The Express.
London, England, 1847-08-16 00:00:00

been able to earn her livelihood until she rewired the in-
juries deuribed.
Mr. Grubb, a surgeon at Warminster, stated in evidence
that the deceased died of consumption. He observed, upon
'poet martens examination, that three of her ribs had been
fractured, and were not perfectly re-united. His opinion
was, that such a fracture of the ribs as had been described
might, if not attended to, produce consumption in a person
predisposed to that disease. He never recollected • ens in
which coesumption was produced by a fracture of the ribs ;
but, in his judgment, such an injury would produce inflam-
mation of the lungs.
Mr. Sleek, another surgeon, testified that in his opinion
the deceased would have been alive on the 6th of June had
she not received the injuries whit h fractured her ribs in the
month of September. He should think that the fracture of
the ribs had caused the young woman's death. He had
known an instance of consumption being brought on, in a
person predisposed to the disease, by the effects of a blow or
fall. He had examined the deceased in the year 184. i, when
she was desirous of becoming a member of a friendly society,
and he then certified that her health was good.
Mr. Slade addressed the jury for the prisoner, and stated
that he felt the strongest indignation against the prisoner for
having in a moment of passion been cowardly enough to lift
his bend upon a women. But he contended that there was
no evidence that the prisoner had committed the crime of
murder, nor was there any satisfactory proof that he had
even been guilty of manslaughter. It was quite clear that
the young woman had an hereditary predisposition to con-
sumption, and of that disease she had died.
Mr. Justice Williams, in summing up, said there were two
questions upon which the case must turn—first, did the prisoner
cause the death of the young woman, Jane Miller. If they
were of opinion that it was not proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that he did cause her death, there was an end of the
case, and the prisoner would be entitled to an acquittal; but,
if it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner
did cause the young woman's death, then the second ques-
tion would anse—us., whether he did so under circum-
stances which constituted the crime of murder, or which con-
stituted the crime of manslaughter. If the prisoner was
guilty of such acts of violence as had been described, the
jury would not be led away by any natural feelings of indig-
nation to do him an injustice in their verdict. As to the
first question apse which their verdirt most depend, he
should tall dem dee the law was that if the prisoner
inflicted risked, en tbe parson of the deceased, which
brought en eeseampties, sr width quickened the progress of
the flaws, ea diet tie disaased died at an earlier period
that isle sairwin wesM, ha was guilty of having caused
bra &stk. Upon Or sacred question, as to whether the
Weems, if any, was rowan or manslaughter, the rule of law
was is Yid down in " Baswll on Crimes," page 620: " In all
cams of slight provocative, if it may reasonably be collected,
from the weapon made um of, or from any other circum-
stances, that the party intended to kill, or to do tome great
bodily harm, such homicide would be murder." If, however,
they thought that the provocation was not slight, and that there
were no cucumstances in the case to justify the belief that he
intended to kill or to do any great bodily harm, they would
Ind him guilty of manslaughter only. But, if they should
ha of opinion that he merely intended to chastise her, and
that his conduct was not the cause of her death, their verdict
must be one of not guilty.
The jury consulted for a few minutes, and returned a
verdict Guilty of Manstoughler. Mr. Justice Williams
pad sentence upon the prisoner. He had been convicted,
after a patient investigation, of the offence of manslaughter.
He (the learned judge) was very willing to believe that there
was no ground to suppose that be really intended to cause
the death of the unfortunate young woman; but, nevertheless,
he had produced her death (although he had no intention
of doing so) by means of violence that were disgraceful to
him as a man. In his opinion the case was greatly Mrs- I
rated by the surrounding circumstances, for it was perfectly
clear that the tit of passion that caused him to disgrace him-
self by' this brutal violence was brought on by the ste-
amed mietinghis wishes to conceal her pregnancy. It was
impossible not to feel that when a man had committed the
crime of seducing a young woman, if he added to that crime
an injunction on has part that she shall not disclose the fact
of her pregnancy, Each an injunction might lead her to Den-
, real the birth of her child, and possibly to take away its life.
It was a very anions case, but he thought that, under all the
circumstances, he might spare himself the pain of transport-
ing him, and the sentence, therefore, was, that he be impri.
mood for 18 calendar months, and kept to hard labour.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LrvtarooL, Aro. 14.
Ceowo SwA
STABBING.— Samuel Irials wan indicted for having
maliciously cut and stabbed Thomas Willer, with in-
tent to do grievous bodily harm.—Proseentor, his sister,
and other persons, were together at a beer-house in
Manchester on the 27th of March last, when the prisoner
look what prosecutor conceived to be liberties with his
sham, which led to a quarrel between him and the prisoner,
and the latter was ejected from the house. He remained on
the outside for a length of time until prosecutor left,
when prisoner brandished a knife and threatened to stab
prosecutor, which he ultimately did, severely. The pri-
soner was convicted, and a previous conviction for felony
was also proved. He was sentenced to ten years' transpor-
tation.