The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-17 00:00:00

', THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 17, 1864.

or to extend the business of the bank. He had no recollec'
tion of defendant speaking of the rumoured losses the bank
had had to a large amount. He did not say that a friend
of his, Dr Cook, and Mr Chatteris, the accountant, had
cautioned their manager against Mr Stern and Emanuel and
Brillman, The defendant referred to the downward move-
ment of the shares. That was the ground on which he was
to issue the circular. He expressed his dissatisfaction of the
general management of the bank, but not of the directors.
Mr Lewis—Did he not say before he paid his call he would
call a meeting of shareholders and know how the bank stood
and that he would make the directors liable for every shil-
ling the shares had cost him ?

Witness said not that he was aware of. The defendant
did not read the whole of the letter. What he said was to
the effect that he was going to call a meeting. Defendant
did not read the whole of the letter. Witness only gathered
he intended to call a meeting of shareholders, and when he
pointed out the damage it would do defendant said he must
take his shares at par.
Mr Lewis—Will you swear that he did not say that be
would make the directors liable for every shilling ho had
paid for his shares ?
Witness said he would. He did not recollect that defen-
dant asked what amount of losses the bank had sustained.
He had no doubt he told him he was not in a position to tell
him. A dividend was declared on June 30, 1864. The
balance was prepared by the three auditors of the bank, and
is signed by them. Witness did not recollect what the pro,
fit was up to that time. He thought it was about £4,000.
Mr Lewis—Do you not know that you had sustained a loss
or £15,000 by Messrs Emanuel and Brillman at that time ?

Witness said the loss was not sustained at that time. He
did not believe any of the bills were dishonoured at that
time. He did not think it likely that the £4,000 profit was
formed partly from the interest on the bills by which the
bank had sustained the loss. Witness did not know that
Dr Cook and Mr Chatterie, before June 30, cautioned the
manager with respect to the debts of Mr Stern, and Messrs
Emanuel and Brillman.

Re-examined by Mr Metcalfe—He had not heard that Dr
Cook had applied for accommodation on bills of Mr Symons,
and was refused.

Mr Lewis said ho was instructed th%t that was quite un-
true. His client was well known to be a man of extensive
property.

Witness's re-examination continued—An accountant had
been employed to go through the accounts. He had reserved
his answers to the charges in the bill by the advice of his
solicitor. The day for the cross-examination of the defendant
was fixed. He thought Dr Cook and another gentleman
were present at the time defendant made his threat.
Mr Lewis said Dr Cook was the gentleman who had
cautioned Mr Symons.
Witness in answer to Mr. Metcalfe, said—The chairman
at the meeting at Leeds informed the shareholders that a
bill had been filed charging the directors with negligence,
and that a summons had been taken out against Mr Symons
for attempting to extort money. The feeling of the share-
holders was, with the exception of Mr Symons and another
gentleman, one of confidence in the directors, and strong
against the defendant.
John Peacock Turner said he was manager to the London
and Northern Bank, and prior to occupying that position
was 21 years in the London and Westminster. He was
cashier in the Unity Bank for four years, and was after that
manager to a branch bank of the London and Middlesex.
He had been manager to the London and Northern Bank
since the formation in .1862. The loss of the bank was, in
his opinion, about £20,000 or £30,000, and the bank was at
the present time quite solvent, and up to September was
making large profits. He knew Mr Symons. He had seen
him at the bank several times. He went immediately after
the losses were discovered to get some information respect-
ing the kisses. Witness could not give him any information
and he demanded to see the books, which witness would
not allow without an order from the board. Defendant said
that unless he had his shares taken off his hands at par he
would bring down that bank the same as he had another
bank, and he intended to call a meeting immediately. Wit-
ness told him he could not take his shares at par, but if he
heard of anyone wanting to purchase he would let him
know. He did hear of some one wishing to purchase 50
shares at £5 discount, and told the defendant, but ho said,
" No; he must take his shares at par." On another occa-
sion defendant said witness must give him a cheque for
£l,OOO, as he had then a circular prepared and in his pocket
to call a meeting, and he must have £l,OOO, and he would
give a month for the remainder. He told defendant he would
see what he could do, and communicate with him by five
o'clock. He mentioned the matter to some of the directors,
who would not allow him to pay any money, and he did not
pay it. Dr Cook went with the defendant on some occa-
sions, and was present at some of the interviews, and hoard
what was said. Witness had refused to discount for Dr
Cook Mr Symons's acceptance for £1,500. That was in
July. Af.ec the bill was filed it was taken to him by Mr
Lewis. Witness had seen the circular produced before, not
in the defendant's hands.

This was the case on the part of the complainant.
Mr Alderman Stone said the threat must be positive and
&dined—not inferred as it appeared to him it was in this
C 389 ; and ho did not think there was sufficient in tho evi-
dence to establish the threat within the act of Parliament.

DSr mciccare evutc.ded that he had threatened to issue
the circular with intent to extort the mono,.
Some slight discussion ensued, Mr Metcalfe contending
that the threat to publish anything touching another with
a view to obtain money came within the meaning of the
act equally as if the matter contained in it were libel.
Mr Alderman Stone raid no doubt the statute was in-
tended to punish where an attempt was made to extort
money ; but he did not think that this case came within
the term to extol t money ; and moreover it would bo wrong
in him, while a suit was pending in the Court of Chancery
charging the directors with certain things, to put that aside
by deciding the case upon a summons in that Court, and he
was not of opinion that the matter published was of such a
character as came within the meaning of the statute, and
he should therefore dismiss the summons.

Summons dismissed accordingly,
:Cho case occupied nearly five hours.

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

THE TIMES AND Da. SMETHIIRST.—We cannot
affect to be in the least surprised that Dr. Smethurst
should have thought fit to try himself over again
at the bar of his own opinion,and should have seized
an opportunity to publish the verdict in our columns.
What does surprise us, and, indeed, fills us with
amazement, is that he should venture to represent
our passing allusion to him in connection with Mul-
ler's case as "alike injurious to myself, the Govern•
went, and the people." We must presume that Dr.
Smethurst understands his own interests better than
any one else, though we are at a loss to conceive how
they can be advanced by obtruding himself on the
public, but we emphatically decline to identify them
with those of the Government or of " the people."
If our remarks were injurious to himself, it must
have been the fault of the facts, for we simply dirs•
claimed any intention to question "the justice of the
final decision," and confined ourselves to censuring
the particular method in which the sentence was
reviewed by Sir G. C. Lewis. Dr Smethurst, it is
true, demands something more than neutrality and
suspension of judgment; he claims the expression
of a judgment in his own favour. We take the
liberty of informing him that such a claim will never
be recognised by us. We find nothing in the Come
mon Law which gives a pardon the effect which he
attributes to it. It makes the offender "a new
man," it relieves him from
" all corporal penalties
and forfeitures," it gives him a right of action
against any one who shall call him felon or traitor,
but that is all. It leaves his character where it
found it, except so far as it is granted upon proofs
of innocence which carry conviction to the public
mind. Not only may the recipient of it have been
guilty of crimes as odious as the one to which it
applies; he may have been proved guilty of that
very crime in the opinion of the Home Secretary
himself, but under circumstances different from
those inferred by
the jury from the evidence. We
cannot suppose that the Lord Chief Baron meant
to lay down a doctrine which would conflict with
this in the passages quoted by Dr Smethurst—as-
suming, of course, that they are correctly quoted.
We may say that we have searched our owu law
reports for them in vain under the dates specified
by Dr Smethurst, and have referred with equal ill
success to the pages of the Law Journal. If the
words in question were really uttered by the Lord
Chief Baron, which we by no means deny, we pre•
mine they were used in reference to the case of Mr
Hatch ; but, whatever their immediate purport, they
are far from justifying the construction put upon
them by Dr Smethurst. They imply no more than
this—which is matter of common notoriety—that a
pardoned man must be taken to have been wrongly
convicted—that is, either convicted of a crime which
he did not commit, or on inadequate evidence of a
crime which he did commit, and that in either case
he is thenceforth " innocent"of that crime in the eye of
the law. But Dr Smethurst is not content with mak-
ing a demand which we have shown to be exorbi-
tant. He insists on going into the details of his
own trial, with a view to show that the jury would
have been wrong in convicting him of murder upon
any theory whatever. It is doubtless with the same
objtct that he fortifies himself with the high autho.
rity of the German Legal Protection Society, who
state explicitly that " the accusation was found to
be false," and that "no one ever since doubted that
he was wrongfully convicted of the crime of which
he was adjudged to death." We have not the least
wish to undertake the duty which Dr. Smethurst
imposes upon us, but we cannot allow him to mis-
lead the public by his own version of the facts. A
very short summary of them will suffice for the pre-
sent purpose. Dr. Smethurst was indicted for and
convicted of the murder of Miss Bankes, and the
case for the prosecution was directed to show that
he administered poison to her with intent to pro.
duce death. All the evidence with respect to his
alleged interest in the lady's death, the execution
of her will, and so forth, was adduced in support of
that hypothesis, and would lose much of its signifie
canoe on the supposition that he administered poison

with intent to procure abortion. This Was the sugs
gestion made by the Lord Chief Baron after a care-
ful examination of the materials submitted to him
by Sir G. C. Lewis, some of which we then pro-
duced for the first time. It is to this that Dr.
Smethurst now addresses himself, volunteering to
demonstrate its absurdity. The arguments, and the
only arguments, upon which he relies, are, first, the
improbability of his having attempted to procure
abortion at so very early a stage of pregnancy as
that supposed; secondly, the improbability of his
having employed poison in preference to instru-
ments. Now it is no doubt true that, according to
the testimony of medical witnesses for the prose-
cution, the pregnancy of Miss Bankes must:have
begun about the same time as her illness, and it is
very probable that it would never have been sus.
petted by a medical man not cognieant of Miss
Bankes's seduction. It may also be true, for aught
we know that " a stiletto would have done the busi-
ness in the course of an hour or so ;" but these, after
all, are but a priori reasons, and a far more solid
kind of proof was laid before the jury. Dr Smethurst
alludes to it himself when he ridicules the idea of
his having administered " arsenic and antimony" to
effect abortion. Of this, so far as we are aware, he
was not accused, but of administering some irritant
poison, and probably either arsenic or antimony.
The chief grounds upon which he was accused re-
main to be stated. When Miss Bankes's body was
examined appearances of a highly abnormal charac-
ter presented themselves, One scientific witness
after another swore that they were such as might
have resulted from poison, and could hardly have
resulted, if at all, from the action of any known dis-
ease; This conclusion was identical with that to
which three medical men were led independently by
an observation of the symptoms during life. At the
same time, distinct though slight traces of antimony
were detected by Dr. Taylor in certain organs, and
it happened that a letter of the prisoner OD: Julius
referred to a prescription containing antimony, al-
though no such prescription had been given. Waiv-
ing the more doubtful questions,such as that relating
to the symptoms of poisoning by arsenic, and that
concerning the relative eminence of the chemists and
doctors called for the prosecution and defence, there
is surely enough here, coupled with Dr Smethurst's
relation to the deceased and his conduct during the
illness, to raise a presumption of his guilt. We say
a presumption, for it was of course capable of being
rebutted by evidence of equal weight,and an attempt
was made to do so. The discovery of the antimony
was never disproved or explained, but the quantity
being small the inference founded on it was dis-
credited, It was urged that no poison was found in
the prisoner's possession, though he had easy means
of geting access to it; discrepancies were pointed out
between the symptoms noticed and those consequent
upon an timonial poisoning, and the former were
ascribed to dysentery supervening on pregnancy.
It would be Equally futile and improper for us to
strike a balance between these considerations, but
we have no hesitation in stating our opinion that
unless the jury were satisfied with this part of the
case far the prosecution their verdict was unwar.
rentable. The Chief Baron's view of it was clearly
indicated, and has never been retracted, and the sub-
sequent statement of his opinion that "the prisoner
ought not to be hanged" is a very different thing,
as Dr Smethurst must well know, from a testimonial
to his innocence. Such a testimonial, however, if
Dr Smethurst is correct, was furnished by Sir G. C.
Lewis in his place in Parliament. As the passage
alleged to contain it is quoted in the letter at length,
we need only draw attention to the concluding Ben,
tence :—" That was the hypothesis which a consi-
deration of all the evidence had suggested to him
(the Chief Baron), but it was an hypothesis wholly
different from that which was adopted by the pro-
secution at the trial, or from that which was sub-
mitted by the judge to the jury, and it is impossible
for me to say whether, if that view of the evidence
had been submitted to them, they would have found
a verdict of guilty." If this is what Dr Smethurst
calls " settling the question" of any doubt as to his
innocence, he is very welcome to it. To us, so far
from settling the question, it appears to leave it
open in express terms, and this is exactly what was
done by Sir B. Brodie's report. A perusal of that
report, temperate and impartial as it is, will cer-
tainly not weaken any objection to the course pure
sued by Sir G. C. Lewis. It embraces topics far
beyond the province of a physician, however emi-
nent, and by acting avowedly upon it, instead of
consulting Sir B. Brodie privately to inform his own
judgment, the Home Secretary constituted a single
arbitrator into a Court of Criminal Appeal. It was
against this that we protested ; it is against this
that we still protest, in the fixed belief—which we
regret to find is not shared by Dr Smethurst—that
no " danger to the life of the people" arising from
erroneous convictions is half so great as that which
would arise from increased uncertainty in the
punishment of the guilty.