The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-13 00:00:00

there am gm indite bag wanted. Three bags of the Bore- I
burgh cargo were found deficient. Mr. Browne then ordered
10 beg, to be brought and weighed, and they were found
to be 2 lb. heavier than they were described. I put I cwt.
in each scale board, and ultimately discovered that it was
deficient. It was 1 lb. 6 ounces short. The customs
seized it. I have been 23 rears in the company's service, and
have been rather better than six years warehouse-keeper.
I never allowed anything better than sweepings to be used
as such. There were 680 bags weighed by the customs, and 3
bags of sweepings from them. I have received a gratuity
(ruin the customs. I received the last one in 1819. It was
for overtime, 301., and had no reference to sweepings.
Crass-examined by Mr. Watom, Q.C.—The deficient
weight was kept inside the warehouse. My badness was
outside. Ido swear that none of the thirteen bags were
original. They vary in weight from 1 ewt. to 11 ewt. no
warehouse I speak of is not entirely for cocoa. 193 lb. of
pepper was found in a pile of coffee. I can't say how it
I came there.

..sanuned—lt was seized on the 3rd of June. I was
not present when the pepper was found, but I saw it there.
Cocoa gains in weight ui wet weather and loses in dry.
By a juror—There are empty hags and casks at the ware-
house. We leave the marks on when we till them with
sweepings.
William Day examined by Mr. Macaulev, Q.C.—I am
foreman of No. 3 warehouse. I have been 16 years in the
company's warehouse. AU the time in the Milne warehouse.
I remember the seizure which took place at No. 16 room.
There were 13 bags there. There were 2 bags of clean
cocoa, 4 bags of clean cocoa, i bags of clean cocoa and 2
bags not clean. That was the room where the picking had
been carried on. That room had been used fur hand picking
about seven years. The 11 clean bags had been made clean.
A man named Freer, Weeding and Collins were employed
cleaning that cocas. They had been above a twelvemonth
employed in picking it. lam quite sure that' the cocoa was
all sweepings. If there appeared to be a bag short we let
them go without. (Laughter.) I never knew of a bag being
taken from another pile. I never heard or knew of an ex-
cess being taken away instead of its being brought to the
scale. They are alwart brought to the scale. It would be
the warehouse-keeper's duty to report to the Customs. I
have hid no gratuity. I get 265. a week.
Cross-examined by the Solieitor-General—l think I have
signed no papers on the subject of these transactions. I have
signed one or two papers about thismatter. That was about
three weeks ago. I signed papers before that. IWU sent
for to the warehouse-keeper's of I don't know who
called on me to sign the paper. I signed a paper in pre-
sence of Mr. Pace. I cannot say in whose writing
it was. I had never seen the paper before I signed
it. I did not read it before I signed it. I signed
both papers at the same place. I did not sign it because If
1 refused to sign it I should be dismissed from my employ.
Mr. Pate prepared it for me and read it. I believe there
were ethers present to sign at the same time.
By the Court-1 had not the least idea that the gentleman
referred to those papers.
Cross-examination continued—They have the marks and
numbers on the bags when they put sweepings into them.
We sew up the mouths of hags with the company's twine.
At times we find a bag missing. I have uo recollection of
its occurring more than once fur twelve months. I have
not missed a bag for two years. I base never taken a bag
out of another lot. I have sometimes sent one number for
another. I don't remember that there were more than two
occasions that bags were missing, and we found them next
day. We never had an instance of a bag being missing and
never turning up. We take no sweepings front bulking
and repacking. They go to the merchant's cargo. I can
swear that before last March I never took any sweepings
from cocoa after bulking or repacking.
Ite-examined am sure I signed two papers. There
was no threat used before I signed them. It was true what

I signed.
By the Court—l never knew any instance where the
quantity turned out on the floor would not go back.
My warehouse waa the place where the greater part of the
cocoa business is done. Cocoa, with one exception, always
came to my warehouse in hags. That one exception was in
1,848. There was one half of the cargo in bulk. There
were 4,000 odd bags. That part in bulk was put into bags

and ,wid.
The per was then put in, and mad. It was as follows :
"%I. Williams is requested to consolidate these accounts,
which are all complete excepting from No. 1 warehouse,
East Quay, No. I and .5, which I will find in a day or two;
also to draw out a list of such goods as he consolers de-
sirable to export, and what had better be sold in the com-
pany's forthcoming rummage sale.

" Rlelr. R.tNDALL."
30 I 11 I 49
Sir F. Pollock asked the counsel whether it was likely the
case would terminate to-morrow ; and having been answered
in the affirmative the jurors were discharged in all re-
maining cases for the present sittings.
The court then adjourned.
To the Editor of the Express.-21, Providenee-build-
iugs, New Kent-road, February 10, 11.10.—Sir, I beg you
will insert, under the head of your report of the Exchequer
east between "The Crown and the London Dock Com-
pany." a correction of an error which appeared in your
paper this day, of my evidence before the court on Satur-
day. You there state I said, "since I was dismissed; " I
distinctly stated that I " voluntarily resigned " without a
stain on my character from their service. Your insertion
will oblige your obedient servant, SAYVZL GOODWIN.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—YEsnaDAY.
CROWN CASES RESERVED.
Bawls LORD CAMPRILL ADD TER Jcooss or its Clvoyee Risme
ARO C-0111011 PLIAS AND 8AR0713 OF 1111 ESCIII6O7I, W7ll 776
777170.6 OF YR. BAILOR PLOT.

THE QUEEN T. BIRD AND WIPE.-JUDGMENT.-NOS'
TALIDITT OF TRH PLEA OP AUTREPOIB ACQUIT.

The court met this morning in the Court of Queen's
Bench, and gave judgment in this caw, which appeared in
part of yesterdays impression of this paper.
31r. Baron Martin. as the junior member of the court, de-
livered his opinion first. The prisoners were tried at the
Exeter spring wises on a charge of murder. The indict-
ment contained six counts. The first count charged the pri-
soners with causing the death of the deceased, Mary Ann
rayons, by striking her with a stick ; the second charged
the infliction of various blows between the months of Nov.,
1849. and Jan., 1850; the third imputed various beatings
ion divers days during that period ; the fourth charged va-
rious blows inflicted by a sack ; and the sth and 6th by casting
her on the ground. The counsel fur the crown opened all the
above assaults. It was proved on the trial that death was caused
by one particular blow ; but there being no evidence to
scow by whom that blow had been inflicted, the learned
judge directed all acquittal. At the last summer assizes
they were indicted on a charge of assault, whoa they
pleaded autrefois acquits, which plea was traversed.
Evidence was adduced of the various assaults, but it was
opened on behalf of the crown, that there was another
assault than those included in the indictment at the first
trial. The learned Commissioner, (Mr. Russell Gurney)
told the jury that if they were of opinion that
any one of the assault, was not included in the first in-
dictment it would be their duty to find for the crown. The
question mainly turned on the construction of the Ilth sec-
tion of the statute (1 Vic. c. 8.5), which permitted the jury
to find a prisoner guilty of assault in a trial for felony. He
was of opinion that the prisoners might have been convicted
of the assault. The jury acquitted of the felony, and the
evidence clearly warranted a conviction of wank.
It therefore appeared to him that the ease came within the
meaning of the statute and the intention of the legislature.
At the common law a miSslemeanour could not he included
in the same indictment with a felony; and it was the aim
of the legislature to prevent the escape of persons who,
from some defect of evidence or otherwise, might be
acquitted of the charge of felony, but against whom
there might be evidence of guilt of the misdemeanour.
The true criterion was this—was the assault charged on the
face of the indictment, and was it part of the offence sup-
ported by the evidence? If it fell within either of these
categories, it was, in his opinion, an offence within the
meaning of the statute. The learned Baron then referred
in detail to the three principal cases cited in the course of the
argument, the" Queen v. Phelps," the "Queen v. Crompton,"
and the "Queen v. Birch." The latter case was in point,
and the decision of the judges was unanimous, and he felt
himself bound by that decision. Holding these views, he
was of opinion that the conviction on the second indictment
was wrong.
Mr. Justice Talfourd reviewed at some length the autho-
rities cited in the argument. Holding as he did that the
legislature could never have intended to invest judges with
the large discretion necessarily involved under the inter-
hretation which had been made of the statute, he still ad-
ered to the opinion he had expressed at the trial, that the
prisoner could not be convicted of assault. And holding
that opinion, he was eonsequentl7 of opinion that the con-
viction at the second trial was valid.
. .

Justices Creswell and Williams severally expressed their
opinion that, on the same grounds, the conviction was right.
Justices Erie and Wightman, who spoke in a very low
tone of voice, were understood. in the course of very long
judgments, to adopt the same line of argument. They con-
curred in opinion that the conviction was valid.
The Lord Chief Baron, with the permission of the court,
neat delivered his opinion. He was not surprised that there
should be considerable difference of opinion amongst his
learned brethren relative to the construction of a statute
framed in such general terms. and which introduced
an anomaly into the law. The distinction between
a felony and a misdemeanour was as old as the law itself. The
statute in question did not abolish the distinction, but has
given in very general terms power to convict of assault on
acquittal of felony, where the former is included in the
latter charge. He thought it could not be matter of sur-
prise that there should be a great difference of opinion as to
the application of a statute framed in each general terms
to a number of cases, each differing so greatly from the
other. He entirely agreed with the doctrine laid down by
Dir. Justice Patteson, in the case of the " Queen r. St.
George (9 Carrington and Payne, 293), that it was only
when the assault was contained in the principal
charge of felony, that on acquittal of the charge
of felony the jury might convict of the assault.
It appeared to him contrary to the principles that have
' always heretofore been observed in the administration of
the criminal law, that a person who might be gnilty of a
common assault only could, by the general interpretation of
this statute, on a charge for murder, be con- ,
, victed of an assault which would subject him to
three years' imprisonment, with or without hard la-
bour. lie was of opinion that the offence charged in the
tint indictment did not include these assaults, and therefore
that the prisoners were properly convicted in the ease now
, before the court. He had felt much difficulty in coming to
• a decisive opinion on this subject. He had been in some
I measure led to that result by the consideration that this
, statute was manifestly a departure from the principles of the
common law. When any doubt was entertained ou the
interpretation of a statute, he thought it was right to stand
brim common law.