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

THE SITN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1864.

the word " Coventry." When troublesome or
naughty he was vaguely menaced with being "sent
to Coventry," which he thought from the circum-
stances under which the threat was uttered, must
be a far from agreeable mission. They had now ex-
perienced the sensation, and, so far from it being a
punishment to be sent to Coventry, it should be, in
his opinion, the reward for good conduct. (A laugh.)
They had to thank the Mayor and Corporation of
Coventry for the assistance they had rendered them,
and although Lichfield was a smaller place and more
modern, the corporation there were no less generous
in placing at their command all that they had to
show. (Cheers.)
Mr. REPTON, M.P., moved the next resolution, as
follows :—" That the cordial thanks of the meeting
be given to the exhibitors of articles in the museum,
especially to her Most Gracious Majesty, the Right
Hoy, the Lords Leigh, Warwick, Craven, Denbigh,
Dormer, and other contributors, and the Warwick-
shire Natural History and Agricultural Society,
who have so largely contributed to its success."
(Applause.)
Mr. GREAVES, M.P., moved :—" That the very
hearty thanks of this meeting be tendered to the
proprietors of Kenilworth and Maxstoke castles,
and other places, so kindly thrown open by them to
the institute."

Thanks to the local committees were then passed
on the motion of Sir R. Kirby ; and the Rev. Mr.
Bingham moved a vote of thinks to the contribu-
tors of papers. This was acknowledged by Mr.
Featherstone, who expressed his regret that,
although they had an architectural society in the
county of Warwick, they did nothing either in the
way of excavations or publications. He hoped, how-
ever, after this spur to their proceedings, they would
rise like a phoenix from the ashes into which they
had sunk, and that their motto would be "Be-

surgam."
Lord NEAVES, in moving a vote of thanks to
Lord Leigh for his conduct as president of the
meeting, said they all knew his lordship as the pro•
meter of every good work within the sphere in
which his influence could reach ; and although
this institute might not rank with those higher
ones connected with objects of benevolence and chas
rity, yet in some sense he trusted it might be re-
garded as one which embraced not only material
things, but alsd those influences that purified our
minds, enlightened our hearts, and enlarged oar re-
lations with all of our species, past, present, and
future. (Applause.)
Mr. BERESFORD HOPE seconded the vote, and
alluding to the remarks of Mr. Greaves, said it was
he and other members of Parliament that had de-
stroyed Guy of Warwick in passing an act for abos
lishing the observance of the sth of November.
Lord LEIGH acknowledged the vote of thanks to
himself, and said he had deemed it a great honour
to preside over sucha meeting, and that honour had
been enhanced by their electing him one of their
members.
Tho proceedings of the congress thus terminated.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—GUILDFORD, Ara. 2.

The business of the assizes eoinmeneed here to-day.

Mr Justice Willes charged the grand jury. The calendar
contained less than 20 cases, all of which were of the most
ordinary character, with the exception of the supposed case
of murder at Penge ; as to which, however, the learned
Judge rather advised the grand jury to throw out the bill
(the evidence not being sufficient), and they acted on that
advice and threw it out. There is also, indeed, a case not
in the calendar (as it was a case of bail) which will be of
great interest. It is the charge of manslaughter against the
engineman and driver of one of the Ascot trains on account
of the late unfortunate railway accident at Egham. In the
course of the day the grand jury found the bill, Mr Ser-
geant Ballantine and Mr Sleigh are retained for the defence
of one of the men ; Mr Philbriek and the Bon. Alfred
Thesigcr are retained for the defence of the other. The case
will come on to-morrow (this day).
There were two or three cases of arson, one or two of
burglary, two or three of traud, and a case of bigamy ; the
others wore cases of larceny. In the Civil Court. where Mr
Baron Martin. presided, 110 cases were entered for trial, of
which as many as 35 are special jury cases. It is probable,
therefore, that the business of the assizes will last at least
a fortnight. The criminal business will take a second, if
not a third day, and then both judges will doubtless try
causes. This will be about Thursday or Friday, when one
judge will probably take special jury cases.
CnowN Cool:T.
(Before Mr Justice Willes,)

A young labourer named Shelley was tried for maliciously
and icluniously setting fire to a barn and other farm build-
ings at Englcfield-green, Egharn.
Mr Lilley was counsel for the proncution ; Mr Oppen-
hcim defended the prisoner.

The prisoner was known to the prosecutor for some four
years before the time of the fire. The prisoner at 11 o'clock
in the evening, about a quarter of an huur before the fire
broke cut, was sitting in a publichouse near the barn, ssked
for some lucifer-matches, and was then seen to go in the
direction of prosecutor's barn. Soon after he returned to
the publichouse and gave the alarm of fire. He assisted in
extinguishing it, and went to work the next day. lie was
afterwards arrested, and when in the police-station made a
confession of the crime charged against him, alleging
drunkenness as an excuse. The property destroyed by the
fire was worth several hundreds of pounds.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, but strongly recom-
mended him to mercy on account of previous good
character.

The learned Jazlgo seemed surprised at this, and, after a
pause, said he should take time to consider how far such a
recommendation could be attended to in a case of such a
serious crime, and one in which property to so large an
amount had been destroyed.
In the meantime some other prisoners were arraigned,
and then

The learned Judge desired the inspector of police to stand
up, and asked him if he knew anything of the prisoner, and
the inspector stated in answer that some 7 months ago there
was another fire, as to which grave suspicions were excited
against him, but not enough to lead to his being given into
custody. Nothing else was known about him.
The learned Judge, in passing sentence upon the pri-
soner, said the recommendation of the jury, who were his
judges as to the facts, had saved him from a very severe
punishment. For such a crime he would otherwise have
been sentenced to a term of penal servitude at least thrice as
long as that which would be inflicted. Paying the greatest
respect, however, to the recommendation of the jury, he
could not be sentenced to less than four years' penal ser-
vitude. _

A man name: Harry was indicted for feloniously setting
fire to a shed.

In the course of the case an important point of criminal
procedure arose, which it may be remembered also arose al
Maidstone.

Mr John Thompson appeared for the prosecution—Mr
Lilley defended the prisoner.
The prisoner and prosecutor lived cicse to each other, and
the shed was attached to the prosecutor's cottage. Late at
night it was found on fire, and as though it had been just
set on fire, and the case for the prosecution was that he
afterwards said that he had gone to bed very early that
night.
The learned Counsel for the prosecution, in stating the
case, proposed to prove some previous circumstances tend-
ing to show a probability that the prisoner was then about
to attempt the act, and he cited the case of "The Queen v.
Dorsett," 2, Carrington and Kirwan, nisi prius cases, to
that effect, where it was held by Mr Justice Maule that
where the question was whether the burning was wilful or
accidental evidence was admissible to show that on another
occasion the prisoner was seen in such a situation as to
render it probable that he was then engaged in the commis-
sion of a similar offence against the same property; but
Mr Justice Willes said that was too loose, and contrary to
all his notions.

Mr Denman, Q.C., as amicus curies, handed to the learned
4dge "Wills on Circumstantial Evidence," a work very
highly esteemed in the profession, in which the case cited
with others cf. the same character were mentioned and com-
mented upon, under the head of "Declarations and Acts
indicative of guilty consciousness or intention," and, allud-
ing to the case of Dossett, the learned author says :
"All such relevant acts of the party as may reasonably
be considered explauctory of his motives and purposes, even
although they may severally constitute distinct felonies,
arc clearly admissible in evidence. Taus, where,
.upon the
trial of a man for setting fire to a stack of straw, it, ap-
peared that it had been set on fire by his having fired a gun
very near to it, evidence was admitted that the stack had
been set on fire the day before, and that the prisoner was
very near to it with •his gun at the same time ("It. v.
Doseett, 2, Car. and Kr., 306, by Mr Justice Manic). So
upon a charge of maliciously shooting, where the question
was whether the act proceeded from accident or design,
evidence was admittc.l that the prisoner had inten:ionally
shot at the same person about a quarter of an hour before.
So, in Tawell's case, the present Lord Wensleydale, then
Mr Baron Parke, admitted evidence that the deceased had
been taken ill several months before, after partaking of
porter with the prisoner, and said that, although this was
no direct proof of an attempt to poison, the evidence was,
nevertheless, admissible, because anything tending to show
antipathy in the party accused against the deceased was
admissible."
Mr Justice Willes, after reading this passage, said that
it very well explained the case cited with reference to the
facts on which it was decided, and it well explained the
principles on which such decisions rested—viz., that where
from the facts proposed to be proved the conclusion may

fairly be drawn thm 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 ho mentioned at Maid-
stone) himself followed that decision in a similar .case—
Garner's case on 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 case 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 conducted the case for the prosecution ; the
prisoner was undefended.
The case of the prosecution was attempted to be proved in
a novel manner, In 1855 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 he 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
he 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 then 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. The prisoner's
defence in substance was that she did not know her first hus •
band was alive.
Mr Justice 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 door of which ho had burst
open. He was hanging forward in a sitting position, with
his feet 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. Itoyalance, 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,
are 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 sho 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 gin 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 Loader 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 fivo 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 felo de se."
The Coroner said it was now his duty, in accordance with

the law, to direct that the body of the said James Drown
should be buried within 21 hours, and that the said buri 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 thejury, 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 fog her conduct through-
out this most dreadful affair.
The proceedings, which excited deep interest, then closed.