The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-19 00:00:00

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

"Mr. Eskell, dental-surgeon, has succeeded in producing
artificial teeth, and so constructing them that they last their
purpose a lifetime. . . . The process has been patented,
and promises to be most valuable."—Court Journal, August
4, 1860.

"A surprising novelty in the adaptation of artificial teeth
ctlie gum by a patented principle, which secures the most
perfect aid, combined with the greatest ease and agreeable
appearance."—Morning Advertiser, August 9, 1860.
Decayed teeth stopped, &c. Terms strictly moderate.
8. Grosvenor-street, Bond-street.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—LEEns, Dec. 17.
(Before Mr Justice Keating.) '
George Atkinson were indicted for feloniously wounding
his wife, with intent to murder her, at Wakefield, on the
14th of October, 1864. The indictment contained two other
counts.

Mr Shaw and Mr Skidmore conducted the prosecution ;
;he prisonet was undefended.

The material facts are contained in the summing up of
the evidence to the jury by the learned judge, who said as
follows :—" It is necessary, fur the prisoner to be guilty of
the principal offence, that ho intended to deprive his wit,
of life, and that if he had so deprived her it would have been
murder. If you should be of opinion that he intended to
do her grievous bodily burnt without inter ding to take life
you can find him guilty of wounding with intent to do
grievous bodily harm ; but if you should think that he had
neither of those intents, you can find him guilty of unlaw-
ful wounding. There is no doubt from the evidence that he
unlau fully wounded her, and therefore you can hardly
acquit him. It appears that the prisoner and prosecutrix
have been married for some years, From the questions put
to the prosecutrix by the prisoner, the state they lived in
was most lamentable—whether provoked from her lightness
of conduct or some other cause, he did what he ought not to
have done—he beat her, She avenged this illusage by con;.
mating adultery with a man named Young—but it is not
for you to judge of that immoral act, for, although the
woman has misconducted herself most grievously, she is
not amenable to the law of the land for that offenc,
but is answerable at a much higher tribunal. Whatever
provocation she may have given him, he was not authorised
to use any violence to her. She appeared to have left him
not by their mutual consent, and to have gone and lived
with Young. He was anxious for her to return ; she refused
to do so. On the 14th of October he went to a publiohouse
in East Moor, and sent Eliza Carter to Young's house with
a message to his wife to tell her that be wanted to speak
to her, bat that she was not to give it if Young was in. The
jealousy of the prisoner, the fact that he went armed, and
that he went for the purpose of pressing his wife to return.
are facts that tell most against him ; but if, from your
thperyiso requiren a razor, why that fact is got rid
prisoner,
knowledge of the usages of the class of persons in the same
io You knew that in the course of
otphfoes;iirtbunt if s n
a businessthoet, you must bear in mind that he had a razor,
and went with it in his Pockeb. to see his wife, and went
with the ofthe
Pressing her to return home. While
Eliza messageesssge the prisoner came-into
Young'sC a r
house,ter was
giving
him there. He asked his wife to
go home with him at once, She said she would go home
on the following Monday. lie was desirous that she should
go at once. probably the presence of Young excited a
of jealousy feeling in the breast of the prisoner. The
purpose
and found
prosecutrix then said that if he had any noise she would
not go at all. The prosecutrix was then leaning against the
table; the prisoner put his hand en her shoulder, and on
her refusing to come home he out her throat and ran out of
the house. Two witnesses concur in this, that the wound
la not very deep, and that the
much greater power
to the blow, although he had not d,,ne so, which is a fact
in favour of the prisoner. plea however, asked the police-
manthe following day, when he was apprehended, whether
pwraiesort,igerhht aacdrothesetlzptloorrtollyo
of
giving
his wife was dead, and on learning she wss not, he said, "I
wanted us botq to have gone together."
The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with
intent to do grievous bodily harm no and recommended him
to mercy on account of the great provocation he had re-
ceived.

The learned Judge sentenced the prisoner to six years'
penal servitude.
The Court has been occupied the whole day in bearing
cases the details of which are unfit for publication.

HOME CIRCUIT.—m
—.A.lDstorrE, Dec. 17.
A man convicted of setting fire to a shed was sentenced
to five years' penal servitude.
A man named King was tried fer a burglary.
Mr F, J. Smith conducted the ease for the prosecution.
The prisoner was convicted, and it appeared that he had
been previously convicted, and committed the present
offence the very day after he was lot out of prison.
He was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude.
The next case, the one of murder, was one of some interest
with reference to the nature of the evidence. Two men, both
described as labourers—one named Staples, 23, the other
named Turner, 26, were indicted for the wilful murder of
one Fisher, at Orpington, on Nov, 20 last. They had been
committed by the magistrate for manslaughter, but the
coroner's jury found a verdict of wilful murder, and the grand
jury returned a bill of indictment for the major offence.
Mr Addison conducted the case for the prosecution ; Mr
Ribton defended the prisoners.

The prisoners and the deceased were railway labourers.
On the evening of Saturday, Nov. 19 last, they were all
three, with others, at a publiehouse at Orprngton, and it ap-
peared that some quarrel arose out of a dispute about who
had worked cu the line 15 years ago. One of them, a witness
named Saker, stated that they all went out of the house into
the road, and there they quarrelled again, and that there
he heard Turner (one of the prisoners) call Fisher a liar,
and saw Fisher step up to Turner and strike him, and then
go up again and push bim. The police having heard the
noise, came up abbut this time, and the witness said he heard
Staples say, "1 would not allow a man Worth me," and saw
him try to pull off his coat as if to fight. A policeman
named Jones was on duty opposite to the house, and seemed
to have come up just before this, for he stated that he saw
the three men come ont of it togeth9r, and heard Fisher
(the deceased) say to Turner, " I worked on the line
16 years ago," Turner amid he was a liar, upon which

Fisher (the deceased) said, " If you say that, I'll hit you I"
sod went up to him, and pushed him. Another police-
man, who was present, told him to go home, and he im-
mediately left, and went in a direction towards his house.
The two prisoners, according to the policeman's deposition,
remained in the same place about a minute when they
walked away in the same direction as Fisher. They walked,
he said, about 20 yards, and then ho saw them "all at once
start off iu a great hurry." The case for the prosecution was
that they overtook the deceased, knocked him down, and
kicked him in the eye with one of their heavy boots shod
with iron, inflicting a terrific wound on the eye, fracturing
the skull, and causing instant insenaikility and speedy
death. The two policemen walked up the road together for
about 100 yards, and then heard a man's voice saying to
some one several times with a foul expression, "Get up."
The policemen ran up and found Fisher lying in the middle
of the road, one of the prisoners (Turner) having hold of
him round the neck, and the other (Staples) having hold
of hint by the legs—both of them still using the same ex-
pressions to him. About two yards off there was a pool of
blood, and the poor man was bleeding very fast from the
eye, and was covered with blood and was insensible. 'When
spoken to the prisoners said, with a foul expression, that
they were only picking the man up as he fell down. The
deceased being insensible could make no answer to questions
addressed to him, and he was at once taken to a surgeon,
who found him bleeding, cold, and rigid, bleeding from the
eye, nose, and mouth, with a great contusion over the left
eye, and other similar injuries on his head and face. The
injuries, he said, could not have been occasioned by a fall,
' but must have been caused by blows inflicted either with a
man's fiat or some blunt weapon, or by a kick when the
man was lying on the ground. The post mortem examine-
tion showed a fracture of the frontal bone on the left side,
extending upwards about an inch and a quarter, where the
injury was principally inflicted. On the surface of the top
of the brain, after removing the detra mater, it was found
that the whole brain was completely congested and there
were about two ounces of coagulated blood. The posterior
part of the orbit of the left eye was filled with coagulated
blood, and on the left,eicle of the lower jaw there was a
fracture, but the death seemed to the surgeon to have been
the result of the injury to the eye, or to the skull over the
eye. The man never spoke, and died on the night of the
next day—Sunday. The prisoners on the same night were
arrested, and declared that they had not touched the man.
Mr Addison having stated the case for the prosecution,
A witness being called gave some necessary formal evi-
dence as to the death of the deceased. It appeared that the
road where he was found was between a hedge and a wall,
and that the wall would be on his right side.
Mr Ribton elicited in cross-examination that the deceased
had to go along the road in the direction of his home, and
that the prisoners might go home by the same road.
Saker was next called—The men, he said, remained
drinking up to nearly 12 o'clock at night, and it was elicited
in cross-examination by Mr Ribton that between 10 and 12
many of the men were passing in and out, and some went
away, and he did not know which way they went, and the
deceased wes talking with them ; that about a c cozen came
out all together, and that the prisoners started after the
deceased about two or three minutes after him.
The policeman stated that the prisoners started after the
deceased about a minute or two after him, and that when he
came up to them and they said they were picking up the
man after a fall; he said "It's no fall, it's a blow," to
which they answered to the effect that they had not done it,
and when taken into custody (before the death) on the
charge of illtreating the deceased, they denied that they
touched him.

In cross-examination of thr policeman by Mr Ribton, it
was elicited that he coull see the deceased 100 yards ahead
of him, as it was a moonlight night, and he said that the
prisoners started two or three minutes after him ; but
being pressed, said that he did not think it was three or
lout minutes after him, and believed it was not.

In re-examination by Mr Addison it was elicited that it
was five or six minutes between the time of his going after
the men and coming up with [hem.

In answer to the learned judge, the witness stated that
the deceas,d was not actually lying down, but was halt held
up by the head.
The other policeman confirmed the statement that the
men were told it was not a fall, but a blow—but he stated
the then said, "Do you think that we should do such a
thing as that ?"
In cross-examination by Mr Bibton it was elicited that
they both said this, and said it again and again, and with
vehemence.

After pressing the policeman as to details of the matter,
Mr Ribton desired to advert to his deposition as contra-
dicting hire, but
The learned judge retnldcd him that this he could not
do without putting in the depositions as his own evidence,
the effect of which, it may be observed, would be to give the
counsel for the prosecution a reply.
11r Ribton said he was afraid it was so.

[lt is worth while mentioning this point of procedure, as
it ]s of constant, almost daily occurrence in criminal trials,
end which, altle ugh the depositions of the witnesses for
the prosecution examined before the magistrates are always
in court, and have been perused by the judge and are a
kind of official document before the court for the purposes
of the trial, yet key cannot be appealed to or referred to by
the prisoner or his counsel to contradict the witnesses, by
showing inconsistencies between their previous and present
statements, without making them evidence and putting
them in, and thus incurring the consequence of giving the
counsel for the prosecution a reply.] .
The surgeon, being called, stated that he believed the
wound on the frontal bone, which was fractured. caused a
compression on the brain which produced death and also
caused the effusion of blood from the nasal vein. He was
positive that this wound was not caused by a fall, but by a
blow, and he believed that it was a blow, not with the fist,
but some blunt instrument. Being pressed on cross-exami-
nation he said he thought the man must have been kicked
in the eye. Being much pressed by Mr Ribton in cross-exa-
mination whether the effect might not have been caused by
a blow of a fist, he said the injury on the jaw might have
been so caused, but not the injury over the eye, which he
said he believed was caused by a blunt instrument. Being
pressed as to whether the injuries might not have been
caused by a fall, he said he thought not, as the fall would
be merely lit on the earth. He said that there was, he
•believed, a blow "right into the eye," and that the man
would have fallen senseless where he stood ; and (as a con-
sequence) that he must have been dragged from the spot
where the blood was to the spot where he was found in the
hands of the prisoners. There was, he said, an internal
fracture of the frontal bone, and rupture of the frontal
"sinus'' or vein. In re-examination it was elicited that he
found an insensibility of the eye to light, which showed
cempression of the brain from extravasation of blood.
In answer to the learned Judge, he stated that a blow
on the inside and soft substance of the eye might have pro-
duced the internal appearance he observed, and that there
was an internal rupture or fracture which went upwards.
The result of the blow being on the soft part of the eye
might have been to produce the internal injuries observed,
without those external appearances which otherwise would
have been produced had the blow fallen on the external
bone over the eye.

The other surgeon, whose name was Engleheart, stated
that the injury was to the "orbit" of the eye, not the eye
itself. There was an injury to the integuments and a frac-
ture of the bone extending upwards an incb and a half or so•
That injury might have been produced by one kick, by the
toe of tho boot catching the orbit of the eye apd fracturing
the skull above it ; the sole of the boot at the same time
causing the abrasion observed on the face, and the heel at the
same time breaking the jawbone.
Mr Addison—Could the injuries have been caused by a
blow from a fist ?
Witness—Certainly not.

In cross-examination, Mr Ribton endeavoured to make
out that there could have been no kick, because there was
no breaking of the skin, but the witness stated very clearly
and distinctly that there was. There was, he said, a large
and severe wound, cutting through the integuments to the
bone. Being asked if the injuries might not have been
caused by a fall, he said decidedly not, unless it was a fall
from a height. Being pressed if it could not have been
caused by a fall against a wall, he said certainly not. The
whole tenor of his evidence was, that there had been a blow
right into the eye and upwards in its direction, so that the
injuries could not have been caused by any fall even if
there had been a fall. The man would fall insensible, ho
said, where he was struck, and must have been dragged
frrm that spot, as he could not have moved himself.
The witness, in answer to the learned Judge, said that as
the injury was to the orbit of the eye there might be an in-
ternal fracture and rupture without an external fracture.
The insensibility of the eye was caused by an internal in-
jury, and by the pressure of the ex travasated blood upon
brain.

It was then proved that both the prisoners wore heavy
boots" tipped and nailed" as commonly worn by "navvies."
It was elicited, however, in cross-examination, that there
was no blood upon either of them.
This wag the case for the prosecution.-
Mr Ribton then addressed the jury on behalf of the pri-
soners.

Witnesses were called to give the prisoners a good cha-
racter, especially as being " quiet and not quarrelsome."

After a long trial which lasted until late in the afternoon,
The learned Judge proceeded to sum up the case to the
jury. The prisoners, he said, stood at the bar charged with
wilful murder. There were some circumstances in the case
which did not admit of reasonable doubt—that is, the gene-
ral features of the case, which he proceeded to state in ac-
cordance with the above narrative. The learned judge
then drew particular attention to the position in which the
body was found, the wall being on the right side; and he
then adverted to the evidence of the two surgeons, obsery
ing that there did not appear to be any very material dif.

ference between them. Both agreed in this, that there was
on the inside of the frontal bone a fracture which would
produce congestion on the brain, and would, cause death.
and bo the result of the injury to the eye, or to the "orbit"
of the eye; and that this was probably caused by a kick, and
not by a fall or a blow from tho fist. It was for the jury to
say how far it was probable that the fatal wound was in•
sflicted in this way. The first question was whether the de-
ceased came to his death by the act of the prisoners er
either of them. It not, then the inquiry was at an end.
Then the jury would have to say, looking at all the circum-
stances, whether the prisoners caused the death of the de-
ceased. Upon this bead he pointed out the short lapse of
time, on any view of the case, after which the prisoners had
followed the deceased and the police the prisoners, The
learned judge observed that the remark made by the men
when the police came up (that the deceased had had a fall)
seemed to imply that they were speaking, truly or falsely,
of something they know about. If so, then it was for the
jury to say whether their statement was true or false;
and their whole story when taken up lay in asserting
what the medical evidence tended to show had not been,
and could net have been really the fact—viz,, that the in,
juries were caused by a fall. Upon all the circumstances,
then, were the jury satisfied that the deceased:came to his
death by the violence of the prisoners_ one or other of
them ? Supposing they arrived at the conclusion, could
they see their way to the conclusion that the violence was
the act of one or of both of them ? If they were satisfied
that it was the act of both of them, the case would become
more simple than it otherwise would be. The medical evi-
dence seemed to show that the injuries, at all events the
fatal injury might have been inflicted by one blow. If the
jury were of opinion that there was only one blow, then
there would be a difficulty in 'convicting either of the prie
soners—for in that case neither could bo convicted unless
either the party inflicting the blow could be identified, or
both the prisoners were parties to the act. The jury might
no doubt, be in a different position in such a:case—for if
only one prisoner committed she act, and he could not bo
identified, then neither could be convicted. The jury had
boon told by the learned counsel that the case could not
be treated -ea one of -murders and ho concurred •in tbet.
view. Ho agreed that in determining the question on the
charge of murder the jury must consider whether there
was a common intent to inflict death or murderous
violence, and he also agreed that there was hardly evidence
which would support the jury in that conclusion. He quite
concurred in the law as laid down by Brother Byles on this
important subject in the case cited, the case of " The Queen
v. Luck," that on a charge of murder none of several parties
not identified as having actually struck the fatal blow or fired
the fatal shot could be convicted unless they were all parties
to a common design to kill or to shoot or stab; and thus, for
instance, if one of several men was struck or insulted by
another man, and they all ran after him with a view to beat
him, and one of them, without the knowledge or privity of
the others, shot or stabbed him, the others would not be
guilty of murder; and he should be disposed to go further,
and say that on a charge of murder there must be a common
design quoad the act of homicide. It was otherwise in th a
respect as to manslaughter; and if several were parties to
an unlawful act of violence, as a beating, and death, though
not intended, resulted from that unlawful act, they were all
guilty. This was constantly exemplified in cases of fighting.
However fair the fight might be, and although only one
person struck the fatal blow, yet all engaged were guilty of
manslaughter. There was therefore this important distinc-
tion between the effect of a common intent on a charge of
murder or of manslaughter. It was enough as a charge of
manslaughter that there was a common design to do the un-
lawful act from which death resulted. Therefore, though
the prisoners neither of them intended to cause death, yet if
the act was done, if a blow that caused death was given by
one or either of them in pursuance of the common intent of
attacking and beating the deceased, then they were guilty of
manslaughter; and a kick which would have the same effect
as a blow with a blunt instrument would be the same.

The jury found the prisoners guilty of manelaughter,with
a recommendation to mercy on account of their previous
good character.

Tho learned Baron, after some consideration, proceeded
to pass sentence, stating that he concurred in the verdict,
and was satisfied that one of the prisoners with the privity
of the other had caused the death of the deceased by a kick
from an iron shod boot. Cases of manslaughter no doubt
differed greatly in character, and he had every desire to give
full effect to the rooommendation of the jury. But to cause
the death of a man in this way was a very serious offence,
and he felt he could not pass a lighter sentence than five
years penal servitude.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LivERr AL, Dec, 16
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Mellor.)

Eliza Green, aged 46, was charged wiih the wilful mur-
der of Elizabeth Lowe, at Liverpool, in October last.
Mr Peel prosecuted, and Mr Littler defended the prisoner.
The deceased woman was the sister of the prisoner's wife,
and lived in his house. On the day of the murder it ap-
peared that the attention of two women who lived in the
neighbourhood was attracted by a disturbance which was
going on in the prisoner's holm, he being at the time in a
state of intoxication. The evidence vent to show that he
first struck his wife and then the deceased. After dragging
her by the hair of her head about the house, he struck her
three times with his fist on the head in a most ferocious
manner, and then closed the door. The door was soon after
burst open, when one of the witnesses saw the prisoner
knock her down again, and jump from a box upon her chest
—he then kicked her violently about the head and face. The
deceased struggled to get upon her feet, but fell down
again, the blood gushing from her mouth and nostrils. She
was conveyed to the hospital, where it was found that the
bones of the skull were frightfully fractured. She died in a
few days from inflammation of the brain caused by the in-
juries.

For the defence it was urged that the prisoner was greatly
provoked by his wife, the deceased, and his son—and also
that the state of intoxication in which the prisoner was ren-
dered him unaccountable, and it was contended that tho
offence only amounted to manslaughter.
His Lordehip, in summing up, said that the provocation
to reduce the offence to manslaughter, must be of such a
degree as reasonably to produce the violent conduct of the
prisoner—and though there was no doubt that a man uuder
the influence of intoxication was more liable to be affected
by provocation than a sober man, yet they jury must con-
sider whether it was in this case sufficient to deprive the
man of the power of reasoning and the ability to judge be-
tween right and wrong.
The jury, after an absence of three-quarters of an hour,
returned with a verdict of guilty.

Sentence of death was tLen passed in the usual form.
SATURDAY, DEC 17.
Clvtr, COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Blackburn and Special Juries.)