The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-16 00:00:00

OPINION.

I am of opinion that the borough justices have not the
exclusive power of granting alehouse licenses within the
borough. If they have the power at all, they have it con-
currently or conjointly with the county justices, and the
doctrine laid down in R. v. Sainsbury," 4, T. R., applies.
But I doubt whether the borough justices have any juris-
diction at all. The inclination of my opinion is that they
have not. But the question should be tried and receive
judicial determination. The borough of Middlesbrotigh
not having been constituted into a separate jurisdiction, I
doubt whether the justices have any authority to appoint a
high constable. If they have, Mr. Gibson is, of course,
high constable. If they have not, and have jurisdiction in
granting licenses, the chief constable of the borough would
be competent to do what would otherwise devolve in a
high constable to do in that behalf. The high constable
of the division could not, in my opinion, be compelled to
•bey the precept of the borough justices.
Temple, Aug. O. A. E. COCKBURN.
A CURIOUS ACTION FOR COMPENSATION FOR PER-
SONAL INJURY Was tried before Mr. Baron Bramwell,
at Liverpool, on Tuesday. The case lay between a

SATURDAY,

tailor named Scott and the Corporation of Man
cheater, and the details were as follows :—Some
alterations being made in the gas-pipes of one of the
streets of Manchester in November last, the pipta
were taken up and "broken" on the spot in the or-
dinary way, by chisel and hammer. On the occasion
in question, when the defendants' men were thus en-
gaged, the plaintiff was walking down the stret t,
and on passing the spot where the workmen w€re
breaking the gas-pipes a splinter of iron flew off and
struck him in the eye, causing him intense agony,
and the result was that he lost one eye and was in
much danger of losing the other. He had formerly
made 001. or 701. a year as a working tailor, but was
now incapacitated from following that occupation.
For the plaintiff it was contended that it was the
defendants' duty so to have done the work as to pre-
vent the possibility of splinters flying, and that it
was customary in such cases to put up a board or
canvas as a screen. The defendants pleaded that
they acted under the provisions of the Local
Improvement Act, and employed persons of com-
petent skill to perform the work, and interfered in no
other way. They called witnesses to show that the
work had been done in the proper and ordinary
manner. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4001.

MR. JAMES SADIEIR'S arrest warrant and bill of
indictment found against him have just been pub-
lished, in addition to previous papers. The paper
commences with a copy of the information of
William Kelly and that of Austin Ferrall. A copy of
the bench warrant of the Lords Justices of Assize of
the Leicester Circuit follows, authorising and order-
ing the apprehension of the body of James Sadleir,
as accused of conspiracy (with the late John Sadleir,
the suicide) to cheat and defraud the English share-
holders and depositors of large sums of their money
by false pretences. Then comes a copy of the in-
dictment, which contains eight count', and on which
a true bill has been found by the grand jury.

AN INTERESTING POINT OF THE COMMERCIAL LAW
IN AUSTRALIA has been laid down by a judgment of
the Insolvency Court of New South Wales. An ap-
plication was made to the Chief Commissioner in the
insolvent estate of (1. C. Tuting and Co., to allow
the sum of 6,175!. 3s. 4d. to be ranked against the
said estate as a debt alleged to be due by them to
the firm of Copestake, Moore, and Co., of London,
for goods sold and delivered. It was contended by
the counsel for Messrs. Copestoke, Moors, and Co.,
that the insolvents by their subsequent conduct and
dealings clearly adopted the original contract, and
were, therefore, liable for payment of the original
debt. The learned commissioner, in an elaborate
judgment, reviewed the evidence, and concluded as
follows :

Looking at all the circumstances of this case, and
seeing that the authorities referred to establish the
principle " that in order to convert a separate into a
joint debt there must be the deliberate and mutual assent
of three parties," and being unable to discover that assent
here, I am of opinion that I ought not to allow this claim
to be ranked as a debt against the estate of Tuting and
Co., and [ therefore reject it accordingly.
SIR GEORGE GREY'S reply to a memorial in
favour of the late prisoner Murdoch, has been pub-
lished this week. The Home Secretary declines to
interfere, and says—
It would be very hazardous to admit that, when per-
sonal injury dangerous to life is inflicted, in order to carry
out a purpose illegal and dangerous in itself, the absence
of an intention to commit murder " as the primary object,"
is sufficient to exempt the criminal from the penalty of
the crime.

THE SHAM SEWER PLATE AUCTIONS, SO common
about London, occasionally succeed in catching a
"griffin" of the feminine sex. On Monday a hand-
some, welt dressed lady entered Marlborough-street
Police-court, and begged advice from Mr. Bingham.
She said that last week she went into a shop in the
City where an auction was being held, and, believ-
ing the sales to be bona fide, she was induced to
make purchases of plated dish covers and other ex-
pensive articles to the amount of 601. She paid a
deposit of 10/. and left her address where the pur-
chases were to be sent and the balance paid. The
next day the articles came, with a bill making the
purchases amount to 1001., and this was effected by
putting down 101. where the article was knocked
down to her for 71., and so on. She was satisfied of
the additions that had been made to the prices be-
cause she had put down the figures at the time, and
her servant was with her, who could also speak to
the same fact. She remonstrated against this im-
position, and she was told the matter could easily be
rectified ; but as she found the mode of proceeding
was to be by taking away goods so as to reduce the
amount to 601., she refused to have any further
dealings with the auction people, and preferred to
come to this court to know if there were any means
by which she could get back her 10/. deposit. In
reply to Mr. I3ingbam the lady admitted she bad
only just come from Australia, and had 2,000/. a ye
of her own to spend. Mr. Bingham then advised
her to consult her solicitor.

AUGUST 16, 1856.

Tim PRISONER DOVR was executed on Saturday at
noon in front of York Castle. Some 12,000 persons
witnessed the execution. The prisoner behaved
calmly on the scaffold, and died, after a few faint
struggles, in about two minutes. On the Thursday
previous to execution Dove made a full confession.
lie appears to have had no intention of poisoning his
wife until he had heard of Palmer's case, and read
Dr. Taylor's opinion that strychnia could not be dis-
covered in the body beyond a certain period after
death. His connection with the astrologer Harrison
seems to have influenced him very much, and
Harrison's prophecy that he (Dove) would have no
happiness till Mrs. Dove was " out of the way," that
" she would die before the end of February or begin-
ning of March," that after her death "everything
w iuld go well with him," undoubtedly affected his
superstitious mind, for up to an advanced period of
his imprisonment Dove believed that Harrison, as he
had promised, would get him off safe. The purchase
of strychnine on the 10th February Dove solemnly
declares in his confession was only for the purpose
of killing cats. At that time he says, " I never thought
of poisoning my wife." The second quantity he de-
clares he obtained for a similar purpose, but on the
same evening he appears to have had a quarrel with
his wife about the man Harrison, and, says Dove in
his confession, " I told her that he had predicted her
death at the end of February." This recollection of
Harrison's prediction appears to have suggested to
him the notion of poisoning his wife by strychnia ;
and he of course recalled also Harrison's assertion
in reply to his inquiry, and Dr. Taylor's opinion that
atrychnia could not be discovered. Accordingly, the
next day after the quarrel, Dove took the packet of
strychnia from the razor•case where he usually kept
it, and put about a quarter of a grain in the jelly. In
the afternoon he called at Mr. Morley's for Mrs.
Dove's medicine, and taking it home to his mother's
he uncorked the bottle, dipped the cork into the
packet of atrychnia, put in the cork, and shook the
bottle up. He then continues:—

On that Saturday evening my wife took some of the
draught in Mrs. Whitham'a presence. Mrs. Whitham
tasted it, and stated that it was bitter. The draught was
not shaken that night before it was taken. My wife did
not suffer from the effects of it at all. On the way from my
mother's towards home on that Saturday I threw the re-
mainder of the atrychnia away. I cannot tell you the
feelings of my mind when I put the atrychnia into the jelly
and into the mixture. I cannot describe them. I did not
think at the moment when 1 put it in as to its effects or
consequences. On the Sunday evening following, which
was the 24th day of February, I went into Mr. Morley's
surgery, and, there being no person in at the time, I took
perhaps ten grains of strychnia and folded it in paper.
When I got home I placed it in the stable. On the Monday
morning I gave my wife her draught (the effervescing
mixture) about halfpast nine, and at ten o'clock she had
he attack as mentioned by Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Whitham.
At the time nay wife took that draught she complained very
much of the bitterness, and added that she would tell Mr.
Morley about it. There were three or four doses left in
the bottle after that draught was taken, and I broke the
bottle in my wife's presence, fearing that Mr. Morley might
taste it. The mixture was changed on the Monday. The
mixture then given was very bitter. On the Tuesday
night, or Wednesday morning, I applied the wet end of the
cork of the medicine bottle to the strychnia as before. I
think there might be from half a grain to a grain of strych-
nia on the cork when 1 put it in the bottle. I shook the
mixture up. There were then only two or three doses in
the bottle. I don't remember my wife having any attack
on the Wednesday. She took her mixture on that day.
On the Thursday I got another bottle of medicine from
Mr. Morley's, and T again applied the wet end of the cork
to the strychnia as before. About the same quantity of
strychnia adhered as on the former occasion. The last
dose of that mixture was taken on Friday night, at ten
o'clock, and my wife was taken seriously ill in half an hour,
but she had no arching of the back on that occasion that 1
recollect. Mrs. Fisher is mistaken, I think, on that point,
but her statement in other respects is true, I believe. On
that Friday night I got another bottle of medicine from
Mr. Morley's. This mixture was directed to be taken four
times a day. I did not put any strychnia into that mix-
ture or medicine, and I did not put any upon the cork of
the bottle. Mrs. Whitham gave a dose out of that bottle
in the afternoon of Saturday. The atrychnia was in the
stable where I had first placed it, and there was no strych-
ma in the raxor•case on that day, nor during any part of
that week.

The giving of the last and fatal dose he describes as
follows :

I was drinking at Sutcliffe's public-house on that Satur-
day, and I was more or less affected by liquor all the aftvr-
noon and evening. About three o'clock in the afternoon f
went into the stable and took about a grain and a half of
strychnia out of the paper, and put it in another paper,
which I placed in my waistcoat pocket. I put that atrych-
ma into the wine-glass which contained a little water—l
believe the water which was left in the glass by Mrs.
Whitham after giving my wife the third dose in the after-
noon ; but 1 have no recollection as to the time when I
put the strychnia into the glass. I gave the mixture in the
evening, in the presence of Mrs. Whitham and Mrs. Wood,
as stated by them in their evidence. I poured the mixture
into that wine-glass which contained the water and strych-
nia. I did not put the strychnia into the wine-glass in the
presence of Mrs. Whitham and Mrs. Wood, or either of
them. I know that I put the strychnia in before, but I
cannot remember how long before giving the medicine. I

THE PRESS.

did not, when I gave the medicine on the occasions men-
tioned, think of the consequences of giving it; but when I
saw my wife suffering from the attack on the Saturday
night, it flashed across my mind that I had given her
the strychnia, and that she would die from its effects.
I was muddled before this, and didn't know what I was
doing. When the thoughts of her death crossed my mind
I immediately regretted what I had done, and I believe if
Mr. Morley had come in at that moment I should have
told him what I had given her, so that he might have used
means to restore her. I cannot disguise the anguish I
felt when I returned from Mr. Morley's and found my
wife dead.

He then distinctly charges the man Harrison with
having indirectly suggested the notion of killing Mrs.
Dove by continually telling him that he would have
no happiness till she waa out of the way. He con-
cludes with a curious inconsistent remark, " I did
not think that what I was doing would cause my
wife's death," and adds, "I did not give the stryohnia
with a view to destroying my wife to get Mrs.
Whitham." On the Friday night he wrote a letter
to his solicitor, Mr. Barret, concluding as follows :

I would wish to remark, that I committed the crime
through the instigation of that bad man, Henry Harrison,
of the Sonth•market, Leeds. Had it not been for him I
never should have been in these circumstances.

I remain, respected sir, yours respectfully,
J. M. Barret, Esq. WILLIAM DOVE.

MARTHA BROWN, who was convicted at the last
Dorchester Assizes of the murder of her husband,
was hanged on Saturday at Dorchester, at eight a.m.
Previous to her execution she made the following
confession, which, if true, would have justified a
reprieve :

My husband, John Anthony Brown, deceased, came home
on Sunday morning, the 6th of July, at '2 o'clock, in liquor,
and was sick. He had no hat on. I asked him what he
had done with his bat. He abused me, and said," What is
it to you, you?" lie then asked for some cold
tea. I said that I had none, but would make some warm.
He replied, " Drink that yourself, and be —. " I then
said, " What makes you so cross? Have you been at Mary
Davis's? He then kicked out the bottom of the chair upon
which I had been sitting. We continued quarrelling until
three o'clock, when he struck me a severe blow on the side
of my head, which confused me so much that I was obliged
to sit down. Supper was on the table and he said, " Eat it
yourself and be —." At the same time be reached down
from the mantelpiece a heavy horsewhip with a plain end,
and struck me across the shoulders with it three times.
Each time I screamed out. I said, "If you strike rue
again I will cry "Murder." He retorted—"lf you do, I
will knock your brailis out through the window." He also
added—" I hope I shall find you dead in the morning. "
He then kicked me on the left side, which caused me much
pain, and he immediately stooped down to untie his boots.
I was much enraged, and in an ungovernable passion, on
being so abused and struck, I directly seized a hatchet
which was lying close to where I sat, and which I had been
using to break coal with to keep up the fire and keep his
supper warm, and with it (the hatchet) I struck him
several violent blows on the head, I could not say how
many. He fell at the first blow on his head, with his face
towards the fireplace. He never spoke or moved afterwards.
As soon as I bad done it I wished I had not, and would
have given the world not to have done it. I had never
struck him before, after all his ill-treatment ; but, when he
hit me so hard at this time, I was almost out of my senses
and hardly knew what I was daing.
ELIZABETH MARTHA BROWN.
A correspondent of the Times (Mr. H. Cox, of
Bridport) writes, on Wednesday, in reference to this
execution :

On thejustice of her sentence I wish to make no remarks ;
I shall only draw a comparison between her case and
another; but before doing so I must add that the most
strenuous exertions were made to save the life of the
wretched woman, but without avail. It is in the recollec-
tion of most of your readers that a woman took her daugh-
ter to a cellar, kept her there until an opportunity presen-
ted itself for effecting her purpose, and then deliberately
murdered her by cutting her throat, No cries of compas-
sion could touch the hard heart of that woman ; no maternal
feelings would arrest her hand, but the foul deed was com-
mitted, and that girl whom nature would bind her to protect
was inhumanly sent by her to her last account. Contrast
this defenceless child with the drunken adulterous hus-
band, who cruelly thrashes his wife because she remon-
strates with him for his deviations from the paths of
chastity. Yet the murderess of her daughter escapes the
gallows, and the unfortunate slayer of her brutal husband
pays the dreadful penalty of the law. Can this be called
impartial justice? Can I be wrong in saying, that if
Celestine Somner did not deserve the penalty of death,
Martha Brown is a murdered woman? Did our Home
Secretary think the murder of a husband during a violent
quarrel a crime of a deeper hue than the murder of a
daughter in the most calm and deliberate manner ?