The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-29 00:00:00

the action,even if he succeeded, unless he could recover his
costs, which he might not be able to do. It was too bad that
such small cases should be brought down for trial at the
assizes at such heavy expense to the parties. However, it
did not appear that for this the plaintiff was responsible,
and it ought not, of course, to prejudice their decision. As
to this, there was no doubt a great deal of force in the ob-
servation of the learned serjeant, that the lady was more
likely to recollect the matter than the manager. On the
other side, there was strong contradictory evidence, and
many confirmatory circumstances, especially the evidence
of Mr. Byrne. It was very true that, as the learned ser-
geant had observed, ballet dancers were not engaged merely
for their dancing—(a laugh)—but then, on the other hand,
juries were not unlikely to be influenced by the looks of a
pretty girl in the witness-box—(laughter)—and they must
be on their guard against such influences, and be careful to
give a verdict only according to the evidence.
The jury, after some consideration, found their verdict for
the defendant,

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.-LINCOLN, July 28,
NISI PRIUS COURT.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice of England and Special
Juries.)
MOORE AND ANOTHER V. "FLETCHER.

This was an action for money lent and for interest.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Hayes, and Mr. Field
were for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Boden, Q.C., and Mr.
Flowers for the defendant.

The plaintiffs are the executors of a Mr. Moore, and in
this action they sought to recover a sum of £BO5, lent by
their testator at different times to the defendant. Mr. Moore
had been a farmer, but in 1843, being then advanced in
years, he went to live with his brother-in-law, a Mr.
Lake, of Little Steeping, and retired from business. He
had about £7,000 or £B,OOO, which ho lent out at interest
to different persons. He rarely took any security for the
sums so lent, but merely caused the borrower to sign a me-
morandum acknowledging the receipt of the money. Soon
after he went to live with Lake the latter died, but Moore
continued to live in the same house with his niece, Lake's
daughter, who acted as his housekeeper. At this time the
defendant was in the habit of visiting Miss Lake as a suitor,
but Moore seems to have disapproved the intimacy. In
consequence of this disapproval Moore and his niece sepa-
rated, and she ultimately married the defendant. Moore
removed to Mareham-le-fen, and lived there till his death
in October of last year, at the age of 94. Soon after the
defendant's marriage with Miss Lake their relations with
Moore seem to have improved, and in 1853 the defendant
had received £196 of the testator, for part of which he had
given a note, and for the rest merely a memorandum in
writing. By the end of 1858 this amount was increased to
£629, and at the time of the testator's death it amounted to
£BO5, the sum sought to be recovered. Atter the testators
death there was found a memorandum among his papers in
the defendant's handwriting containing the amount of each
separate advance, and the date at which it was made, and
on the back of the paper there was, also in the defendant's
handwriting, a note of the payment of £26 4s. 9d. by way
of interest in 1854, and a further sum of £8 expressed to be
paid as half a year's interest on the 12th of December, 1861.
The executors thereupon wrote to the defendant to ask for
payment of this sum of £BO5 and interest, or for some se-
curity. The defendant replied in a letter dated the 27th
of November, 1362, in which he said that he "owed
neither principal nor interest, as Moore gave him it several
years ago." The executors being dissatisfied with this reply
instructed Mr. Babington, of Horncastle, to write to the de-
fendant, but got no answer. In April, 1863, they instructed
Mr. Bean, of Boston, to ask for payment, and received a
letter from Mr. Toynbee, of Lincoln, stating that the money
had been given by Moore to the defendant with the under-
standing that he was to pay 2 per cent. interest for it so
long as Moore lived.

The defendant's case was that his wife, Moore's niece, had
a small freehold which was subject to a mortgage for about
£750, and that it was arranged between him and Moore that
the money was to be given to the defendant to pay off this
mortgage, but that the defendant should pay Moore 2 per
cant, upon it by way of acknowledgment until his death. The
defendant had al ways kept down the interest on the mortgage
but did not pay off the principal till the summerof last year.
In support of his case he produced a book, which purported
to contain entries of his transactions with Moore ; but these
entries did not follow one another in chronological order, and
several leaves had been torn out of the book. The defen-
dant's wife had been present at the time when some of these
sums were advanced, but was not called as a witness, al-
though Mr. Macaulay, in opening the plaintiff's case, had
challenged the defendant to put her into the witness-box.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full
amount claimed.

WESTERN CIRCUIT..—EXETER, July 28.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
Ellen Mailes was indicted for the manslaughter of John
Chapple, at Wolborough, on the 30th of June.
Mr. Holdsworth was counsel for the prosecution, and
Mr. Folkard for the prisoner.

It appeared that on the 30th of June John Chapple went
to his house and sat down at a table. The prisoner lived in
an adjoining house, and she went into the deceased's house
and sat down behind the door. Chapple ordered hor out of
the house, and he got up and wont towards her to put her
out. He caught her by the hand, and she got hold of him
by the throat. A scuffle ensued, and Chapple got hold of the
prisoner's hair, which he twisted round his hand. They went
all round the kitchen, the prisoner sticking Chapple several
times in the stomach and neck. A person who saw the affray
tried to separate them, and said, "The man is dying." He
never spoke again, and died the same night. The deceased
was in a delicate state of health. A surgeon was called in.
He found the deceased in bed and undressed; he was then
in a dying state. Apoplexy was the cause of his death,
which might have been brought on by the excitement of
the struggle. The brain was quite a pulp.
The jury, after having retired for 20 minutes, found the
prisoner guilty, but strongly recommended her to mercy on
the ground of the provocation she had received. She was
sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

James Bragg was indicted for a burglary in the house of
Ann Boundy, and with stealing therefrom £2 in money,
some knives, and other articles, at Colebrook, on the 28th
April.

Mr. C. A. Turner prosecuted, and Mr. Cox defended the
prisoner.

On going down stairs on the morning of the 28th April,
it was discovered that Mrs. Boundy's house had been broken
open; the shop had been entered, and £2 odd taken out of
the till, and several knives and other articles had been taken
away. There was blood on the window through which the
burglar had entered. To bring the offence home to the pri-
soner, it was shown that ho was late out on the night before
the burglary. The next day the prisoner was seen by the
pclico with blood on his smocktrock and trousers. This
created suspicion, and the policeman took him into custody,
and, upon searching him, found most of the stolen pro-
perty in his possession.
The prisoner was found guilty, and was sentenced to
seven years' penal servitude.
Elizabeth Thomas was indicted for the wilful murder of
her female child, not named, at Devonport, on the 2d of
July.
Mr. Cox prosecuted, and Mr. Lopez defended the pri-
soner.

This was one of those painful cases of which we had ono
at Dorchester last week. The facts were very simple and
were not disputed, and the only question was the state of
mind of the prisoner at the time the unhappy act was com-
mitted. The prisoner was a married woman, having a hus-
band and four children, the youngest of whom was only three
weeks old. On the Ist of July the prisoner, who always
evinced great affection for her children, was observed suck-
ling her infant, and performing for it a mother's offices.
The prisoner's brother, named Dyer, lodged in the pri-
soner's house. He came down early in the morning of the
2d of July and went into the prisoner's room. Tho hus-
band was in bed asleep. The prisoner was not there, but
her brother saw the baby lying on the rug on the floor with
its throat cut.

James Dyer was called. Ho said—l went into the pri-
soner's room before 6 o'clock that morning. The husband
was in bed asleep. I saw the body on the rug. I looked
at it, and saw that its throat was cut. My sister was not
there. I went to the door, and saw my sister coming up
stairs with a pitcher of water. I said, "Oh, Elizabeth,
what have you done to the baby ?" She looked at me very
innocently, and said, "I have cut its throat." She went
into the room and sat down on a chair, and seemed like some
one lost. I said, " Oh, Elizabeth, what did you do this
for ?" She said, " I dont know." I said, " What did you
do it with ?" She said, " A razor ;" and she reached it
from the table. She said she had been working hard all
night, and thought she should kill all in the house. I then
went for a surgeon. When I came back the child was just
dying. The prisoner said, " The Lord has forsaken me,
and the Devil has gained the mastery over me. Oh, why
did he order me to wean the child ? I tried to do it two or
three times. I got out of bed in the night, and first I
thought I would do it, and then I thought I would not do
it, but some one said She must do it.' I thought I was
going to die, and that the child had better die first." I
remained, and she told me to put everything out of her
reach, for fear she might kill some one else. Some time
before this she said she thought she and her husband were
going to die, and that the children would come to the work-
house.

Cross-examined--Mr. Cole, the surgeon, had told her if
she did not wean the child it would wean her. She had
always been a good and affectionate mother to her ehildren,
and a good wife. She had lost her mother and two children
within the year. There had been insanity in the family.
Other witnesses were called, who spoke of the prisoner as
having been a particularly good and affectionate mother.
They had observed a great change in her manner of late.
The Judge said it was perfectly clear that this poor
woman had acted under a delusion that she was doing some-
thing for her child's good by sending it to a better world.
The jury acquitted the prisoner on the ground of insanity,
and she was ordered to be detained during her Majesty's
pleasure. _ _

Thomas Christopher Cope was indicted for bigamy.
The prisoner pleaded " Guilty."
Mr. Carter said ho appeared to defend the prisoner. The
fact was that the prisoner had been separated from his first
wife by a legal died of separation, and people in that class
of life believed that that was tantamount to a judgment of
the Divorce Court.
The Judge asked if the second wire was lure.