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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 29, 1863

His daughter was called, and corroborated her father. Per-
kin's, Altree's man at the time in question, stated that he
was in tho 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 Altreo 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-
tive 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 Crombie, at Wallsend, on the night of the
18th April last, and stealing from him £33 3s. in gold and
silver.

Mr. Davison prosecuted, and Mr. C. Foster defended the
prisoners.

-
It appeared that Mr. Crombie kept a shop near Wallsend-
quay, and lived about a mile off, and that his custom was on
Saturday nights 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 10a. 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. Ho 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 percha 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 bad 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 stt,ry told by Hackson was a most impro-
bable one, and evidently t,,ld to shield himself from sus.•
piciou. 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 publichouse 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 Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
rnEscnEn 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 salaty of .£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. She said the theatrical season 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 directed
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 about it. Several other
young ladies, dismissed by Mr. Pechter, had brought actions.
There 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 denied that
the engagement was expressed to be for the season, and Mr.
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 ballot
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;awaro 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 everyb, dy 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 therefor 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 oven 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 derendant from resisting the claim ; because
he might far better have paid the dewand than defended