The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-09 00:00:00

-ASSIZE INTELLTG.E.7,7Cr].
WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Taunton, April 6.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)

been ccmtni,ted, and by a &sire that the perpe-
tra!or; should bt. punished. P)e Learned
Ciunsel then, with great force, analysed the evidence
to show that there was nothing in it which at all
brought home guilt to the prisoners ; and urged very
strongly upon the jury the fact that the prisoners had
not attempted to leave the neighbourhood; they had
remained where they were known. Was there evi-
dence upon which they would even hang a dog? But
he should call witnesses to show that the prisoners
were at different places, and differently dressed from
that to which the witnesses for the prosecution had
spoken.
Witnesses were then calkd, who swore to having
seen the priscners in Frome somewhere near about the
time the murder must have been committed.

MUILIDttiZ.
William Sparrow, William Maggs, and Robert
Hurd, were indicted for the wilful murder of Sarah
Watts on the 24th of September.
Mr. Moody and Mr. Everitt were counsel for the
prosecution, and Mr. Edwards defended Sparrow and
Maggs.

fn-the course of the opening address Hurd asked
the judge to assign him counsel.
Mr. MOODY, after a short time, said that Mr. Ed-
wards would undertake to defend all the prisoners.
Mr. Justice ERLE said he thought no one was so
proper to do it, as Mr. Edwards held briefs for the
other two prisoners. . _ _

Mr. MOODY then addressed the jury in reply.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury,
after a lengthened deliberation, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
As soon as the verdict of Not Guilty was delivered,
Hurd said, "ley Lord, we are all innocent. Pro-
vidence has done this."

Mr. EDWARDS said he would defend them all, but
would ask his Lordship to allow him the assistance of
a junior, and his friend Mr. H. T. Cole had offered to
assist him.
Mr. Justice ERLE said that would be very proper.
The facts of the case rested upon circumstantial
evidence. It appeared that the deceased Sarah Watts
was a child of about 14 years of age, and was the
daughter of John Watts and Leah Watts. They
occupied a dairy farm about two miles from Frome.
On the morning of the 24th of September the parents,
as was their custom, started for Frome market, leav-
ing the child alone in the house. They returned
about four o'clock in the afternoon. Upon entering
the house the first thing that attracted the father's
attention was some blood on the kitchen floor; he
also heard a little dog lapping something in the dairy,
which adjoined the kitchen. He called for his daugh-
ter, but she did not answer, and he then went into tha
dairy, and there found his daughter lying on the
floor ; her clothes were torn, and she was bruised
and bloody, and quite dead. Upon an examination
of the body by a surgeon it turned out that the poor
child had been ravished while living, and that her
death had been caused by suffocation, as there were
marks on her neck and throat, and upon her head.
It was therefore clear that she had been shockingly
abused, and then brutally murdered. Some bread,
butter, and cheese, had been taken. The parents
went upstairs, and found the room had been
ransacked ; some clothes and a watch had been taken,
but there was no money. There was a silk handker-
chief left on the kitchen table. The robbery had
been skilfully contrived, for, although it was com-
mitted in broad daylight, and within 100 yards of a
road, and near some other houses, yet there was no
eyewitness to any part of the transaction, and the
girl had not been heard to cry out. The body was
removed upstairs soon after it was found. Informa-
tion was conveyed to the police, and an application
was made to the Home-office, and a detective officer
was sent down on the Sunday following, and he com-
menced his investigation on Monday, the 29th of
September. He observed blood on the floor of the
dairy, and that some whey had been spilt from the
whey-tub. Upon emptying the whey-tub there were
marks of blood on the bottom, and on the left-hand
side of the dairy-door there was the mark of a
person's hand, with blood upon the thumb.
There was a mark on the wall, as if the
point of a person's shoe had caught against
it, and upon comparing the girl's shoe with the
mark they were found to correspond, and the point of
the shoe had mortar upon it. The clothes of the girl
appeared as if she had been put in the whey-tub.
She had been seen alive at one o'clock. Then came
the question, by whom was this dreadful outrage
committed—rape, robbery, and murder ? The pri-
soners with another man had been seen together at a
public .house, as the father and mother went to Frome
in the morning of that day. The three prisoners
lived near Frome. Sparrow knew the house of Watts
and the inmates well. The prisoners were seen to-
gether about twelve o'clock, when they were heard to
make an appointment to meet again within an hour,
and then they separated. About two o'clock they
were seen going in the direction of the house of Watts,
and within half a mile of it. Hurd then appeared to
be leading them on, as he walked first and beckoned
them to follow him ; but Sparrow and Maggs were
shortly afterwards seen without Hurd. About three
o'clock a man was seen running from the direction of
the scene of the murder. Between three and four
o'clock the prisoners were seen again, but they had
then changed their dresses. Maggs was seen hand-
ing something over to Hurd. In the course of
the afternoon they were all seen in the market-
place of Frome, and one was heard to say, " A
watch, but no tin." They were seen together
several times that evening. Three witnesses swore
that the handkerchief found on the kitchen
table belonged to Sparrow ; but when he was taken
he declared he had not had a silk handkerchief for
seven years. On Monday, the 29th of September,
there was a fair at North Bradley, about seven miles
from Freme. Sparrow was there, and a woman
named Watson said to him, that as he came from
Frome, he must have heard about the murder ; to
which he gave this extraordinary answer, " that he
saw the child since the murder; that he was there on
the Thursday (the day after the murder) ; that she
was lying near the whey-tub with her clothes right
over her head, and had blows on her head that
had been inflicted by a stick ; that she had been put
in the whey-tub, and it was covered with blood from
her bead ; and that he did not think it would ever be
found out, as only one man had done it, and he
would never tell." He was asked if he knew how it
Was done, and he said, " Yes, tell you how
it was done. She was knocked on the bead
with a stick, and then she was held in the whey-
tub till she was dead, and then taken out and
laid on the floor." He had a knot in his
neckerchief under his ear, and some one asked him
if he should be hung soon, and he said he sup-
posed it would not be long first. Now, at that time
the blood had not been found at the bottom of the
whey-tub, and the body of the girl had been carried
upstairs on the Wednesday, and he bad cot been
there on the Thursday. On the Tuesday morning
Sparrow's hand was tied up, and he said he had been
bitten in a row the previous night, but upon ex-
amining the wound it was clear it had been inflicted
some days, and therefore it was supposed that the
poor child, in her struggles, might have bitten his
hand, and that would account for the mark of the
hand with blood on it upon the wall of the pantry.
He was taken into custody upon another charge on
Wednesday, the 13t of October, and then his hand
was examined ; and, from the festered state of the
wound, it was clear that the injury must have been
inflicted some days before. Maggs had been seen with
Sparrow half a mile from the house shortly before
the murder, and they were seen together shortly after
it had been perpetrated. A few days after the murder
Maggs was heard conversing with another person
about it. That person said he had heard that Sparrow
was going to "peach," and that he was not only to have
a pardon but the 501. reward. Upon which Maggs said
he could not get the pardon or the 501., for he (Sparrow)
was the man who killed her, and he would not
have killed her but she knew him. With regard to
Hurd, the evidence suggested that he was the accom-
plice and the planner and leader of the robbery.
Smith, the officer, upon this went to each of the pri-
soners, and before he took him into custody gave him
an opportunity of explaining his conduct on that day.
Each made a statement which turned out to be quite
false. Sparrow was taken into custody on account of
a watch he had, and which it was supposed might
have been the watch taken from the house of Watts.
Sparrow said he had bought it on the 24th of Sep.
tember of Robert Hurd, and that Maggs was present,
and this led to the apprehension of all the prisoners.
He said he had not paid for the watch. E eh-
' deavour had been made to trace to whom the very
watch
belonged, but without success.
To prove the case for the prosecution no less than
43 witnesses were called, whose evidence extended
over a vast variety of small and minute facts, and
made out in great measure the summary we have
given.
At nearly nine o'clock at night the ease for the
prosecution was closed, and
then the Court was ad-
journed to the next morning.
April 7.
This morning the trial was resumed.
Mr. EDWARDS addressed the •
weakeury for the prisoners,
urging upon them that a
e aonocde, ofa n
weaker
submitted to a jury. The case had never been
had seemed to call for ven the unhappy girl
stance was enught at every circum-
villains who had With a Vie
of
found that a watch had been taken from
committed view discovering the
this horrid crime. It was
and, in the course of the house,
Sparrow had a watch, and
Inquiry, it was discovered that
hension of the that had led to the appre-
Son what was the re-
sult of the watcPhilers. And yet,
affair?d Why, it clearly proved
that the watch haged to Watts. He
complained of thea m
an n never
manner in
inbelon
whichg the case had been
got up. These men weree apprehended upon a charge
Which affected their lives, and yet the magistrates
had refused to permit an attorney to be present
on their behalf when the matter was under inve,t,ita-
tion before those officials! He also complained of the
mode adopted by the detective officer in coming su i-
denly upon these men, and proceeding to examine
them with a view of substantiating something like
guilt. When before the magistrates the men, having
had time to collect themselves, made statements, and
yet when he called upon his friend to put in tho.e On the ed • , MARRIE
D.
statements, his friend had refused to put then in. Rev. Tho- ins Sawbridgeworth Church, Hefts, by de
Surely in such a case they did not want to entr,,p Johnsone,ls nutchinson, vicar, as,i ted by the Rev. John
verdict. He also complained most stronly ( f the Devoe, to Charles Kelland Lee, Esq., of Plymouth,
mode in which his friend had opened the for Eeq., army, eldest daughter of te late Francis Ede,
case, tl e shobury Park, Herts.
opening amounted to this—".l can't prove a single
fact against the prisoners, but I believe them to be
guilty, and therefore I call upon
you to find
guilty of this charge, although it may- cost the themforf'
tune of their lives." He admitted that a more hem :I
able man than his Learned Friend did not exist, r"
he could only account for his friend's conduct and
b
supposing that he had allowed himself to be carried away by his feeling a horror for the cr •
crime that had

Maggs then said, " I declare to God we are inno-
cent."

Sparrow said, " We were not within a mile of the
spot. God has done it."
Hurd then said, " My Lord, it will all be found
out within a month. Let me speak to Mr. Smith (the
detective officer.)
They all then said, " Let us see .Mr. Smith."

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron MARTIN and Mr. Justice TALPOURD.)
FORGERY.—Mary Ann Mannson, aged 29, described as
a spinster, was indicted for feloniously forging and ut-
tering a receipt for the sum of 101, with intent to de-
fraud the governors of Christ's Hospital. The prisoner
pleaded not guilty.

- Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Li.lley defended the prisoner.
Mr. CLARKSON opened tne case to the jury. There
were various annuities payable by Christ's Hospital,
founded by various charitable persons deceased, and
amongst them was a fund out of which a certain number
of poor blind persons were paid 101. a year. In Feb.,
1851, a person named Lusby became entitled to the an-
nuity, and as neither he nor his wife, who was in the
same service as the primmer, could write, he secured
the as;istance of th- prisoner iu preparing the necessary
certificate to be signed by the clergy-rnan and church-
wardens of the pariah in which he lived, upon which
he was to obtain the annuity. He was paid the first an-
nuity of 101. iu January, 1851, but in the month 0
March following Lusby and the widow requested
the prisoner to call and corninunica e the fact to the hos-
pital authorities. She, ho. ever, never did so, and when
last January arrived she forged a second certificate, and
ohtan,d an,ther 10/ in the name of the deceased
Lusby.

Soma formal evidence having been put in as to the
issuing of the blank fora.' of the certificate, and the
payment of the first and second annuities, the two certi-
ficates were produced. The receipts for the money on
botn occasions ware signed Mary Ann Lusby, and the
amounts were paid in two 101. Bank of England notes.
Eiizebeth Louisa Lusby examined by Mr. Bonmet—l
am a widow. My husband was named Robert Lusby.
He died the 15th March, 1851. Once before his death
he received an annuity from Christ's Hospital. We
were living at the time at No. 1, North-place, Walworth.
I knew the prisoner thee. She lived at Miss Sea-
ward's, in Grosvenor-park, Walworth, where :I
used to go to wash. I remember being at
Miss Seaward's when something was said about
going to receive the money. My husband called
with one of the papers produced, and the prisoner
told me to go with my husband to Mr. Garland, the
churchwarden of Newington, and get it signed. The
prisoner afterwards met mo at the hospital, and while I
and my husband waited outside she went in and got the
101. in a note, which she gave to my husband. After
my husband died, in March, I asked the prisoner to
write to Christ's Hospital and tell the authorities of his
decease. She said she would do so, and when I saw her
again she said she had written. Just before last Christ..
' mas I saw her again, when she repeated that she had
properly reported the death; but on the sth of January
of the present year she naked me if she should get the
money this year for me, and I refused to let her do any-
thing of the sort. I afterwards went to the Hospital
and found that my husband's death was not known
there, and that a second 101. had been paid on his ac-
count. The prisoner then sthreatened to throw herself
in the river if I said anything about it. I knew the
prisoner in Miss Seaward's service for nine years or
more.
The Rev. Mr. Onslow, the rector of the parish of
Newington, stated that he signed the first certificate.
This year he received a second blank certificate, which
he returned to Mrs. Lusby unsigned.
It was then proved that the names to the last certifiy
nate were not in the handwriting of those parties whose
signatures they purported to be.
Mr. Reid, who resided in the same house with Mr.
Lusby, where the prisoner formerly lodged, stated that,
after Mr. Lusby received the blank certificate from the
clergyman ho went to the hospital and ascertained that
a second annnity had Lem paid. He was shown a book
which was signed Mary Aun Lusby, and he believed the
writing was that of the prisoner. The witness also
identified the hand-writing en the back of the second
10/. note as being that of the prisoner.
George Kinnair, police constable K 1, stated that the
woman at the bar was given into his custody on a charge
of obtaining a 101. note from Christ's Hospital under
false pretences. She said she had never received a far-
thing from Christ's Hospital in her lise, and asked if
there was any gentleman at the hoTitel that could
identify her. He told her he could not say us, re was,
and she then asked who was to he brought against her,
He told her, and ahe then said she did receive to/ , and
sign papers for Mrs. Lusby, which she knew was wrong..
She had two 51 notes, two sovereigns, 75. 6
ill silver,
and a savings bank book in her possession when she was
searched.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. LILLEY then proceeded to address the jury for
the defence, and contended that the evidence which had
been produced was not sufficient to substantiate the
charge. At all events he was convinced that the forgery
and uttering in this case had not been proved to the
saiisfastion of discriminating men, and he therefore
called for a verdict of acquittal.
The iea,ned JUDGE having summed up,
Tne jury having retired, returned into court with I
verdict of
The prisoner was seiner 03d to be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour for nine moi,ths.

THIRD C'OU7,.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
SINGULAR CASE,-.A labouring man, named George
Hudson, pleady guilty to a charge of perjury and con-
spiracy.
Mr. GIFFARD said, he was instructed by the Commis'
sioners of Bankruptcy who prosecuted, to mention the!
nature of toe charge, and to leave the Court to deal
with the prisoner as it thought proper. The prisoner
was called as a witness at the Bankruptcy Court, in the
case of a bankrupt named William Denman, and
he swore that he borrowed from Denman 25/, on
the 29th of January, 1852, end gave him a stamped
receipt for the money on that day. The receipt was
produced and identified by rho prisoner, but on examin-
ing t it was discovered that the stamp was not issued
from Somerset-house until the 12th of February, 1852,
about three weeks after it was said to have been given to
the bankrupt. Seeing the truth could no longer be con-
cealed, he at length admitted that his previous story was
a concocted fiction, and that he never received the money.
On being searched a paper was found on him containing
written instructions by the bankrupt as to what ho was to
say to the Commissioner respecting the loan. Under these
t circumstances, the Commissioner thought it his duty te.
men-
tool send the case to this court, but he wished it to bed
tion,cl that he believed the prisoner had been use
tool by the bankrupt for his own purposes.
Mr. PRENDERGAS'F, who app han ones man,
said he was a poor and illiterate thou:Z.
pt by the and had had been led into signing the recieni- great distress
rapt, whose wife came to
"himffature to the paper.
and begged him to attach eared for the prisoner,t
his signature
was entirely igno-
rant could neither read nor write, and He now expressed
and hoped the Court
rant of the consequences of 2:'ince,
in consequence of his
his great contrition for the Tim
1 I have no raeans of sub-
wife and
would deal mercifully with him
imprisoned for any long period.
family, who
sistence if he were
Several perscv
the prisoner a good character
gave
for 6aye
SERGEANT said be would Postpone pass-
The CosimeN
rt`
the prisoner.
ing sentence 'To
CHILDREN.—Sophia Butler, 16, spinster,
for honesty and veracity. .
Bonnis
for stealing eleven half crowns,
cva3 indicted,.Johnson, from the
PerBCl of Maria Johnson.
of same
d that the prisoner accosted Maria Johnson,
It aPPeare she the moneys
little girl, as was leaving a shop ou Ludgate-
who
had just received some money for her
and pretended to know her family and induced
=the ,
alk with her along some retired 'lanes in the
her to w d ,
- Taking a van age of the opportunity thus afforded
City.
Eger she succeeded iu abstracting the money from the
Wsrhaere she
Liirlll,,s p
ocket.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Trio, e were several indictments
for similar robberies upon children.
against the prisoner
The Common SERGEANT sentenced her to imprison.,
merit for twelve months.

The Liverpool Watch Committee have decided
that no member of an Orange or Ribbon society shall be
the borough, allowed to remain, or be engaged, in the police force of

B.rif TLI N.
On the 7th inst., at ll:Ole4don,Hunts, the wife of Erasmus
Saunderv,

On the Bth inst., atOtFheAWriAlluowGral,T
Captain PellyOn,
'West II the wife of

On the 2d inst., Lieutenant Andrew R. Dunlap, R.N., aged,
36, youngest son ot the late J. Danlap, Esq., M.D., of Syden;„
ham, Kent.
On the Gth inst., at St. Vincent's, Addington, aged 29,
Mary Rachel, wife of George kosher,
On the 7th inst., at Battle, Napoleon Drew Es aged 28.

London: Printed and Published by 1111:11M0 YOUNG of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Offit e, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the
bliddle rzi Savoy, in the cowity uf
gizt glaYs APr4 P. leu,