The Press.
London, England, 1858-08-21 00:00:00

THE PRESS, AUGUST 21,1858.

Hinder saw them. Saw Hinder pass through the
village of Fovant in August.
SAMUEL. HINDER: I LUI a sheriff's officer, and
defendant in this action. In February, 1857,
received warrants in the cases of " Burleigh v.
Futcher " and " Beck v. Futcher." I afterwards
received a letter from Messrs. Cox and Sons, sus-
pending their execution for fourteen days. I there-
fore delayed arresting the plaintiff. On the 2111.11 of
April I received a letter from Mr. Genge, which I
sent to Mr. Awdry, the under sheriff, ordering a
further suspension. On the 31st of October I
received a letter from Mr. Awdry, directing me to
execute the warrant against Futcher. On the 9th
of November I received a letter from Mr. Awdry,
stating that a suspension had been ordered in
" Beck v. Futcher," but ordering me to execute the
one in " Burleigh v. Futcher." I, in consequence,
arrested the plaintiff at half past six on the afternoon
of Saturday. I had been waiting to take him as he
came from market. He said if it was not settled it
ought to have been. I told him it cduld nut be
settled, as I had heard nothing of it. I wished him
to send for his cousin, as we could reason the case
over. and I might possibly take his undertaking.
He said he would not trouble any of his friends. I
wished him to call on Ewer, but he would not. The
plaintiff made no offer to pay me the money. I
should have been glad enough to get it. I then took
him to Salisbury gaol. 1 never received the letter
from Messrs. Cox and Sons in May, nor any letter to
that effect. I have had no communication informing
me of the withdrawal of that ca. sa.

Cross-examined : I did not tell Mr. Wilson,
plaintiffs attorney, that he had caught me twice. I
said I should put my trust in Providence. I had to
refund some of my charges in two cases; one was
for giving a man time. I had the notice of suspen-
sion for fourteen days. I did not feel it my duty to
take him after the fourteen days without further
orders. I could not see myself clear in doing it. If
he had paid me the money, I should have lodged
him in my house. He did not offer to show me the
receipts. I say that what the plaintiff said about the
offer of money and the receipts was en invention. I
had no legal claim for the It. lls. 61 I received
from Mr. Gcnge, but if a gentleman offers me money
I take it. The fee on a caption is a guinea, and we
get an allowance for an assistant, if we can get it,
and we take anything we can get besides. The
under sheriff is my solicitor in the matter and
defends at my expense. I had no fees at all in
Beck's case.
- - -

Re-examined : I was 4/. out of pocket. I look to
the sheriff for my instructions. I give a bond to the

sheriff.

- -
WEST Awnnv : I am under-sheriff for the county
of Wilts, and have been so for several years. I have
the writ of ca. sa. in the action of " Burleigh v.
Futcher." I issued a warrant and sent it to Hinder.
It is usual for selicitors to communicate with the
under•sheriff in case of a settlement. I hail no com-
munication from the solicitor in Burleigh's case uutil
after the arrest.
Cross•examined : Mr. Lee spoke to me upon the
subject of this arrest on behalf of Futcher. I have
no doubt I informed Mr. Lee that I had instructed
Hinder. I had not received any direction from Cox
and Sons to proceed upon this warrant.
Mr. SMITH summed up his evidence. The mistake
was not with the defendant or the sheriff, but from
the solicitor of Mr. Burleigh or Mr. Futcher not
having done his duty.
Mr. SLADE replied for the plaintiff upon the whole
case. He hoped this would not be an instance of a
great wrong being suffered without a remedy. They
were now twitted by the standing counsel for the
under-sheriff that they had gone against the bailiff
instead of against the under-sheriff. But whom
were they to sue ? They believed the wrong to be
in the bailiff, and therefore, out of kindness to Mr.
Awdry, they did not attack him. Which, then, did
they believe—that fine specimen of a Wiltshire
farmer, Mr. Futcher, or the bound bailiff of the
sheriff? He submitted they would believe the
former. Hail they any doubt that that letter had
gone out of Messrs. Cox's office ? That letter had
never been returned. If it had not reached its
destination, would it not have been returned? Or
were they to suppose that that little thief had
purloined the letter? If Hinder had not received
that letter, did they imagine that he would not have
taken Futcher within twenty-four hours? Hinder
had sworn one thing, but the facts were all the otoer
way. What was the motive for the arrest? He
himself had been in doubt about it, but he now had
the key to it. Could anyone doubt that it was the
miserable caption fee, the fee for the a.saistant,
add '• anything he could get besides " ? If they
were of opinion that the defendant had received that
notice of withdrawal, they must find a verdict for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Baron CHANNEL'. then summed up.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages-501. Points of law were reserved.

811

BIGAMY.
Alexander Charles Borromen, 29, was indicted for
bigamy, at the Central Criminal Court on Monday,

before the Common Sergeant.
Mr. Sleigh conducted the prosecution.
This prisoner has attained some notoriety, from
the fact of his having been the author of some pre-
tended proceedings of a body of persons whom he
described as holding meetings upon the sulkjeku of
the affairs of Italy, of which country he pretends to
be a native, the real country to which he belongs
being represented to be Ireland. Ho was tried at
the Middlesex Sessions for obtaining money by
falsely pretending that certain reports furnished by
him of the proceedings of this Italian Conference, as
he termed it, had actually taken place, whereas it
turned out that the whole affair was a hoax. The
prisoner was prosecuted for this offence by the con-
ductors of the Morning Star newspaper, and he was
convicted and sentenced to a yea's imprisonment.
Several bills of indictment charging him with the
offence of bigamy were subsequently preferred, tied
lie was removed to this court by habeas corpus, to
take his trial upon those charges. The trial of the
prisoner was postponed from the last session.
The prisoner now asked the court to postpone his
trial again, in order to give him an opportunity of
producing witnesses.
Mr. SLEIGH opposed the application, and said that
there was not the slightest ground for supposing
that the prisoner could produce any evidence of a
material character if the trial were postponed.
The COMMON SERGEANT said it appeared to him
that the trial must proceed.
Mr. SLEIGH, in opening the case, said that so far
from there having been any undue pressure against
the prisoner, his application for a postponement at
the last session was immediately acceded to on the
part of the prosecution, and there was not the
slightest pretence for further postponement. The
case was a very simple one. The prisoner, who re-
presented hiteself to be an Italian, and whose real
name he believed to be Charles Tucker, and who
was a native of Ireland, would he proved to have
married a lady of the name of Sadleir, in 1842, at
Chelsea, and that after living with her four years he
deserted her, and in the following sear he married
another young lady, named Froggett, whom lie also
subsequently deserted ; and if he made out these
facts he would in law be guilty of the offence of
bigamy, and it would be the duty of the jury to con-
vict him of that offence.
Mr. C. SADLEIR deposed that the prisoner paid
his addresses to his sister, Mary Anne Satlleir, in
1842, and they were married on the 30th of October
in that year, at Trinity Church, Chelsea. Witness
was present at the marriage, and he was quite cer-
tain the prisoner was the man who was married to
his sister. The prisoner went sway in 1840, and he
did not see him again until he was in custody upon
another charge.
Cross-examined by the prisoner : At this time, I
should say, you appeared to be about nineteen years
old. lam quite certain you are the same man. I
don't know whether my sister has seen you. She is

not in court.
The prisoner said he thought the person to whom
he was represented to have been married ought to
have been called to prove that he was her husband.
Tine COMMON SERGEANT said that by the law of
England a wife was not permitted to give evidence
against her husband, and she therefore could not
have been examined if she had been present.
Mrs. C. 1441x.t.5, the sister of the prisonei's first
wife, proved that she was also present at the marriage,
and she was quite certain the prisoner was the person
who married her sister.
The prisoner asserted that the witness was mis-
taken.

-------
In answer to questions put by the court, Mrs.
Mills and her brother both stated that they saw the
prisoner constantly during a period of fuur years,
and that they had not the slightest doubt that be was
the man who married their sister.
Miss ANNE MARIA FROOOETT, a ladylike young
woman, was then examined. She stated that she
VMS on a visit to some friends at Preston in 1847,
and she was introduced to the prisoner, who paid
attentions to her, and she ultimately consented to
accompany hint to Gretna-green, where they went
through the ceremony of marriage. 'Clie prisoner
stated that he was willing to take her for his wife,
and she stated that she was willing to take him for
her husband, and the marriage ceremony was then
read, and they were declared man and wife. The
prisoner at this time represented himself to be a
single man. They lived together as man and wife
until 1851, and she had one child by the prisoner
during that period, a little girl, who vim now nine
years old. The prisoner deserted her and her child
at Liverpool in 1851, and she never saw him again
until he was in custody at Bow•street upon the charge
of obtaining money by false pretences. The prisoner
was married to her in the name of Marco Emile d•
St. Hilaire, and he represented himself to be a
Frenchman.

812

By the prisoner : At the time I was married to you
I should say you were about twenty-four years old.
I was acquainted with you but six weeks before I
consented to accompany you to Scotland to get mar•
tied. The last time I saw you at Liverpool was on
the 18th of November, 1851.
Mr. ROBERT STUART, a member of the English and
Scotch bar, deposed that he was conversant with the
law of Scotland, and that the proceeding spoken to
by the last witness constituted a valid marriage ac-
cording to the Scotch law.
The prisoner then made a long, rambling state-
ment, the effect of which appeared, so far as it could
be understood, to be that the prosecution had been
got up through a malicious feeling on the part of
some persons towards him, and he made a long
statement relative to the offence of which he had
been formerly convicted, and declared that his re-
ports were true, and that he had been unjustly con-
victed. He then asserted that the witnesses were all
mistaken in saying that he was the person who was
married to Miss Sailleir in 1842, and declared that
he was in Paris at that time, and he could have pro-
duced witnesses to have proved the fact if an oppor-
tunity had been afforied him of doing so.
The COMMON SERGEANT then summed up, and the
jury immediately returned a verdict of " Guilty."
Mr. SLEIGH then proposed to go on with a second
indictment for a similar offence.

The prisoner begged that the trial might be post-
poned, and he asserted that he could prove he was
not the person who had married Miss Sadleir in 1842.
Mr. SLEIGH said he believed the prisoner was
uttering an impudent falsehood. The prosecutrix
had been put to very great expense in bringing a
witness from Ireland, and he hoped the court would
not postpone the trial.
The COMMON SERGEANT said it appeared to him
that there were no grounds for the postponement of
the trial.

The prisoner was then charged with feloniously
intermarrying with Margaret Murray at Sligo, on
the sth of March, 1853.
Mr. SADLEIR was recalled, and he gave the same
evidence as upon the previous rharge relative to the
marriage of the prisoner with his sister in the year
1842.
Miss MARGARET MURRAY depose,) that she became
acquainted with the prisoner at Sligo, in 1851, and
they were married about ten months after they first
became acquainted. Ar, this time the prisoner
practised as a doctor, and he also gave lectures, and
was known as Dr. Tucker. He represented himself
to her to be a single man. One child was the result
of their union. They lived together about three
years, and the prisoner then left her, with her
consent. The prisoner married her in the name of
Borromeo, and he was known by that name at Sligo,
as well as by the name of Tucker.
The Commos SERGEANT having briefly summed up
the evidence of the case,

The jury at once returned a verdict of " Guilty."
Mr. SLEIGH said he thought it right to inform the
court that the prisoner appeared to have treated
several other young ladies in a similar manner, and
after plundering them of what little property they
possessed, he left them in several instances in a state
of actual destitution. Miss Murray's case was an
exceedingly bad one. She was entitled to a rever-
sionary interest in the sum of 2501., which he induced
her to sell, and having obtained possession of the
money, he squandered it away, and be then treated
her with great barbarity and cruelty, and ultimately
deserted her and her child. After this he got up the
pretended conference of the Italian delegates, and
defrauded several newspaper proprietors of money
for the pretended reports of the proceedings of those
delegates. The prisoner was taken into custody upon
that charge at Reading, upon a warrant, and at this
time it appeared that he was getting his livelihood by
lecturing upon electro-biology.
The prisoner, in an impudent manner, said that
what Mr. Sleigh had been stating about him was not
true. _

Mr. SLEIGH said that perhaps his lordship would
put a few questions to Miss Murray as to the manner
in which she had been treated by the prisoner.
The young lady was accordingly asked by the
C ommon Sergeant to give the court information upon
the subject, and she said that the prisoner obtained
possession 0f270/. belonging to her, and that while
they lived together he did not use her well, and
frequently struck her.
The Commox SERGEANT, in passing sentence, said
be believed it was quite useless to address any
remarks to such a man as the prisoner upon the
subject of the crimes he had committed. It was
clear he had for many years got his living by frauds,
not frauds of the ordinary description, but by
seducing young women under the pretext of marriage,
and then plundering them of what little property
they possessed. He was young, and he would have
time for reflection upon his past career, anti in order
to afford him an opportunity for such reflection he
should order him to be kept in penal servitude for
four years.