learned counsel for the defence, in their address to
This case was decided to-day. The insolvent had the jury, endeavoured to show that the prisoners had not
bees a newspaper editor in New Orleans, and came been identified sufficiently, and they also complained of the
to this country some years ago with property. In conduct of the police in putting questions to them, and thus
1830 he speculated ou the Stock Exchange, and the opposing inducing them to criminate themselves, when they took
creditors, Mr. Soilleux and Mr. Price, were his stock- them into custody.
brokers. His losses were about 2,000/., and be refused to Lord Chief Justice Erle, in summing up the case to the
pay? alleging that he was not to be liable beyond the do- jury. expressed his opinion that the police were perfectly
posit he had made. He was arrested on a repine in May, , justified in questioning a suspected parts, and that it was
1859, and had been ever since in prison. lie petitioned the 1 • course not only calculated to further the interests of
court in March, 1860, sod had been several times examined. I justice. but at the same time to protect the innocent, and
The charge against him was that owing 2,000/., he bad son- I he said be must confess that he could not conceive anything
ceded or made away with property worth about 4,0001. It more reasonable than that, while a mars was •• free man
that he, an elderly man, 'ravioli been in the army er and und DO restraint, lie should be invited to give an
=sugaed bualuendY professor of literature in • Mahometlan explanation, and thus, if he were innocent, be afforded as
mile at Lalcutta, had been some years acquainted with • opportunity of showing that fact by has own words. He
going woman named Warren, and had given her added that be could sot understand upon what principle It
aeon Prawilylvanis shares, which she converted into was contended that what • man said should mg be
Lombardo -Venetian Railway shares. The insolvent, it brought before a jury, that being the very atrompaut par
was alleged, also possessed shares is the same railway, @Oslo evidence either to support his guilt or his iassessinia
which he sold whilst be was in prison, through a person I The jury, after a very short deliberation, mimed •
named Ash, and bad paid a Mr. Foster, an agent cif his verdict of Guilty against all the primmer; and: a eartillarta
brother, an artist, living as Texas, America, 3,4081. • red he was then put is, by which it apprized that N enss
gave up a promissory note, dated 1843, that he world pay convicted in 1855 of an offenceof the fame sad
his brother 4,0004 when "Fortune or Providence" enabled eenteneed to four years' penal servitude, and le Imd only
him. In this miaow be alleged he had disposed of his been set at liberty upon a ticket of leave • very short time
property. Tbs yomig wemaa Warren was examined, and before the present offence was committed.
losistory was that she bad sold the therm she had for The learned Judge, addressing the prisoners, said that
somewhat* about 2,8001., sad had purchased Mexican dock they bad all been convicted of a crime of the most atrocious
to 12,0001., which she had sent to the insolvent's brother at magnitude. Three powerful men were banded together
Tema by Mr. Foster, and: she did not "recollect" whether for the purpose of breaking into a house in the deed of
shoo bed hoard from eitbm dam 1859. the night, and they were not only guilty of the crime of
Th. Cane aspresented by Mr. Dom* and Mr. Mane, on robbery, but had also committed measless and unnecessary
the pert of the opposing erediton, woe am of fraud sup- violence upon the inmates. In such cases it wee the duty
ported by perjury,- and that in addition the leolvect had of the court to take into consideration not only the lose of
made • dupe of the you( women Waren te wooed his property, but the terror that was caused to the_parties and
to the neighbourhood by such a proceeding.
_TM prisoner
PrZridc;mmiasiooer Nichols, who bid tbionglost Or can Fry was the matt who bad made use of wheal violence,
bestowed great pains and patina es it, prompaisdl la give but the cam of all of them appeared to be equally

time.
Mr. Jolts West, son of the last witmem, wan placed is the
km, bat was nether examined oar erearinamined.
HarrietCdkone—Am sister of Jane Gibboacond live with
my mother at Walcot. I remember Mr. West acid his
family coming oo a pleasure party last year My Miter
mwwith them. I went to Haaborough-hill 'Home with
Mr. Burroughs and Miss West. They went beak to the
cottage alone. I know Mr. Boardman Silcock. He asked
me if I had men anything between Mr. Burroughs and Miss
West. I said "No."
Cross-examined—l left Mr. Burroughs and Miss West
while I went to speak to the landlidy, but I do not think I
was away for more than live minutes. Mr. West said he
would go with Miss West H the corn fields, and that I
should go on the beach to look for Mrs. West.
Re-examined—The landlady was in a room three steps
lower than that in which we were, and while I was with
bay the door was open.
Ann Gibbon, mother of the last witness, also denied that
she hainver sees the slightest impropriety between Mr.Bur-
rola& end Mils West. They waited for their tea till the
rest of the party arrived. Did not remember that Mr. Bur.
roughs and Mies West Wen ever alone together.
Mies Emily Hayes gave similar evidence as to the Waloot
eximunioe, nod corroborated Miss West's statement respect-
ing the transactions by the river at Stalharn.
Heim Reed—l live at Sutton. lam 15 years old. I re.
member walking with William Page and his luster Jernima.
We overtook Mr. Burroughs. Be spoke to me and said
" geod night." After that we went as far as Sutton Pita.
Wiliam Page and his sister then started for home. I left
them at the Catherine WheeL I did not get over the
hedge or go near a haystack. I have heard William Page said
he should like to COMO to London. I never had connexion

with Mr. Burroughs.
Cross-examined—l never whistled Mr. Burroughs out of
his office. I cannot whistle at all. I never asked him to
give me a cigar.
Zibia Barton proved a plan of the lane and the field in
wideh the adultery with Helen Heed was supposed to have
hen committed.
This being the case for the petitioner in the recrimion•
tory suit,
Ik. Phillitnore summed up the evidence for the re-
speodeat, contending that the alibi in both cases had been
satisfactorily made out, and impressiog his regret that ha
could, not withdraw the charges which it had been his pain-
ful duty to make against Mies West. It was clear that her
intimacy with Mr. Burroughs had been an extraordinary'
one ; she admitted that she had been kissed by Mr. Bur.
roughs, and be (the learned counsel) hoped that young
ladies, even at Stalham, were not so much in
the habit of sitting on the Imam of married
men ea to be unable to remember whether they had done
it or not. Ile also submitted that the other eases of
ednlterr alleged against the petitioner had been substn•
Mated by the evidence.
Mr. Tuner (in the absence of Mr. Macaulay, Q.C.), fol-
lowed cm the side of the co-respondent.
Bic F. Slade replied io an eloquent speech, contending
that the whole ease of the respondents had failed ; sad de-
manding the venlict of the jury on all the issues, with
soak damages as would shoe that this Mr. &Mock was wise
la his generation, when, the day after he had received the
citation, he disclosed his partnership with his father, and
made himself a pauper.
The case was again adjourned.

aggravated. The dangerous instrinueuts found in
the house of Rapier showed that he was not
only willing to assist in the commission of robbery, but
that he also would not scruple to resort to deadly
violence ii such a course became necessary, in carrying out
that object, and es regarded Nightingale there wee also this
egpavation, that he had been before convicted of a similar
crime and sentenced to penal servitude, and almost imme-
diately after he obtained his liberty under a ticket-of-lesire,
be associated himself with the others to commit this den-
gems infringement of the law. He felt himself compelled
under these cricuriadancee to make a signal example of the
prisonen as a warning to others, and the sentence be felt it
his duty to peas upon them was that they be kept in penal
servitude for twenty years.
The prisoners, who appeared to treat the sentence with
perfect indifference, were then removed from the bar.

NORTHERN OIRCIIIT.—YORK, MARCH 12.
Nim Pews Corsi .-036t0n Mr. Justice Wines.)
GRANT V. COOPER.—BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
Mr. Dishy Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Jones were for the
plaintiff ; SD. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Quain were for the
defendant.
Mr. Jones opened the pleadings. Father Jane Grant
was the plaintiff, and Thomas Cooper the defendant. The
declaration alleged that the defendant agreed to marry the
plaintiff, but that he broke his promise. In reply the
defendant said that he did not promise marriage, and
thereupon issue was joined.
The plaintiff in this action resides with her parents and
brothers and sisters upon a farm of 200 acres at Bawmarsh,
near Rotherham, and the defendant is underground steward
to Earl Fitzwilliam, at tome collieries in the neigh-
bourhood. As long ago as the year 1848 the
plaintiff and the defendant became acquainted with each
other, the former being then 20, and the latter 24 years of
age. A number of letters had passed between them
from 1848 to 1857, but in none of these communications
bad the defendant made any promise of marriage to the
plaintiff. He had, however, invariably addressed her in
the most endearing terms, beginning his epistles with "My
dear Father," and concluding with, "Yours ever affec-
tionately." The defendant was recei
ved in the family as
the accepted lover of the plaintiff ; he kept her company
from time to time, and they were in the habit of riding out
and walking together. It was shown that he had made a
promise of marriage to the plaintiff, and on one occasion,
referring to a particular house, he said that it would be
a nice place to live in when he was married to Esther.
It was greased that the marriage should take plate at the
death of his mother. She died in December, 1888. At
this time the defendant was paying his address to a Miss
Shaw, the daughter of Mr. Shaw, of the firm of Mears.
Unwin and dhaw, of Brighteide. Instead of fulfilling the
engagement he had entered into with the plaintiff, the
defendant married Miss Shaw in July, 1881, that young
lady being in a better position in life then the plsintiff.
Mr. Overend, in defence, said his client ntterict
claimed ever having made any promise of marriage. True,
he had visited her, and kept her company oomaiesally, but
they never were lovers. In the letters which had been
referred to there was nothing whatever to show that mar.
rage 111111 spoken of or hinted at. His learned friend had
not dared to read the letters, he bad merely alluded to
them in general terms, and therefore did not much rely
upon them. In them letters the defendant never spoke of
love or marriage ; be merely spoke to her about the weather.
(A laugh.) NS hen he (the learned counsel) made love to
any young woman he did not talk about the weather.
(Loud laughter.) In one of these letters the defendant in-
formed the plaintiff that it had rained all the previous day,
and that it was again raining that day. laugh.) In the
postscript of another letter, said to be the moat important
part of a love letter, the defendant moke only of a burglary
that had been recently committed. The harmed counsel
asked where were any protestations of love te be found in
these letters. It the defendant had been really in love, and
had promised to marry the plaintiff, he would have told
her that he was thinking about her day and night, that he
dreamed about her, and that he was devoted to her. No
strain of this kind pervaded the letters. In one ext
them he spoke of a journey he bad taken in
a gig, when it rained hard, that the wind
blew at his back, and that his coat got beautifully spotted
with rain and dirt. (Laughter.) That the defendant might
possibly marry the plaintiff in the long run would perba
be believed by the family ; but there ins no reasoaabls
ground for thinking that he would do so, for no promise bad
been made by him. As to the remark that the house the
defendant alluded to would make a nice place for Esther,
he made use of it in a joke some 14 years ago. In this
case there was an entire absence of proof that any love
existed between the plaintiff and defendant. Not a single
Wm, an arm round the waist, or a squeeze of the hand,
could be shown. If any of these had ever been seen, de-
pend upon it a witness would have been called to prove the
same. In conclusion the learned counsel contended that
the family knew the defendant was courting another
female so far back as 1857, notwithstanding which nothing
as mid, and the defendant visited the house as usual.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 1001.