The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, APRIL 1.
FLETCHER V. CORLEY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a surgeon,
residing in \Vest-square, Lambeth, against the defendant,
who keeps a school in Prospect-place, St. George's-road.
The plaintiff had lately purchased the house in which he
now resides, and expended a conside‘rable sum in repairs.
&c., to make it a suitable residence. Having removed all
the other objections to the holise, a very serious objection,
it was alleged, liad arisen in consequence of the noise and
tumult made by the school-boys in defendant's school, the
back premises of which close adjoined those of the plaintiff.
They were in the constant and daily habit of insulting the
plaintiff, by shouting " Quack, Quack." They had on dif-
ferent occasions thrown various missiles, such as stones,
&c., at the plaintiff himself, and also at the windows, which
were broken. On one occasion they hurled a piece of dry
crust, and cried out, " Let.us give the old quack a Sunday
dinner," and they danced before the bed-room window, hol-
lowing out, " Let us call up the quack and old Mrs.
Quack." The plaintiff was very nearly killed by a ball
" which was filled with sharp spikes," and hurled at his
head ; it very fortunately, however, missed him,
and stuck in the door of an outhouse. The noise the boys
made was described as including every kind of tumult, and
such as rendered the further residence of the plaintiff in his
house impossible unless the nuisance was abated. The de-
fendant having taken no notice of a letter which had been
written to him by the plaintiff, complaining of the distur-
bance in his school, the plaintiff had no other means of
quelling the noise but by bringing the present action.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL suggested that a Juror
should be withdrawn, which might have the effect of re-
pressing the annoyance and of inducing a more friendly
feeling between the parties.
Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, said that the school was
very well conducted in every respect.
A Juror was ultimately withdrawn.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LrrEarooL, MAitem 31.
Richard Swallow was indicted for the manslaughter of
Jane Swallow, at Manchester. The deceased was the wife
of the prisoner, and they had been living separated for
about four months before the occurrence which caused her
death. On the 6th of February last the deceased went to
the house where the prisoner was lodging. She had been
drinking a little. She insisted upon seeing the prisoner,
who was in 'bed ; he refused to get up, and she went up
stairs to him. She shook him, and desired him to get up.
He replied " Who is that ?" She said, " I want some
money for the children." He replied " I don't know you."
He then leaped out of bed, gave the deceased several severe

ows, and finally flung her down the stairs, which are steep
and narrow. Her skull was fractured, and she died shortly
after.—Guilty of Manslaughter.

Michael Cowlan was indicted for attempting to murder
his brother, James Cowlan, by suffocating him. The cir-
cumstances of the, case were very singular. The prosecutor,
a sickly-looking person, with an expression of deep melan-
choly on his face, stated that lie was a musical instrument
maker ; that he had been separated from his wife ; and
having, besides the prisoner, no immediate relatives, except
a grown up daughter, residing in America, he had asked
his brother to come from London to live with him, and assist
him in his trade. He did so, and they had lived together
for nearly a month before the occurrence which gave rise to
the present charge. He then found the arraigement dis-
a;reeable, for what reason did not appear, and proposed to
his brother to leave the house, offering to hire a shop and
supply it with instruments for sale on commission. This
"was the subject of conversation on the Sunday previous to
the supposed attempt on the prosecutor's life. On that
evening the prisoner came home about 10 o'clock he had
evidently been drinking a little. Prosecutor soon after went
to bed. He was awakened soon after by feeling the pressure
of something heavy upon him, and he then felt a wet cloth
over his face. His hands, however, were quite at liberty, and
lie removed the cloth and threw it on the floor. The pressure
still continued, and he at last spoke and asked, " Michael,
is that you ?" To this question no answer was returned.
He again said, " No, it cannot be possible ; you could not
mean to injure me." There was still no reply, and the pro-
secutor, as he stated, thought he was relenting, from his
lying so still. At last the person answered, " Yes, it is
Michael ; I have it in my power, and I will satisfy myself
for all the injuries you have done my family." The prose-
cutor replied, " I never did your family any injury, and
none of them would say I did." The prisoner replied,
" They never did say so, but he knew he had done it." Pro-
secutor moved himself across the bed, the weight still fol-
lowing him, but there was no attempt at further violence.
He at last succeeded in pushing the prisoner out of the bed,
and getting on the floor himself. The prisoner seized him,
and endeavoured to force him on the bed again. In the
struggle they both fell, the prisoner under. He lay per-
fectly tranquil, and the prosecutor seized a musical instru-
ment and broke four squares of glass, calling for assistance.
The prisoner then left the room, and returned in about five
minutes, with several watchmen and a light. The prose-
cutor, in the meantime, had, in his fright, pulled out the
window-frame, and was sitting with his legs over the win-
dow sill.

The police were attracted to the prosecutor's house by
the noise of glass breaking and screams of murder. They
rapped at the door, which was opened by the prisoner. He
had a light in his hand, and, on being asked what was the
matter, he said his brother was insane. On going to the
prosecutor's bedroom they found him in the position already
mentioned. He looked very wildly and fixedly at his bro-
ther, and seemed in great terror. At the suggestion of the
officer he left the house, that his brother might be no longer
excited by his presence. The prosecutor then insisted on
accompanying the officers to the lock-up, being afraid to
remain where he was. On his way thither he repeated
the above story, and his brother was taken into custody.
The prisoner stated that his brother had for some time
previous showed symptoms of aberration of mind.
His Lordship cross-examined the prosecutor with great
minuteness, for the purpose of ascertaining his state of
mind, and many of the usual indications of insanity were
elicited—despondency and suspicion were the most re-
markable.

The Jury at once returned a verdict of Not_Guilty.
SATURDAY, APRIL 1.
MIX V. JENRINS.
Several indictments under the Acts for regulating the
Excise were prefeired against the defendant. On the
first be was acquitted. The circumstances established
against the prisoner on the second indictment were very
similar to those attempted to be proved on the first.
The defendant was, in June, 1834, a surveyor of the
Excise, and liad been so at Preston and Manchester for
many years previously. It was his duty to take the stock
of the various spirit dealers within a certain district, keep-
ing an account of the variations in the stock of each, in
a book called the surveying book, and transmitting the
permits to the dice in London. In the present indict-