The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-24 00:00:00

thought they were, adding that he had then lett the Post-
Office. I found Mr. Freston at my office w)en I returned.
I give a" sold note" to Calder, together with a cheque, and
gave back the acceptance letter f,r 72 shares to Mr. Freston
for verification, in the presence of Calder. I was in attend•.
ance at Guildhall Police-court when prisoner was taken
there in custody on this charge. He came to me and said,
"Mr. Bennett, if I had Known these things were going to
be brought to you, I would not have done it for double the
money." I turned away, making him no answer.
The convict Calder was' called, and deposed that after
meeting the prisoner at the Obelisk on the 33 July, they
went together to the Oxford tavern in the Westminster-
road, when the prisoner handed him the five letters of allot-
ment, saying he wanted to convert them into money, and,
accompanying him to Copthal-chambers, showed him Mr.
Benneta's office. The prisoner remained outside while wit-
ness went in. Witness received a check for £lO odd from
Mr. Bennett and handed it to the prisoner, who gave him
£6 as his share.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sleigh, witness said he was con-
victed at the last session of the Central Criminal Court, and

that before his conviction he had mentioned the prisoner's
share in the transaction in question. Witness received
first of all Ll for hie share, and afterwards £5 more on the
completion of the transfer of the 72 shares. He had no
reason at that time to believe that it was not a perfectly
fair and legitimate transaction in the way of business. Ho
had known the prisoner about a fortnight or three weeks
before. Witness had been a clerk to Mr. Freston, of Furni-
val's -inn and in Coleman-street, until about 15 months
ago. He had been in other employment since, but not
permanently.
Edward Hancock, a city detective officer, apprehended
the prisoner at his house in Manor place, Walworth, on
the 31st of August, on a warrant. On being told the
charge against him, the prisoner said he did not understand
it, Witness told him that Calder, who had been convicted
and sentenced to six years' penal servitude, said that he,
the prisoner, had given him the letters of allotment, and it
was for him now to say where he had received them. At
first he said he did not know Calder, but on the way to the
police-station he said a man of that name used to come to
his beershop, and that a short time ago he met him in the
Blackfriaes-road, and had a glass of ale with him.
Mr. Sleigh, in a brief address to the jury on behalf of the
prisoner, confessed the difficulty he felt in struggling against
the facts stated in evidence. He could only say that the
prisoner had made a solemn asseveration that his share in
the transaction in question was an innocent one. To say
the least, much of the evidence against him was tainted
with suspicion, and if the jury thought the case was sus.
ceptible of doubt they would give the prisoner the benefit
of it.

Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up the evidence, remarked
by the way that the witness Dowle had been exposed to a
great dealt of temptation, but had probably remembered the
old •fashioned injunction, "If sinners entice thee consent
thou not." Another man, who had given evidence on the
trial, had unfortunately not listened to that advice, and the
jury knew what had become of him. Addressing himself
to the facts, the learned judge dwelt upon the circumstance
that the prisoner was found in the possession of the letters
of allotment the day after they should have arrived in Lon-
don in course of post. If the jury believed Calder, he was
only the cat's paw in getting rid of the shares. Who stole
them there was no evidence to show; but that was imma-
terial, for whether the prisoner stole them or received them
knowing them to have been stolen, in either case he was
guilty. It was for them to say whether there had been a
conspiracy on the part of the witness for the prosecu-
tion, in which case they would acquit the prisoner, but, if
they believed there had been no such conspiracy, they
would probably think the case had been made out against
him.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Metcalfe, counsel for the prosecution, said he ought
now to state that with respect to a man named Macdonald,
tried and convicted there last session for passing a check
which had been stolen from a post letter, the prisoner Jes-
tico was discharged from the Post-office for having induced
him to missort money letters. _ _

Mr. Justice Byles, in passing sentence, said the prisoner
had been convicted on irrefragable evidence of the offence
chargedin the indictment. It appeared that he had already
seduced one man into being an accomplice, who had been
convicted and consigned to six years' penal servitude.
Whether the allegations now made against him as to having
seduced another was true or not, he (Mr. Justice Byles) did
not know, but he was not going to act upon that. The sen-
tence he had to pass upon him was that he be kept in penal
servitude for eight years.

Helen Hannah Margaret Englehart, a respectably-dressed
woman, was indicted for manslaughter.
Mr. Orridge conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner
was defended by Mr. Sleigh.
The case was a very painful one, and its investigation
occupied the Court a considerable time. The prisoner and
her husband were married in April, 1859, and resided at
Eltham-green, in Kent. She had a child before her mar-
riage—namely, in October, 1853—by her husband. Its name
was Constance Augusta, and at the time of its death it was
barely five years old. Mr. Englehart was in the habit of
coming to London daily to attend his business, and of re-
turning home in the evening. The principal witness was a
young woman named Jane Maynard, their domestic ser-
vant, and according to her the child had dirtied the carpet
in the dining loom on the 31st of July last. It was then
between 5 and 6 in the evening, and the teething's had been
taken into the room. The prisoner was then up-stairs dress-
ing. On returning to the room she was angry at what the
child had done. The child was then sitting on the floor,
and a milk jug was upset beside it. She called the servant
from the kitchen, and telling her that she had often pro-
mised the child a cold bath, but would now give it one,
ordered her to prepare a cold bath and put it on the sink
in the back kitchen. This the servant did, and the pri-
soner having taken the child downstairs and stripped it
quite naked, put it into the bath. She tied a duster round
the child's mouth and dipped its head two or three times in
the water. Then she took the child out of the bath and
placed it on the edge of the stone sink t' drip. That done,
she put it on the floor and wiped it, giving it immediately
afterwards some cod liver oil, which she poured from a
bottle into its mouth. In doing that she spilt some of the
oil on its breast, upon which she took the child up, and
holding it with one hand under the sink, pumped water on
its bead with the other four or five times. The child did not
cry while that was being done. She took the duster off the
child's mouth on removing it from the bath. She kept it in
the bath about 10 minutes. After wiping the child she took
it upstairs to the top of the house, but had not been gone
more than two or three minutes when she brought it down
in an insensible state. She then said she had let it remain
too long in the cold bath, and she ordered the servant to
prepare a warm one, which was done. The prisoner put the
child into the warm bath, but as it did not recover she told
the servant to go to the house of a Mrs. Weed, a neighbour,
for some brandy. Mrs. Morrison, another neighbour, was
at her gate when the servant returned, and she accm-
panied her into the house. The servant had then sent for a
doctor. On seeing a bruise on the right temple of the child,
Mrs. Morrison asked how it had been caused. The pri-
soner's reply was that she had let it fall downstairs. She
had not before said anything to the servant about letting it
fall. The servant was in the kitchen while the prisoner was
upstairs with the child. The kitchen door was open and
close to the stairs, and the servant said she must have heard
the child fall if it had fallen, but she did not. Mrs. Morri-
son took the child from the warm bath, and patting it into
a warm blanket, kept it there until a surgeon came. The
prisoner explained to her that she had put the child into a
cold bath as a punishment, that on taking it out it was blue
and cold,
putting
with
t itsh put it into a warm one; that she had be-
fore the warm bath taken it upstairs, and was
returning
hiinet when her sleeve caught the bolt of a little
a andgate at the top of the stairs and the child fell over the
baluster to the foot of the stairs. Mrs. Morrison remained
with the child until 10 o'clock. It died next morning
about 5. Mrs. Morrison, who assisted in washing it after
death, described it as being covered with bruises from head
to foot. It appeared that for some time before the prisoner
had given the child cold baths with salt put in the water,
on the advice of a surgeon, with a view to strengthen it,
and a suggestion on the part of the defence was that the
cloth was put over the child's mouth to prevent its swallow-
ing any of the salt water. The servant said the prisoner's
general treatment of the child was unkind.
Mr. David. King, a surgeon at El' ham, deposed that he
was called to see the child about a quarter to 7, and that he
found it in a state of collapse and almost pulseless, so much
so that ho thought it would have died immediately. Ho
remained with it about an hour. The result of a post
mortem examination which he made went to disclose a large
quantity of extravasated blood on the brain. That, in his
opinion, was the cause of death. There was a fresh bruise
on the right temple, and that, ho believed, had caused the
extravasation. There was also a recent bruise on the top
of the left foot and other minor old bruises, which might
have been produced by the child tumbling about the house.
In cross-examination, he said a fall downstairs might have
caused the appearance on the temple. It was a delicate
child. The plunging a delicate ehild into a warm bath
after it had been taken out of a cold one would rarely pro-
duce such extravasation as in this case, unless the brain
had been previously diseased. There was no disease about
the brain of the child in question.
Mr. Blakeley, a surgeon, in reply to the Jadge, deposed
that he knew the child, and had attended it about a year
ago. It we s a weakly child, suffering from general debility
and he recommended, among other things, cod-liver oil,
and occasionally a cold water bath, with salt in the water,
to strengthen the system of the child. He thought the
child ought not to have been kept longer in a cold bath
than five minutes.

Mr. Sleigh, for the defence, contended that what the
prisoner had done was at the worst a mere error of judg-
ment in keeping the unfortunate child longer in the water
than was consistent with prudence or safety, but that would
not constitute the crime of manslaughter. That, he sus-
pected, was the only conclusion warranted by the evidence,
and he commented on the testimony of Mr. Blakeley, the
surgeon, who had some time before recommended to the
prisoner the use of cold baths with salt. in the water for the
child, and of cod-liver oil, with the view to strengthen its
weakioh:
failcetochnt constitution.
no Hpt id 4 pain
resultu andp o ng9yt prisoner's ihleesr
rohnoaredeosr
experiencedwie weak staterci2t