The Express.
London, England, 1863-08-06 00:00:00

THE 14.XPRESS, TIITISDAY F.VENING, AI GUST 6, 1863.

tato intelligcnte.

SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT.—Arou:rr 4.

(Before Mr. Dumont.)
♦ JURYMAN !TIRO FOR RIFWILNO TO BE SWORN.

A cosec of a novel character occurred here today, and it
arose out of the vexed ques:ion of exemption for jurymen
who are over GO yearn of age. A jute was summoned for a
particular case, and five persons only answered to their
names. Mr. Attenborough was fined as an absentee, and
five being the regular number for county courts, the jury
took their seats. Ao elderly gentleman then jumped up,
and claimed exemption on the ground that he was over 60,
but his name not having been taken off the list Mr. Dsaent
decided that he must serve. The juryman then returned to
the boo with • very ill grace, cod down he sat in an evi-
dently eulky mood. Mr. Walters, the officer, then en.
deavoured to administer the oath, but could not prevail on
the juryman who had claimed exemption to take it.
His Honour called the juryman to him, and said—Now,
sir, what do you mean by such conduct! Do you refuse to
be sworn!

Juryman - I am now 67, and I claim my exemption.
His Honour—l mak you, sir, will you lie sworn—yes
or no

Jurynian—No.
His Honour—Then I 51). you W. Leave the coon
directly, air.
The astonished juryman walked towards the jury-box, but
his Honour mid. No, sir, we will not accept your services
now ;" upon which that gentleman put on hie hat and
marched towards the door, his Honour calling out to him,
"And it you do not take off your hat I will fine you 51:
more.

A person is court volunteered to serve, and the court
speedily became quiet.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—OsoYDON, Arcugr 5.
Caows Courr.—(Before Mr. Baron Chappell.)

Joseph Howes 40, was charged with the 'IMO mr-der
of his wife, Such Howes.

Mr. Sharp coodocted the prosecution. The prisoner wee
defended by Mr. Ribton and Mr. Oppenhenn.

The facts of this case have appeared within the lost few
days. Although the prisoner was charged with the serious
offence of wilful murder, the ease wee opened as one that
only involved the crime of manslaughter, and the death of
the deceased appeared to have arisen oat of an affi Ay that
took place between her and the prisoner, she heliostat the
time in a state of intoxication. It appeared that the pri.
some wee • labouring man, and that he and his wife and
five children oecupied • hick room at No. 84, Upper
Ground-street, Blsckfriars-road. The exact circumstances
connected with the tramection were not established very
clearly by the evidence, but, according to the testimony of
two women named Chatfield and Beagin, who lodged in the
save boast, the prisoner came home from hie work between
sir and seven o'clock in the evading of the 16th of July,
and at this time the deceased was at home, and there was
very little doubt that she was the worse for liquor. Very
soon after the prisoner went to his room a quarrel appeared
to have taken place between him and his wife, and there
were sounds as of blow■ and falls. and the deceased
was heard to call out " Murder." The two women re-
ferred to went up to the prisoner's room, and they saw
the deceased lying upon the ground scram the fender,
bat when they endeavoured to go into the room the pri-
soner closed the door against them, and said he would
serve airy man or woman who interfered in the same way
as he had served his wife, and he at the same time made use
of • foul expression to the deceased and told her to get up,
and she muttered something in reply, which was inaudible.
The deceased continued insensible hem this time until her
death, which occurred • very few hours afterwards. The
prisoner had in the interval left the house, and be was
found by a police-constable, named Mansfield, at the Wind-
mill publichouse close by, and upon his telling him that
be must take him into custody upon the charge of murder-
ing his wife, he replied, "It is all through drink ; she
drank half a pint of whiskey off at a draught. I went out
to get a pint of beer, and tow my second child cuying, arid
told her to tell her mother to get up, and she rid that she
could not speak." The prisoner afterwards said. "God bless
her, I would not have hurt a hair of her bead." Upon the
body of the deceased being examined, • number of oontu.
mime were found upon her face, and there was also a slight
wound upon the left temple, which in the opinion of Mr.
Coppis, the surgeon, was caused by falling against the
feeder, and he also stated in crosseaornimition that several
of the injuries that he observed upon the per-
son of the deceased, and which were undoubtedly the
cause of death, might have been caused by falls,
although he at the tame time said be wee of opinion that
they must bare been caused by blows and falls conjointly.
It also appeared by the medial testimony that the brain of
the deceased was diseased, and presented apprentices of
her having bees addicted to habits of intempersece. There
was no doubt, however, from all the facts of the case, that
the prisoner had been guilty of very brutal violence to the
deceased.

Mr. Ribton made an earnest appeal to the jury on behalf
of the prisoner, sod he contended that in the first place
' there was no positive proof that the death of the deceased
was caused by blows inflicted by the prisoner, and that
there was no evidence to show that he had struck her at
all ; and, secondly, he urged that, even supposing they
should come to the conclusion that the prisoner did strike
the deceased, and that her death was the result, the
*fleece did not, at the utmost, amount to a higher crime
than manslaughter.
The learned judge having summed up, the jury retired to
deliberate, and in about half at hour they returned into
court, and found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
His lordship in passing sentence said there could be no
doubt that the prisoner had caused the death of his wife by
very brutal violence, and the only circumstance in his favour
was that the net did not appear to have been premeditated.
The jury had, therefore, very properly convicted him of
a ughter only, but no&r all the circumstances he felt
ft to be his duty to order him to be kept in penal servitude
for ten years.

Civic SIDG—Bum Bramwell disposed of the common
jury causes that were fixed to be taken to-day by four
o'clock, sod be then proceeded to try prisoners. Both courts
will be engaged to-day (Thursday) in trying civil cameo.
There are four special jury cases apoo the list before Baron
Bramwell—namely those of "Grey v. the Ludo', and
Ththton Railway," "Macdonald v. Bridges," "Gandy and
Wife Jobber," and "Myers v. the Great Northern Rail-
' way." All the 0013101012 jury cues, oornmeocing with No.
22 down to 38, will be on the list in the other court before
Baron ChanirelL

NORFOLK CIRCIIIT.—Irsw•rca, Arousr 5.

laughterl—that she placed herself io the bands of a cab
I man, who drove her to a house of ilbfame in Oxeridonetreet,
where she remained a week, at the aspiration of which time
Mr. Foster met her walking in that street, and at once wi ut
i down to her on his knees and persuaded her to °omit back. The
jewels she said she knew wan old family jewels, and were
much prised by Mr. Foster. Being premed as to her mode
of hle at Frittoo, she said after she had been there some
time she again ran away from Mtn, taking with her this
time the jewels in the tin case they were kept in ; that .be
left word where she had gone, namely, to her mother at
Stockwell, and Mr. Foster followed her, and she returned
with him, bringing the jewels; that Mr. Foster shortly
after sent the tin box containing the jewels to Harvey and
Hudson's for safety against tire, becoming alarmed for their
safety in consequence of the dining•rooes chimney having
caught ere (of course on the part of the lefeadant itr- was
suggested that was not the real reason for their being sent
to the bank), and at Messrs. Haney and Hudson's they
remain to this day. As to the plate, she said that the late
Mr. Foster told her it was old family plate, a great quantity
of which had been left to his father by Sir Lambert Black-
well, but as Mr. Foster had never had it away
from the bulk since he had deposited it there, or whilst she
was with him, she only knew what be told her, and that be
had said it was woril 1,400/. With regard to the furniture
that was in the house in London. whoa they left she was
l told to select what she liked. and the rest was sold, Mr.
Foster having the moley. She also said Mr. Foster bad
often told her he had made a will, le►ving half his property
to her for her life, and the other half and her share at bee
death to his brother, Sir William Foster, of Norwich. That
will she had searched for high and low, and et, had Sir Wil-
-1 bun, but it could not be found, although she believed such
a will to be in existence.

A sister was then called to confirm the plaintiff's story as
to the gifts, and she, it appeared , also lived at Fritton till
Mr. Fader's death, aid whilst be and the plaintiff were
living in Lyndon she and her mother were freuuently visit-
ing them. Mr. Foster, she said, was very particular al out
the house accounts, the plaintiff accounting for all money
spent, and being allowed to keep a balance of 10s. in her
pocket.
Sir William Foster was then called, who deposed to his
brother having stated to him that he had made a will, &e.,
and also to having been aloe present when a dinner ser-
vice of old china that had beau in the family many yam
was being unpacked at Feitton, and that the plaintiff said to
hie brother, "That is mine," to which he answered, " Oh,
144-"
It should be mentioned that the plaintiff admitted
that when the defendant came to Fritton atter his father's
death, and failing to find • will she claimed of hint these
things, he offered her 3001. and all the London furniture that
had been brought to the house rather than bring such a dis-
creditable family matter before the public. He also allowed
her to take all she chose to claim other than these articles is
dispute in the present action, and she and her sister
moved away sixteen large boxes full. The offer an to money
and furniture die wished to consider, and it seem, having
consulted a solicitor, Mr. Chamberlain, of Great Yarmouth,
she wrote to declin it, and commenced the present action.
Mr. Mills having aunounoed that be should call no
witnesses.

Mr. O'Malley again addressed the jury, pointing et
the unfortnnate defendant, who was sitting by the aide of
his counsel, and stigm►tising him am a creature actuated by
the meanest motivee, who, rather than give this poor giti
plate end jewellery of the value of between two and three
thousand pounds, preferred this tale of shame should be
published to the world, and *occluded by calling upon the
jury to give the plaintiff all she asked.

- Mr. Mills, Q.C., then for the defendant panted out what
he described as the absurdity and falsehood of the woman's
claim, and explained to the jury the position of the much
abused defendant, who was simply administrator in cons.-
qnence of his father dying intestete, and io that position
compelled to resist the claim on behalf of his injured
mother and brothers and sisters, who were all entitled to
certain shares of the estate. He then called attention to
the business habits of the late Mr. Foster, and after
taking some technical objections in law as to there being
no change of pospessico, &c. of the plate, china, acid furni-
ture, couluded by expressing his belief that the deceased
in making no will interdcd to do a tardy act of justice to
those whom, by his immoral course of Me, he had for so
many years cruelly wronged.
Mr. Justice Wightman, in summing up, said be thought
perhaps the jury would see a difference in regard to some
of the articles claimed, if they should be of opinion the
plaintiff wu entitled to any. The jewellery bad evidently
at times been in the manual possession of the plaintiff ; not
so this plate. The furniture and china had remained in the
house, and was clearly in the possession of the late Mr.
Foster when he died ; but there was one circumstance that
he thought of great weight, and which they ought well to
consider, and that wee, that everyone believed, and the
plaintiff to this boor, that the deceased had made a will in
her favour. That being co, and he having assured her that
was the use, what necessity was there for his giving her
this family plata, the jewels, and the old china in his life-
time? Aad more than that, until every search had been
made and no will found the plaintiff had made no claim.
He should ask the jury to answer four questions :-1. Did
Mr. Foster make a gift of the jewellery to the pNintiff,
and had she the actual posessiou of it in consequence ? 2. Did
he, in giving her the list of the plate, give her or intend her
then to have possession of it, such a possession that she
might have removed it at her will? 3. Had she the actual
possession of the china as • gift! 4. The same question as
to the furniture.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after •
long &beeves returned with • verdict for the plaintiff far
the Jewellery and the furniture and china ; for the defendant
on the plate.
His lordship stayed execution till five days after Michael.
was term, in order that the defendant might move the
court upon the points of law rabid.

THE POLICE COURTS.