The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-21 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.MAIDSTONE, March 20.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightmsn.)
The learned Judge to-day, in the first instance,
passed sentences upon several prisoners who had
been convicted of felony, and whose cases had been
considered.

The first case taken was that of the girl who had
been convicted of stealing two or three articles—a
silver crucifix and a few photographs from letters
in a post-office in which she had been assistant. The
caseoun was a very painful one. The
g ma
19 years of age, and had
young
in mnanwyarseospnelycts
been very unhappily brought up. She was of re-
spectable appearance and rather pretty, and had
formed some connexion with a young man, who, it
was stated, was willing to marry her.
Mr. Hurrell, who had conducted the prosecution
on the part of the Post-office, had stated that the
authorities were of opinion that she was not so
guilty as some other persons who had not been
brought to justice, and that the case was one in
which a lenient sentence might satisfy the law.
Mr. Barrow, her counse,, briefly addressed the
learned judge on her behalf in mitigation of punish-
ment, stating the facts above mentioned and some
, and begged his
ol
otrhdesrh
imp ittoi g aptaisnsg
succihreaunissetnatneenecse as might temper
justice with mercy, and not utterly ruin her pros-
pects
The learned Judge said he had carefully read the
undergone very
t
regretted that a
gderepaotsiteioonnssidaenradtitohna, theHe cdaseeephlayd
young woman apparently BO res pectable should stand
what had. been
sintasteudell a
on phoesritbieohnLfeseyetchiaeillyeaarfnteedr counsel. He had
given every possible weight to these considerations,
but the security of the Post-office was so important
that he felt he could not pass a less sentence than
three years' penal servitude.
Two soldiers who had been convicted of burglary
and robbery in a dwelling house were sentenced to
six Tears' penal servitude.

The next case was that of Kirby and Ward
who had been convicted of forging a certificate, and
causing a false entry of the death of a young woman
i
with intent to defraud an nhurance• office, in which
an insurance had been effected upon her life by the
last named prisoner, Ward. The fraud was evi-
dently a contrivance of Ward, who was already a
convicted felon, having been in 1859 sentenced to
three years' penal servitude, He bad effected the
insurance evidently for his own advantage, and then
forged a certificate of a medical man of her death,
and had shown it
.to the registrar of deaths in order
to
certificatedget him
girls
a view to obtain
i s
death and give a
toco
prye golfs ttehr the
theen g w
entry
r y
payment of the money insured. He had made Kirby
his tool for the purpose, and they had managed to
get the officer to make the entry ; but his suspicions
having been awakened, he delayed giving a copy of
the entry, and made inquiries in the meantime
which led to the detection of the fraud.
The learned Judge now sentenced Ward, the worst

Thomas Wood ham was charged with the mat-
slaughter of Henrietta Robinson, at Knottingley,
near Pont. fract, on the 6th January last.
Mr. Wheelhouse and Mr. Campbell Foster pro-
secuted, the prisoner being defended by Mr. Die)),
Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Hannay.
The prisoner, it appeared, on the morning named
was the pointaman at the semaphore and junction,
about 300 yards from the Knottingley station, and
it appeared that on that day two trains—one from
Leeds, the other from York—ought to have been
brought together, so as to form one conjoint train on
to London. Each started about 7.30 a.m., and cus-
tomarily arrived at the Knottingley statiom at the
same time, namely half-past 8. The York train
did so arrive, and (the main line being under re-
p-ir) was being turned on to the Goole line,
when the Leeds train, consisting of font carriages
and a break, dashed into it, and destroyed, by
breaking into fragments, two of the carriages
forming part of the York train. In one of
these the deceased was travelling, and she could only
be extricated by the broken carriage being jacked
up and she was then dug out from beneath. The
question really was as to whether the prisoner had
done all that was necessary, or was guilty of eclpa-
ble negligence on the evasion, so as to involve him
in the legal criminality of a charge of manslaughter.
It was shown that the prisoner had for many
years been one of the most careful and efficient cf
the pointsmen, but that on this morning, which was
both extremely foggy and very frosty, by some
means or other, the distance signal, as it was called,
was down, so as to indicate line clear, when in point
of fact it ought to have stood at up or danger, inas-
much as the York train was but just gone past, and
the collision that took place was of course almost
certain to occur unless that train had got out of the
way entirely. Besides Mrs. Robinson some three
or four other persons were more or less seriously
injured.
Mr. Seymour elicited that the morning was very
foggy and frosty, and that a week afterwards that
semaphore in consequence, it is supposed, of the
frosty weather, would not work, and
The Judge put it to the jury as to whether, atter
that, they dare safely convict.
Mr. Seymour added that the prisoner had received
no less than 16 bonuses for careful and good conduct
n this iduty.
The jury thereupon returned a verdict of not
guilty, and
His Lordship added that he hoped that nothing
which had occurred during this inquiry would ope-
rate to lessen the good character that the prisoner
had on all hands received.

The prisoner was ordered to be immediately dis-
charged.
James Cass was indicted for shooting at ELiza
Spencer with intent to do her some grievous bodily
harm, at Doncaster, on Sept. 21 last.

Mr. Middleton and Mr. Serle prosecuted ; Mr.
Campbell Foster defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutrix was a domestic
servant at Doncaster, and on the day in question her
friend Martha Raistrick called on her, and her
sweetheart, the prisoner, and a young man named
Bailey, the sweetheart of Martha Raistrick, went
out walking together on the Sunday afternoon. On
the way the prosecutrix gathered a nettle and net-
tled the prisoner's face. He said, "D- it, don't,"
on which she, of course, did it again, and he said,
" D- it, Liz, don't be so soft." This was alleged
on the part of the prosecution to have angered the
prisoner, and they went home. At night the four
again met, the girls walking out together, followed
by the prisoner and his friend. The girls took no
notice of them, and the young men followed them,
and asked if they meant to walk in that way, when
the prosecutrix got hold of the prisoner's cap and
flung it over a hedge. It was alleged that the pri-
soner became sulky after this, and asked the prose-
cutrix if she meant to walk with him or not, ft 3 no
other man should. She made no answer, but walked
on till they got to a lonely part of Sprotborough-
lane, when prisoner said they would go no further,
and put his hand in his pocket, in which Bailey saw
a pistol and tried to get it from him. He threatened
to shoot Bailey if he did not stand aside. Martha
IListriek said, " Oh, don't, Jim," and the prw.ceu-
trix leant her head against tie wall and began to
cry. The prisoner stepped back five or six yards
into the road and fired a pistol over her head. Both
girls said they saw a flash of lightning, and had a
drumming in their cars for a quarter of an hour
afterwards, and one girl said the lightning was fol-
lowed by thunder. They then all ran breathless
home. The prisoner appeared to have got frightened
and to have hid the pistol in the lane, and next day
he went to the house of the prosecutrix's mother,
who accosted him with " How dare thou show thy
face here, thou villain ?" To which the prisoner
answered, " I've done it ; I've done it. I'm ready
to suffer," and leant his head against the wail.
The place where he fired was afterwards found
to have shot marks in the trees a little above
the place where the girl was standing. On being

It appeared that the plaintiff is a widow, living
in the city of York, earning her livelihood by let •
ting lodgings, The defendant is major in the 12th
Lancers. Some time previous to November last the
defendant engaged rooms at the plaintiff's house.
According to the plaintiff's statement, he engaged
only two sitting rooms' a bedroom, dressing-room,
and servants' rooms. It seems, however, to have
been the impression of the defendant that the bar-
gain was that no one but a lady named Taylor was
to be allowed to occupy any of the other rooms in
the house. In November the defendant and his
bride, accompanied by a lady's-maid and two men
servants, came to live in the plaintiff's house, and
occupied the rooms which have been mentioned;
When they had lived there a month some complaint
was made by the defendant about the amount
of the butcher's and grocer's bills. He complained
to the plaintiff particularly of the amount of tea
used, which he said was enormous. The plaintiff
explained matters by stating that the defendant's
servants consumed a large quantity of tea.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that
no doubt the quantity of tea consumed was consider-
able, but that lady's-maids liked strong tea, that the
servants in the house knew they had a liberal master
and mistress, and availed themselves of the privi-
lege which was allowed them of helping themselves
to whatever they wanted. A little before the 12th
of December the plaintiff let some of the other ,
rooms in the house to a gentleman named Cooper,
but before she did so she mentioned the matter to
Mrs. Wombwell, the defendant's wife. The defen-
dant alleged that Sir Lionel Pilkington had also
been allowed to lodge in the house. Oa the 12th
of December the defendant dined with his wife at
the Residency in York, and they returned to their
rooms at the plaintiff's house together about 11
o'clock at night. Mrs. Wombwell went at once
to her room ; the defendant remained in the pas-
sage and sent for the plaintiff. She was at first un-
willing to come to him at that hour of the night,
but after a little delay she came. According to the
plaintiff's statement a conversation to the following
effect then ensued :—The defendant said, " I hear
that you make more by you: house than any one
else in York. I have paid just double what I
should have paid. There are two other lodgers in
the house. I shall leave on the 14th. There is no
agreement in writing, and you have no hold upon
me." The plaintiff said that she would expect to be
paid up to the 31st, and that the defendant paid no
more for the lodgings than other people did.
The defendant said, " I thought I was to
have the whole house." The plaintiff said, " No,
Major, only the rooms you occupy." The defen-
dant then said, "Do you mean to say that I am
telling a lie ?" The plaintiff said "It is not
true, and I will say so all night !" The defendant
then said " It is a lie," and used language of
a similar kind. The plaintiff answered, " The
falsehood is in your own mouth, Major." The de-
fendant then became very excited ; he flourished
about a stick which he had in his hand, loaded
with lead; he struck it on the hall table, and
threatened to strike the plaintiff. He said he would
knock the plaintiff's -- brains out. She said,
"Until you came I never had any but gentlemen
here." He said "Am I not a gentleman ?" She
said, "Not a very honourable one; you ought to
be ashamed, Major, to abuse me as you have done ;
I will tell every one." Ha said, " Yes,
I will tell every one of you; you shall
not let your house as you have done ;
you have stolen my tea and brandy ; 6lb. of tea in
a month! You are nothing but a swindler and a
thief." The plaintiff said, "If my son were here,
you would not abuse me so." The defendant said
" If your son were hero I would shoot him like a
dog. You are a-- drunken --." During this
scene two of the plaintiff's servants standing near,
and the plaintiff's daughter was sitting in a room
near where she could hear all that was said. The
plaintiff's daughter wrote down on a piece of paper
at the time some of the offensive expressions used
by the defendant ; this paper was produced and
read in court. During the altercation Mr. Womb-
well, the defendant's brother, came down stairs and
heard part of what was said.
On the part of the plaintiff the servant and the
plaintiff's daughter were called as witnesses, and
deposed to the facts above stated.
On cross-examination the plaintiff was asked a
number of questions about the terms on which she
let her lodgings. It appears that the butcher's bill
from Nov. 1 to Dec. 22 amounted to Ll 1 3s. 12cl. In
five weeks 261 b. of loaf sugar was consumed, and
172 of crystal sugar in one month. In the room occu-
pied by the defendant and his wife gas was used and
charged for, but notwithstanding, 71b. of dip candles
and 51b. of sperm candles were used in little more
than a month. 17s. 6d. a week was charged for the
fires in the house; Vb. of tea were used in little
more than a month. The plaintiff said that nothing
was ordered without the knowledge of Mrs. Womb-
well, and that Mrs. Wombwell's servants had con-
trol of everything, and that she was not Mrs. Womb-
well's housekeeper. On one occasion, after the alter-
cation between plaintiff and defendant, Mrs.
Wombwell wanted a mutton chop for luncheon, and
the plaintiff sent the servant up to her with a loin
of mutton and a pair of scales to ask her to weigh the
chops herself.
On the part of the defendant, it was stated that
he had been very greatly provoked by the conduct
of the plaintiff; that when he was called a liar he
became very excited, and although he had used some-
what coarse language to the plaintiff he had never
called her a thief or a swindler, or used any expres-
sions that were actionable. _

Major Wombwell was called as a witness. He
said that on the night in question he spoke to the
plaintiff about the lodgings. He wanted to know
what he was to pay for his rooms. He was annoyed
at two other lodgers being in the house when he
understood that no one but Mrs. Taylor was to be
allowed to occupy the other rooms. The plaintiff told
him that he had taken only the rooms he occupied.
The plaintiff contradicted him and he contradicted
her. She said, "Itis a great falsehood." He said, " I
will not be called a liar by a bitch like that."
He could recollect nothing more. Ho did not recollect
saying that he would leave on the 14th. When plain-
tiff said that she would fetch her son, defendant
said " I don't care a whether you do or not."
Defendant could not recollect whether he had said
that he wouldshoot her son ; but he did recollect that
he never called her a liar or a swindler. He never
said she had stolen tea or brandy. He never said
that he had a mind to knock her brains out. The
stick he had with him was a stick he always carried.
He had a habit of twisting the stick about. He was
just about to go to his club. He had not taken his
hat off. The stick in his hand was a walking-cane.
Mr. Frank Wombwell was called as a witness.
He heard part of the conversation between the
plaintiff and defendant on the night in question,
but heard no actionable expressions used.
Mrs. Wombwell was called, and stated that her
impression was that the plaintiff had agreed to take
no other lodger into the house while she and her
husband were there.
the jury learnedrythattheJruedwgeeri
en
two summingque p
stiuo
liSthfeorctahseemtotlod
try. It was a most unfortunate thing that the case
had been brought into court, but they must deal
with it upon the evidence. In order to conatituto an
assault, it was not necessary that there should be a
battery. If they were of opinion that the defendant
menaced the plaintiff with his stick when he was
with in reach of her, they must find a verdict for
the plaintiff on the count for an assault. In order to
entitle Hi:: plaintiff to a verdict on the count for
slander, it was necessary that they should come to
the opinion that words were spoken imputing felony
to her. If the defendant said of the plaint ift that
she was a thief, meaning to use the words merely
as a term of reproach, that would not be sufficient.
They must come to the opinion that defendant had
used expressions intending to signify that the plain-
tiff had actually been guilty of an indictable offence
before they could return a verdict for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £5O.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BoDmiN, March 20.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
William Berggren (a Swede) wee indicted for the

S h
;_e as,
•ea.eartene.
eea- eeje Nf-'l, -
wilful murder of William Henry Jones,it,Faina
• •
on Nov. 20, aeeate,...aam.a
Mr. Cox prosecuted, and Mr. Bere Frt
of the learned Judge) defended the prtaenaree-, ;.V/41
From the deposition of the deceased:ti, _ 11
that on Wednesday, Nov. 26, about 6 in't avej
ing, he went into his cabin and had some sAipped•
He afterwards took a book, and began to read at
the table, on which was a lamp. He leant over the
book to read it. He heard a noise, and looked round
and saw the prisoner at the stove. He asked the
prisoner what he was doing there. He said he came
to see if the fire was all right. He told the prisoner
he had no business there. Deceased then began read-
ing again, but almost immediately he felt a violent
blow on the head, which rendered him senseless.
As soon as he recovered he cried Murder, and called
for the carpenter, but he received no answer. He
then went on deck and cried " Murder." He heard
some one running fast along the wharf. A seaman
from another vessel came on board, and he and de-
ceased went into the cabin and there they found a
carpenter's maul and a quantity of blood on the
book he had been reading. A surgeon wee then sent
for, who exernined deceased, and found that his
skull was fractured and splinters of the bone had got
into the brain. In two days afterwards he arleit
seized with convulsions, and soon after he died, his
depositions having been previously taken in the
presence of the pr isoner.
Two seamen stated that they were on board a
foreign vessel which was lying within three feet
of the Emma Jane on the evening in question. They
were in the forecastle. The prisoner came in end
said, "I've struck the mate ; will you have the
kindness to put me on board the English vessel that
is lying in the roads, as I have left my clothes
there?" The prisoner at that time had not any
boots or shoes on. The two seamen then rowed
the prisoner in their boat to the English vessel,which
was lying in the roads about a mile off, and the
prisoner went on board. About 11 o'clock that night
a policeman went on board the English vessel and
searched for the prisoner, but could not find him.
He remained on board the vessel until 8 o'clock
the next morning and then went on shore for a
short time. He returned to the vessel and made a
further search, and at length he found the prisoner
imbedded about four feet deep in some coal and rope.
He took the prisoner into custody, and charged
him with having assaulted the chief mate of tho
American ship. The prisoner said he did not do it.
It was the second mate. The policeman asked him
why he ran away from his ship. The prisoner re-
plied that he was afraid the second mate would kill
him. Ho was asked where his clothes were, and
he said they were on board the ship. The prisoner
was then taken into custody, and when before the
magistrates he said that when the chief mate was
struck he was sitting on his chest ; the second
mate came in and said " Die, you —, you must
die, that the chief mate sang out for his pistol; the
second mate then struck the deceased, and then ran
out of the cabin, and got over the rail of the ship ;
that prisoner then got out of the vessel, and went
on board the Russian ship, and told them that the
mate was struck. One of the seamen of the Rus-
sian ship, on cross-examination, said that he could
not swear that the words the prisoner used were not
" They have struck the mate. Eight of the crew
had left the American ship the week before this
happened, and among them was the second mate.
Search had been made for them, but they could not
be found. The vessel was about 1,200 tons, with a
crew of 20 men.
The only evidence to connect the prisoner with
the actual murder was the deposition of the de-
ceased man.
Mr. Bere, for the prisoner, made an affecting
address to the jury—Who was the prisoner? He
was a Swede on board this vessel, which was pro-
ceeding to the East Indies, but had put into Fal-
mouth from stress of weather. It was evident that
there had been discontent on board the ship, as eight
men had left it, hut it would seem that the prisoner
had not been dissatisfied, for he had remained on
board. He complained of the opening of his learned
friend.
The learned Judge said he did not consider that
there was any ground of complaint against Mr.
Cox ; he had only performed his duty.
Mr. Bere said he thought the inferences suggested
by his friend were not warranted by the evidence.
A more shadowy case had scarcely ever been heard.
How was it that the prosecution, with the means
at their command, had not produced a single one of
the officers or of the crew to give some account of
the state of the ship, and conduct of the deceased or
the prisoner. He submitted that, in the absence of
all these parties, they were bound to believe the
statement of the prisoner. He was without
money and without friends, and had it not in his
power to produce any witnesses or any evidence
before them. There were two points for their consi-
deration—first, were they satisfied that the prisoner
was the person who struck the deceased; secondly,
if they should be•of opinion that the blow was struck
by the prisoner, were they of opinion that it was
with deliberate, calm, and malicious determination
to take away the life of the deceased, or could they
not believe there must have been some quarrel or
provocation, which would justify them in coming
to the conclusion that the evidence did not support
the charge of murder, but that, if the death was oc-
casioned by the act of the prisoner, it was committed
under such circumstances that the offence was that
of manslaughter only ? The learned counsel then
went through all the evidence, upon which ha com-
mented, urging that it did not in any way inculpate
the prisoner. The learned counsel, in conclusion,
said,—Gentlemen, I could appeal to your feelings,
but I am sure the kind hearts which you, as Eng-
lishmen, are possessed of will urge all the argu-
ments in favour of the prisoner, a friendless man.
One short word, however, I will say. You cannot
by any word of yours bring the dead man back
again ; he is gone, and the death of the prisoner,
which may follow on a verdict of guilty, will not
restore him to mingle with his fellow-men in this
world again. If you err in acquitting the prisoner,
you will do but very little harm ; but if by an in-
nocent mistake you should convict him, and should
afterwards learn that your verdict was a mistaken
one, you cannot bring him back to life again how-
ever much you may regret it. Gentlemen, no regret
of yours can restore him to his mother in Sweden—
no regret of yours can restore him to his friends
and his life on this earth. The silver cord will be
loosened, the golden bow will be broken, and the
spirit will have returned to the God who gave it.
May God, who gives a right judgment to all, guide
you in your deliberations, and send the prisoner
through you a good deliverance in this his hour of
trial. _

Mr. Justice Byles then summed up, directing the
jury that there was no pretence for saying it was
the offence of manslaughter ; it was a case of mur-
der or acquittal.
The jury retired.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DEREY, March 20.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)

HOPKINSON AND WIFE V. KIRKLAND.

This was a very curious and important action of
ejectment, brought to try the validity of a will.
Mr. Boden and Mr. Alerewether appeared for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Field for
the defendant.

The testator was for many years a buteher, living
at Brinsley, in Nottinghamshire, and amassed a
considerable fortune, which he invested in house
and cottage property. He was formerly married,
and had only one legitimate child, the female plain-
tiff. After the death of his wife he cohabited with
one Hannah Kirkland, who lived with him as
housekeeper, and by her he had three cnildren, of
whom the defendant was one. The testator made
a will in 1856, by which he fully provided for his
legitimate and illegitimate children. In May of
last year, however, he had a very violent quarrel
with the female plaintiff about some land, and was
so incensed that he sent for his solicitor and made
a codicil, dated June 18, 1862, by which he disin-
herited her, and left all his property to the defen-
dant and his other illegitimate children. Under
this will and codicil the defendant claimed.
The case on behalf of the plaintiffs was that on
teonlystator fire days after the execu
sent for att
oe n 2 theof
fd of lastcodicil, June,the
"bum-
bailiff" in the neighbourhood and gave him instruc-
tion to make a will,. leaving everything to the female
plaintiff and her family. Phis will was dated thu
25th of June, and was the will under which the
plaintiffs claimed. This will was attested by the
" bum-bailiff" and a neighbouring farmer named
count t: hick the attesting witnesses gave
Chlalmiebaecrsof the circumstances attending the making of the
disputed will of the 25th of Juneg was, that the tes-
tator was in bed, and that no one was in the beano
except the Inmate plaintiff and the attesting v, it-
nessiti ; that the testator signed his mark to the
will, and directed it to be given to the female plain-
tiff. The bailiff asserted that his instructions were
only verbal, and that he had written the will with-
out first making a rough draught, and without
m..king any note or memorandum 111 writing. '['he
will, however, was written in very good legal
phraseology, and was without a single c rrection or
erasure.

It was contended, on behalf of the defendant, that
the will was a forgery, and evid, ace was given that
on the day in question neither of the attesting wit-
nesses had ever been to the house of the testator at
all, and that the testator was well able to, and
always did, sign his name in full, and not by mark.
It was elicited in cross-examination that Chambers,
one of the attesting witnesses, had been guilty of
fraud and cheating while guardian of the poor.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, n,
effect finding that the will of the 25th of June was
a forgery.