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

His daughter was catied, and corroborated her father. Per-
kin's, Altree's man at the time in question, stated that ho
was in the George when Altree locked it up and left it on
the night of the 29th, and that he went to bed soon after,
and did not get up till about half-past 7in the morning,
and therefore did not roll away ale with anybody on that
night; but that he did do so between 7 and 10 on the night
of the following Tuesday the 2d of December. It was con-
tended for the prisoner that it was an undoubted fact that
ale was rolled away from the George in the night time by
Altree and his man, and that a mere mistake in the parti-
cular night would not constitute perjury ; that though Per-
kins was called it did not follow that Altree had not another
man who might have been engaged in roiling ale on the
night of the 29th ; and that, if so, there was no corrobora •
Live proof in denial of the defendant's evidence, and that the
daughter's evidence really amounted to nothing.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty.
" ' "

This case concluded the business of these assizes.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—NEWCASTLE, July 27.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
James Anderson, aged 22, and Wm. Richardson, aged
30, both blacksmiths, were charged with assaulting and
robbing James Cronabie, at Wallsend, on the night of the
18th April last, and stealing from him £33 3s. in gold and
diver.
Mr. Davison prosecuted, and Mr. C. Foster defended the
prix :nets.

It appeared that Mr. Crombie kept a shop near Walls, nd-
quay, and lived about a mile off, and that his custom was on
Saturday r ights to leave his shop about 10 o'clock and walk
home, taking with him the contents of his till. On the
night of the 18th of April he thus left his shop, and was
walking home with his shop door key in his hand and about
£27 in gold in his trousers' pocket, and about £5 10s. in
silver. On arriving near his home there is a by-path,
through a ropery-walk, which is a near cut to his house, and
he went by this path. He had not proceeded far when he
saw two men before him walking the same way. He passed
them and immediately received a violent blow on the head
with some weapon which knocked him down ; the men then
got upon him, and tore from his pocket a pound of ground
coffee which he was taking home, which they stuffed into
his mouth and eyes, seizing him at the same time by the
throat. He was nearly choked, and in his struggles he
struck one of the men on the face with the door key which
was in his hand, wounding him under the left eye. He be-
came at last exhausted, and begged them to spare his life
and take his money. They then tore open his trousers and
pulled out the pocket containing his money, with which they
made off. On the ground they left a weapon called a Mor-
gan rattler—a bludgeon made with gutta pereha loaded with
lead—and a piece of cloth torn apparently from a coat in
the struggle. The prosecutor gave a description of the men
who had attacked him, and on this and other information
the prisoners were taken into custody. The prosecutor swore
positively to Anderson being one of the men. He had then
his whiskers; he was now close shaved. He believed the
other man to be Richardson, but he would not swear to him.
In the first instance a man named Hackson, who had once
been convicted, was visited by the police, and suspicion at-
taching to him, he a week after the robbery stated that one
day, a fortnight before the robbery, the prisoner Richard-
son, whom he had not known before, asked him if he would
join in a good thing. On asking what it was, Richardson
said, "It was to rob Mr. Crombie as he left his shop with
his money en Saturday night, and that he had got two Mor-
gan rattlers, and it was all right." The witness did not go.
It was also shown that Richardson when taken into custody
had a wound under his left eye, which his sister had poul-
ticed for him the morning after the robbery at Newcastle.
It was further shown that the coat worn by Anderson when
taken into custody corresponded in quality and colour with
the piece of cloth found, which it was suggested had been
torn from the sleeve. Both prisoners were at work at the
time at the works of Mr. Lester, the iron shipbuilder on the
Tyne.
For the defence it was contended that Mr. Crombie's
opportunities of observing the prisoners were limited. The
prisoners were both in work, and no money had been traced
to them. The story told by Hackson was a most impro-
bable one, and evidently told to shield himself from sus-
picion. His conduct in the matter and his past reputation
rendered him unworthy of credit, and the description given
by Mr. Crombie of one of the men who robbed him more
closely resembled this witness than the prisoners. Witnesses
were then called to prove an alibi, showing that both pri•
soners had been in Newcastle on the night of the robbery,
drinking at a publichoase till 9 o'clock, and Anderson was
met in Newcastle at half-past 9, and Richardson took a
lodging at 10, and went to bed soon after ; this being 41
miles from the scene of the robbery, which took place about
half-past 10. The landlady of the lodgings, however, did
not observe that Richardson had any wound on his face, nor
next morning when he left ; but there was no doubt that
next morning his sister had dressed a wound on his face.
In reply the learned counsel for the prosecution contended
that the Saturday night when he lodged in Newcastle must
have been some other Saturday night, otherwise the land-
lady must have observed the wound on his face if there was
one then ; and it was not shown how he got the wound his
sister dressed, which it was contended had been made by
the prosecutor with the key.
His lordship having summed up, the jury, after an ab-
sence of half an hour, returned a verdict of Guilty.
His lordship sentenced Anderson, against whom there
was a previous conviction, to 12 years', and Richardson to
10 years' penal servitude.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, July 28.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Air. Baron Bramwell.)
PRESCHER V. PECHTER.
This was an action by the husband of a lady engaged as a
ballet-dancer by the well-known actor and manager of the
Lyceum Theatre for dismissing her before the expiration of
the season. The defendant denied the engagement for a
season, and that was the question in dispute.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Laxton were for the
plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Sir G. Honyman were
for the defendant.

It appeared that there are other similar actions pending,
The lady herself being examined as a witness stated that
she had been engaged for the season by defendant's manager,
at a Balm y of X 1 a-week. This was in January, and she had
continued to dance at the theatre in the " Duke's Motto"
until the 22d of May last, when she received a letter from
the manager to the effect that her services would not any
longer be required after the expiration of a week ending on
the 29th of May. Ste said the theatrical sewn would last
eight or nine months. The theatre was still open, and the
" Duke's Motto" was still being performed.
Cross-examined—She said she was first engaged by a Mr.
Pettit. She asked him for an engagement. He direc'ed
the ballet entirely. She danced before him, and he engaged
her. He told her she was "engaged at the theatre." That
was all that then passed. After that she saw Mr. Barnett,
the treasurer. That was a fortnight afterwards. There was
no written engagement. There had been no complaint to
her of her dancing, but Mr. Pettit was always complaining
of the ballet. She denied that he ever told her he should
have to give her notice. She took her salary every week
from Mr. Barnett. She saw him after her dismissal, and
told him when she saw him that she was engaged for the
season, to which he assented. She denied that she asked him
to intercede for her. She showed him the letter of dismissal,
and he seemed to know nothing abeut it. Several other
young ladies, dismissed by Mr. Pechter, had brought actions.
Tnere was no fixed time for a season, but the time she had
stated was usual with a good theatre.
Re. examined—She said she saw Mr. Barnett on the 24th
of May, having had the letter of dismissal on the 23d. She
was in the " regular" ballet. The house was still open and
filling every night.
This was the plaintiff's case:

For the defence Mr. Pettit was called and denitd that
the engagement was expressed to be for the season, and Kr.
Barnett was also called, and swore that when nothing was
said about the duration of the engagement it was by the usual
understanding terminable by a week's notice. The young
ladies who had been dismissed had been, he said, replaced
by others. As to the alleged conversation with the plain-
tiff, he denied that he ever said she was engaged for a
season, and he said she only expressed her regret at her dis-
missal. The season was till the 7th of August.
Cross-examined—He said he might have said that he
would use his influence to obtain her re-instatement.

Re-examined—He swore positively that he had said
nothing to the effect that her engagement was for the season.
Mr. Oscar Byrne, who said he had been ballet. master for
40 years and in the profession 60 years, stated that ballet
dancers who were really au fait had written engagements,
and there was an understanding that others might go at a
week's notice, and might be dismissed at such notice.

Cross-examined—The witness said he was sure all the
ballet dancers were well:aware of this as the usage. Pressed,
however, as to what he should do in the case of a young
lady not previously engaged at a regular theatre, he said he
should tell her of it.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, in reply, said his learned friend
knew a great deal of these matters, and he himself knew
something of them—from reading. (Great laughter.) And
he argued that it was pretty plain the lady had never been
engaged for the season, and he urged this especially, because
it was more probable that she should recollect the matter
more correctly than the manager, who had so many other
matters to attend to. And, as to the alleged complaints about
the lady's dancing, why everybody knew—at least his
learned friend knew—that ladies were not engaged merely
for their legs, but a little also for their looks. (Laughter.)
The learned Baron, in summing up the case to the jury,
said it was scandalsus that the action should have been
brought down therd for trial. In the first place, even taking
the young lady's account of the matter, so far as the con-
, tract was concerned, it seemed to be placed beyond a doubt
by Mr. Barnett's evidence that the season would end on the
7th of August, and as the engagement was only at £1 a
week the damages would in any view be less than £2O. The
case, therefore, might have been tried in the county
court, and even if the action were in the superior courts
it need not have been brought down there for trial, but
might have been tried in London, thus avoiding the very
serious expense of the maintenance of the parties and wit-
nesses at the assizes, and the cost of travelling down to that
town. The attorney for the plaintiff had brought the case
down there for trial for purposes of his own,or in the hope
of deterring the defendant from resisting the claim ; because
be might far better have paid the demand than defended

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 ou 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 Specia

Juries.)

MOORE AND ANOTHER V. FLETCHER.

This was an action for money lent and fur interest.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Hayes, and Mr. Field
were for the plaintiffs; and Dir. Roden, Q. 0., and Mr.
Flowers far 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 he 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 disappr Ned 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 hand writing 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
cent, upon it by way of acknowledgment until his death. The
defendant had always kept down the interest on the mortgage
but did not pay off the principal till the summer of 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 adjoiaing house, and she went into the deceased's house
and sat down behind the door. Chapple ordered her out of
the house, and he got up and went 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 stomaoh 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 enticed. To bring the offence home to the pri-
soner, it was shown that he was late out on the night before
the burglary. The next day the prisoner was seen by the
police with blood on his smockfrock 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 one
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. He 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 achair, 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 iti
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
thvught I would do it, and then I thought
I lw would not do
it, but some one said She must do it.' thought I was
going to die, and that the child had better die first." I
remained, and she told me to pnt 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
wain 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 he appeared to defend the prisoner. The
fact was that the prisoner had been separated from his first
wife by a legal deed 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 wife was here.