The Express.
London, England, 1868-01-30 00:00:00

30i 1:;8

swept at a greet additional expense, which possibly be or guise from himself that the circumstancee were most
they may not be in • condition to meet. Therefore, serious, bemuse undoubtedly she waa the cause of the
considering that the Central Criminal Court is death of this unfortunate child by leaving it exposed to
certainly the meet eligible scut for the trial of the sold durtni the whole al the December night. The
sash a cue and also that there ate those per- jury had been he was far from questioning the
Mahar cirmuistancee to which I have alluded, it view they had tekeu—to come to the conclusion that that
seems to us that • ease has been made out for the was an act mare of thoughtlessness end carelessneu tb..h
removal of the indictment, whoa found at Warwick, to of omplithogelse ; Wu. it was his duty to pass •• severe
the Central Criinistal Coed for trial. At the same time sentence souse weed& as
to the offence. The
lam bound to may this, that we ProbehlY should not have i Inatome el the emit via that she be kept in penal ser-
arrived at this conclusion if the crown had urged reasons ,ieude for to years.
Whist tide convenience which we felt outweighed the On hearing her sentence the primmer again
fainted, acct
points which had been urged for the prisoners ; but as the was isomoillofoti removed from the dock.
Attoraey-Oeneral, on behalf of the crown, does not ob-
ject to the removal of the indictment, but desires on the
mho/ the prosecution—a Moshe we cannot too much com-
mend—that the trial should, under the circumstances, be
as fair and perfect, and just, so as not by possibility
to be doubted, we think It right to grant this application.
We do not do so on the supposition that a fair trial could
not be had in Warwick, because that has been abundantly ,
answered. The mot of the " Ring v. Hunt" is different
from eh now before the court, end it is not on that
ground, but those towhich I have referred, that the court
assents to the removal of the indictment when found to
Om Central Criminal Court.
' Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Lush concurred.
Mr. Justice Shen did not appear to take part in the judg-
ment.
Rule absolute to remove the trial.
THI QUM C. AIICHDIAOOII OP BIWITR.
Mr. Jeff said their lordships would recollect that in this
muse two ruin and writs of mandamus bad been Wined to
admit the parishioners, two churchwardens. In obedience
to the &A writ the Archdeacon of Raster bad admitted
Mr. Were, churchwardenof the parish of Hatherton, and
the second writ was to compel him to admit Mr. Clarke,
the parishioner, other churchwarden. His application now
was that the archdeacon should he compelled to pay the
oohs of the first mandamus.
The Lord Chief Justice--Why should you cast on the
archdeacon the costs of a squabble going on in the parish!
Mr. Jelf—Beesuss the archdeacon had taken into his
own hands a matter which he ought not to have done.
The Lord Chief Justice—He has admitted one man—one
man applied to be admitted.
Mr. Jelf said the subsequent conduct of the archdeacon
with regard to the other churchwarden elected by the
parishioners was such as to negative the bout fides of the
archdeacon. He waited two months before obeying the
first mandamus, and then, instead of obeying the spirit
of the mandamus which clearly was to recognise the
right of the perish to elect two churchwardens, and
act upon it, be admitted that one he first refused
to admit, and refused now to admit the one he had
before consented to admit, thereby putting the
parish to the costs of the second mandsmus which had
been granted.
The Lord Chief Justice mid the dispute was whether
one churchwarden should be elected by the pariah and one
nominated by the clergyman or both elected by the parish.
Mr. Jelf said the archdeacon well knew from the first
that the dispute was the right of the parishioners to elect
both churchwardens.
The Lord Chief Justice mid he thought there was no
pretence for the application.
refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—JAN. 29.
Sittings at Mimi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Byles and a Common Jury.)
IKACCABE r. BORIS!.
The plaintiff and defendant in this snit are public per-
formers, and in the autumn of last year they exhibited
entertainments at the Emtiamliall. The action was to
recover 221. 10s. 3d., the balance claimed by the plaintiff
to be due to him in reference to these transactions.
Mr. Giiffits appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Hens-
ohs! for the defendant.
Mr. Meccabe and Mr. Sutton, his manager, were called,
and they stated that in September last it was agreed that
the defendant should have the minor room at the hall
at 501. a month, and the performances commenced
on the tid October, and continued for a fortnight.
At the end of this time the accounts showed a loss of
831., which was by arrangement to be divided between the
plaintiff and the defendant, and Mr. Sutton. A fresh
arrangement wee then come to, that the defendant should
al. 10e. a week for rent, and Si. a week for eight weeks
for the plaintiffs share of the loss on the old account.
On the 7th December the plaintiff gave notice to terminate
the tenancy, and it expired on the 16th. The plaintiff's
accounts showed the amount claimed to be doe to him.
To meet some technical difficulties his lordship amended
the declaration, and then evidenos was given for the
defendant, and it was contended that the plaintiff could
not recover in respect of the last week, because the writ in
this action was issued one week before the arrangement
terminated. This disposed of upwards of 18/. of the
plaintiff's claim, and it was further contended that there
were other matters in the amounts which also answered the
pinintiff's claim.
The jury found for the plaintiff for 8/. 4.5. 6d.
His lordship declined to certify for oasts.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAN.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SINS r. SINS AND PARSONS.
Dr. Bpinks and Mr. Searle for the petitioner ; Mr. Keane,
Q,.C., and Mt. Inderwiok for the respondent.
The marriage, which had taken place in 1850, had been
followed by the birth of no fewer than nine children—
eight girls and a boy. The petitioner was a master
mariner, engaged in the coal trade, which took him from
home for periods of two or three weeks at the time.
During these absences, the respondent had latterly (aimed
an acquaintance with Parsons, a constable in the Porte-
mouth Dockyard. This at last led to quarrels, and the
cohabitation came to an end on the 17th of Dec.. 1866.
when the respondent eloped with Parsons, and committed
adultery with him at a coffee-bouse in London. Letters
were read which she had written to her husband admitting
her offence, and imploring forgiveness. She now denied
the charge, and pleaded variotui recriminatory allegations,
the evidence of which was not of a character to admit of
further description.
The Court granted a decree nisi with costs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Shoo.)

KUISLAUGHTZR.
James Calming, W, a seaman, was charged with the
manslaughter of John Wyen.
Mr. Poland and Mr. Beasley prosecuted for the Trea-
sury; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Cooper and Mr.
Lewis Ingram.
The transaction that was the subject of inquiry took
place on board a British vessel in the Bay of Fayal, on
board of which the privoner and the demand were em-
ployed as mariners. There was this peculiarity in the
case, that the charge was not sought to be supported by the
oral evidenoeof witnesses of the transaction, as in ordinary
cases, but by depositions that were taken before the
British Consul, this coarse of proceeding being made legal,
in charges of this description, by the provisions of the
Merchant Shipping Act. It appeared that the deceased
was very drunk, and that he had in the first instance
threatened to make a hole through the prisoner with his
knife; and the defence of the latter appeared to have
been all along that what he did was only done in order
to save his own life.
The jury returned a verdict of Net Guilty.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
ETC:a Colley, 21, spinster, was indicted for the man.
slaughter of her infant child, Sarah Colley. She was also
charged upon the coroner's inquisition with the wilful
murder of her child.
Mr. Platt was instructed to prosecute, and Mr. Mon-
tague Williams appeared fur the defence.
The prisoner was a neediewoman living at lelington
with her sister. In the middle of December last she was
delivered of an illegitimate female child in the parish
workhouse, and about a fortnight afterwards, on the 30th
December, she returned to her Home,' and expressed her
intention of taking the child oey Asylum. On the
following day, at half-past 3, she left the house, and at
half-peat 8 else came back without the child, stating that
it bad been admitted to the asylum and that when she
got there she found it requir • desk, and that while the
gentlemen were consulting she made one out of an old
petticoat. Next morning the body of a dead child,
which was identified to be that of neighbourhoodner,
was found by a waggoner in the
of Homey. It was lying on a green bank,
sad was wrapped in a bedgown and a -Unsay skirt,
and close beside it was a little bit of rag and some sugar-
stick. From the evidence of the medical gentleman who
made the post meekest examination, it appeared that there
were no external marks of violence, but he found the
lungs congested and the heart contracted,
all of which he
said might be caused by expossire to oold.
While the jury wereenag addressed by Mr. Williams,
who emended that them wee no evidence to show by
whom the child was placed on the bank, the prisoner
fainted and was carried out of the dock. In a few
minutes she was restored to oonacioasame and returned to
the court, where she remained till the elate et her

The learned Judge, in summing up, observed to the
It
that if they were satisfied it was the prisoner who
left the child on the bank, and that she did so with the
intention that the child should die, they would have no
alternative but to find her guilty of murder. fl have
she left it there, not in the expeotetion that it would die,
bet that it would be picked up by some person passing
eke* she would not be liable to the crime Of murder,
lemur then the intention would not he to "seduce death
by explain *tepid. The question wee whither it was ea
est mem* of caseleaa segligesse, in which oar the crime ,
.would be ilas.. or whether it was an set of wilful
the whisk seined being intended.
If
eel
be fiat al wilful murder.
If they bad say doubt 'upon the print, it was their duty
te give the primmer the benelt el *bat doubt ; bat at the
ISMS time be trattoria threeenalerd being guided in their
rennet eatirdeaaisym:y.
ABM • twenty minutes, the jury ra.
tamed a verdict of Manalaupkter, end strongly mom-
. TlMPlallstrukpoisiser rearey.
In nontreem, Mr. iodise Mellor avid be was
t =to the jury bad soquitted her of the above at
; bet Ahem& that was the ease, he ecaoA whop