The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-16 00:00:00

lea sitemblee. He was at first takeis to the Old George Inn,
la the •MY of York, It Bing supposed that hie arm wee
awoken. end afterwards he was removed to 33, St. hen's
Gate, where the defendant was called in to attend him.
It appeared that plaintiff himself considered, from what
tie felt, that his arm was broken. Mr. Labron thought the
lame, and that there was a fracture very near the shoulder
joint. It wee stated by witnesses called for the plaintiff that
Le suffered very great pain in the limb, and that Mr. Lebron
bad in esosequeuce been recommended to call in some other
medical man to examine the patient, but that he said the
plaintiff was going on well, and that there was no occasion
for any ether medical advice. He, defendant, said that the
arm was broken high up, and treated his patient ac-
cordingly: Shortly filter the accident it become necessary,
from an obstruction which had taken place, that an operation
should be 'performed, which the defendant attempted, but
failed to effect. He, therefore, on the 24th of February
celled en,. Mr. Henry Russell, a surgeon of eminence in
York, to attend the plaintiff and to perform the operation.
—Mr. Russell, being called as a witness for plaintiff, stated
that he did so attend, when, it being necessary that the
plaintiff should get out of bed, be (the witness) saw his
arm. Not being requested by defendant to examine the
arm he slid not do that, but from what be caw it had the
appearance of the shoulder being dislocated. He (Mr. Rus-
sell) performed the operation required, which was a simple
operation. The witness considered that a dislocation in the
shoulder joint wee sot a difficult thing to discover. Upon
cross-examination, Mr. Russell was asked by Mr. Knowles it
he was acquainted with the opinions of Baron Dupuytren,
the celebrated French surgeon, upon this species of injury?
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins objected to such a question; it was not
the proper way of adducing scientific evidence. His
lordship said he could not prevent it. Mr. Knowles
then asked the witness, if he did not know the baron
to have been a person of eminence) in his profession,
and whether he, Baron Dupuytren, bad not, in a
work be had published, said, that the indications of dis-
located humerus were often vague, and that, in such • case,
the surgeon might often be at fault?—The witness (as we
understood) did not assent to the doctrine suggested; but
said, that Sir Astley Cooper had entertained a different
opinion upon that point. The defendant, he stated, had
been a pupil in the York Hospital.—Mr. R. Hay, another
surgeoa of York, stated, that he was called by the defend-
ant, on the 10th of March, to see the plaintiff. There
was in Tut no fracture, but a dislocation of the shoulder-
joint. Witness reduced the dislocatioc.—Mr. George Dyer,
house-surgeon at the York Hospital, gave similar evidence.
It appeared, in the course of the pLuntiff's evidence, and
on cross-examination, that Dr. Belcomb, a physician, had
been to see the plaintiff before the dislocation was reduced,
and also that the defendant had brought Mr. Marshall,
another surgeon, to see plaintiff. Mr. Knowles, in address-
ing the jury for the defendant, said, that he could net deny,
after the evidence they had heard, that the defendant had
made a 'mistake as to the nature of the inquiry which the
plaiatif had sustained from the accident; but the law only
required in a professional man that he should bring to his
profession • reasonable and competent degree of skill. It
did not demand that he should be so skil!ul a person as to be
incapable of ever making a niistake ; end, therefore, if the de-
fendant had in fsctbeen mistaken in this instance, hams not
to be inferred that he was an unskilful person in his profession.
He had certainly not shown any neglect of his patient ; that
was proved by his having called upon Mr. Russell for that
gentleman's aid in the case, and brought other medical men
to see the plaintiff. It had also been shown that two other
medical men came to see the plaintiff by desire of defendant,
via., Dr. Belcomb and Mr. Marshall. Mr. Marshall was a
surgeon, and yet that gentleman hadnot been called by the
plaintiff. Had he been so, perhaps it might have been found
that he had concurred in the view of the case taken by the
defendant himself.—After his lordship's summing up, the
jury diliberated for a very short time, and then found a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 151.
- -

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WINeFIESTER, WEDNEEDAT.
Km hum—Before Lord Chief !lance Wilde and a Common Jury.
GOie v. PUItXta.—RECOVERY OF REWARDS OFFERED
FOR ttrItAPPREHENBIO:I AND CONVICTION OF OFFENDERS.
—TA' was an ac on brought by the plaintiff, a superinten-
dent & police at Fareham, to recover 201., being the amount
of a reward which it was alleged theelefendant had promised
to pay him upon apprehension and conviction of a certain
' person who had committed a felony. It appeared from the evi-
dence adduced on the part of the plaintiff, that, in the month
of October last, the defendant, a chip-builder at Fareham,
had in his possession a sum of 2501., which belonged to his
eon, who was absent in Ireland. This money he kept in a
cash-box in his bed-room; and it was stolen under the fol-
lowing eircumstancen:—A daughter of the defendant had
become acquainted with a young Frenchwoman, named De
'Sautnarea, and whilst Mdlle. De Source:, z was on a visit at the
defendant's house she took an opportunity, as it afterwards
turned out, of removing the cash-box and its content", and
substituting for it a box of a similar description which she
bad procured for tke purpose. After she had left the house
the robbery was detected, and suspicion at once attached to
her. The defendant and some members of his family went
forthwith to Southampton, with a view to make inquiries,
and they there discovered that the box which had been left
in place of the stolen one was purchased by a young French-
woman, and that she had gone to L•ntion by the railway.
Upon receiving this information the defendant put himself
into communication with the police at Fareham, and a con-
versation took plea upon the subject of the robbery between
the plaintiff and defendant on the morning of the 7th Nov.
The plaintiff suggested that a reward should be offered, and
that en account of the robbery should be published in the
Police Gazette. The defendant agreed that his daughter
should draw up a statement offering a reward of 201. for the
apprehension of the Frenchwoman. Sach a duunient was
prepared and submitted to the plaintiff, but not published.
The defendant applied to a magistrate for a warrant to ap-
prehend the accused. The magistrate being ill, the warrant
was not obtained; and it was therefore arranged that the
defendant's son and the plaintiff should proceed to London,
the latter having volunteered to make the journey, upon the
understandiog that his expenses should be paid. Gow and
young Parkin proceeded to the Railway Hotel, Nine Elan,
where they found Mille. De Saurnaree in bed. They
then discovered that she had deposited pert of the stolen
money with the landlord, and the landlord immediately re-
stored it. The plaintiff forthwith took the young French-
woman into custody, and she was afterwards tried and con-
victed in this county. Under these circumstances the plain-
tiff claimed to be entitled to the reward. The defence
was that the defendant, when he presented the ad-
vertisement offering a reward, did not Intend to I
bind himself to pay the plaintiff 201. in the event of his
causing the accused person to be convicted. He had cer-
tainty expressed
his intention to offer a reward, bat he had
neefr published such intention, and the document in clues.
don was shown to the plaintiff, merely for the purpose of
letting him know that itwu to bo inserted in the Jive and
Cie, and net with a view of intimating that the plaintiff
should forthwith receive a reward for the apprehension of
the woman. It was, moreover, contended that the plaintiff
hatrnet been the cause of the woman's apprehension; that
thedefendant had paid the expenses of his going to London
in order that he might, at his own suggestion, be enabled to
bring the offender to Fareham, should she be discovered;
that, in point of fact, the whole of the information
which led to her apprehension was given by young Purkis.—
The learned judge, in summing up, pointed out the distinc-
tion recognised by law between rewards for apprehending
rums and rewards offered for "convictions," and stated
that the plaintiff could only recover upon proving that he
had acted according to the terms of the written advertise-
ment in question.—Verdict for the defendant.
taunt Courn—Before Mr. Justice Williams
.

JEALOUTY—ANDATr E7l;intTliutiusii:Ltliitrles Wolfe,
aged 17, was indicted foe cutting and wounding Elizabeth
Ayling, at Fareham, with intent to murder her. It appeared
that the prosecutrix and the prisoner were both in the sm•
vice of Mr. Thresher a magistrate of this county, and that
the prisoner entertained a strong feeling of attachment to-
wards the young woman, whose age was nearly the same as
his own. The prosecutriz, however, had encouraged the
addresses of& man named Brown, and the prisoner's jealousy
was excited in consequence. In the afternoon of March 22
the prisoner came to the door of the nursery where he ex-
pectedto find the proseentrix, and upon her arkinghim what
wanted, he went away sullenly. A few minutes afterwards
he returned to the room and told the young woman be would
"do for her." She made an effort te leave the room,
when the prisoner struck her on the head with a wooden
mallet, and knecked her down. After she had risen, he re-
peated the blow, and cnt her threat with a sharp instrument,
saying, " I'll Brown you." She endeavoured to wrench the
weapon from him, and in the effort her fingers were cut,
ups, which she exclaimed, " Oh, you wretch !" She then
tried to get to the window, but he dragged her away. At
length, however, she extricated herself iron him, and went
down stairs, crying " murder." She wee covered with blood,
and her fellow-servants pot her to bed, where she was con-
fined ix a fortnight. The prisoner was taken into custody,
and it was discovered that he had made two incisions in his
own throat, but the cuts were of a superficial nature.—The
surgeon who attended the girl, stated that she had four
wounds on her head, caused by a blunt instrument, and two
wounds in her throat, which latter appeared to have keen
inflicted with a razor. Her lower jaw and the fingers on the
right hand were also cut, and the injuries she had received
were altogether of so serious a nature that the young
woman's tile was in considerable danger. —For the defence,
it was urged that the prisoner was net of sound mind at the
time be committed the deed.—Verdict,;: Guilty, wills intent
to 'newsier. Judgment of death recorded.