The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, .TuLI- 1.

The I-louse of Lords sat to-day for the purpose of hear.
ing writs of error. The Judges were in attendance.

DOE V. VARDILL

This case came before their Lordships upon appeal
from a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in a writ of
error, declaring that the plaintiff, who was born in Scot-
land of Scottish parents before their marriage, was illegiti-
mate according to the law of this country, and therefore
incompetent to inherit estates here.

The TTORYEY.GENERAL was heard to-day on behalf of
the plaintiff in error.

Mr. DAMPIER addressed their Lordships on behalf of
the defendant, but not having concluded at four o'clock
the further hearing was adjourned till to-morrow (this day).

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Juzr 1.
(Sittings at Guildhall before Lord DENNIAN and a Special
Jury.)
WILLIAMS V. PANTON.

This was an action for a malicious prosecution, arising
out of the proceedings instituted last ear in the Central
Criminal Court, by the defendant, against Mr. T. Wil.
I ams, of Brynbras Castle, Caraarvonshire, and his two
maid servants, on a charge of having forged a will of de-
fendants' father. This will gave Mr. Williams, who was
son-in-law of the testator, the whole of his large property,
whereas Mr. Pantos claimed that by another will be was
the sole heir. It will be remembered that the trial in the
Criminal Court, which lasted five days, resulted in the
entire acquittal of all the parties charged, and this ex-
cited unbounded enthusiasm in Wales, where it appears
extraordinary interest was taken in the transaction.
The present action was brought by one of the
maid servants. The cause commenced on Friday,
lasted the whole of Saturday, and at half-past nine
yesterday Mr. Jervis began his reply on behalf of the
plaintiff, which was not concluded till near one o'clock.
The Learned Counsel, with exceeding minuteness, en-
tered into all the points of the case, and argued that no
ground had existed for charging his client with a participa-
tion in the alleged crime.
The Lout) CUIEF JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, left
it to them to say, if, upon a careful consideration of the
whole evidence, they considered there had been no rea-
sonable or probable cause for charging the plaintiff with
having been a party to the fraud imputed to her master.
He expressed his opinion, that whatever might be their
judgment as to the case of Mr. Williams, there existed no
pretext for accusing the plaintiff, on any fact known to the
defendant at the time he made the charge against her.
Even supposing the master to have forged a will, the pro-
bability was that he would not have revealed his guilt and
perilled his detection, by revealing that guilt to a woman
servant who was only to witness the deed—an act requiring
no knowledge of the supposed fraud. It' the Jury thought
there was no reasonable or probable cause for the accusa-
tion, they might safely conclude that there was malicious
intent, for people did riot without at, object charge persons
groundlessly with a serious offence. The Jury would
judge whether there was any reasonable inference to be
drawn of malicious intent in the defendant, perhaps to
prevent the plaintiff from giving evidence on her master's
behalf, by imprisoning her on the same charge. If satis-
fied on both points, they would find for the plaintiff with
such damages as they thought fit. If not so satisfied they
would find for the defendant.

At the close of his Lordship's charge,
Mr. V. RICHARDS (one of the Counsel for the 'defen-
dants) proceeded to read a long list of exceptions, ready
written, to the direction of the Learned Judge.
It was remarked by Mr. JaRVIS, as an unprecedented
exhibition, of such a list of objections to the charge of a
Judge, written out before that charge was begun. The
principal exception was on the ground of his Lordship not
having told the Jury what facts, if proved, would be evi-
dence of absence of reasonable cause, or of the malice,
leaving to them only to find the facts proved or not. Ills
Lordship, however, strongly expressed his opinion that the
question was entirely one for the Jury, not only as to what
facts had been proved, but what inferences might fairly be
deduced from these facts

The Jury consulted for several hours, and came into the
Court with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, 3(101.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JuLr 1.

Mr. Justice ERSKINE was occupied at Guildhall with a
Special Jury all day, trying a long and uninteresting case.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(YESTERDAY.)

THE GOLD DUST ROBBERY.

( Continued from our First Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. C. PHILLIPS commenced his address to the Jury
on behalf of the Caspars, and acquitting Mr. Hartley the
prosecutor, and the counsel and attorney for the
prosecution, of-all intention of unfairness, he could not but
characterize this case as one of the most infamous that
had ever exploded in a court of justice. lie had hoped
the days of blood-money were over, but what was the con-
sequence of the offer of 5001. reward ? Why, that the
prisoners had been subjected to an inquisitorial torture, by
Roe the officer. The witnesses, in support of the pro-
secution, were thieves, brothel-keepers, spies, and eaves-
droppers ; the evidence of such witnesses could not be
called corroboration, and it would be impossible that the
Jury could convict upon such testimony. Could they
believe Moss, a desperate and reckless adventurer, who
swore he did not believe be was doing any thing wrong in
stealing this property, whose family had all been appre-
hended, whose father-in-law, a brothel-keeper, had fled
on account of this transaction, whose house had been
searched for stolen goods, without eliciting any expression
of surprise from him. He was a Jew. Never had he
( Mr. Phillips) asked any man before concerning his
religion, he considered it the height of impiety and blas-
phemy to interfere in a matter which was solely between
a man and his Gad; but this man swore upon the Old
Testament and denied his, religion, and to support that
denial, had partaken of forbidden food, been guilty
of the greatest blasphemy according to the tenets
of his religion. This self-confessing perjurer, asked
to be believed. Could such a man be believed? Why he
had been placed in the dock by the prosecutors
and only drawn from it through dire necessity, because
without him they. Could not identify the stolen property.
He would as soon believe the statements of Judas Iscariot,
He took the advice of his attorney, and came here only
to save himself; he had the basest and strongest motive
for endeavouring to get his falsehoods believed—the mo-
tive of self-preservation. He said he expected to be be-
lieved only so far as he should be corroborated, had he
not, therefore, the strongest motive to procure corrobora-
tion ? and who were those who corroborated him ? His
family and connections. The Counsel for the prosecution
had asked if the persons at the bar had not committed the rob-
bery, who had ? This was not a fair question—this was
not English law or English Constitution. It was the duty
of the prosecutors to prove who did it. The Learned
Gentleman then went at great length into the evidence of
oss and his family. According to Moss, they were five
hours burning the wood of two small boxes, and Caspar
bundled up the hay in his pocket. Why not burn it ? He
took the hay away, and left the gold, which he could have
put into his pocket behind him ? Was this probable ?
Was it not much more probable that this was got up by
Mr. Allen ? Why did Mr. Allen abscond ? The whole
circumstances of the robbery showed that instead of being
got up five months previously by the prisoners, it was can-
cocted hastily by the person who had absconded, and
whose name Moss had cautiously abstained from mention-
ing. It was also most remarkable that neither money nor
money's worth was ever traced to the Caspars. The men
were in penury, and two pockets-full of this property
would have been a little fortune to them. Was it proba-
ble Ellis Caspar would have taken the hay, and left the
gold ? Why was not Mr. Came, whose signature was said
to be forged, not produced ? From the 25th of March to
the 2d of April was young Caspar at the office, a Good
Friday and a Sunday intervening on which lie had oppor-
tunities of flight, and yet he remains. What is the
conduct of Allen ? He fled. When ? The moment he
hears that Solomons is arrested. Was he afraid
of Solomons ? Why was not Allen mentioned by Moss ?
why was no explanation of his flight attempted in the
elaborate opening of the prosecution ? The Learned
Gentleman then entered at large into the discrepancies of
the witnesses in their description of Moss, and contended
that the description given by Lewin Casper could not be
made a proof of guilt. The Learned Counsel then com-
mented on the letters and on the evidence of Mr. Peat and
Mr. Marsh as to the identity of the writing in the body of
the letters. Had the prosecution called a single indi-
vidual to prove either the hand writing of Moss or of Cas-
par ? He then proceeded to remark on the evidence of
the coffee-house keeper and his waiter, who contradicted
each other, and instead of corroborating contradicted
Moss, more particularly with regard to the story of the
handkerchief. Ile then proceeded to contend that there
was a contradiction between the evidence of Jane Bradley
and Moss and that of Lea, as to the time when Ellis
Caspar was represented as being at Moss's house engaged
in burning the boxes ; be afterwards commented on the
employment of Hoe ard as a spy, which he denounced in
very eloquent terms, and whose evidence be contended
was utterly incredible. lie had thus gone through this
tedious, and, to the prisoners, most agonizing case ; the
witnesses against them expected by their evidence to put
money in their purses, and to secure safety to their per-
sons ; they had contradicted instead of corroborating each
other. The jury would soon return to their families, and
he hoped they would make other families as happy as their
own by returning to them those persona whose characters
up to the present time had been unimpeached and unim-
peachable.
Several witnesses were then called who gave the pri-
soners Moses and Alice Abrahams excellent characters,
after which the Court adjourned to-morrow, when wit-
nesses will be examined as to the character of the Caspars,
and Mr. Justice Littledale will sum up the evidence.

PALERMO, MAY 31.—Great alarm still con-
tinues to prevail, in consequence of the audacity of the
brigands—crescit audacia experimento ; and the people are
afraid to venture to any considerable distance from the
city. These miscreants advanced some days ago to the
very gates of Palermo, and carried off a young man,
whose father had to pay a handsome ransom for his libera-
tion. The environs of Sagcste, Trepani, and Girgenti,
are infested at this moment by bands of mounted robbers.
It is impossible to form an idea of this deplorable state of
things. All communication being more or less intercepted,
trade is completely at an end. Nobody dares send money
from one place to another, and the few commercial relations
existing between different parts of the island are totally
paralyzed.

Pershore great horse fair was held on Wednes-
day. The extreme wetness of the day, as might be ex-
pected, threw a complete gloom over the fair; notwith-
standing, we understand, some extent of business was
done in the better class of horses, nearly all brought
having found purchasers at good prices, the buyers being
principally the great London dealers. For the second
class and inferior animals not an offer could be obtained
upon scarcely any terms. In sheep and neat stock the
transactions were very limited, and the prices of either
varied little from recent fairs.—Gloucester Journal.