The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-07 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1867.

,-f Sir W. Mansfield the Commander-in-Chief of
India,
the fortes in whose aide-de-camp
he was, and with acts of insubordination.
The court acquitted him of the charges of fraud,
but found him guilty of insubordination, and he
was sentenced to be dismissed from the service ;
but this was accompanied with a recommendation
to mercy in consideration of the extenuating cir-
cumstances disclosed in the evidence. This recom-
mendation, however, Sir W. Mansfield, who was
=lardically the prosecutor and a party in the case,
gsed. His decision was laid before the Com-
man er-in-Chief in this country and the Secretary for
War, who confirmed it, but they accompanied this
by a direction that he be paid a sum of 1,8001., the
value of his commission. The hon. member then
enlarged on the facts, and read extracts from the
papers which have been published on the subject,
showing a course of petty tyranny pursued by Sir
W. Mansfield towards Captain Jervis, and that,
after the verdict, Sir W. Mansfield required the
court-martial to reconsider their decision, and that
they did so, and adhered to their decision ; but,
notwithstanding this, Sir W. Mansfield issued a
general order, in which he reiterated the charges.
General PEEL regretted that this motion had
been brought forward, and that the Secretary for
War bad agreed to the production of the despatch
from the Commander-in-Chief in England to the
Commander-in-Chief in India. That despatch, he
said, was submitted to him before it was sent, and
it had his approval, but he should not have
approved of it if he had known it would become
public. The carrying of this motion would be vir-
tually'to censure the conduct of the Conunander-
in-Chief in England and the Secretary for War, and
he submitted that the house ought not to
make itself a court of appeal in cases of this kind,
and thus interfere with the discipline of the army.
After some further discussion, in the course of
which Mr. Durrow and Mr. How's defended the
conduct of Sir W. Mansfield, whom they both
described as their near connection.

Sir J. PsxiNovozr justified himself for producing
the despatch of the Commander-in-Chief in England
which was not a private but a public document.
He insisted on the impropriety of making the
House of Commons a court of appeal in
matters of this kind, and he said that substantial
justice had been done in this case. He did not
defend Sir W. Mansfield, who had been guilty of
great indiscretion and whose conduct was open to
censure and rebuke, and he had been rebuked by
the highest authority in the army.
The Marquis of HARTINOTON did not go. the
length of General Peel in depreciating the inter-
ference of the house in matters of this nature, but
thought the house should be careful in interfering
in cases of a personal nature, and especially in
making itself a court of appeal from a tribunal
whose decision was confirmed by the Commander-
in-Chief.
Mr. OrwAv moved an amendment to the effect
that the address should pray her Majesty to give
effect to the recommendations of mercy.
Mr. BRETT accepted the amendment ; but, on a
division, it was negatived by 66 to 48.
Mr. Miu, obtained leave to bring in a bill for
the better municipal government of the metropolis.
The bill, he said, would enlarge the City corporation
for the whole of London, leaving behind in the
City so much as is necessary for its local govern-
ment.

The Life Policies Nomination Bill was with-
drawn.

The other orders were disposed of, and
The house adjourned at half-past one.

Rau Intelligence.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.—Auuusr 6.

ROUSE OF LORDS.
(Lord Redeadale in the chair.)
THE BREADALBINE PEERAGE.

This case came under consideration to-day. The peti-
tioner was Mr. John Campbell, of Fortwilliam, who claimed
the earldom of Breadalbane and Holland, Viscount of Tay
and Paintland, Lord Glenorchy Benederalocb, Ormelie, and
Weik, in the peerage of Scotland. The claim was opposed
by Mr. Campbell of Glenfalloch, who stated that in ems-
sequence of the question between himself and Mr. Camp-
bell of Boreland, only lately decided, he bad abstained
until now putting in a claim for the dignity. Mr. John
Campbell claimed to be the lineal descendent of John,
first Earl of Breadalbane, whose patent bore date
13th of August, 1661, in the reign of Charles 11.
It appeared that the first earl had three sons, Duncan,
John, and Robert, and in exercise of a power given to him
by the patent he nominated John as the second earl.
John had issue a son of the same name, who became third
earl, upon whose eldest son, Duncan, the title should
have devolved, but having been in the rebellion of 1745,
was subject to attainder and forfeiture of the title and
estates. The title was assumed by John Campbell of
Carwhin, who claimed to be fourth Earl of Brftdalbene,
as being the grandson of Colin Campbell of Mochaster, an
uncle of the first earL He entered into poseesaion of the
estates, but never established his title before the House
of Lords, nor applied to the crown to recognise
his claim. He obtained new patents in 1806 and
1831, creating him an English baron, earl, and marquis
of the United Kingdom. His only son, John, second
Marquis of Breadalbane, died without issue, in 1862, and
it was contended that the title and estates now vested in
the claimant as the lineal descendant of Duncan, eldest
son of the first earl, whose grandson, Daman, was the
grandfather of the claimant, to whom the title would have
descended in the ordinary manner, had it not been for the
unusual power given to the first earl of nominating his

In opposition to the claim it was alleged that Duncan,
the eldest son of the first earl, left no legitimate issue or
was ever married.

As many of the witnesses were perscns of advanoed age
their lordships had consented to take the case even at this
late period of the session, so as to secure their testimony.
The further hearing of the case was postponed until
Thursday week to give an opportunity to a brother of the
petitioner who was at present suffering from illness, to
attend and be examined.
Mr. Fleming, Mr. C. Young (of the Scotch bar), and
Mr. Adam appeared for Mr. Campbell of Glenfalloch ;
the Lord Advocate and Mr. J. Nicholson for the crown.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—MANCHESTER, Aua. 6.

CROWN COURT.—{Before Mr. Justice Montagu Smith.)
JoarpA Wood, aged Id, was indicted on the charge of
having, at Manchester, on the 2nd April, feloniously
killed and slain his wife, Elizabeth Ann Wood. The pri-
soner bad been committed on • coroner's warrant for
manslaughter, and by Mr. Fowler, the stipendiary magis-
trate, for murder.
His lordship, in his charge to the grand jury, said the
crime scarcely amounted to murder ; and the grand jury
found • true bill only for manslaughter.
ed r. West, Q.C. d Mr. Pope were for the prosecution ;
ae Mr. Cottinghi and
defended the prisoner.
e prisoner had been a soldier, and had been dis-
c on a pension, in consequence of a severe wound
received in the Crimea. He bad received five
for good conduct as a soldier. On com-
ing to Manchester, some years ago, be was
employed by the Post-office as a letter-carrier. He
was a married man, having three children by his
wife; one a girl, named Alma, and the eldest a boy, named
Inkerman—names said to have been given them after the
battles, in which he bad fought. The prisoner at the
time of this crime, the 2nd of April last, was living at No.
10, Ash-street, Oldham-road, Manchester. On that day
he had been with his son Inkerman to receive his pen-
sion, and on his way home again (according to the boy) he
called at a great many beerhouses and was very much in-
toxicated when he reached home in the evening. He says
his father and mother were both drunk. The first alarm
of the mother's death was given at three o'clock the next
morning by the prisoner, who went and knocked up two
neighbours, Rachel Hopkinson and Eliza Roberts, telling
them his wife had fallen out of bed, and he thought she
was in labour—to the former be said his wife was covered
with blood, and was either in labour or dying. The
went to his house, and found the wife lying with
her head on • pillow on the hearthstone, and
with her feet under the head of the bed. She had a
number of braises on the head and about the body, and ,
about the left arm. On the inside of the wrist of the
right arm there was a wound *aimed by a sharp instru-
ment, such as a knife or a razor, severing the radial artery
and an important muscle. The poor woman was cold, and
appeared to have been dead • considerable time. Her
clothes sad the bedclothes, and the floor, and some parts
of the walls, were much stained with blood. A razor, a
claim knife, a table knife, and a brush handle were found
in the bedroom, all stained with blood. What had
moaned in the house between the prisoner and his
wife from the time of his going home in the afternoon and
three in the morning was very imperfectly shown in the
evidence. Mrs. Maudesley, living next door, said
she heard three loud screams about five o'clock is
the afternoon in the prisoner's house, and she went
upstairs to listen. The screams seemed to come from the
soner's bedroom, and that was next to hers. She placed
her ear to the wall. While there she heard the prisoner
strike his wife, and heard her reply, " Oh, Joseph, don't!"
The eldest boy, Inkerman, aged ten yens, was put into
the witness-box, and according to his evidence, his mother
beinntirunk, his father ordered her upstairs early in the
eve , and she went up, and crept under the bed, as she
often 'd when she was tipsy. When the prisoner went
upstairs he told has wife to come from under the bed, and
sent him out to buy two cakes. When be returned he
gave one of the cakes to his father, and eat the other him-
self. His father was sitting on a chair, and his mother
was still under the bed. After eating his cake
witness undressed, and got into the bed. He after-
wards went down stairs, at the request of
his father, and fetched • razor and table
knife from the kitchen, and gave them to his father. While
be was getting into bed again his father began cutting at
I his mother under the bed, with the razor, to make her
Gomm from under. His mother said " Leave me a-be "--
' (let me alone). While in bed, the boy said he heard his
father again at his mother under the bed, and drag her
from under, and lay her with her head on the hearth-stone.
After this be got up at the request of his mother, and put
his black Crook over her head. His father was then in
bed with him. His mother afterwards said, " Inkerman,
gle.t: uis and give me some water," and he did so. He also
a pillow under her head, at her request. He found
t covered with blood- She afterwards desired him to
get out of bed again, and give her a spoonful of water
before she died. (The witness bad stated before the
magistrates that it was his father who got out of bed and
gave her water, and there were several discrepancies
between portions of the evidence he had given at various
times.)
Mr. Cottingham addressed the jury, and urged that
all the witnesses had stated that the prisoner was both a
kind husband and father when sober, but on this occasion
was evidently drunk, and did not know what he was
about. It was only when he awoke, at three in the morn
ca lag, he became aware of what had been done under irritation
at his wife keeping under the bed. He also urged that the
wound, as admitted by the surgeon would not necessarily
have produced death. She had died from loss of blood,
both she and her husband being too much intoxicated to
help each other, or go for help, and the children probably
having no idea what they ought to have done.
Verdict—Chtifty.
The learned judge sentenced the prisoner to 12 years'
penal servitude.

Nl•t Piums COURT.--(BefOre Chief Justice Bocill and •
Special Jury.)
JELLT V. LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAT.—RAIL.
WAY INJURIES—DAMAGES, 2,0001.
—-• •

The plaintiff was traveller to Messrs. Pick&ley, Sims,
and Co., the eminent agricultural implement makers,
and was brought into court on a couch, and gave his
evidence in a state of great nervous excitement, and
apparently under great suffering. The plaintiff is 32
years old, and in January last was travelling from
Warrington to Shrewsbury in • second-class car-
riage. At Crews, the carriage in which the plaintiff was
riding was detached from the train for the purpossof going
forward toShrewsburybyanothertrain, but by some neglect
the railway servants did not apply any break power, and
the carriage came into violent collision with the stop buf-
fers. Plauitirs head struck violently against the chest
of a gentleman opposite, and he then recoiled, so that the
small of his back came into violent contact with the edge
of the seat, and he fell on the floor. He went on to
Shrewsbury, and was taken to the Crown Hotel. He was
seen by the medical officer of the company, Dr. Hum-
phries, who found him suffering from concussion of the
spine. Plaintiff wished to go on home to Leigh, but was
told by Dr. Humphries he could not do so without great
risk. He said he had found a severe bruise on the back
part of the hip, and that the plaintiff was suffering from
concussion of the spine. Plaintiff was rut to bed,
end remained confined to his room and unable to walk
for about five weeks. He was then confined to a couch
till removed to Leigh. The medical testimony all went to
prove that the plaintiff had sustained severe injury, but
was improving, and would eventually get better. Dr.
Humphries said, in answer to Mr. Brett, that when these
cases were settled satisfactorily the patients improved, and
Mr. James asked if the converse were the case. The wit-
ness said when oases were settled unsatisfactorily it might
possibly throw the patient back. Where there was no
structural injury patients generally improved. Mr.
Beaver, of Manchester, who saw the patient on his
return home, said be found him suffering from
concussion in a highly hysterical condition, and
a distressing sense of suffocating pains in the
head, and from inability to stand on the right
leg. He thought the plaintiff might get well when
free from harass, perhaps in four or five months; but
change of air was necessary to his recovery, and he must
he removed to the coast. The defendants had at first

denied their liability, but had paid GOO/. into court. Plain-
tiff said this was not enough. He lost his salary of 2001.
• year and proepostive increase to 300/., and had disbursed
large snms in expenses, in addition to 121/. medical fees,
and IOU!. household expenses.
The Judge said he had been engaged for a quarter of
a century in cases of this kind, and never remembered
medical evidence so satisfactory.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages 1,400/. ix
addition to the 600/. paid into court.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before Serjeant Dowling.)
_ _ _

Alichad Brown, 20, labourer, was indicted for assaulting
Joseph Bunkall, with intent to commit a felony.
Joseph Bunkall said—l live at 30, Thomas-street, Ox-
ford-street. About hall-peat twelve on Saturday night,
the 20th of July. I was in Oxford-street, and prisoner
came up and took me by the collar, whilst two other men
tried to get at my pocket. I said " What is your game!"
I and he said, " I want money." did my best with my
bands to keep the others off, and fell down. The prisoner
fell on the top of me. He seized me by the throat and
said, " I demand your mosey." My son came up and
pulled the prisoner off me. Prisoner then struck Freeman,
a man whom I know, and the two others struck my son,
and afterwards all ran away. Freeman pursued and
caught the prisoner.
Ms evidence was fully corroborated by Robert Bunkall,
the son of the prosecutor, and the prisoner was found
Quilly ; and a former conviction having been proved
against him, he was sentenced to seven years' penal
servitude.

Edwin Liejr, 24, a servant, was indicted for stealing a
N. Bank of England note, the property of Wm. Bolton, in
• dwelling house.
The facts were that the prisoner, who had been a butler
in the service of different families in the neighbourhood,
visited a fellow servant of the prosecutor, and that being
left alone in the pantry he took the opportunity of steal-
ing the bank note, and changed it with the landlord of a
neighbouring tavern.
The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to four
months imprisonment.
A question then arose as to the ownership of the N. note,
and the judge ordered it to be given up to the prosecutor, but
on Mr. Leine' calling his attention to the Restitution Act,
which clearly states that a bank note being a negotiable
security, became the property of the party who had
changed it, he ordered that the note should be given to
the publican.
The publican, who had given every information, and
behaved well throughout the matter, had previously offered
to share the loss, which was refused.

doubt with a view to a rescue, and many encounters took
place. Some of the old convicted thieves in the mob made
use of most violent threats towards the officers. The
tradesmen in the immediate locality of this court com-
plain bitterly of the great hindrance such exhibitions are
to their basins's, when they could be so easily obviated by
a little outlay of government money. A few alterations
would enable the van to draw up in the stable yard, where
the Rotten-row mounted const►bles' horses are kept. This
done, there would be no inducement for the rough/ to
assemble to see their companions go away.