The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-18 00:00:00

English jury, who would be guided by the dictates of
common sense and humanity, and would come to a conclu-
sion solely upon the evidence that was laid before them. He
was sure, therefore, that if they should be tif opinion
that the wretched creature at the ►er hid ndea-
voured by a silly artifice to extort money from the Prince
Ide Joinville, they would put this construction upon
his conduct and that they would not for a moment Huna of
convicting him of the serious charge imputed to him by
the present indictment. The learned counsel then pro-
ceeded to contend that it was clear that the prisoner bad no
other object than to set money from the Prince, and tbet
money was all he talked about, and he submitted that it
was perfectly ridiculous and absurd to suppose that the
prisoner entertained any serious intention to assassinate
the Emperor of France and revolutionise all Europe,
which was in reality the suggestion on the part of the pro-
secution. There did not appear, although doubtless every
inquiry bad been made, to be the slightest possible evidence
to show that the prisoner entertained any such intentions.
There was no proof of the existence of any infernal ma-
chine, auch u they had heard talk of on former occasions;
*end when the prisoner was taken into custody, not even a
pistol or a knife was found upon him. Qod alone could
tell what would be the result of such a trial io s•isia:a or
Ansiria, but he felt quite sure that in England the jury
would look at all the facts like reasonable and dispassionate
men, and that the result must inevitably be that they
would come to the conclusion that the charge against the
prisoner was not made out by the evidence for the prosecu-
tion. . .

Mr. Baron Platt summed up the case very briefly, ob-
serving that the only questions for the jury to consider
were whether the prisoner really entertained the serious
intention of destroying the life of the present ruler of
France, or whether, as was suggested by the learned
counsel, his object in writing the letters was to endeavour
to obtnia some money from the Prince de Joinville.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and were ab-
sent about half an hour. Upon their return into Court
they gave a verdict of Not Guilty, and the foreman added
that they were of opinion that the only object the prisoner
bad in writing the letters was to extort money from the
prince.
BIM= CONNIMIONZI Grit.llT.

James Neale, 17. pleaded guilty to an indictment charg-
ing him with a felonious assault upon Ellen Neale, hie
sister. He wen sentenced to be transported for life.

NEW COURT.-YESTERDAY.

The Common &risen t at during the day in this court
and disposed of several unimportant cases.

THIRD COURT.—YESTERDAT.
Biro's R. Gummy, Esq., Q.C.

John Daley, policeman, was indicted for feloniously
cutting and wounding Richard Reason, with intent to do
him grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Payne prosecuted ; and Mr. O'Brien
defended. _ . . _ .

The prosecutor, who is an inspector of the A division of
police, stated that the prisoner was also a constable of the
same division, and had been so for a period of six years,
and bore a high character ; and, in consequence of being a
meritorious officer, he was engaged as one of the inspectors
of lodging-houses. About the middle of last month the
prosecutor h►d occasion to make a report of prisoner's con-
duct relative to hie accounts to Captain Hay, and the result
was that prisoner was ordered to be suspended for a day,
until his accounts could be looked into. The prisoner was
at Scotland-yard at the time when this occurred, and the
fact was communicated to him by the prosecutor, who,
having done so, at once went into his office. This
was about twelve o'clock, and at a quarter past the
prisoner went into another part of the station, and asked
another of the constables there if he would lend him his
staff, as he had not got his with him, and he did not like the
way his clothes fitted without one. A staff was lent to him,
and aboat half-an-hour after the prisoner went into the office
where the prosecutor was standing, and with his back to-
wards him, and then deliberately struck him a very violent
blow upon the right temple, which felled him to the ground
and inflicted a fearful wound, which it was at first feared
would deprive him of the sight of that eye, and it is not
now at all certain that it may not be permanently injured.
Mr. O'Brien, at some length, urged the absence of evi-
dence to prove the intent to do grievous bodily harm,
but said he would not deny that there was en unlawful
wounding.
The learned Commissioner left it to the jury to say whe-
ther the fact of borrowing the staff beforehand, and also the
prisoner saying, as it was proved in evidence he did, that he
had had his ge, did not prove an intent to do bodily
harm, especially striking the prosecutor in such a place
as be had done,
The jury found him guilty of wounding with intent, but
commended to mercy, on account of his previous good

character.

The prisoner said he was very sorry for what had taken
place. He much regretted he had forgotten himself, but
he begged the mercy of the court for the sake of his wife ;
he forgave the inspector.
Mr. Gurney—Forgive indeed.
Inspector Reason said he wished also to recommend him
to mercy on account of his wife. He (the inspector) had
always done all he could to serve him.
Mr. Gurney said he felt great doubt whether he was
&lag right in the course he was about to pursue. He paid
respect to the recommendation of a jury, but bad it
Mt iwa for the kind recommendation of the inspector he

should have felt it to be his duty to have transported the
prisoner. It wu a case of great aggravation, from the fact
of its being an act of brutality and insubordination on the
pert of an officer whose duty it was to protect the peace.
Inspector Reason had only made, as in common honesty he
was bound to do, a report ha felt it his duty to make.
However, taking his character into consideration, as well as
the recommendation to mercy, he should order him to be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-YEBTERDAT.

BEFOILI ILL SALMAXT ADAMS, AND ♦ rou. BRACK or

TAR DOCK STRIKES.
Daniel Meagan, 40, was indicted for unlawfully and
maliciously wounding William Lattimore.
John Sullivan, 33, was indicted for having committed
the like offence on Henry Lucas.
Thomas Donovan, 21, and John Sullivan, 27, were in-
dicted for committing the like offence on George Smith, and
assaulting and beating John Burns, and
Lawrence Sullivan, 2-5, and Daniel Sullivan, 21, for un-
lawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on
Joseph Weller.
These cases, which were tried separately, originated in
the recent strikes at the docks—the particulars have already
been given. The prosecutors in each of the cases
except the last were dock labourer', who continued their
work during the strike, and as they were leaving the docks
they were attacked by the prisonen in a very savage man-
ner. The offenses, as charged, were proved against
all of them except John Sullivan (indicted with Donovan),
against whom a common assault only was proved. The
prosecutor in the last-mentioned case was a servant in the
employ of Messrs. Hoare, the brewers, and he and two or
three of his fellow servants were mistaken on leaving work
by the prisoner, and a number of their companions for dock
labourer,. An attack was commenced upon them, and the
prosecutor Weller had his shoulder dislocated, and was
otherwise seriously hurt. An attempt was made by Daniel
Sullivan to gouge out one of his eyes, but he was prevented
from accomplishing that inhuman met. He pleaded guilty.,
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the prosecution in each of the
cases, Mr. Payne appeared for John Sullivan (indicted
alone), and Mr..Metealfe appeared for Donovan and Sul-
livan.

The jury found all the prisoners Guilty—John Sullivan
of a common assault only. This was the Sullivan indicted
jointly with Donovan.
The Assistant Judge, in sentencing the prisoners, said
they had an undoubted right to strike for an advance of
wages, but they must be taught that they had no right to
interfere with, to intimidate, or molest others who chose
not to strike or to go to work in the place of those who did.
The sentence upon Daniel Sullivan was that he be impri-
soned and kept to hard labour for nine calendar months ;
and upon all the others, except the Sullivan who was con-
victed of a common assault only, eight months' hard la-
bour, and upon that prisoner, Sullivan, the sentence was
one month's imprisonment.