The Express.
London, England, 1863-08-21 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, PRIt lAY EVENING, AUGUST 21, 1863.

ounce, and I then saw my mistake. Dr. Bolton sad
Mr. Flushes, and some iwdeuts were in the room it the
time I discovered my mistake, and told them of it. I went
and told Dr. Beath what I bad alone. I told them in the
room that I bad given her an overdose of cyanide of
potaannui. . . _

the jury—l knew that it was a poison I was making
up from the prescription. The nurse who brought the
card told me that Dr. Heath had mill was to be careful
in making it up, and that rather discomposed me. I made
a mistake in reading five grains to the dose, Mooed of five
grains to the 12oz. of water. Hooked into books on the
subject, bat could not findswy iolormation about the dose.
By the Coroner—What I read in Mr. Heath's prescription
I reduced from grains to 3i grains of cyanide of potass.
I told the boy sent by We nurse for the prescription that
he was to desire the nurse to be very careful what she dill
with this medicine ; to take care not to poison the patient.
and not to give more than half the dose at first. Ima
state that if the nurse had not told me to be cautious I
might have looked at the card with my usual composure,
and the accident in all probability would Oct have
an
friedis was. the whole of the evidence.

The Coroner summed up. Ho said the main question,
and in fact almost the only question, for them to consider
was whether there had been such an amount of negligence
on the part of Mr. Hiodmarsh as to justify them in return.
Mg a verdict of manslanghter against him. His own opinion
was that there was not._ .

The room was cleared to enable the jury to agree upon
their verdict. After a brief interval they returned the fol-
lowing verdict :—" That the deceased died from the effects
of as overdose of medicine containing an excessive dose of
cyanide of potassium, which had been inadvertently com-
pounded in it." The jury were also of opinion that there
wan an amount of negligeoos upon the part of Mr. Hind-
marsh, but not sufficient to warrant them in returning a
verdict of manslaughter against him ; and also that on the
part of the doctors the jury thought that they had sup-
premed fact. within their knowledge at the time of their
examination on the last ocauice.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HMI CIRCUIT. CROYDON, AIIQIIST 80.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell mad (Special Juries.)

DICK r. BTSILAJL

This was an action to recover a tall amounting to 5901
for medical attendance and professional services rendered to
the defendant by the plaintiff.
Sergeant Shea and Mr. F. Sharpe for the plaintiff ; Mr. M.
Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Garth were for the defendant.
The Plaintiff in this action is • member of the College of
Physicians, and he brought • similar action to the present
against • person named Faray, which was tried before Baron
Channell and • common jury Last week, and upon that occa-
sion be recovered • verdict for 931. damages, execution,
however, being stayed. The case that was now sought to
be established on behalf of the plaintiff wee that be had
attended the family of the defendant for several years, com-
mencing from 1836, and that he was entitled to the sum be
claimed for the professional services he had thus rendered.
The gnawer set up by the defendant was that the services
were renderedgratuitously, and that it was never understood
that they were to be charged for, and it appeared by the
plaintiff' ownshowing that &rand the defendant were on
terms of very great intimacy, that there was a talk of
a partnership being entered into between them, and that the
defendant had made • number of presents, consisting of
cases of champagne, some claret, ladies' dream*, and shirt
studs jo the plaintiff, and the latter admitted that up
• °Male period he had treated those presents as a set off
against any claim he might have for professional services.
The ems, was commenced on Wednesday afternoon, and
was adjourned shortly after Mr. Chambers had commenced
his address to the jury for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers was about to proceed with his speech yes-
terday morning when the jury interposed, and said it was
quite unommessry for him to do soom they had long before
made up their minds as to the verdict.
Sergeant She., however, claimed his right to reply, and
he made a few observations to the jury in support of the
case for the plaintiff.
The jury, without any hesitation, gave a verdict for the
defendant; and
The learned judge said be quite accorded with the view
they had takes of the case.

FILLS r. SARUM°.

This was an aotionagaiont Mr. Barnett. the atage-manager
of the Lyceum Theatre, to recover poseesrion of an agree-
ment alleged to have been entered into by him with the
Mr. Manteca Chamber; Q.C., and Mr. laxtoo were for
the plaintiff, and Sergeant Shea and Sir G. lionyntan were
for the defendant.

The plaintiff is this action was one of the ballet-dancers
at the Lyceum, and the action was a similar one to that
tried at Maidstone, the object being to enforce an agree-
meat alleged to have been entered into by the defendant to
engage the plaintiff for three years. As in the former case
dm eau discharged at a week's notice, and the object of the
present action was to enforce the agreement referred to.
After the plaintiff had been examined, the learned judge
ruled that the caw bad failed in strict legal proof of the
marten:Dent that was sought to be set up, and a nonsuit wu
therefore directed.
Thedremainder of the day was occupied in trying a rause
involving alleged breach of the covenants of the lease of a
farm, the details of which did not present any features of
interest to the public.
Baron Channell was engaged the whole day in trying a
running down case.

NORTHERN CIRCIIIT.—LrvERrooi, Atroun 20.

Nuu PIM. Comm—(B4ton Kr. Justice M.&r.)

DAWN e. EINEM—BREACH OP PROMISE OE MARRIAGE.—

DA AO= 3,0001.

This action wae brought by Mir Berbera Edith Barre
against Robert Fenton.
Mr. Edwd. James, Q.C. (Attorney -General for the
runty palatine), Mr. Temple, Q.C., and fir. Millward for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Born, Q.C. (specially retained), and Mr.
T. Tones for the defendant.

Mr. James, in opening the car, said that the plaintiff's
father died in December last. He lived at Broughton, near
Manchester, and was • gentleman of the highest respecta-
bility, being in badness u a cotton broker. The plaintiff
Mies Edith Barber, was his youngest daughter, sad had
bees nurtured with the utmost delicacy and ore. Her
affections were pined by the defendant, who persisted in
his courtship for a period of some 18 months, tad who thee
abandoned her. In the autumn of 1861 there was •
bill given at Manchester by the officers of the Riffeh and
hare it was that the young lady first met the defnt,
who was the ace of • gentleman well known in lainoubbe,
• banker, and who had formerly been ice parliament. The
yowl' gentleman was about 27, and was no doubt wealthy.
At the ball the defendant danced with Mir Edith Berber
several times, and was DO doubt won upon by her beauty and
attractions. They afterwards met at a cricket match where
i the acquaintance was renewed. At a cricket match which
plaintiff afterwards attended she met the defendant, who
conducted her to her cab, and they again met at • concert,
where defendant made her an offer of marriage. She was,
of wane, fluttered by the proposal, particularly in such •
place, and did not make him any positive &newer, but she
replied in such a war that the offer might be renewed at •
future time. Defendant afterwards saw her at her father's
boar, and at Prestwich-park, the residence of a named
deer (Mn. Gardiner), and when plaintiff was about to visit
Bolton the defendant waited for her, accompanied her in the
train, renewed his offer of marriage, and was ao-
°opted. Defendant was introduced to frier& of
the Barber family, and preparations made with •
view to marriage. letters containing expressions of
a most endearing character paned, and the visits of the de.
fondant were very eeriest. The consent of the respective
parents was obtained, Mr. Barber, however, remarking that
it was somewhat early for plaintiff to be married, as she was
only 17. The plaintiff was received by the friends of both
families se Mr. Easton's future wife, and cougratulatioos
in from all sides. Defendant took a bones ready
poureded in order that the marriage might more speedily
takeAt first it was fixed for the spring of 1862, but
was then postponed until the autumn, much against the
wish of the defendant, who was very impatreet. From the
time of the engagement during the whole year Mr. Fenton
spent his time from Saturday to Monday at Mr. Barber'. ;
was constantly in the young lady's society ; and in fact amid-
' hired all the attentions of a future husband. During a portico
of 1862 he was at the Exhibition in London. Before be went
his letters were constant, almost daily, and during his ab-
sentee he kept up the ccerespredeace, describing his tour
from London to Bristol and through South Wiles. In the
spring of 1883 he went to Inland, and whether be there met
with anybody who supplanted the plaintiff in his esteem the
learned counsel was unable to say, but on his return his
love had evidently cooled, and his attentions became much
more rare than before. Mr. Barber having died in Novem-
ber Mn. Gardiner took the plaintiff to her house. They
were at Southport about the month of May, and there the
defendant came to visit them, and there the crisis of the
young lady's fate undoubtedly took place. The substance of
the conversation, which she received with the utmost
horror, was that he had ceased to love her—nay, that
he bed newer loved her, although be had enacted
the lover's part most admirably during all those
maths, and bad gained her tenderest &for-
tiori.. He left her under these most distressiog
circumstances. -Mrs. Gardiner wrote to the defendant, end
told him of the dreadful state in which her sister bad been
placed by his conduct. In reply he promised to come over,
but he did mot do so, and from that time the young lady
bad seen the man upon whom she had bestowed her
whole heart and affections, and she was abandoned by him
to the remorseless cruelty sod harsh remarks of the world.
MM. Gardiner did see him afterwards, and he then told her
the conversation which had taken place between himself and
her sister, sod that he had never loved her at all. Mrs.
Gardiner said that he was • roost accomplished actor, and
that it was a pity he bad not bra brought up to the ram
u hie torture would have been made. The learned counsel
them proceeded to read the letters, which were of the most
ardent description, but for which we have not space. In
conelusice, the learned counsel said the young lady bad lost
her pesos of mind ; she had been held up to the scorn which
too frequently accompanied the case of deserted love ; she
bad lost the advantage of • union with • man of oducatioe,
of position, of intellect, and of power—at least to judge
from hie last letter—to make any woman to whom be would
attach himself supremely happy for life.
Evidence was then called.

Mts. Gardieer mid she was the wife of Mr. Gardiner, of
Ptestwich-park, and one of the daughter' of the late Mr.
Barber, of Mount Broughton, Blanchester. The family
couisted of Charles Horatio, herself, and her sister Edith,
wbo was the youngest. Witness first saw the defendant at
• Rifle ball. Plaintiff wu with her. She danced with the
defendant. Mr. Fenton's father died in July last. Saw de-
fendant at the cricket match in 1081, and about • month
afterwards defendant came to tea at her husband's, curl
spent the evening. After that be ailed ocesaimally at her
father's. At a concert, subsequently, is Manchester, which
witness and her sister attended, Mr. Fenton was also
present, and stayed with them the greater part of the even-
, mg, and in November following (when the defendant came
to stay with her at Prstwich•perk), "anew had frequent
convereations with him respecting her sister, Plaintiff
was then on • visit at Bolton, sod on Sunday,
November 17, defendant and Mr. Gardiner went over
there to see her. Defendant said " be could not live without
seeing her," and before this he had told witness that he
bad made her sister an offer of marriage on the night of
the wooed, and repeated it in the train going to Bolton.
Is the following week Miss Edith spent one day at Prest-
wich, and the defendant on this occasion placed • ring which
be had purchased upon her finger. Mr. Fenton was, in fut.
received by the family u the future husband of Miss
Edith. He wished to marry her immediately, but her
father thought her too young, as she was only sixteen.
Defendant talked of taking a house at Email Moor (our
Manchester) until he should settle when to reside perms-
neatly ; he thought of Blue Pita (near Oldham). where he
mid be bad built a mill which had cost 12,0001. At the
death of witness's father the furniture and effects were
sold. Defendant said that her sister was to have pur-
chased for bee anything she liked, and many purchases
were accordingly made which would sot h►ve been
made had sot the plaintiff been contemplating marriage.
About March last witness noticed • little coldness in the
=seer of the defendant, and told him of it ; but he said be
loved Edith se much u ever, and that she should soon have
a home with hlm. This was said at Southport, when wit-
, am and her family and Miss Edith stayed for Seven weak',
during which time the defendant came only own,
sal stayed two days. Defeedut stated dal he

was going to Ireland to attend the marriage of his
brother Jobe. Re remained there seven weeks, and
when he returned the coldness was still perceptible, and one
day plaintiff came to witneaa's room crying very mach, and'
saving that "bar life was over," and that Mr. Futon
wished to break off the engagement. Witness saw the de •
fondant and told him it was unkind of bim to give Edith so
much trouble when she had so recently suffered so great a
one in the death of her father. Defendant replied if
Mrs. Gardiner thought be would do right in marrying
Edith he would do so, but he would write a letter of ex-
planation : he knew Edith liked him very much. Wit-
ness told him he should not have engaged her
sister when she was so very young. Witness remembered
the letter of the 29th May. Her sister was then staying
with them at Preetwich-park, and 011 readying the letter
Edith was very much distressed. Witness wrote a letter to
the defendant upbraiding him with his conduct, and be re-
plied to the affect that her letter was but a repetition of the
conversation at Southport. He intimated his intention of
coming to see Mrs.. Gardiner, but he did not coma until a
considerable time afterwards. In the meantime Edith had
been very ill, and wan then in Nottinghamshire. Defendant
said be was sorry for what bad happened, but if she thought
a series of segleete on his part and of upbraiding' on her
sister's would add to her happiness be would many her.
Witness said that all she desired wee Edith's happiness, and
that now Edith was left without ► home he ought to be
kinder to her. Such condnct, witness told him, was not
honourable. He then said that he had really made up his
mind not to marry Edith, and that he bad never loved her
at all.

In crosseramination by Mr. Bovill witness said she was
told by her sister that Mr. Fenton had declined to make
the plaintiff an allowance of 5001. a year. Edith's man-
ner woe rather disdainful, bat this did not arise from haati-

nom of temper. but from

Witness knew the

two Tatlemen [whose names Mr. Bovill wrote on a dip of
paper but no complainta were ever made respecting them.
Her water was mast particular. Edith did not tell wheels
that she bad promised to love the defendant only sa a sister-
in-law. _ _

fa To-examination by Mr. Temple, the "ritual@ said that
during her engagement with Mr. Fenton her sister received
an offer of marriage which she (witnees) much preferred to
Mr. Fenton's.

Mr. Gardiner. who was next examined, said that defend-
ant's father was formerly member for Rochdale, and that
defendant was the 10th son. Mr. Gardiner corroborated
the evidenced his wife as to the attentions of the defend-
ant, and the relation in which he stood to the plaintiff and
her family.
Mr. Mules Berber, brother of the plaintiff, and the
" next friend" on the record, deposed to speaking to her on
the impropriety of coming home with the defendant in a
cab, but he denied having calumniated her.
The letters were admitted, and this was the plaintiff's
_ . .

SS r. Bovill, Q.C., rose late in the afternoon, and in an
eloquent address contended that the defendant broke off the
engagement, sot because he bad formed another attach-
ment, but solely because he found that he did not love the
Iplaintiff sufficiently to warrant him in marrying b&. The
earned counsel did not call any witnesses in support of his
case..

His lordship narrated the circumatences attending the
case to the jury, and told them that it had resolved itself
into a mere inquiry of damages.
After retiring for about a quarter of an hour, the jury
returned, and !announced their verdict to be for the pla&-
tiff—damages 3,0004

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Blare Mr. Judos Keating.)

Alfred Horatio Busby, 28, moister, a Wendromed young
man, was charged oe the coroeir's utquisitioa with telontosily
lrilliog aged alaYilg Eliza (]arm". . . .

hlr7Collins,"wro appeared for the prosecution, informed
the court that the grand jury baring ignored the bill
charging the prisoner with manslaughter, he should not
offer any evidence to support the coroner's inquisition.
By direction of the court the jury returned a verdict of
Acquittal, and the prisoner was discharged.

SECOND COURT.
(Wore the Recorder.)

Joke Austin, 34, and John Wilficini Lloyd, 34, two let-
ter carrier., who, cm the first day of the session, had respec-
tively pleaded guhity to iodictmeota charging them with
stealing P os lettere and their contents, were brought
up to receive the judgment of the court.
The Recorder said that he had reed the depositions and
could not bed any circumstance* to alter the rule which hid
been laid down with regard to this class of offences, and he
would, therefor*, pee upon them the usual sentence of four
year, penal servitude.

William Clark, 52, tailor • Edward Williams, 46, bed
maker ; Francis Williams, 29; cook ; Samuel Vevash, 29
labourer ; and William Bailey, 42, carpenter, were indicted
for breaking and entering the 1/11/obo4llllo of John roage, is
Hatton-garden, and stealing therein two clocks and other
valuable articles, his property.
Mr. F. H. Lewis prosecuted ; and Mr. Metcalfe and Mr.
B. Bealey defended the prisoner Edward Williams ; Mr.
Collins defended the prisoner Clark ; and Mr. Cooper de-
fended the prisoner Venial. The poisoner Bailey was not
defended by counsel.
The prisoners were seen at an early hoer on the morning
on which the robbery was committed loitering near the
premises of the prosecutor, who is an extensive manufac-
turer of looking-gimes, sad a dealer in foreign clocks.
They bad with them a ccatermoegees cart, suitable for car-
rying away say property of which they might pause
themselves. It was subsequently found that the premises
of the prosecutor had been forcibly entered, and that •
large quantity of valuable property had been caned away.
The prisoners, with the exception of Vevash, were subse-
quently found disposing of the property, and were taken
into custody. The case was clearly brought home to them,
and the jury retuned a verdict of guilty. Several police-
officers proved numberless convictions against the prisoner
Clark, who had already undergone six years' penal servi-
tude for burglary, and who, when apprehended on that
occasion, had on his premises the products of no lees than
ten robberies. He then defied the officers, and declared
that in spite of them he would go on.
Former oonvictioos were also proved against Bailey and
Edward Williams, who were proved to be the constant asso-
ciates of the most notorious thieves.

The prisoner Francis Williams was unknown to the police,
sod the prisoner Vanish asked for time to procure witnesses
to his character, and upon him the judgment of the court
was deferred for that purpose,
The Fteoorder senteoced Clark to 10 years, and Edward
Williams and William Bailey to six years' penal servitude.
The sentence upon Francis Williams was 18 mouths' impri•
moment with herd labour.

At=ander it'lfay, 24, labourer, was indicted for felo-
niously wounding James Toomey, with intent to do him
some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Connie prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended
by sonnet.
It appeared from the evidence that the prosecutor wee
proceeding to his borne along Bahopagateatrest, and when
near Catberine-wheelalley he was rushed upon suddenly by
the prisoner, who knocked him down, kicked him with
brutal violence about the head and face, and finally struck
him a blow on the mouth with a heavy iron weapon, by
which the prosecutor's jaw was broken in two places. The
prisoner, who formed part of a body of men engaged in the
attack, was identified as the principal. From the injuries
the prosecutor had received he had been confined for five
weeks in the hospital.
The jury connoted the prisoner, who was sentenced by
the Recorder to four years penal servitude.
Henry fiat, 32, joiner, was indicted for feloniously
wounding Charles John Fink, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Taylor appeared as counsel to prosecute, and stated
that the prosecutor and the prisoner were brothers, and that
the former bad been invited by the latter to come up to
London to look for work. They slept together, and the
allegation was that while the prosecutor was asleep the pri-
soner had attempted to cut the proeseutoes throat.
When called to give evidence the prosecutor did not ap-
pear, sod as, without his evidence, the charge could not be
maintained the prisoner was, by direction of the court,
Acquitted and discharged.

that being suddenly summoned he bad put them in hi•
packet for safety and security. On bin house being searched
there was found in a drawer a portion of a spectroscope, a
compass cam, and • frame of coloured glasses, which the
prisoner declared his son (who was • lad in the service) bad
bought from him and paid for outof his wages In support of
the prosecution several of the workman was calla, with
• view to show that the microscope work had been done in
secrecy, but one of them declared to the oontrary, and said
that he would not have done it but that he believed it was
intended as a surprise to the prosecutor, and would induce
him to enter into that branch of the business.

Mr. Metcalfe made an energetic appeal to the jury on
behalf of the prisoner urging that there was a total absence
of the usual incident; of the case of a mon robbing his em-
ployer, such as pawning or disposing of his property, and
that the whole evidence supported the theory of the defence,
that the work in progrees was directed to secure the appro-
bation of the prosecutor, and to induce him to adopt those
scientific improvements with which in this age ovary branch
of art was characterised. With regard to the trifling
articles found at the residence of the prisoner, the value of
which did not exceed 4e., the explanation given by the pri-
soner ought to be satisfactory, and ought to have secured
for him, • faithful servant for 15 years of the prosecutor's
father, a very different treatment than that which he had
received. . .

A host of witnesses were called, who gave the prisoner a
moat irreproachable character.
The Common Sergeant summed up the evidence with the
utmost are and minuteness ; and
The jury, after a moment's consultation, returned a ver-
dict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was discharged, and left
the court with a has of friends.