The Express.
London, England, 1852-12-02 00:00:00

EVENING, DECEMBER 2, 1852.

ruled to Nail the wg dr mar eisesrstanme of rid&
her eiready her
The Aeoletaat4tede wired to know rhea, a then wee
any queries es Mao elstoil by the learned riereel.
Kr. Bellestro =O rd in Ike senstive, and said be
word
lady to hie lider eleilenssoklast the Janie bedibeen
is the % on re
sorra days end she had set rade
the lort atiorpt to apperviato then—ther had set bees
11•1111 Waxed.
The Aesistent,lsdre wished array to brow windier
the facie of the ear wens strictly in aiwardasee .with the
sullenest of the isernad emineeL

Mr. Hal!antise said they were. His Mama friesd hid
stated the case with the statist fairness Jolt se fairly, is.
deed, and a rest dial son ably than be Used( amid have
opened it. He was pleased to end that, is this lastanos, a
proper decennia had been observed, sad that the
two
lady for who= he appeared had sot bees eseriliced to
feelings of cariosity, beams she happened to be charged
with this offence.

The Assistant Judge said she could not complain sow be-
calm of anything that bad taken place before.
Mr. Baßaptise said she did not complain now, bat she
did object to be made a show of for the gratification of the
public sad pointed out and gaud at as if she wore a wild
animal. She had not, la that court, been ordered to take
ogre veil, or anything of that sort.
The Assistant Judge then said the jury were not there to
try the defendant with reference either to matters eon-
anted with religion, or to anything except the intent at the
due she took away the jewels. It struck him, from the
streasent made, that the first story was the most true one.
TM jury were now aware what facts would be proved in
evidence if the ease was gone into; those facts were not
disputed, and if upon these facts they considered there was
no felonious intent, they would acquit her. If they pro-
fared to hear the evidence, and form their opinion from
that, the ease would go on.
Mr. Bodkin said he had no diMeulty in adding his own
conviction that there was no intent on the part of Miss
Campbell to appropriate this property in the ordinary
w ails• Assistant Judge—What was the use of going on with
the ease then ? It would only bring about a long drama=
for nothing.
A Juryman—We have heard no 'Adore yet, my lord.
The Assistant Judge said there was no doubt of the tact,
for it was admitted that the defendant took the property,
and it was certainly for them to judge rto her motives in
taking. it. When she was charged she disclaimed all felo-
nious intention, and that was before she had time to think
what to say, or to consult any legal adviser, and it was ad-
mitted on the other aide, that there was no evidence to show
that she meant to appropriate the jewels beyond what they
had heard stated. If her account was true, there was no
felony.
A Jurymsa said there could be no question about that.
The jury. then consulted for a short time.
The Amstar-Judge asked if there was; any difference
amongst them ?
The Foreman—We are is doubt whether we can give a
verdict of not guilty without first hearing the evidence.
The Assistant-Judge—Yea could not return any other
verdict under these circumstances.
Mr. Bodkin said he had not felt himself at liberty, in the
position in which he was plated, to withdraw the case after
it had been committed to that court by a magistrate and
the bill found by thegrand jury but on his statement of the
Lets—fare which could not be carried further—having
heard the view entertained by the court, and knowing how
the learned judge would direct the jury as to the law of
the case, he should at ones withdraw the prosecution and
offer no evident* at all.

The Assistant Judge said he considered Miss Campbell
had acted with great indiscretion—he would say impro-
priety, but that was not the question. Had she acted felo-
niously ? Had the evidence been given is accordance with
the statement of the learned erotism!, he should have told
the jury that in his view the offence was not made oat In a
legal sense. With regard to one matter mentioned by Mr.
Bodkin, he would say that he knew nothing whatever of
the cam; but he was shocked to dad that such a public
breach and violation of all the spirit of our English laws I
had been committed as the publication in the newspapers of
prints letters and doeumeats entirely unconnected with
the ease, which happened to be farad is a lady's pocket-
honk. He hoped this would not be repeated, and he wee
sure that the press itself would concur la what he said
against such a proceeding.
Mr. Bodkin said Mr. Templemen, the solicitor to Mrs.
Phillips, was as grieved and as concerned as any eine at the
indiscretion exhibited by his sot in regard to the publica-
tion of the letters.
_ _

11;.ftillitiiiiiielfegged to say ot behalf of Mies Campbell
that if she had been guilty of any impropriety or indMore-
don, she deeply regretted it.
The Assistant-Judge then told the jury that they must
acquit the defendant, as there wu no evidence offered
against her.
The foreman, after consulting the jury, said—We return
a verdict of not guilty on the principle that the case hes
been withdrawn from our consideration by the learned
counsel for the prosecution.
The Assistant-Judge said that was quite correct.
A verdict of Nal Guilty wu then recorded, and the
accused left the court with her friends.

At the commencement of the case, after the witnesees had
been ordered to leave the court, Mr. 'Margins observing
Mr. Templeman, jun., had remained, said he iasisted on
his being outside, and having it:premed his wish in private
to that effect and finding it disregarded, he was compelled
to ask publicly that his wish should be complied with.
Mr. Bodkin said the Individual referred to was not a
witness.

31;.itallantine said he did not know that—he should
penult.
Mr. Templanai, jun., then stepped out.