The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-18 00:00:00

The Murder on the North London Railway. i ASSIZ

ADJOURNED INQUEST-THIS DAY.

This morning Mr John Humphreys, the coroner for the
eastern division of the county of Middlesex, resumed at
the Prince of Wales Tavern, Hackney, the in quiry into the
death of Mr Briggs, who was attacked on the I qorth London
railway on the night of Saturday the 9th it Ist., and who
died on the following night. It will be reme sobered that
at the inquest which the coroner opened a wee k ago to-day
Mr J, T. Briggs, the son of deceased, identifi ad the body,
and spoke of the things contained in the carriage being his
property. It was also proved by Mr James Hudson, the
landlord of the Milford Castle, Hackney Wick, that about
20 minutes past 10 on Saturday night (the 9th inst.) the
bogy of Briggs was brought to his house. Since that time
a post mortem examination of the body has been made by
experienced surgeons called in by the coroner for that pur-
pose, and much anxiety has been evinced to ascertain the
views of those gentlemen in reference to the conflicting
rumours which have prevailed as to the immediate cause of
death.
Mr Francis Toulmin, F.R.C.S., said he saw Mr. Briggs
at Bow on Saturday night. He was perfectly unconscious.
He recommended his removal, and he died at his own house
on Sunday night. There was a wound in front of the ear
and a wound behind. Both hands ware bruised. The fore
arm was also bruised and grazed. On raising the scalp a
considerable quantity of blood was discovered. Thero was
a bruise and an abrasion of the skin above the left temple.
The skull was discovered to be fractured. There was also a
fracture and depression of the temporal bone. On remov-

ing the calivarum much blood was found between the bone
and the dura mater, and the dura mater and the brain.
The structure of the brain was perfectly healthy, except
where it had been injured by pressure. The lungs and heart
showed no signs of disease except being a little flabby,
which would be the case in a man of his age. The bruise
en the left temple might have been caused by a fall. The
fracture of the ear he ascribed to a blow horn a blunt in-
strument. Ho attributed death to a fracture of the skull,
1 and depression of the brain. The abrasions on the hands
and arms might have been caused by a person being put in

an attitude of defence.
Mr F. Moojen, of 8, Southampton-street, and Blooms-
bury-square, who appeared for the relatives of the deceased,
said he had no questions to ask Mr Toulmin. .
Mrs Carstine Buchan, of 23, Nelson-square, Peckham,
said she was niece of the deceased. He came to their house
on Saturday the 9th, by appointment, to dine. She reached
Nelson-square at five o'clock, and left about a quarter past
nine. He was at the time in his usual health and spirits.
She understood that he was going direct home. He
was quite sober. Her husband saw him to the omnibus.
Witness did not notice whether he had more than one shirt
stud. She did not notice any particular part of his dress.
The Coroner—Have you any knowledge of any one
having threatened to do him an injury?
Witness—Nut of my own knowledge.
The Coroner—Did you ever hear of such a thing ?

Witness—Never.
The Coroner—Do you know of a person who applied to
him for a loan of money which was refused ?

Witness—Yes.
The Coroner—Did you ever hear that that person had
threatened him ?
Witness—Yes.
The Coroner—Did that person say to the effect that he
would murder him ?

"Witness—l cannot say.
The Coroner—You would not undertake to say it was to
that effect ?

Witness—No, I would noi.
The Coroner—Did he say ho would injure him?

Witness—Yes.
The Coroner—Do you know of any other circumstance
you would wish to communicate to the court ?
Witness—No.
The Coroner—Your husband may have borrowed money
of Mr Briggs. Your examination has no reference to him P
Witness—No.
The Coroner and jury then proceeded to inspect the car-
riage in which the murder took place, and which was
brought to the Hackney-station for their accommodation.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr, Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE J. AND R. LOCRWOOD.

These bankrupts were described as of Bemwood• place,
Edgeware-road, surveyors and auctioneers.
The case had been adjourned for a cash and deficiency ac-
count which had been rendered by Messrs. Hart Brothers
and Hayles, from July, 1862, to March, 1864, Robert Lock.
wood retired in 1863. The accounts, therefore, commence
from the commencement of the pat tnership, and show—
Debtor to creditor, unsecured, £1,475; to creditors holding
security £1,583. The assets are set down at about £1,350
Passed without opposition. The order of discharge ad-
journed.
IN BE REINHART. _ _

The bankrupt had acted as stage manager to Her Ma-
jesty's Theatre, and applied to be released from custody.
Mr. Bayley opposed on the ground that the bankrupt in-
tended to go abroad. The debts are £lOO, chiefly due to
creditors in Vienna.
Mr Reed for the bankrupt said his client had been en-
gaged in a theatre in Vienna and had accepted bills from
the lessee, on one of which he had been arrested in this
country.
His Honour said he would release the bankrupt on his
finding bail himself in £lOO and two sureties in £5O each.

INTELLIGENCE,

HOME ClRCUlT—Cfmetsronto, July 16.
(Before Baron Martin.)
CHARGE OF MURDER.
Emma Howard alias Emma Pudney, 23, a wretched-
looking young woman, was indicted for the wilful murder
of her child, George Isaac Howard, otherwise Pudney.
Mr Walford and Mr Philbrick prosecuted, and the prisoner
was defended by Mr Peirce and Mr E. T. Smith.
The facts of this case were very simple, and the evidence
for the prosecution left no doubt that the prisoner bad
not
only committed the act imputed to her, but had else. at-
tempted to destroy the life of another infant; but at the
same time it also established the fact that the prisoner was
in such a state of mind at the time as not to be criminally
responsible for her actions. It appeared that she lived with
her mother at Halstead, and that she had two illegitimate
children, the one that lost its life, who was about a year
and a half old, and another about four years old. She got
her living by silk weaving, but it appeared that at the time
the offence was committed the prisoner was in a most miser-
able state of poverty, and this had, no doubt, affected her
mind, and, coupled with her mental condition in other re-
speWs, drove her to the commission of the act with which
she was charged. It seemed that on the afternoon of the
28th of March the prisoner left her mother's house with her
two children, stating that she could not support them, and
that it was her intention to go to the union and
ask for some assistance. In about an hour she returned
without the children, and when she was asked what
had become of them, she replied that she hoped they
were in heaven. A police constable who happened to be
accidentally passing the river Colne, towards which the
prisoner had been seen walking with her children in the
afternoon in question, heard a child's voice cry out, " I
shall fall! I shall fall!" and on going to the spot he saw
the eldest child hanging by both hands from the branch of
a tree and up to its neck in water, and the younger child
floating in the water and apparently dead. He rescued
the first-mentioned child, and then got the second out of
the water, but it was quite dead. The constable afterwards
went to the house of the prisoner's mother and found her
there, and asked her if it was true what he had heard re-
specting her children, and she replied that it was, and she
then said that she would go anywhere with him, but that
she wished first to see her dear children, She then said
that she first threw the younger child into the water,
and that she held the other child to look at him while
he was struggling in the river, and then threw him in,
and he turned his face to her and called out " Mother,
mother I" and she went away. The prisoner did not seem
to have attempted to conceal what she had done, and, ac-
cording to the evidence of her mother, ehe had been for a
considerable period before the occurrence in a low and de-
spending state, and that fears were entertained that she
would do violence to herself, and that since the birth of her
last child she had frequently complained of her head, and it
appeared that several members of her family had been con-
fined in a lunatic asylum. The statement was confirmed by
the testimony of a medical gentleman named Sinclair, who
had attended the prisoner, and who stated that she had on
several occasions exhibited indications of her brain being
affected.
The jury, without troubling Mr Peirce to address them,
returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity,
and the prisoner was ordered to be detained during her
Majesty's pleasure.
Tho wretched creature was removed from the bar shriek-
ing, and calling out " Oh my dear children I oh my dear
children I "
This concluded the business of the assizes.

WESTERN CIRCUIT—SALISBURY, July 16.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Byles.)
RHOADES V. COOPER—LIBEL—LI,OOO DAMAGES.
Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr H. T. Cole were coons©
for the plaintiff; Mr Sleigh (specially retained) and Mr
Turner represented the defendant.
This was an action for libel under very peculiar circum-
stances. The defendant pleaded not guilty and justification.
Mr Sleigh, however, withdrew the latter plea before the case
was gone into.
The plaintiff, Susan Rhoades, is the daughter of a former
tradesman of Salisbury, now deceased, Mr Cooper is a
solicitor, about 60, practising in the same town. It appeared
he had known the plaintiff all her life, and was always appa-
sently very fond of her. In 1853 or 1854 he began to pay her
more particular attentions, and desired to become her hus-
band. He walked and drove with her, took her to buy new
furniture for his house, and treated her in every respect as
his affianced wife. In 1856, when she was about 17 years
of ago, he seduced her. On her giving birth to a child he
refused to marry her, but offered to settle £lOO a year upon
her for life, on condition that she remained single, and held
no immoral intercourse " with any person whomsoever."
A deed was drawn up, and defendant duly paid the first
quarter's annuity. From that time to the present some-
thing like twenty actions have been brought, and they
have all boon given against the defendant with costs.
On each occasion he has pleaded, but failed to prove,
that the young lady is unchaste. He had himself at-
tempted to renew the intercourse with her, but she refused.
to see him except in the presence of a third person. In 1855
he wrote her a letter, in which he considered her to be a most
persecuted lassie. Some time ago he caused a plea which he
intended to plead in. " action 21," as he termed it, to be
lithographed, and sent copies to Mr Wilson, one of the
county coroners, the Salisbury magistrates, and others. In
it he charged Miss Rhoades with having had immoral inter-
course with men, and also with having, sinca the preceding
action, given birth to a second child. This was the libel
complained of. The action was originally brought in Lon-
don, but the defendant applied to a judge at chambers and
got the venue changed to Salisbury, for the purpose, it was
alleged, of rendering her appearance in court more painful
and distressing to the plaintiff, on account of her being so
well known in the town. Defendant's conduct was severely
censured by Mr Coleman, in his opening address.
Miss Rhoades was examined.
Witnesses having been called to prove the publication of
the libel,
Mr Sleigh proceeded to address the court in mitigation of
damages. He admitted that the defendant had acted un-
wisely and upon erroneous impressions, but at the same
time he contended that the plaintiff had sustained no da-
mage through the publication of the libel. Those who
know her were shown to entertain as much respect for her
now as they did before. There was no malice on the part
of the defendant, and he submitted that very moderate
damages would meet the justice of the case.
His Lordship, in summing up, said there could be no
question that the document which the defendant had issued
was a libel. The only question, therefore, was one of
damages, and on this point he would say nothing what-
ever to influence their decision.
Tha jury almost immediately found a verdict for the
plaintiff, damagt, s, £l,OOO.