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

y , e
4,( e - ?<e- e •

-
c /

,-

:
~/N E W SPAPER
/ .-7 „,--71----- - - ---
"'''': -••
e. '9...- --:----1; -,-• ..4,
- c
b.,.''' `J...:M
.•c : ; . .hz. 4
wilful murdar of William 1-Icnry 3-.° . ' 4-.
`l'f-4 1•:2 0 -
,-,
...___
.
• 44
el,, ,:„.„..„? e.:,..- -.- •
„ lititihk,.,.
... •
i;:.
is; in -
'::".1. - ~ '
3144°P. -72' iciA rT',...., . -,... .:: :,,, ~-rry
<\Nc, --:.:-.:(-)-1_, 1 1713 ,
,--,:•,•-:-,1.,,,-;--.-,7,-,z •)_:‘ . ir_ig
~..&4_,,,,,.11,-;-:4-: I :-i ,!:=1- !;,17-,1,3\:„.„...;,.-,, % --,-.
_r_ , 4,. ,
~:-..,_. ,
c ~-, ,T•.„,5„,•.,.:„.„._,..,..,,,..,......_.,.„,".:,.,__,....,•_::..„...„.., ~
-. _.„,,,t., ~..,....„,,- 0 ,5.,..„:,,,,,•,,,_.,..},,,,,_... --\4„,,,._, ..
---4-k.-- ' ..'
.., . _ . .
~ Ily+
.•-•.,...5.,.7:; • :4-:,...,,,
-,-- -•
- - ,
--- - ---- ~:. . ion Nov. 26, _
__
/ lit ':=5„4„,.. :._.....a:,_, -----_:,4,-- :;..„ ;,:kL.....,..,:;,-,f,„.„,-..„..,.,:,_..,,,,,,,,.,,,..,,,,,-., ,ab ' ,20'-'
, ( _,, f— ,_,-5,:,, J.: , - -..2,,..(4,
..__- -;-_,,,,,,,J----./22-...21.,, .4., ~,„ ~z..„_,-x
''''' ' °C'P.--.,-r. ,0 , a2r-, -._
------- . -
r-----N,..„.
~_

Mr. Cox prosecuted, and Mr. Bore (Able eiluestS
of the learned Judge) defended the prisoner.
From the deposition of the deceased, it appeared
that on Wednesday, Nov. 26, about 6 in the even-
ing, he went into his cabin and had some supper.
He afterwards took a book, and began to read at
the table, on which was a lamp. Ho 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 at he recovered he cried Murder, and called
for the carpenter, hut he received no answer. Tie
then went on deck and cried " Murder." He heard
some one running fast along the wharf. A seam,?n
from another vessel came on board, and he and de-
ceased went into the cabin and there they found a
carpenter's maul and quantity of blood on the
book he had been reading. A burgeon was then eent
for, who examined deceased, and found that his
skull was fractured and splinters of the bone had got
into the brain. In two days afterwards he was
seized with convulsions, and soon after he died, his
depositions having been previously taken iu the
presence of the prisoner.
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 and
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 vesselootieh
was lying in the roads about a mile off, and the
ap rip sool
inceermwa
ne nwt
eonnt boons rdbo. a
rAdb ot uh te 1 o
E 1
ng' cllios c h
hk
vesselt at nightd
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 leegth 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 the
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. He 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.

PRICE .4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

taken into custody the prisoner said he never in-
tended to injure the girl.
The defence raised was that the prisoner, having
been played a trick by the prosecutrix, had deter-
mined to play her one, and to frighten her by firing
off his pistol, and that he had acted a melodramatic
scene in order to do so. When they ran away he
became alarmed himself at what he had done, and
what ensued very naturally followed. It was no-
thing more mischievous than a practical joke.
His lordship having summed up,
The jury, after a short consultation, acquitted the
prisoner.
He was disehargcd with a severe admonition from
his lordship not to practice such jukes again.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before ML. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
STRICKLAND V. WOMBWELL.

This was an action for slander and for an assault,

Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Maule were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. Quaine
for the defendant.

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 your 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 s very honourable one; you ought to
be ashamed, Major, to abuse me as you have done ;
I will tell every one." He 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 ; 61b. 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 here I would shoot him like a
dog. You are a-- drunken Daring 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 3s. ltd. 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; Thlb. 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.
lOn 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.. _

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, but 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.
Cos ; 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 he 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 fcr saying it was
the offence of manslaughter; it was a case of mur-
der or acquittal.
The jury retired.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, March 20.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)

lIOPKINSON 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. Merewether appeared for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Field for
the defendant.

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. He 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 would shoot her son ; but ho did recollect that
he never called her a liar or a swindler. Ho 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,
bat 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 learned Judge in summing up
thfeorc
the jury that there were two questions themse told
t o
thingdeal
court, but they must
had been brought into
try. It was a most unfortunate that the case
an
'
with it upon the evidence. In order to
assault,constitute it was not necessary that there should b.?. a
battery.
If they were of opinion that the defendant
menaced the plaintiff with his stick when he was
within reach of her, they must find a verdict for
the plaintiff on the count for an assault. In order to
entitle the 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 plaintiff 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.

The testator was for many years a butcher, 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 or
the 23d of last Juno, only five days after the execu-
htbhoeutrehsotaotdoransd avengtfeol; a " bum-
bailiff"
tbiaoinl
ffo thein t cbodeni
instruc-
tion to mako a will, leaving everything to the female
plaintiff and her family. This will was dated the
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
Chambers.
The account N.vhich the attesting witnesses gave
of the circumstances attending the making of the
disputed will of the 25th of June was, that the tes-
tator was in bed, and that no one was in the douse
except the female plaintiff and the attesting wit-
nesses ; 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 hail written the will with-
out first making a rough draught, and without
making any note or memorandum in writing. The
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, t'Aat
the will was a forgery, and evidence 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 5,,0, and
always did, sign his name in full, and not by mark.
It was elicited in cross-examination that Coambers,
one of the attesting witnesses, had been guilty of
fraud and cheating while guardian of the poor.
The jury returned a verdict for tho defendant, in
effect ending that the will of the 25th of June was
a forgery.

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