The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 20, 1864.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.-AYLESBURY, July 19.

The commission for the county of Buckingham was
opened with all due formality by Baron Bramwell yester-
day afternoon, and this morning the business commenced
at 10 o'clock. It is of a lighter description than has been
known for a long time past, there being not one cause and
only eight prisoners for trial, against whom, however, the
charges are serious—via., one of murder, one of man-
slaughter, two of burglary, two of rape, one of wounding,
with intent, and one of coining.
CROWN COI7RT.
(Before Mr Baron Bramwell.)

Wm. John Stevens was indicted for the wilful murder of
Annie Leeson, at Buckingham, on the 27th February.
Mr Keane, Q.C., and Mr Markby were counsel for the
prosecution—the prisoner being defended by Mr Payne.

From the opening statement of the learned Counsel for
the prosecution it appeared that the prisoner and the poor
girl whose death was the subject of the present inquiry, and
who was a servant in the employ of a butcher at Bucking-
ham, were not only near neighbours but were lovers—at
least there was sufficient proof on the prisoner's side of a
very strong affection. They both used to meet once a week
at Buckingham where her parents lived,and where he lodged
with her parents. On Saturday, Feb. 27, she having then
gone home as usual, went out with a pail to the pump near
her parents' house, and before she could be aware of what
was about to happen the prisoner, whose step had been heard
in the house, was seen to run out after her, say something
to her, and immediately clasp her round the neck, and draw
something across her throat. The poor creature got away
from him and staggered into her master's shop, who to his
horror found her throat cut, and in whose arms she died in
a few minutes, the prisoner having in the meanwhile cut
his own throat so severely as nearly to die himself.

The learned Counsel for the defence examined the charge
and the evidence in support of it, and after a careful inves-
tigation, urged the main—nay, the only point in behalf of
the prisoner—viz., that the state of frenzy he was in from
jealousy drove him beside himself and into the commission
of the dreadful act.

His Lordship then proceeded to sum up the evidence,
and said—" Gentlemen, this is a very sad case. You have
a young girl of good character losing her life through the
act of one who otherwise has been a well-conducted young
man, and who, had his feelings been under proper control,
might have passed the remainder of a respectable life. The
learned judge thbn told the jury that there were three ques-
tions for them to consider—first, how did the girl's death
happen? secondly, by whose hand was her death inficted ?
and, thirdly, if by the prisoner's hand, what was the nature
of the crime? As to the first and second, after the incon-
testable evidence that had been adduced, the jury could
have but little doubt. As to the third, said his lordship,
if a man wilfully inflicts a wound calculated to cause death,
and death ensues, is matters not that he had in his mind
no wish or intention to take life, he must be held respon-
sible for the consequences of his act, and his crime is mur-
der, and the good sense of this is obvious; for what does it
matter to society whether the man intended to kill or not if
he does take life? lam bound to tell you, gentlemen, that
there is no evidence that this crime is other than murder if
you think the prisoner did the act."
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned into court
with a verdict of Guilty, and, after the prisoner had been
called upon in the usual way,
His Lordship sentenced him to death,
(Before Baron ChannelL)

Thomas Price, aged 17, pleaded Guilty to the manslaugh-
ter of Wm. Dale at Beaconsfield, on the 12th June.

In panning sentence, his Lordship said—You have
pleaded guilty to this very serious charge. I have looked
through the depositions in order to see what are the real cir-
cumstances connected with it, and I gather from them that
you caused the death of the deceased under the influence of
great provocation on his part towards yourself. This un-
fortunate event began in what is called a " lark," and I see
that the first act of violence, after the " lark" assumed a
different appearance, proceeded from'the deceased. In re-
turn for the blow you received you threw a stick, which hit
him on the back of the head, when he rose as if for the pur-
pose of hitting you again, staggered towards you, and fell.
I am sure when you come to think of and reflect upon this
sad termination of your dispute, you will feel acutely for
having been the cause of the death of a fellow-creature, and
I therefore think it unnecessary to say anything to increase
your grief, nor do 1 think this mischance calls for a very
severe punishment—l therefore sentence you to three
weeks' imprisonment. _ _

With this case the business of the circuit for the county
of Bucks ended.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—NEWCASTLE, July 18.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr Baron Pigott.)
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY V. NESBITT.

This was an action at the instance of the Great Northern
Railway Company for Ms 31, being the difference between
a third-class railway ticket between King's-cross station,
L ndon, and Morpeth, and a second-class ticket between
the former station and Newcastle, and also for Bs. IC/d.,
being the charge for the defendant's luggage between Lon-
don and Morpath.

Mr Mellish, Q.C., and Mr Davison appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr James, Q.C., and Mr Jones for the defendant.

It appeared from the opening statement of the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendant was the
manager of a large drapery establishment in Newcastle, and
the action was instituted to recover two very small sums,
the payment of which involved a question of principle of
considerable importance to the railway companies, and
which sum he believed the defendant refused to pay. The
present action was brought to recover—first, the sum of
16s. 6d. for difference in fare, which arose in this way. They
would perhaps be aware that on all railways there were what
were called Parliamentary trains—viz., trains which carry
3d-class passengers at ld. per mile, and these trains stopped
at the stations. All railway companies were bound to run
such trains at least once in every 24 hours. A quick train
kayos London at a quarter past 9 in the evening, and arrives
at Newcastle at 5 o'clock in the morning, by which the
Great Northern and the North Eastern carry passengers
who wish to go to Morpeth or the North at Id. a mile—but
they have to wait at Newcastle until 6 o'clock, when a train
takes them to Morpeth, and by that train third-class pas-
sengers could only be booked for Morpeth and the North.
The fare,which is Id. a mile between Morpeth and London,
amounts to £l4s. 3d., while the second-class fare from Lon-
don to Newcastle amounts to £2 Os. 6d., being 16s. 3d. more
than the third-class ticket to Morpeth, It was perfectly
plain from the conduct of the defendant in the case that he
must have known what the regulations of the company
were. On the Bth of April last he went to the King's-cross
station in time to start by the quarter past 9 train,and took
out a third-class ticket for Morpeth. Among other regula-
tions to which third-class passengers were subjected by the
Act of Parliament, there was one that they were not en-
titled to carry with them more than 561 b of luggage. The
defendant came to Ring's-cross station with a portman-
teau and a large parcel, and the largo parcel was not
passengers' luggage at all, as it contained drapery
goods for the purpose of sale. He told the porters to put
his luggage into the Newcastle van, and by the order
they supposed that the defendant was either a first or a
second-class passenger. If they had been told that he was
a third-class passenger to Morpeth he would then have had
to pay lid. for every pound of luggage above 561 b. Having
given these orders to the porter he went and took out a
third-class ticket for Morpeth, and on the back of the
ticket there was the following condition :—" This ticket is
issued on the understanding that it is only available as a
ticket to Merpeth, and should the holder alight at any other
station he or she will have to pay the full second-class fare
from the place of starting." The defendant admitted that
he never had the slightest intention of going to Morpeth,
but simply to Newcastle. This was a device to get to New-
castle for a third-class fare by a train which only carried first
and second-class passengers. When the defendant arrived
at Newcastle the ticket collector checked his ticket and re-
turned it to him, and his luggage being in the Newcastle
van was of course taken out, but tho collector, who knew
the defendant was possessed of a ticket for Morpeth, seized
the luggage before it got out of the station. The luggage
was sent on to Morpeth, and the defendant refusing to pay
for a second-class ticket, as set forth on the conditions of the
back of his ticket, his luggage
was retained until he should
do so. The defendant had brought au action against the
North. Ear tern Railway Company for detaining his luggage,
but the action had yet to be tried by a jury. The question
in the present case was, then, whether the Great Northern
Railway Company was entitled to 16s 3d, the difference be-
tween the third-class fare to Morpeth and the second-class
fare to Newcastle, and also whether they wore entitled to
the 8s lOid for the 611 b parcel, at lid per lb. The defendant
had also thought fit to charge the railway company with
having entered into the agreement to convey him to Nor-
peth by means of fraud. He (the defendant) said that the
word " Parliamentary" on the railway ticket was in large
letters, while the conditions on the back were in small letters,
and that he thought was for the purpose of deceiving him.
That charge, he thought, was entirely unfounded. These
were the facts of the case.
These facts having been proved,
The learned counsel for the defendant contended that the
regulation of the company in preventing a passenger from
stopping
before the end of the journey for which he had
paid was absurd and ridiculous. It must be more advan-
tageous to the company to get rid of the passenger and his
luggage, whom they bad to carry, and the passenger might
be taken ill on the way, and was it to be said he should not
stop on hit journey without paying the difference between
his Parliamentary train fare and the second-class
fare to that place ? These regulations of railway companies,
who were monopolists, ought to bo strictly watched, or the
interests of the public suffered. In point of law he con-
tended that the company had no right to detain either the
defendant or his luggage as they had done.
His lordship having summed up the evidence,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount
claimed.

In the action by the defendant against the company for
detaining his luggage, it was agreed. to refer it to the
decision of his lordship.

MILLER T. THE LIVER TYNE COMMIS§IONERS.

This action has occupied the greater part of the day, and
was brought by the plaintiff, the owner of the brig Jolla