The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-13 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Juan 12.

Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex. —lBefore Lord Chief
Justice Ilovill and a Common Jury.)

BLENILARN O. HODGEB' DISTILLERS COMPANY (LIMITED).
The plaintiff in this case had been a traveller in the
employ of the defendants, and he claimed damages upon
the ground that he had been discharged without receiving
the three months' notice which had been ►greed for.
The agreement to employ the plaintiff was dated the sth
December, 1865, and the salary was to be 200/. a year, and
there was to be' an allowance for travelling expenses. It
was provided that the agreement might be terminated
upon three months' notice being given on either side ; and
there was this stipulation—" All moneys to be remitted
immediately collected." On the Gth March, 1867, the
plaintiff was dismissed; he was paid his salary up to that
time, but nothing beyond.
The defence was that he had sold champagne to Maria
White, knowing her to be a married woman and the
keeper of a brothel, which was described as a " first-class
establishment," in Birmingham, without mentioning these
circumstances to his employer.. It was further said that
the plaintiff bad omitted to account for 181. which he had
received from Maria White a year before, and for 121. and
51. 12s. Oil. which he had at a later period received from
two other prisons. It was not suggested that this omis-
sion had arisen from any improper motive, and it seemed
to be merely the result of forgetfulness.
His Lordship, after bearing the witnesses, directed the
jury that he did not think there was any evidence
that the plaintiff knew that Maria White was married, or
that she was in fact married. If, however, the plaintiff
knew that she was a brothel keeper, and did not communi-
cate the fact to his employers, that would justify the dis-
missal, because they could not recover for goads which
were sold to be used in the course of carrying on a brothel.
If the jury should think that any one of the three awns
had not been immediately remitted, that fact also would
justify the dismissal.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant'.

COURT OF DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAMES.—Jour 12.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

STEEN C. STEEN AND GLOVER.

In this case the Court made a decree nisi.

BAUM r. TEZVANAND COOPER.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Q.C., Dr. and Mr.
Inderwick for the petitioner ; Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr.
Swabey for the respondent ; Mr. Edward James, Q.C.,
and Dr. Swabey for the co-respondent, Teevan ; Dr.
Spinka, Q.C., for Cooper.
The petitioner, a young gentleman of fortune, had be-
come enamoured of a person who called herself Florence
Caroline Douglas Hope-Scott Douglas, who was alleged
to have already been divorced, and after living with her
for about a year married her on the t,th of January last.
After this the respondent became not only extravagant, but
extremely violent both in word and act, and a separation
soon ensued. She returned to some chambers in Regent-
street where she had previously cohabited with -him.
There she received the visits of the respondents, who went
by the names of " Lord Hamilton," " Topsy," and other
fancy designations. The respondent called herself " The
Hon. Mrs. Baylis."
There wu no defence, the co-respondents merely plead-
ing that they were not aware of the respondent's coverture.
Sir J. Wilde took time to consider bow far his judgment
would be affected by the husband's own conduct.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Willis.)

S. Ste'plume, an Italian. aged 25, described uan agent,
was charged with feloniously wounding Giuseppi I3ouges•
vanni, with intent to murder him.
. . .

There was a second indictment charging the prisoner
with having committed a similar offence upon Sobestani
Bougeevanni, the brother of the prosecutor in the former

Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Bealey conducted the prosecution ;
the prisoner was defended by Mr. M. Williams and Mr.
Gruen.

This cue occupied the attention of the court for several
bourn, but the facts lay in a very small compass, and they
will be fresh in the recollection of the public. On the
24th of April there wan a ball in Newman-street, at which
the prisoner, the prosecutors, and a number of other
Italians, men and women, were present, and they all
left at an early hour in the morning. The cue for the
prosecution was that the prosecutor was standing in
Wardour-street, when the prisoner came up to him, and
without any provocation wounded him in several places
with a stiletto. His brother came to his assistance, and
he was also wounded, according to the evidence of the two
brothers, by the prisoner ; and under these circumstances
the present charges were preferred against him. The
prosecutorand his brother upon being cross-examined
declared most positively that no quarrel bad previously
taken place between either of them and the prisoner iv
the ball room, and that in point of fact the attack had
taken place without any provocation on their part being
given for it. A statement made by the prisoner when he
was under examination by the magistrate was put in, in
which he asserted that he had been assaulted and threat-
ened by the prosecutor and his brother, and that after he
left he was attacked by them, and all that he did was in
self-defence.

Mr. Montagu Williams made an able address to the jury
for the defence, and he urged in the first instance the ex-
treme improbability that the prisoner should have com-
mitted such an act of violence without any provocation,
and then called several witnesses to establish the defence
that was put forward for the prisoner, that be had been
threatened with violence, and that an attack had been
made upon him, and that all he did was to endeavour to
protect himself.
The learned Judge summed up the whole of the evidence
on both sides with great care and minuteness, and he left
to the jury the questions whether the prisoner had felo-
niously wounded the prosecutor with either of the intents
mentioned in the indictment, or whether what he had done
was merely in self-defence, and to protect himself from an
attack that was made upon him by the prosecutor and his
brother and their companions.
The jury, after deliberating for about a quarter of an
hour, returned their verdict, finding the prisoner guilty of
unlawfully wounding.
Mr. Sleigh said that as all the facts bad been so fully
brought out in this inquiry be did not propose to offer
any evidence in support of the second charge.
Mr. Justice 'Willes, in passing sentence upon the pri-
soner, said that it was very fortunate for him that the
jury had acquitted him of the felonious portion of the
charge, and if they bad not done so he should Lave felt it
his duty to sentence him to a long period of penal servi-
tude. The use of a deadly weapon of the description he
had resorted to could not, however, be tolerated under
any circumstances, and he felt it to be his duty to pass a
substantial sentence of imprisonment, and be ghoul,'
therefore order him to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for nine months.

William Wegrr,..l9,wascharged with feloniously wound.
ingMary A. Elizabeth Walker, with intent to murder her.
Biz.. Straight and Ur. Brickwood conducted the pro.
secution.

The prosecutrix in this case was the wife of the
prisoner, and on the night of the 28th of May she went to
bed about 12 o'clock and went to sleep. She was awoke
soon afterwards, and found that she had received a severe
wound in the neck, and her mouth was full of blood, and
one of her eyes was also severely injured. The prisoner
was in an upstairs room, and it appeared that on the
alarm being given he came down stairs, and finding what
had happened he said that she must have fallen out of
bed, but this statement was entirely without foundation.
The evidence went to show that the injury could not have
been inflicted by any other person than the prisoner, and
the prosecutrix stated that he had repeatedly threatened
to do her some injury. The prosecutrix stated in the
course of her evidence that the prisoner had been attacked
with delirium tremens, and was conhned in • lunatic
asylum for a month,and had only come out shortly before
the act complained of was committed. She also said that
the prisoner was under the impression that she had been
unfaithful to him daring his absence: but she declared
there was no foundation for such an opinion being enter-
tained by him.
Mr. May, the medical gentleman who was called in to
examine the preeecutrix, having described her condition,
stated that when he was examined at the police-court be
told the magistrate that he had signed a certificate for the
removal of the prisoner to • lunatic asylum.
Mr. Justice Wiles observed that it was remarkable that
this fact did not appear upon the depositions.
Mr. May further stated that he had no doubt that the
prisoner was labouring under delusions with regard to his
wife, and that he was suffering from • feeling of morbid
jealousy as regarded her, and under the influence of that
delusion he bad frequently threatened her with violence.
He added, that it was in consequence of those threats and
the general conduct of the prisoner that he signed the cer.
tificate authorising his removal to a lunatic asylum. The
condition of the prisoner was, however, no doubt to • con-
siderable extent caused by drink.
The police constable who apprehended the prisoner said
that he found him in bed, and asleep or pretending to be
so. He told him what he was charged with, and he replied
that he knew that he wanted him, but he bad not done
anything, and he was Suite innocent.
Mr. Justice Willes, in summing up, said that the ques-
tion that had arisen in the course of the case, as to whether
the prisoner was in such a state of mind as to render him
criminally responsible, came upon them quite by surprise,
but they must endeavour to deal with it as well as they
could. His lordship then proceeded to explain to the jury
the law relating to the subject of insanity, and concluded
by leaving the matter in their hands.

The jury found the pri.,oner Guilty of wounding with
intent to do grievous bodily harm while under the
elle, of intoxication.
Scntunce was deferred.
(Before the Recorder.)

Henry Dillon, ZI, letter-carrier, was indicted for felo-
niously stealing a gold watch, the property of her Ma-
jesty'a Postmaster. General, which ha4come into his pos.
sea-ion by virtue of his employment as a letter•carrier.
Mr. Metcalfe spin appeared for the prosecution.
The prisoner was attached to the district post-office in
Commercial-road East, and occasionally assisted as charge
clerk. On the 27th of January last a post-office parcel,ar
containing a gold watch, value 151., was posted,
and must have reached the district office on the
following morning, and have passed through the
prisoner's hands. It however never reached its desti-
nation, and for some time all trace of the property
was lost. On the 3rd of May last, in consequence of in-
formation which reached the Post-office authorities, they
caused the lodgings of the prisoner to be searched, and
there the gold watch in question was found, and the pri-
soner declared it had been left him by his father, who had
died in July last. This statement was proved to be
utterly fake and unfounded.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and it was men-
tioned by Mr. Metcalfe that there was another indictment
of a similar character spinet the prisoner which he did
net think it necessary to proceed with.
The prisoner Cox, the other letter-carrier, was then
called up and placed alongside Dillon, both to receive the
judgment of the court.
The I:ecorder sentenced Cox to five years' penal servi-
tude, and Dillon to seven years' penal servitude.
Mom. Manson, 20, tailor and Richard Nerille, 19,
labourer, were indicted for stealing a mail bag containing
divers letters, the property of her Majesty's Postmaster-
General.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted, and Mr. M. Williams defended
the prisoners.
From the opening statement of Mr. Metcalfe it appeared
that in consequence of information having reached the
Post-office authorities of a plan having been concocted to
rob the m.til cart while receiving the letter bags at the
district post-office in Stafford-row, Pimlico, a watch was
set on Monday evening, the sth May, and the two pri-
soners, with a third man not in custody, were seen loitering
about the district office, and Shannon was seen to go up
and examine the cart while standing waiting for the bags
at the door. Nothing, however, was done on that
evening, but on the following Friday evening the prisoner
and the other man were again seen loitering as before, and
at last, while the driver was momentarily absent, Shannon
was seen to take from the cart one of the letter hags and
walk away with it in company with the other prisoner and
the third man. The prisoners were stopped by the officers
in Great Chapel-street with the bag in their possession.
The third man (who it was shown was the person who had
given the information to the authorities) made his escape.
These facts were clearly proved by Mr. Walter Clare, an
inspector of letter carriers, and by Smee and Rumbolt, two
of the constables attached to the Post-office.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both pri-
soners ; and former convictions having been proved against
them by Mr. Agar, principal warder of the City Prison,
Holloway, and by Mr. King, from Coldbath-fields,
' The Recorder sentenced them to be severally kept in
penal servitude for the term of seven years.
John Lockwood, 32, beershoplioper (remanded from
last session) was indicted for forging and uttering two pro-
missory notes for the payment respectively of 201. and 101.,
with intent to defraud.
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Poland prosecuted, and the prisoner
was defended by Mr. Daly.
This case occupied the court and jury a considerable
time, and was peculiar from the nature of the defence
which the prisoner attempted to set up. It appeared from
the opening of the learned conned for the prosecution
(who were instructed by Mr. Mullen', the solicitor to the
London Bankers' Association), that on the 27th of March
last the prisoner called upon Mr. Curtis, a butcher, carry-
ing on business in Great Trinity-lane, Cannon-street, City,
and introducing himself as having been two years
before the porter at a private boarding house in Queen-
street, Cheapside, reminded Mr. Curtis that he owed him
two shillings, and wished to repay him, as well as to pur-
chase a joint of meat from him. The purchase was made,
and the prisoner handed to Mr. Curtis a promissory
note for 201., purporting to be that of the
Reigate, Dorking, and Croydon Bank, and asked him
to change it and repay himself. Mr. Curtis supposed the
note to be genuine, and gave the prisoner the change, de-
ducting 10s., the amount due to him. He asked the pri-
soner his name, and requested him to write it at the
back of the note, and he wrote "John Gordon, Park
Farm, East Croydon," and stated that he wasafarmer, had
an extensive stock of horses and cattle, and invited him
to pay him a visit. In a few days after Mr. Curtis paid
the note into his banker's, for presentation at the
London agents of the Reigate, Dorking, and Croydon
Bank, when it was returned to him, with the statement
that the bank from which it had issued had stopyed pay-
ment some years ago. It was also stated that though the
form of the note was from the genuine plate of the defunct
bank, the signatures to it were all forgeries. On the same
day the prisoner obtained change for a 101. note, purport-
ing to be issued by the same bank, from Mr.
Bryant, the proprietor of the Swan Tavern, Great
Dover-street, Borough, in payment for a gallon of gin,
and this was also a forgery. Information having been
given to the Bankers' Association, Detective-officer Scott,
of the City wilco, was selected to find the prisoner ; and
after visiting Park-farm, Croydon, ascertained that it bad
never been occupied by any person of the name of Gordon,
and no such person was known in the locality. By dint
of great exertion and considerable activity the prisoner
was ultimately taken into custody at the Alhambra,
Leicester-square, when he repeated that he had received
the notes from Farmer Gordon, of Park-farm, East Croy-
don, who frequented his beershop, the Prince of Wales,
Church-street, Borough, and who had asked him to get
change for the notes for him. The prisoner was, however,
committed for trial, and after his committal a person
named Priestley was taken into custody (at the instance, it
was alleged, of some of the connexions of the prisoner), on •
charge of stealing a truck, and a habeas corpus having been
procured the prisoner was brought up as • witness in the
case at the Southwark Police-court, and there swore that
Priestley was the John Gordon from whom be received the
two promissory notes; the prisoner also swore that he had
only known the man Priestley about eight inonths,and only
under the name of Gordon. Priestley was discharged by
the magistrate at the police-court and was now called as a
witness in this case, when be swore that he had never
passed by any other name than Priestley, and under that
name bad been acquainted with the prisoner fot three or
four years, and had been a daily visitor, playing skittle" at
the hoer shops kept by the prisoner. This evidence was
corroborated by Robert Pether and John Marsh, two con-
stables of the division of the metropolitan police, to
whom both the prisoner and the witness Priestley were
well known.

Mr. Daly made an able and ingenious address to the
jury on behalf of the prisoner, and—
The Recorder having summed up the whole of the
evidence with extreme care and minuteness, the jury,
after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty.
At the request of the prisoner Police-sergeant Wilde'',
of the City force, was called, and proved that the prisoner
had served as a soldier in the same regiment as himself,
hut he (witness) had been di charged twelve years ago,and
had only seen the prisoner occasionally since.
Mr. Sleigh called Mr. Br.uman, ex-inspector of the
Metropolitan force, and now chief officer employed by the
Mint authorities, who gave the prisoner a very indifferent
character.

The Recorder said that the circumstances which had
been proved in the course of the trial rendered it unneces-
sary to go back to any circumstances anterior to those
which bad been proved in this case, which presented fea-
tures of the greatest possible aggravation. The prisoner
had not only been guilty of uttering these forged notes,
but had been guilty of the still greater wickedness of
endeavouring to fix the charge on an innocent person in
order to screen himself. The sentence upon the prisoner
was that he be kept in penal servitude for the term of 15

Joseph With,, 21, labourer, was convicted of a burglary
in the dwelling;-house of Isaac Barnett, a jeweller, re-
siding and carrying on his business in the Tkownhani-road,
Kingsland, and also with assaulting Johanna WCarthy
while in the said dwelling-house.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted, and Mr. Straight defended the
prisoner.
It appeared that on the night of Jan. 15 the prisoner WAS
discovered by Johanna M'CartbT in the bedroom of her
master, and that on her attempting to grasp him he struck
her • severe blow on the head with some heavy instru-
ment, which caused the blood to flow so copiously that her
dress was perfectly saturated. He made his escape, but
wee taken into custody on the charge of being found in the
City with house-breaking implements in his possession,
and was then fully identified by the servant, Johanna
M'Carthy, at the Mansion-house, where the Lord Mayor
refused to entertain this cue, but convicted the prisoner's
a rogue and vagabond, and sentenced him to three months'
imprisonment at Holloway, and he was taken into custody
on this charge on his coming out of that prison.
The jury found the prisoner Guilts, and several previous
convictions having been proved against him by Warder
Agar and other officers, be wee sentenced to seven years'
penal servitude.
Just before the rising of the court the grand jury brought
up the last of their bill., amongst which was an indict-
ment for perjury preferred by Mr. Thomas Cannon, of
Paternoster-row, against Mr. Albert Henry Elwortby,
attorney, of Southampton-buildings.
The Recorder discharged the grand jury, thanking them
for the assistance they had afforded in the administration
of public justice.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)

- •
George Richard Martin 732, a well-dressed man, described
as • painter, pleaded guilty to five indictments charging
him with stealing a large. quantity of jewellery and other
valuable property belonging to different Weat-end trades-
men. The prisoner was also charged with having been
previously convicted of felony, but to this portion of the
charge he pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Green were instructed to prose-
cute; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Sleigh.
In order to prove the previous conviction, Mr. Merton, •
tradesman in the Ilurlington-arcade, was called as •
witness, and he stated that in the year 11445 he prosecuted
a person named George Richard Martin for fraudulently
obtaining property from him, and he was convicted of that
offence, and sentenced to six months' impriaonment. He

rend an account of the examination of the prisoner in the
nee spalwrs, and went in consequence to the police court,
where he at once identified the prisoner as the man be had
pie-. cut,' twenty-two years ago.
Mr. Sleigh urged that there must be some mistake on
the part of the witness, and that it was intible the sari.
goner could be the man who was oonvkW in 1845, an
it appeared by the calendar that ho was now only 32 years
of age.
The jury said they were not satisfied that the prisoner
wan the same man who was convicted in 1845, and they
therefore acquitted him of that portion of the charge.
Mr. Metcalfe then stated that the prisoner had been
for many years carrying on an extraordinary system
of swindling, and he had plundered many of the pprin.
cipal jewellers and other tradesmen at the Nest-end of
the town to an enormous amount. The plan he adopted
was to take apartments communicating, having an internal
and an external door, and to order valuable
property to
be
sent for an invalid sister or brother to look at, and vine
obtained possession of the property, he went into the a
joining room for the pretended purpose, and then de.
camped, leaving the tradesman waiting in vain for his re.
turn. In this way he obtained possession in one
instance of jewellery to the amomnt of 4001., and
upon another occasion he very nearly obtained *tray of
rings worth 2,00 W. The person who had been sent
with the property, however, fortunately observed some.
thing in the conduct or appearance of the prisoner which
excited his attention and suspicion, and he Moped*.
prisoner as he was about to leave the room,
only enabled to regain possession of the property after
sharp scuffle. The prisoner had, however, succeeded in
plundering different tradesmen of property to the moan
of 1,000/. . . . .

The Common Serjeant said that the prisoner had pleaded
guilty to free indictments charging him with different
robberies, and probably if the jury had been aware of the
facts that bad now been proved, they would have formed a
different opinion with reference to the charge of his haring
been previously convicted. He considered it perfectly
useless to make any observations to such a person as he
evidently was, and he should merely order him to be kept
in penal servitude for ten years.