The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AU'GITST 3, 1864,

fairly be drawn that there has been a previous similar act
or event, it may be shown. It was on that principle it was
held some years ago by the Court for Crown Cases Re-
served, in cases of murder by poison, that a previous death
by poison in the prisoner's house might be proved, with a
view to show that the death of the deceased by poison was
not accidental, and he had lately (as he mentioned at Maid-
stone) himself followed that decision in a similar case—
Garner's case ou the Midland Circuit. The principle was
not to be doubted, and :most important, that it was open to
the prosecution to prove the actual happening of several,
or some other, similar acts or facts, but in this case the
evidence offered was not of that character, and was far too
loose to be admitted in the present charge.
The case was then proceeded with, and it appeared that
there had been a previous fire on the same premises, but
which was not traced to the prisoner. The prisoner's iden-
tity was only spoken to by two or three persons, who ob-
served a man at a distance of from 4 to 20 feet, at night.
The learned Judge left the cme briefly to the jury, with
a strong intimation of his opinion that the evidence was
unsatisfactory, and that it was only a case of suspicion.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty.
Mr Lilley said he had six witnesses in court ready to give
the prisoner a good character, and
The learned judge observed that this must strongly weigh
in a case of doubtful identity.
A respectable-looking middle-aged woman named Tolson
was indicted for bigamy.
Mr Wood conduc:ed the case for the prosecution ; the
prisoner was undefended.
The case of the prosecution was attempted to be proved in
a novel manner. In :855 the prisoner was married to a man
named John Edward Tolson, a soldier in the Inniskilling
Dragoons. This man was not forthcoming as a witness,
but evidence was given by a sergeant of the 7th Dragoon
Guards that in 1858 ae was stationed with his regiment at
Canterbury, and that one John Edward Tolson was there in
the regiment, and that they afterwards went to India, where
ho left that man alive in 1863. He was shown a photograph,
which he recognised as the likeness of that man, but the
attesting witness of the first marriage, being shown the
photograph, could not speak positively to it as being the
likeness of the man to whom the prisoner was married. In
1860 she married another man named Hinds at Faversham,
in Kent, being than described as a widow, and he lived
with her for three years, and then, hearing of the first mar-
riage, gave her into custody for bigamy. Tho prisoner's
defence in substance was that she did not know her first hus•'
band was alive.
Mr Jastice Willes, in summing up the case to the jury,
said that if the second marriage took place after the first
husband had not been heard of for seven years the offence of
bigamy could not be committed, but here the observation
did not apply, for the first marriage was in 1855, and the
second in 1860, only five years afterwards. The offence,
however, could not be committed if the first husband was
not alive. And the evidence as to this was doubtful, be-
cause there was great doubt as to the identity of the first
husband with the John Edward Tolson proved to have
been alive in 1863 ; and the photograph was not evidence
to be relied upon. The jury must be satisfied that the first
husband was alive when she married the second.
The jury, after a brief consultation, found the prisoner
Not Guilty, at which there was the beginning of a burst
of applause.

folding-door of the parlours, the duor of which he had burst
open. He was hanging forward iu a sitting position, with
his teat touching the ground, so that he could have saved
himself if he liked. The rope by which he was hanging was
a skipping-rope (produced). Found in his pockets the key
of the parlour-door, which he had locked and put in his
pocket. Found also some money, a latch-key, and part of a
Metropolitan Railway ticket from Gower-street to Baker-
street. Found a savings-bank book of the Marylebone Bank
in the name of Bishop, £BO is 6d, had been paid, in, but
had been repaid all but £2 15s 10d. The last payment in
was, £1 on the 13th July, There was no Christian name to
the name "Bishop." Brown went by that name as well as
her. The last receipt for rent was made out from Mr Bishop,
dated March 26, and signed by Mrs Summers, the landlady.
On searching the back kitchen found the hearthstone had
been taken up, and the earth recently disturbed, but there
was a drain passing under it. There were marks of blows
and also blood on the ceiling of the back kitchen, which
was very low.

Wm. Royalance, the person referred to by the witness
Murphy as having heard the statement of Mrs Loader—He
said he lived at 16, Smith• street, and on hearing of the
murder he jumped over the back wall and saw Mrs Loader.
She said she was there when the murder took place, for,
hearing screams, she opened the back kitchen door and saw
the woman bleeding on the floor, having heard screams and
a heavy fall previously. She exclaimed, " My God, Brown,
aro you murdering the woman ?" and he said, " No, only a
faint ;" and he sent for some beer, which she fetched, and
that he then sent her out for some liver and bacon, and
when she came back she asked where Mrs Bishop was, and
he then said she had gone out and stood at the window
and made faces at him.
By a Juror—Remember Mrs Loader distinctly stating
that she saw the poor wretch bleeding in the back kitchen.
Elizabeth Royalance, wife of the last witness, gave cor-
roborative testimony on this point, and added that Mrs
Loader told her that she was so unnerved by the sight of
the blood that she went for the beer and had three half-
penny worth of gia to settle her nerves. Witness told her
instead of acting as she had done she ought to have brought
in a policeman with her.
Mrs Leader was recalled, and asked what she had to say

in answer to this evidence. She said she was very excited,
but did not recollect saying anything of the kind. In answer
to questions, she said she heard the screams and a cry of
" Murder," and a blow and a fall.
Mr Winkworth said there were five dents in the ceiling ;
fcur as if struck with the edge of a hatchet downwards, and
one blow which had cut through the ceiling with the edge
of the hatchet.

There being no further evidence,
The room was cleared of strangers, and after a conference
of half an hour the court was re-opened, and the jury re-
turned the following verdicts :
In the case of Rosetta Bishop—" That the said Rosetta
Bishop died from the fracture of her skull from blows given
by means of a hatchet given by James Brown, and that the
said James Brown did feloniously and maliciously kill and
murder the said Rosetta Bishop.
"That the said James Brown did wilfully and maliciously
subsequently destroy himself by strangulation, being at the
time in a sound state of mind, and that the said James
Brown was guilty of fele de se."
The Coroner said it was now his duty, in accordance with
the law, to direct that the body of the said James Brown
should be buried within 24 hours, and that the said burl a
should take place without the ceremony of the Church, of
any other religious ceremony being performed over it.
The witness Loader was then directed to be brought into
court.
The Coroner said he was requested by the jury, to censure
her most severely for not having called the attention of the
police to the fact, clearly established, that she had seen the
poor woman covered with blood and heard her screams. He
had also to tell her that her evidence throughout had been
mast unsatisfactory and prevaricating, and that she was do-
serving of the most severe censure for her conduct through-
out this most dreadful affair.
The proceedings, which excited deep interest, then closed.