The Express.
London, England, 1867-10-31 00:00:00

ATTIIMPTID WWI MI:RDICR.

John Bishop 30, brushmaker, was charged with felt.
niously wounding him wife, Anne Bishop, with intent to
murder her.

Mr. Cooper prosecuted. The prisoner was undefended.
When the prisoner was called upon to plead to the
charge he replied that he knew nothing about it, and
The learned Judge directed that a plea of not guilty
should be entered._ -

The prisoner and the prosecutrix lived at No. 2, North-
street, Ileanal-green, end on the morning of the kith of
September they were in the bedroom together, the sister
of the prisoner being also present. The prisoner told the
latter to go home, and immediately after she left, and
while the prosecutrix was in the act of undressing herself
to go to bed, the prisoner went up to her, and inflicted a
wound upon her throat. The prisoner appeared to have
gone out into the street after committing the act, and he
exclaimed, " Mother, mother, I have done it," and uNn
his being taken into custody he told the policeman that
he would give him the knife that it was done with,
and he pulled a knife out of his pocket
and gave it to him. The officer asked him why
be had done it, and he replied that he (the policeman)
would have done the same if he had found his wife
with another man. The knife with which the wound was
inflicted was one which was used by the prisoner in his
business as a dealer in cats' meat to cut the skewers with.
Anne Bishop, the wife of the prisoner, who was very
much affected while giving her evidence, and who re-
peatedly entreated for merry for her husband, deposed to
the circumstances under which the act was committed, and
said that she had not bad any quarrel with the prisoner on
this night, and he was generally very kind to her except
when he had been drinking. They had been out together
on the evening before, and the prisoner bad drunk a good
deal of gin and beer. It appeared that the wound was now
nearly healed, and that no serious consequences whatever
were likely to result from it. It should be stated that
there did not appear to be the slightest foundation for the
statement made by the prisoner to the policeman that his
wife had behaved improperly.
The prisoner, when called upon for his defence, said he
had no recollection of having wounded his wife. They
bad been out drinking, and were both the worse for liquor,
and he (lid not remember anything that happened after
they left the public-house. He said that he was very so
for what had occurred, and he would never get d
again.
The mother of the prisoner was called as a witness in his
behalf, and she stated that the prisoner was always kind
to his wife, except when be was the worse for liquor, and
then be did not appear to know what be was about.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of unlawfully
wounding.
The learned Judge told the prisoner that the jury had
taken a rely merciful view of the case. He had committed
a very serious offence, and the least sentence he could
pass upon him was eighteen months' imprisonment and
hard labour.

(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY.

Alfred Go&amide, a respectable looking man, surren-
dered to take his trig upon an indictment preferred under
the Bankruptcy Act, which charged him with having un-
lawfully disposed of • number of watches three months
previously to his having been adjudicated a b►nkrupt, with
intent to defraud his creditors.
Mr. Poland and Mr. Butler Rigby conducted the prose-
cution. Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. F. H. Lewis were for the
defendant.

The defendant, 'it appeared, had carried on business as
a jeweller in Houndaditch, and became bankrupt in
the month of June of the present year, his debts being over
3,0001., but it appeared that he save up property to the
amount of 1,1001., and that a composition of sa. in the E
was also offered. A short time before his bankruptcy he
seemed to have purchased a number of watches, and the
case for the prosecution was that he had fraudulently disposed
of these watches by pawning them. There did not appear
to be any dispute as to the facts, but the defendant denied
that he had any intention to defraud his creditors at the
time he pledged the watches, alleging that be bad done
, so under a temporary pressure, and that be employed the
money he so obtained for the purposes of his business.
' Mr. Metcalfe, in his address to the jury on behalf of
the defendant, contended that the case was one that was
not contemplated by the statute, and that there was no
foundation for the charge that was preferred against the
defendant. He argued that it was absolutely neesseary to
prove that where property was disposed of by a bankrupt
it was done fraudulently, and that there was no such evi-
dence in this case, and that the defendant was entitled to
an acquittal.
Mr. Justice Keating having gummed up the evidence,
the jary deliberated for nearly an hour, and then stated
that they were not likely to agree to • verdict. The
learned judge, at the request of some of the jury, then
read over the whole of the evidence that had been ad-
duced, and the jury again held a consultation, after which
they returned a verdict of NolGuilty, and the prisoner was
accordingly discharged.
William Rowley, 58, bookkeeper, and William Roper.
18, labourer, who, although of different names, stood in
the relation of father and son, were charged, the former
with feloniously uttering two orders for the payment of
the respective sums of 3/. 15e. and 61. 18a., and the latter
with feloniously uttering the same with intent to defraud.
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Poland conducted the prosecution.
The case against the prisoners appeared to be that they
bad by some means or other obtained possession of a num-
ber of blank cheques on the London and County Bank,
and that the elder prisoner seemed to have written letters
to different cigar dealers, enclosing cheques for various
amounts, and giving orders in the names of various publi-
cans in London for certain quantities of cigar. The
younger pi ironer was sent with these fraudulent cheques,
and in many instances they succeeded in obtaining the
property.
As the case was proceeding, the elder prisoner withdrew
his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty, and the jury in
he result found the other prisoner Guilty also.
It was stated that the elder prisoner had been carrying
on a system of forgery for a long period. He bad been
twice convicted of that offence, and In one instance there
was this aggravation, that another son had been tried with
bins but acquitted, and there was no doubt that be had
brought up his children in the practice of crime, and ob-
tained their assistance in carrying out his objects. He had
been previously sentenced to imprisonment and also to
penal servitude, and very soon after regaining his liberty
be again commenced his criminal course of life. There was
no evidence as to how he obtained possession of the blank
cheques.
Mr. Justice Keating, in passing sentence, commented
with great severity on the atrocious conduct of the elder
prisoner in training up his sons to the commission of
crime, and sentenced him to twelve years' penal servitude,
and the younger prisoner to eighteen months' hard labour.