The Sun.
London, England, 1852-10-28 00:00:00

IN RE RUMSEY.

This was the certificate meeting in the case of W. S.
Rumsey, druggist, of Upper Thames street. The ac-
counts showed a sum of 3,023 L due to creditors, with
assets of 6001.

Mr. Linklater opposed for a creditor, Mr. Ross. The
bankrupt, it appeared, had sold on commission for the
opposing creditor, and had failed to p 337 over all the
monies received on his account.

His Honour said it was impassible but to observe that
the bankrupt had traded very recklessly. In 1848
there was a large deficiency, and he ought to have
known that from that time he could not go on and do
justice to his creditors. His expenses had greatly ex-
ceeded the profits, but it was quite clear that the
business could not be carcied on to any great extent in
any other way. So far there was some little justifica-
tion for the bankrupt. Trammelled as the bankrupt
was by the agreement made with Mr. Ross, which
agreement was an exceedingly hard bargain, it might
have been foreseen that, travelling throughout the
United Kingdom with no allowance for current ex-
penses, the result would have been as it had. The
deficiency had commenced at an early period, and it
did not appea• that Mr. Ross had made much objection
to the course that had been pursued by the bankrupt in
this respect. He could not but consider that the con-
tinual submission of Mr. Ross had amounted to a sanc-
tion of the bankrupt's conduct. At a meeting of
creditors, who had consented to a very easy composi-
tion of ss. in the pound, Mr. Ross did not tell them that
the bankrupt had acted dishonestly ; and, believing
that the transaction with Mr. Rosa had not assumed
the feature of fraud, the bankrupt would receive a
third-class certificate, after six months' suspension, with
protection.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—Oat. 27.

OLD COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock.)
MANSLAUGHTER

John Lewis, 22, was indicted for the wilful murder of
Richard Stannett by stabbing him with a knife.
The prisoner by a coroner's inquisition wee charge 3
with the offence of manslaughter only.
Mr. Bodkin, counsel for the prosecution, in opening
the case, said that although the grand jury had thought
fit to find a bill for murder against the prisoner, he felt
bound to admit that it appeared to him that the evidence
would not support' the charge, but that the offence,
committed by the prisoner amountee, in point of fact, to
the crime of manslaughter only. He was afraid, how-
ever, that it would be made to appear very clearly that
the prisoner, in a moment of excitement and passion,
had caused the death of a fellow-workman by stabbing
him : and although he had undoubtedly received a good
deal of provocation before he committed the act, yet
that would not in law be a sufficient justification ; and
it appeared to him that the Jury would have no elter-
native in the performance of their duty but to find the
prisoner guilty of the minor offence of manslaughter.
The following witnesses were then examined:—
Joseph Rawbone deposed that he was a shoemaker,
and lived with his brother at Old Brentford. The de-
ceased Richard Spannett was an apprentice to his bro-
ther, and the prisoner was also in his sere:ce, end they
all three were in the habit of working together in the
same shop. They were so engaged on the 16th Oct.,
and during the day there had been a good deal of
" larking ' going on between them, and the deceased
went in a playful manner towards the prisoner and laid
hold of him. The prisoner was is a very great passion
at his doing this, and said that if he did
,not leave him
alone he would stick a knife in him. There was a
knife which he used in his work lying on his seat, and
the prisoner snatched it up, and witness laid hold of his
hand and said he would not loose it unless be promised
to put the knife down. The deceased upon this loosed
his hold of him, and witness let go his hand; and Stan-
nett, as he left go of the prisoner, attack him on the
face, and the instant the blow was given the prisoner
stabbed him in the belly with the knife, and he stag-
gered back, exclaiming " You have done it at last,"
Upon being cross-examined, the witness admitted that
the " larking" ho had referred to, principally consisted in
worrying the prisoner, and it appeared that all sorts of
tricks, such as placing cobbler's wax on his seat, smack-
ing his face, &c., had bean practised upon him. He also
admitted that the prisoner had repeatedly complained to
his brother of the manner in which he was annoyed and
insulted by the deceased.
Charles Blake, a police constable, deposed that he
took the prisoner iota custody, and upon telling him
that he was che-ged with stabbing Stannett, he asked if
he had hurt him much, and when he informed him that
ha was stabt ad in the belly, and that it was a very
serious charge, he said he was very sorry for what he
had done, but they had aggravated him to do it. He also
said that the knife wes by his side, and that he took it up
in the first instance merely to frighten them and prevent
them from annoying him.
Mr. Buckland, the house surgeon at SL George's Hos-
pital, proved that the deceased was brought t 3 that
establishment, and that he was found to have received a
very severe wound in the abdomen, and that be died on
the following morning from the consequence of that
injury.
Mr. Ballantine, in addressing the jury for the priso-
ner, urged that there was no evidence whatever to sustain
the charge of wilful murder, and said it was clear that
tee unfortunate prisoner had no intention in the first in-
stance to do mischief to the deceased or any other per-
son, but that he had been goaded to commit the act by
the insults that were practised upon him, and the actual
violence committed upon his person at the time by the
deceased.
Several highly respectable witnesses, among whom was
Mr. Buzzard, the vestry clerk of St. James's, Westmin-
ster, by which pat;sle the prisoner had been apprenticed,
were call :.d to sneak to his charact3r, and they all con-
curred in describing him as being a particularly inoffen-
sive, harmless lad. His conduct in other respects also
appeared to have been most exemplary, and he had re-
ceived a good conduct mode! from the palish antho-

rit ies.
The learned judge having summed up, the jury found
the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, but at the same
t;me strongly recommended him to mercy, on account of
his previous good character, and the great provocation
he had received.
Sentence was postponed.
CANNON TUE SWEEP.
James Cannon, 31, sweep, was indicted for the capital
offence of feloniously inflicting upon Michael Dwyer
certain bodily injuries dangerous to life, with intent to
murder him,
The prisoner is the man whose name has been so fre-
quently recently before the public, and whose brutality
on so many occasions appears to have rendered him the
orror of tho neighbourhood where ho resided. He was
tizd on Tuesday at the Surrey sessions, and sentenced
t 3 two years' hard labour for a violent assault arising
out of the same transaction, and was removed to the
gaol of Newgate by habeas to take his trio! on the pre-
sent charge.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Clerk conducted the prosecution.
The prisoner was undefended.
Mr. Bodkin, in his address to the jury, said that the
case now before them was one which would ordinarily
have been presented in the form of an aggravated misde-
meanor, but there were some circumstances connected
with the present transaction which appeared to have jus-
tified the commissioners of police, by whom the prosecu•
tion was instituted, in preferring a charge of felony
against the prisoner for having committed a most despe-
rate and violent assault upon one of their officers, with
the intent to murder him. The case had created a good
deal of public interest, and had occasioned some remarks
in the public journals; and if the jury had read those
reinarka, he trusted they would dismiss them from their
minds, and not allow them in any way to prejudice the
prisoner, but decide the case solely upon the evidence
that would be laid before them in support of the charge.
The learned counsel then proceeded to direct the atten-
tion of the jury to the statute upon which the indict-
ment was framed, and said that if they should be of opi-
nion, from the conduct and declarations of the prisoner
at the time of the occurrence, and from the dreadful in-
juries ho inflicted, that he really intended. to murder the
icfutuhsatatlailoet,eint
intent
ausl du beot
madetheir douutty
t 0
00
theirfind him
satisfaction,lty ; but,h
explained to them that by a recent alteration in the law
they would have no alternative but to acquit him alto-
gether.
Michael Dwyer, the prosecutor, who still appeared to
be suffering dreadfully from the injuries he had received,
being unable to stand or walk without assistance,
division,
de
posed that he was a police-constable of the P
and on the evening of the 13th of September, he was on
.duty at the Camberwell police-station, when he received
information that there was a disturbance at a public-
house called the Bricklayers,' Arms, and he proceeded
there to put an end to it. On his arrival at the place,
he found the prisoner standing outside tho public-house,
and about a 150 people round him. The prisoner ap-
peared to have received a hurt on his head, and was
bleeding, his clothes were bloody, and witness asked him
to accompany him to a doctor and have his wound
dressed. The prisoner at first seemed willing to do so,
and walked with him a short distance quietly, and he
then stnldenly stopped, stooped down, seized witness by
bis legs, and threw him down upon his back with great
violence, and the moment he was on the ground the pri-
soner jumped three times upon his chest and stomach.
He then threw himself down upon him and put his hand
inside his stock, and would heiwe chocked him if the stock
had not broken. While he Was doing this the prisoner
exclaimed, " You - - I'll do for you now."
Witness struggled as well as he was able, and got
on the top of the prisoner, and laid hold of his
hands, and when he did so, the prisoner attempted
to bite him. Re held the prisoner as long

he could, and he then got up, and witness also. Thy,
prisoner stepped inch end put his arms in a fighting
positi,)7, and when wi'ness raised his hands to protect
his hnad the prisoner :ltoop47d down and run at him.
and " butted" him zo the ground with his head. Whilt,
ho was upon the ground the prisoner ran up to him
and kieleal hire, at the same time excieiming, You
--, I'll do for you now." Ho was injured in such a
dreadful manner by the last attack of the prisoner that
it was some moments before ho recovered, and the priso-
ner leaned over him, and on his getting on his legs the
prisoner again "butted" him down in the same manner, ,
and he then attempted to kick him again in the sto-
mach, and said, "You -, I'll give you another downer,
and you'll never f ise again." After a short time he re-
covered a little, and got up and drew his truncheon,
and he then heard somo one in the crowd say, " Well
done, Cannon, give it the --' " and the prisoner then
tried to get his truncheon away from him, Some other
constables had by this time come up, and one of them,
named Thorne, was knocked down by the prisoner. He
was at length secured, but it required the exertions of
six constables and three private persons, to convey him
to the station-house. Witness was then taken to Mr.
Flower, the surgeon of the division, and he remained
in bed for three weeks, and was still under his care
None of the persons in the crowd rendered him assist-
anee while the prisoner was ill-using him, although he
asked them to do so.

The prosecutor, in answer to questions put by the
prisoner, denied that he first accosted him and told him
to go on. He also denied having caused the wound on
hie head by striking him with his truncheon, and said
ho knew nothing about the way in which the wound was
received.
By Mr. Bodkin—He had been on duty at the station-
house, all the afternoon, and did not go out until he re
ceived information of the disturbance.
The Chief Baron to the prosecutor—Yon mean to say
that you were not near the place at all at the time men-
tioned by the prisoner ?
Prosecute: —C:.rtainly, my lord.
Mr. C. Sic,, us, the landlord of the Bricklayer' Arms,
deposed that, in consequence of the disturbance that was
going on outside his house, he sent to the police station
for assistance. There was a great crowd of persons,
and the prisoner was among them, and when he asked
him to move on he immediately struck at him, bat missed
him. He had a wound on his head at this time.
John Collins, a printer, living in the neighbourhood,
deposed that he was present at the time of the occurrence
The prisoner had a wound on his head before the con-
stable came up, and he was very violent, and no one
dared to pass him on the pavement. lie saw the, prose-
cutor go up to him and advise him to go to a doctor and
have his wound erased, and he at first appeared to be
inclined to do so, bat when he had gone a few yards he
threw the constable !own and jumped upon him. The
witness then confirmed the evidence of the prosecutor
with regard to the subsequent conduct of the prisoner.
The prisoner, in an impudent tone, asserted that this
witness was drunk at the time, and that he did not see
anything that occurred,

In answer to a question put by Mr. Bodkin, however,
the witness declared that he was quite sober, and that
he had not d, ank anything iaduring the day likely to
make biro intoxicated.

Joseph Thoi ce, the constable referred to by the pro-
secutor in his evidence, was examined, and he confirmed
his testimony with regard to the conduct of the prisoner
after his arrivel,

Mr. J. S. Flower, the police surgeon, deposed that
upon seeing the prosecutor after the occurrence, he found
him in a very faint and exhausted condition, and he com-
plained of very great difficulty in breathing, and also
of great pain in his abdomen and other parts of his per-
son. There were very extensive bruises on several parts
of his body, and he spat and vomited blood at the time,
and had continued to do so, more or less ever since.
There were indications of his having received some
severe ir 4.ernal injury. The injuries he had received
occasioned very great constitutional disturbance, and for
ten days witness considered his life was in imminent
danger. He was still under witness's care, and he di3
not believe he would ever again be fit for his duty. The
prosecutor was about 26, and before this occurrence was
as fine and hearty a young man as could be seen.
This was the case for the prosecution.
The Chief Baron asked the prisoner whether be
wished to say anything in answer to the charge?
The prisoner replied in a sullen tone, that he nad
nothing to say. He did not know that he was coming
then to be tried. He thought he had already been tried
"in the case," and was sentenced to two years' imprison-
ment.

Mr. Bodkin said he thought it right, in consequence
of what the prisoner had said, to state that the prisoner
had been tried for the assault on the other constable,
Thorne, _ _ .

The Chief Baron said they had nothing to do with
that case on the present occasion, and he again asked
the prisoner whether he wished to say anything to the
jury in answer to the present charge?
The prisoner, sullenly—l have nothing to say.
His Lordship then summed up the case. He stated to
the jury that the prisoner was indicted under a statute
which made it a capital felony for a person to cause bo-
dily injury to another by any means with intent to mur-
der him, and, therefore, he said, every person convicted
under the statute would be liable to suffer death; and tho
case was consequently one which demanded their most
serious consideration. The section under which the in-
dictment was framed was very short. and it was to the
effect that if any person should administer poison to an-
other, or stab or wound such parson, or ny any other
means whatever inflict upon another bodily injury den-
gerous to life with intent to commit murder, such person
should be deemed goilty of felony, and the question the
jury would have to consider in the present case was whe-
ther the evidence established against the prisoner any of
the acts contemplated by the section of the Act of Parlia-
ment to which ne bad referred. This was certainly the
first t-nae in his experience that an indictment had been
framed upon this statute where no weapon had been
made use of ; but at the same time it was perfectly clear
that a person of gre,lt bodily strong h was qu'.te compe-
tent to do such injury to another, as would bring him
within the scone of one portion of the section It wf.9
his duty to tell them that if the constable had died from
the iejtseies he received, the act of the prisoner would
have amounted to murder, sod it appeared to him that
the two questions the July would havo to decide were,
first, had the prisoner made use of the bodily strength
which he appeascd to possess to cause injuries to the
prosecutor dangerous to life, end secondly, and which
was certainly the most difficult of the two to decide, had
he at the time he inflicted thi-se injuries the intention to
kill him They rimst be nerfectly satisfied upon both
those points, and pa!Licularty upon the latter before they
could cons ict the prisoner unou the present charge, and
if the intent was not proved to their satisfeetion they
must acquit the ptlsoner altogether.
The jury has:ng deliberated a short time, tumid
round and expressed a wish to know whether the pre-
vious cons:c.ion of the prisoner referred to the present
charge.
Ttie Chief Baron said he had already stated that they
had nothing whatever to do with that conviction. The
feet had been introduced by tho prisoner into the pre-
sent inquiry very improperty, andaltogether the jury ought to dis-
miss it altogether from their minds.
Tney then again deliberated for a short time, when
they gave a verdict finding the prisoner Guilty of the
capital che-go.
The Chief Baron postponed passing sentence, and the
quite astounded at the verdict,
prisoner, who seemed
was then removed from the bar.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
BIGAMY.

!T. John Ware, 31, painter, was indicted for feloniously
marrying Jane Edwards, his wife being then and now
alive.

The evidence proved that the prisoner married his
first wife in 1845, but she being a profligate character,
left her, and married in 1847 the second woman, who
carried on the business of a dressmaker, and had the
lease of the house she lived in. After ;hey had bca,
together about one year, he commenced ill-treating her,
caused her to sell the lease of her house, the proceeds of
which he squandered away in gambling, and finally, after
a series of ill-usage, kicked her out of the house at 12
o'clock at night.
In answer to the Court, the amend wife said that she
sold the lease of her house for 201,, which he got from
her. He never provided her with any money, and she
had, by her own hard work, to support the house—he
squandering away all the money he got in betting and
other gambling.
The jury found him Guilty.
The Recorder said there were some circumstances in
the case of a mitigatory character, as far as the first
wife was concerned, but his conduct to the second was
very bad.
lle was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment and
hard labour.