The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, IHORSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 3, 1863.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
SITUATIONS POR SHIP-BOYS-CAUTION TO THE PUBLIC-

SPRINGER V. FELLOWES.

This was an action to recover £lO money had and re-
ceived. Mr. George Brown represented plaintiff, who de-
posed as follows—l have two sons. On August 24th last,
one of them saw defendant, who is a shipbroker of Fen-
church-street. From what my son told me, I was intro-
duced to defendant on the 25th. He told me that that the
under-steward's situation was vacant on the Clifton, which
was about to sail for Bombay, and if I gave him (de-
fendant) £lO, he would get the situation for my son at a
salary of £1 per month. I refused to give this money unless
I saw the ship, and defendant sent down his clerk with
me. I saw the ship, and, being satisfied, paid the money.
Three weeks afterwards I heard that the ship was about
to leave the docks, and I sent my son, who saw the
captain.
Ho was informed that the situation was that of a
caddy boy, and that the salary was only is. per month. I
refused to let him go by the ship and went to see defendant,
telling him what the captain had said, He declared that
there must bo some error, and as he was going to dine with
the captain he would see and put it to rights. I next saw
defendant two days atter this, and he said he had not seen
the captain, but if the agreement was not carried out he
would return the money. My son did not go by the vessel,
but at length defendant said he had handed the ilk) to the
captain, less the commission.
His Honour—You have made out a prima facie case,
does any one appear for defendant ? _ _

No answer being returned, his Honour found for the
plaintiff with full costs.
Verdict for plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SPRINGING A SHOP SHUTTER I3AR AND ATTEMPT TO
BREAK INTO ♦ SHOP.—Henry Lee, a young man, described
as a tailor, was charged before Mr. Knox with feloniously
taking down a shutter by means of springing the shutter
bar, and breaking a pane of glass at the shop of Mr. Alfred
John Spooner, dealer in miscellaneous articles, 36, Great
St. Andrew•street, _ _

Mr. Spooner said a little before one o'clock tbis morning
he was awoke by a person being in his house, who informed
him that his shop was open. On going down stairs he
found that one of the shutters had been slipped, the bar
having been sprung and pane of glans broken so as to effect
an entrance into the shop. Fortunately the persons had
been interrupted, and he believed none of his property had
been taken away.

Henry Bull, 80 F, said that at a quarter to one this
morning he was called from his beat by a disturbance, and
on returning he heard the noise of glass falling. On getting
near the place he saw the prisoner and another man cross
over, and then run away. He pursued them as far as
King-street, Covent-garden, when he lost sight of them,
but the prisoner was stopped by Bland, 105 F.
Prisoner said he went to see the cause of the disturbance,
and then when he saw the police coming he ran away, for
fear he might get in trouble.
Mr. Knox observed that prisoner's running away looked
very suspicious, and asked him if he could call any wit-
nesses to character.

Prisoner said his father lived in Castle-street,
Sergeant Thompson, 8 F, said he understood the prisoner
had been convicted, but he was not prepared to prove it at
present.
Mr. Knox said he would remand the prisoner, so that it
might be seen whether ho had been convicted or not.
The prisoner was remanded.
A SOLDIER CHARGED WITH WILFUL DAMAGE.—James
Bruce, a private of the Coldstream Guards, was charged
before Mr. Knox with wilfully smashing a pane of glass of
the value of £5, the property of Mr. Charles Trokes, pro •
prietor of the City of Quebec Tavern, Oxford-street.
The prisoner went into the house of Mr. Trokes about 11
o'clock at night with five companions, and became very
noisy, making use of the vilest language. On being put
out of the house the prisoner smashed a pane of glass of
the value of £5, and then made off with his companions.
A comrade of the prisoner's said he was with him all the
time, and swore that the prisoner did not break the window.
Mr. Trokes said he could procure another witness to prove
it was the prisoner, and a respectable female attended and
said she saw the prisoner strike the window with his fist.
Mr. Knox said the worst feature of the case was that of
prisoner's coming forward to swear to that which he knew
to be false. He should order the prisoner to pay £4 102, for
the damage, and a fine of 103. or a month,

CRIMINAL COURT—(This Day,)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Channel].)
CHARGE OF CUTTING AND WOUNDING.

Andrew Godlow, a sailor, was indicted for feloniously
wounding Mary Ann Butt, with intent to do her some
grievously bodily harm.
The quv.rrel took place in the neighbourhood of Ratoliff,
when the prosecutor received a very severe cut on the side
of her neck from a knife which the prisoner held in his
hand. On the prosecutrix being called on it was found she
was not iu attendance, and the prisoner was accordingly
acquitted of the charge.

THIRD COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
ROBBERY FROAS TIIE PERSON.

Catherine Andrews was indicted for stealing a watch and
chain, the property of William Thomas.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and a former convic-
tion having been proved against the prisoner, she was sen-
tenced to five years' penal servitude.

The English Coal Trade to France,

It appears that, notwithstanding the great exertions
which French capitalists and politicians have been making
of late years to extend the indigenous coal production of
France, to substitute French for English coal in the Impe-
rial Marine, and, in a word, to free France from the
" tribute" which they consider she pays to England in the
matter of coal, this year's deliveries of English " black
diamonds" into the French empire promise to attain a very
considerable total. Do what they will, our neighbours evi-
dently cannot get rid of our coal, the Pas de Calais and the
Nord notwithstanding. The importation of English coal
into France first acquired importance about 1840, when
France began to make industrial and manufacturing
progress in common with the rest of Europe. In 1840
the total imports of our coal into France were 381,000
tons; fire years later this total had risen to 566,000 tons;
in 1850 a further advance was made to 6J2,000 tons, and in
1855, notwithstanding some difficulties arising from the ab-
sorption of shipping in the transport of troops and stores to
the Crimea, to 881,000. The next four years presented a
period of continuous progress, until in 1859 the imports
reached an aggregate of 1,369,000 tons, while Belgium, in
the same period, delivered to France 3,340,000 ton, Al-
though the indigenous coal production had Risen from
3,003,000 tons in 1840 to 7,483,000 tons in 1859, and, al-
though Belgium sent far more coal to France than England,
lingering national prejudices were aroused, a great outcry
was raised against the employment of English coal in the
imperial marine, and the upshot of the hubbub was that in
1862 the deliveries of English coal at tne French ports
declined to 758,000 tons, showing a falling off of 638,000
tons, as compared with 1859, while the produet of French
coal workings rose in 1862 to 9,400,000 tons. But this
year, although the yield of these mines is expected to attain
a clear 10,000,000 tons, the demand for English coal has
been reviving, and the total imports from Jan. 1 to Sept.
30 amounted to 926,]89 tons, being at the rate of 1,234,918
tons per annum. Belgium sent France at the same time
1,927,490 tons, being at the rate of 2,569,986 tons • per
annum, and from other sources 477,632 tons have been
received, or at the rate of 636,869 tons per annum. Com-
paring, then, matters as they will probably turn out in
1863, with the actual course of affairs in 1853, we arrive
at tne following results : _ _

1853.

1863.

TEE CRA.WLEY COURT-MARTIAL,

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)
FOURTEENTH DAY.
ALDERSHOT, Thursday.
The Court was opened this morning at half-past 10
o'clock, when
Colonel Shute was early in attendance, with a view to
being cross-examined by the prisoner.
The membez s of the court martial remained in consulta-
tion for some time before the opening of the court.
The President and members having taken their seats,
Colonel Pipon said that the prosecutor had stated yester-
day that he had received a letter from the Adjutant Genera:,
directing him to decline the production of the letter of the
Commander in Chief to Colonel Shute. The Court would
said
se thatt
court-ml.
ro du atr
hyt
theto
cd groundswith
roe fAptr.ho
Horsfordee iere
ddecision
f the
iy
request the prosecutor to hand in the letter which formed
e eatrtteira lh. aHd
enho nothing
nngo
objection to hand it to the Court, but not for the purpose of
its being recorded in the proceedings.
Colonel Crawley stated that having had an opportunity,
by the kineness of the •court martial, of considering the
course be should adopt on the subject, recapitulated what
had taken place on the subject, and the pledge given by
the prosecutor after he had a knowledge of the contents of
the letter, also of that of the Adjutant-General, and after
expressing regret that the production of the letter should
be considered detrimental to the public service, he
begged to suggest that in order that the Court
might fully appreciate the difficulties with which
he had to contend, the letter of his Royal Highness
should be handed to the members of the Court, not for pub-
lioation, but to enable them who were his judges to form a
just opinion of his case, He felt that under the circum-
stances he could not make any further attempt to cross-
examine Colonel Shute in the circumstances in which he
(Colonel Crawley) was placed. By the course he suggested
substantial justice would be dorie ; and the court would be-
come acquainted with the difficulties in which he stood, and
the facts on which he relied in justification of the course he
had pursued.
Colonel Horsford, in reply, stated that anything handed
to the court would become evidence, and must be recorded
on its proceedings, which would be in violation of the orders
he had received, which were not to produce a letter of a
confidential character. The letter from the Adjutant-
General, so far from conveying information relative to the
inquiry, was a mere official letter, conveying instructions to
himself why he could not lay before the court the evidence
they required. He had no objection to that letter being
recorded on the proceedings.
Colonel Crawley said that the same course that he
wished to be pursued with the letter of the Commander in
Chief was now being pursued with the Adjutant General's
letter.
The court retired to consider the point.
On their return into court,
Colonel Pipon announced the decision of the court to be
that the letter produced should be recorded, and they de-
cline to receive any communication which is not to be
recorded on its proceedings.
The letter was then read, which simply stated that his
ROyal Highness objected to the production of any letter,
or any extract, which was strictly confidential in its
character.
George Cowley, private of the 6th Dragoons, was re-
called and re-examined by the prosecutor.
Sir A. Horsford—How long have yon been in the regi-
ment ? —Four years and five months.
Colonel Crawley—Were you ever posted sentry over Ser-
geant Major Liffey, and if so, state where ?—I was posted
sentry once only over the sergeant major in No. 2 room in
the first bungalow at the door of No. 2.
Did you ever see Mrs. Lilley in her bedroom P—No.
William :Jlerk, private of the 6th Dragoons, called.
Sir A. Horsford—Were you sergeant during Sergeant
Major Lilley's confinement F—Yes,
Did you attend Sergeant Major Lilley in his exercise,
and if so, how often?—Twice, but I do not recollect the
dates.
When you attended him did you go behind him or by the
side of him F—The first time by the side 01 him, the second
time 10 or 15 yards in the rear of him.
Were you armed P—Yes, with side arms.
Colonel Crawley—Did you ever visit the sentries over
Sergeant Major Lilley, and if so, where were they posted P
—They were posted in the little room in the rear of Ser-
geant Major Lilley's bungalow, No. 4 room. •
Did you consider the position of the sentries any annoy-
ance to Mrs. Lilley ?---No.
Did the sergeant major or Mrs. Lilley ever make any
complaint to you ?—No.
Do you consider the place where Sergeant Major Lilley
was exercised a good place for such a purpose ?—Yes, a very
good place.
Is it usual on all duty for a sergeant to be armed with his
side arms ?—Yes.
Sir A. Horsford said he had to inform the Court that it
was not the intention of the prosecution to examine any
more sentries in chief, nor would they call any more had
it not been that they had given the prisoner a list of them,
and it was usual to call all in order that the prisoner
might cross-examine them if he desired to do so.
Colonel Crawley said that with every desire to save the
time of the Court, ha was advised he could not, without
injuring his defence, release the prosecution from calling
the witnesses, He did not think that to take a different
course would save any time. If the prosecution would call
his witnesses in succession it was probable that with regard
to most of them he should not have any questions to put.
John Love, late of the 6th Dragoons, was called—
Sir A. Horsford—Were you orderly-room clerk during
the time of Sergeant Major Lilley's arrest?—Assistant
orderly room clerk.
Col. Crawley—l have no question to put.
Sergeant George Robins of the 6th Dragoons called.
Sir A. Horsford—l do not propose to examine this
witness.
Col. Crawley—l have no question to ask him.
William Rhodes, corporal of the 6th Dragoons, called.
Sir A. Horsford—l don't propose examining this witness
in chief.
Col. Crawley-1 have nothing to ask him.
was called,
Private James Doherty of the 6th Dragoons
risoner.
and was not examined either by the prosecutor or pwas called
Private Francis Dribble, of the 6th Dragoons, ,
and there was no Examination in
ekniefe.geant Major Lille),
Colonel Crawley—Did you
see, state
drink any brandy when he was endere
what P—l saw him drink several glassesarrest. If so
brandy
of brandy.
on one occasion
Did he drink several glasses
of
ey several P—On one occasion.
when you were on sentry, or on
t he drank it out of ?—A
What sort of a glass was
tumbler. F—Yes, he asked me to
Did he offer you some brandy
drink, but I did not
take
any.
How much brandy was
there in the glass when he
11 there might have been a good
effered it to you? We
dram it.
of the brandy he offered you when you
major became
had occasion to take the u
refused to drink ,and I
drankbrandy sergeant
the rear hethe when he came
major to
back.
te James Duffy,
goons W and Private Hues, of the 6th D
Priva ra-
ere called, but there was no examination oR either
side.
Sergeant Francis Johnson, 6th Dragoons, called. There
was no examination in chief.
Colonel Crawley—Were you servant to Sergeant Major
Lilley three years before he was placed in arrest ?-1 was.
Was Sergeant Major Lilley in the helsit of drinking a
certain amount of spirits the first thing in •
the morning ?
Ile used to drink a certain amount but not to excess. He
Would take half a dram of ar k
rac in a cup of coffee the first
thing in the morning.
In your opinion after his arrival in India, was he a strong
man or was he frequentl • ailing
?—He was ill three times
in India befere his arrest,
Was he a man who could drink a considerable quantity
of spirits without sh • owing its effects ?—I could not say.
Private James Nye called.
Sir A. Horsford—Were you at any time sentry over Ser-
geant Major Litley, and if so when F—To the best of my
recollection on the 27th of April.
flow viten were you sentry, and when ?—Three times,
on the 27th April. I don't remember the second date, and
on the night of the 11th of May.
Did you go over with Sergeant Major Lilley to the second
bungalow ? es.
When you went from the first bungalow to the second,
where were you posted P—ln the small room, No. 2. ,
Was there a chick there, and was it sometimes up and
sometimes down ?—Yes.
could you
When it was down could you see through it—
ever see the bed ?—Not in the second bungalow.
Why P—There was nothing in the room when I went
down. Law at any time
Was there anything in the second bung
when you were sentry ?
In the first bungalow could
you see the bed ?—When there
just discover the bed.
was a light in the room I could j
he had ti no
uestions to ask Lim.
Colonel Crawley said

Private John Mackey was call( ,d, but was not examined
in chief.

Colonel Crawley—Were you a guard over Sergeant Major
Lilley in the second bungalow a i the 15th of May 2—yes.
Did you ever see Sergeant MA jor Lilley in the verandah
of the second bungalow before t hat day ?—Yes,
Private E. Rendell called—T:here was no examination in,
chief.

Colonel Crawley—Where were you posted when you were
first sentry over Sergeant Major Lilley ?---Outside the first
bungalow.

Do you remember being moved from there, and why were
you moved ?—I was removed about 4 o'clock. I don't knew
why I was removed, but I suppose it was on account of
the sun.

Were you sentry a second time inside the house 2—Yes,
in No. 2 room.

Could you see through the ch:ck which hung in the door-
way into Mrs. Lilley's bedroom, ?—I could not.
At what distance from her b:droom were you posted ?—‘
I should think about 10 or 12 feet.
Private James Kelley called.
Sir A. Hozstord—Were you posted over Sergeant Major
Liffey when he was in the second bungalow ?—I was.
Did he make any complaint ?-lle made no complaint.
Colonel Crawley—What was the room used for in which
the sentries were placed ? A servau's room, and for holding
saddlery.
Coi,,nel Crawley said he wished to know whether the pro-
secution intended to examine any more sentries in reference
to the annoyance caused to Mrs. Lilloy. If not, he was con-
tent to rest his case on that point where it stood.
Sir A. Hereford said the prosecution thought it unwise
to say more about their mode of conducting the prosecution%
The Court ehortly afterwards adjourned.