The Express.
London, England, 1862-09-27 00:00:00

Mr. Oppenheim then proceeded to address the jury on be-
ballot the prisoner—He amid that be felt on the pre eat
occasion that he bad need of all their indthimert, sot bs-
cause he felt that the evidence that had hem adduced
against the prisoner was of a conclusive character, but lest
he should fail from want of power to show them that the
evidence in support of the charge was not by any means
satisfactory, and that it failed altogether in setahliabmg that
the prisoner was guilty of the heinous crime that was im-
puted to her by the present indictment. The Jury would
not, hg was sire, forget in the outset that the death of the
deceased took place six years back, and that Men was a
inquiry at that period when all the facts were froth in the
recollection of the witnesses, and that the wooer's jury
had exonerated the prisoner from any Oh to the
transaction. After a long interval it had hem thought
advisable that the body should be exhumed, and the feel-
loge of the family had hem harrowed by Mug again com-
pelled to come forward and give their evidence, but he sub-
mitted that the evidence given after so bog a period could
not be implicitly relied upon, and that it was not entitled
to so much weight u that which was Ursa originally, end
they ought to pause long before they utuesed a verdict
the effect of which would be to consign the prisoner to an
ignominious death upon evidence that was so given. The
learned counsel then proceeded to state that, in mem like
this, the first and the moat important point for the math
deratioa of the jury was to see what motive was ascribed for
I the 000101ilinall a such a dreadful crizno, and it was
clear that the only motive that was suggested, or at all
manta insinuated. for the commission of this rime by the
prisoner, was that she was in circumstances of pecuniary
difficulty, and that her object in destroying the deceamed
was to obtain pommesion of the miserable sum of 91. which
she had received from her brother, Mr. Banes, on the day
when she was first taken ill. He should contend, however,
that the prisoner was not proved to have bean is disturbed
circumstances, and although evidence had undoubtedly
been given that the prisoner was only entitled to about 101.
a year from some property at Boston, there was nothing to
show that mho was sot paranoid of other property, and with
regard to the other poMt, he reminded t jury that there
was no evidence that the deceased took the W. she bed m-
oiled from her brother to her house in Alfred-street. Thom
was nothing to show where the deceased wont other she
reoeived the mooey, and sloe might have got rid of it in •
variety of ways before she reached her home. It was clear
that the prosecutios relied upon the fact !of the primmer
having obtained possession of this money, and yet they bad
not brought forward any evidence to show that the pri-
mmer ever had an opportunity to get this money from the
deceased. He thought there could also be no doubt that
Mrs. Scams was not in prosperous circumitancee at the
time of her death, and that she had pursed some of her
property, and borrowed 101. of the prisoner, and therefore
he submitted that it was very likely she should have
paid away the 91. she bad received, and if this we»
so, the motive attributed to the prisoner entirely
failed. If Mis jury should be of opinion that this was
so, and that no motive existed, it would be for them
to my what mould have induced her to commit We dreadful
crime. There were two moot important points for their
consideration, the first of which was,. did the deceased die
of poison, and if so, was that poison administered by
the prisoner, and be hoped be should be able to satisfy them
that, upon tho evidence before them, neither of those points
had been ruiliciently established. In the first place the
prisoner woe not proved ever to have purchased poison, or
to have ever had poison in her posaesson, and no police of
any kind was found in the body of the deceased. It was
true that the theory of the prosecution woe that soma
vegetable poison was the cause of death, and that it had been
eliminated from the body during the illness, and could not
be discovered, but there was not one tittle of evkkeses
that the prisoner had ever had colchicum or any
other vegetable poison in her possession. Ihey would also
remember that many of the symptoms exhibited by the dim
ceased were those of a natural disease ; and if there was
any doubt upon the point whether they were to be attri-
buted to the one cause or the other, their own feeliogs, and
the humanity of the law also, would direct them to give
the prisoner the benefit of that doubt. The learned monad
next referred to the evidence 91 Dr. Taylor, aid said that
it appeared to him that the evidence he had given, to the
effect that he placed no faith in the returns that were mad*
as to the causes of death by the registrars, and that • great
number of those that were described as having taken place
from cholera were, to point of fact, deaths from poiaou, was
most startling, and the jury would say whether they ought
to place implicit reliance upon such evidence. He then pro-
ceeded to comment upon the other facts that bad been given
in evidence, and be concluded a very able speech by. stating
that, although there might be some suspicion against the
prisoner, still that the evidence was not at all conclusive,
and that the prisoner was therefore entitled to en acquittal.
The learned counsel did not conclude his address until
hilliest 4 o'clock, and the learned judge, addressing the
jury, said that if they wished he was quite ready to sum up,
but be put it to them whether, in 1101111) of such extreme im-
portance, it would not be advisable to postpone the ramming
up and the final decision of the case until the following
morning.
The jury said they thought it would be the hotter course
to postpone the summing up until the following morning. ,
The trial was consequently adjourned.

NEW COURT.
(Wore Mr. Justice Keating.)

George Crook, 15, labourer, who had pleaded guilty to an
indictment charging him with unlawfully and maliciously
putting upon the railway of the London and South-Western
Railway Company certain stories to the endangerment of
pesasogers by the said railway, was brought up for judg-
ment.

Mr. Justice Keating, without comment, sentenced the
prisoner to be kept in Newgate for fourteen days, and thew
sent to a reformatory for the term of five years.

James Steele, 16. labourer, was indicted for feloniously
and carnally know* and abating Anne Arnold, a girl
under the age of ten years.
Mr. Sleigh conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that the priaouer was in the serviced the
father of the proescutriz, and had taken advaatage of bin
left with her in the house O&M() to effect his purpose. The
details were wholly unfit for publication. and the jury, with-
out much deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty.
Mr. Justice Keating, in passing senteoos, said that harry
the
.poor girl had not sustained any great ammo of
phyocal injury, and looking at the age of the prisoner, he
was probably not aware of the magnitude of the offence be
had committed, and therefore the court would not sentence
him to penal servitude. The septets* of the court was
that be be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for eighteen
calendar months.

Jame., doling, 46, bootmaker, was indicted for criminally
assaulting, Bc., Alice Crater, a girl under the age of tea
years.
Hr. Sleigh appeared for the prosecution.
The testimony of the medical gentleman who had am-
mineditrEn of the promicutrix went to show that she
was under a loathsome disease, while the prisoner
was wholly from taint in that respect.
Mr. Jos Keating asked the jury whether they thought
it necessary, after this evidence, to go on with the case?
The jury at ogre said the medial evidence was quite
coneluolve, and they accordingly returned a verdict of Not

The prisoner was again iodicted fora similar offence on
a little girl named Matilda Wood.
Mr. Sleigh, for the prosecutioe, said that be had carefully
read the depositions in this case, and found that the facts
were the same as those disclosed in the last one; he sbonld
therefore not offer on the part of the crown any evidence.
Mr. Justice Keating said that the learned counsel bad
taken a very proper mune, and directed the jury to acquit
the prisoner.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly recorded.

THIRD COIJRT.
(Before the Recorder.)

Alfred Towns, Piety Le Rose, and William Charles
Allen, three well-dressed young men (the fleet mentioned
being the son of the lessee of the Victoria Theatre), sod
Apses Alin' Towers, were indicted for an assault upon
William Henry Herrick. no officer of the Sheriff of Surrey,
and on George Waller Reeves, and George Rayment. two
of his assistants, while in the execution of their duty.
Mr. Lilley and Mr. Butler Rigby conducted the
Lim Mr. F. H. Lewis defended Pierre Le ; 47.7121
Mon-
tage Williams defended Alfred Towers and William
Charles Allen; and Mr. Kemp defended the female prisoner.
The iodictment contained three counts ; the first charging
the whole of the prisoners with aiding and effecting the
escape of one Frank Tower', the second count charged them
with preventing the legal capture of the said Frank Towers,
and the third count charged the whole of the prisoners with
a common amatilt.

Mr. Lilley haviog briefly narrated the fade of the case
to the jury.called
William Henry Renick, who proved that be was an of
the officers of the Sheriff of Surrey, and had been so for
thirty year, on and off. He was • servant, and not the
partner, of Mr. Gine Seel, who was also an officer of the
sheriff. He (whams) was appointed by the Uoder-Sheriff,
on giving security. On the 13th of the present month he
went to the Victoria Tavern, Waterloo-road, to execute a
writ of copies on Frank Towers, the landlord of that house,
who knew him well, as he (Miim) had arrested him before.
He had with bim his two assistants—George Waller Reeves
and George figment. We went into the bar and knocked
three times on the minter and called for some brandy ; and
at this time he (witness) saw Frank Towers, naiad whom
he had the writ, sitting in the bar-parlour. On seeing wit-
ness Frank Towers got up to leave, awl witness went round
the barjust am Towers was on the stairs leadiog into the
back parlour. He said to Towers, "I want you, and the
latter replied, " What for?' Witness said. " For a
sum than the eat time." He then took Tower;
the arm and they went into the back parlour.
Towers was in • very excited state, and wtheees,
thinking it would be best to have a cab, directed his mails.
tents to obtain one. Towers thee threw himself on • ask,
and called to hi wife (the female primer) to give bins •
knife, that he might stab himself or out his throat. The
wither turned spin to call his assistants when he hared •
scuffle and shriek, and on the instant he maw Towers
escaping through the window, the female primer having