The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY' 23, 1862.

29th of September any faithful adherent of King
Richard could have been attainted as a traitor.
Lord Chelmsford inquired what charge led to the
execution of the Earl of Wiltes
Mr. Fleming believed he should be able to satisfy
their lordships that no charge of treason—the only
one which could affect the title—had ever been
made. In the first place, against whom could the
treason have been ? Certainly not against Henry
IV., for he was not King at the time, and certainly
not againt Richard 11., because the Earl of Wiltes
was beheaded for serving him.
The Lord Chancellor inquired what would be the
result if Henry of Lancaster had chosen to charge
the Earl of Wiltes with treason, and that Parliament
had thought fit subsequently to ratify that charge P
Mr. Fleming replied, that in case Henry of Lan-
caster had made a charge of treason against the earl
there would have been some record of the fact, of
which, however, there was no evidence. There was
no evidence that the Earl of Wiltes had been tried
by his peers, which was the only tribunal by which
he could be legally tried for treason, or of his having
been indicted before any other regular tribunal for
any offence whatever.
The Lord Chancellor remarked that Henry IV..
had designated the adherents of Richard ILL as dis-
turbers of the realm.
Mr. Fleming contended that that did not imply a
charge amounting to treason. The only authority
by which the earl could have . been tried at that
period was by martial law, which was not compe-
tent to determine charges of treason against peers
of the realm. According to Coke Littleton,
Henry had been guilty of murder, or, at all events,
.
of a high misdemeanour, executing the three
peers at Bristol. The execution of the Earl of Wiltes
in accordance with the hasty decision of an impro-
and no subsequent proceedings in Parliament
per tribunal, was nothing more than a formal mur-
der,
founded upon such an Act could have any weight
whatever. The Parliament of Henry IV., by an Act
of Indemnity, declared that no adherent of either
Richard or Henry should be found guilty of treason
except under the 25th of Edward 111. ; and by that
Act it was declared that no averment that a person
had been guilty of treason should be considered goad
unless the record of his conviction was produced. In
this case there was no such record, and therefore the
suggestion that the earl was executed for treason
must fall to the ground. Under these circumstances,
he contended that nothing that occurred up to the
time of King Henry's accession affected the title, and
the earl being dead at the time, nothing that oc-
curred afterwards could affect the petitioner's claim.
The Act which, it was suggested, abrogated the
claim only ratified "the pursuit, arrest, judgment,
and other proceedings" against the earl, without
specifying that there bad been any charge of treason
against him, or that he was thereby attainted of
treason. The only effect of that Act was to convey
his lands to the King, "conquered in his lifetime."
The Lord Chancellor suggested that the proper
translation of the words of the Act was " acquired
in his lifetime."
Mr. Fleming, in reply to his lordship's sugges-
tion, said that when the Isle of Man, which formed
part of the Earl of Wiltes' property, was given by
the Crown to the Earl of Northumberland, it was
described as property acquired by the Crown " by
conquest," and, therefore, he submitted that his ver-
sion was the correct one. It was a strong confirma-
tion of his argument that when Sir W. Bagot, who
escaped at the time, was afterwards taken, he was
tried for felony, and not for treason ; and, if the
Earl of Wiltes was beheaded for felony only, his
title could not be affected.
At the conclusion of the learned counsel's argu-
ment certain evidence was adduced in support of
claim.
Their lordships having consulted for some time,
The Lord Chancellor said,—The importance of
this matter is such that the whole subject must
receive, and will receive the careful consideration of
the house. It will be impossible for us to come to
any conclusion upon the arguments during the
present session. What that committee propose to
do is this—to fix an early day in the ensuing session
for the Committee for Privileges, when the formal
evidence will be taken, and will then fix another day
when the question can be solemnly argued by her
Majesty's Attorney-General and the counsel on the
part of the claimant. Due notice will be given to
each side to prepare their arguments, and if any
additional evidence is to be produced it must then
be given.
Further hearing adjourned sine die accordingly.

niary circumstances were concerned, that be
ought to have been, and that his money had by
some means or other been improperly made
away with, and it appeared that on the 28th of
May the defendatt, in the course of a conver-
sation he had with a medical gentleman named
Christmas, stated that his brother Joseph was
almost broken-hearted at the position in which
he found himself; that the money that was the
produce of the sale of the farm, and which was
stated to be £2,000, had all been squandered, and
that the plaintiff had used it for her own purposes,
and she was a -- thief, and had well feathered
her nest• This was the slander upon which the
present action was brought, and it was proved that
the farm in question, instead of fetching £2,000,
was sold for £9OO, and that the money was paid
into the bank to the account of the plaintiff's mas-
ter, and that he disposed of it by his own cheques,
and that there was not the slightest ground for the
statement that the plaintiff had possessed herself of
any portion of it.
Serjeant Parry addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendant, and he endeavoured to show that he
had in a moment of angry feeling made use of ex-
pressions that could not be justified, but he really
had no serious intention of imputing to the plaintiff
the offence of either robbery or embezzlement.
Baron Bramwell having summed up, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £2O.

KER T. MATHIAS.
This was an action to recover the amount of a
dishonoured cheque for £lOO that had been given

by the defendant.
Serjeant Shee and Mr. Barnard were for the
plaintiff; Serjeant Parry and Mr. Hannen were
for the defendant.
The circumstances of this ease were rather pecu-
liar. The plaintiff and the defendant were both
merchants in London, and it appeared that they
had each had money transactions with a person
named Lacey, who was also engaged in mercantile
affairs. On the 30th of December last, according
to the plaintiff's case, Lacey applied to Mr. Kerr
for an advance of £lOO, and he gave him his cheque
upon Messrs. Glyn and Co. for that amount, upon
the condition that he was to repay him on the fol-
lowing day; and it appeared that on the 31st Lacey
brought the plaintiff the defendant's cheque for
£lOO, but upon its presentation at the bankers,
it was not paid, and hence the present action. It
appeared that on the same day Lacey obtained the
cheque from the plaintiff, he obtained one of the
same amount, and which was the subject of the pre-
sent action, from the defendant ; but it seemed that
this cheque was post dated for the 31st, and in con-
sequence of something that came to the knowledge
of the defendant, he took steps to prevent the
cheque from being honoured, and Lacey had since
become bankrupt.
Serjeant Parry, upon the defendant's cheque
being offered in evidence, submitted that it was not
admissible, on account of its being post dated, and
he argued that the cheque being, in point of fact,
payable one day after sight, and not upon demand,
the instrument became of the character of a promis-
sory note or bill of exchange, and that it ought to
have borne a shilling stamp. In'support of his ob-
jection to the cheque being received in evidence, he
urged that if once the principle of admitting that
the penny stamp was sufficient was adopted, a
cheque might be post dated two or three months,
and thus the law, so far as regarded the stamps re-
quired for bills of exchange, would be altogether
evaded.
Baron Bramwell, after a good deal of technical
discussion had taken place, ruled that the cheque
was admissible, and that all that was required was
that an instrument of this description should bear
the penny stamp.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
the amount of the cheque.
The Court next proceeded to try a special jury
cause—the Queen v, the Inhabitants of Harlow—
which was an indictment for the non-repair of a road.
Mr. Bovill,
the prosecution ; and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and
Q.C., and Mr. J, Browne, were for
Mr. Walford, for the defendants.
The case was of the usual description, the only
question being who were the parties liable to main-
tain the road in question, and at the close of the
case for the prosecution, the court adjourned.
CROWN SIDE.

(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
The learned Judge, in his charge to the grand
jury, expressed his regret that the assizes should
have been fixed for the same day as the county rifle
contest at Southend, and said that Mr. Bramston,
M.P., president of the Essex Rifle Volunteer Asso-
ciation, had communicated with him upon the sub-
ject, with a view to making some alteration in the
day fixed for holding the assizes for this county, bat
as the arrangements had already been made for the
circuit, it would have been necessary to obtain a
fresh commission from the Crown in order to effect
that object, and which would have occasioned a good
deal of convenience. It had therefore been found
impossible to alter the day for holding these assizes.
Edward Hawkes, 50, and William Bowers, 27,
were 11111h:tea km I%mm-tilting Elinboth. Sopfaford, and
occasioning her bodily injury.
Mr. Murphy prosecuted, Mr. Taylor appeared for
Hawkes, and the other prisoner was undefended.
The circumstances under which this offence was
committed by the prisoners were of a very aggra-
vated character. It appeared that the prosecutrix was
about 30 years old, and the wife of a labouring man,
and they resided at Hallingbury. On the 20th June
they had been at work together, and afterwards
went to Bishop's Stortford, and were on their way
home about ten o'clock at night. The husband had
occasion to stop behind for some purpose, and the pro-
secutrix went on towards her home, and at a turn in
the road she met the prisoners, who got their living
by travelling about the country with a tinker's bar-
row mending saucepans, and articles of that descrip-
tion. According to her evidence, the moment they
came up they commenced an attack upon her of the
most brutal description, knocked her down, and then
beat her with bludgeons of a most formidable size.
She screamed " Murder," and her husband came up
and found his wife lying on the ground bleeding,
and almost insensible, and while he was in the act
of lifting her up, one of the prisoners struck him
also upon the loins with a bludgeon. The husband,
being a powerful man, succeeded in seizing hold of
each of the bludgeons and wrenched them out of
the prisoners' hands, and they then both ran off.
The poor woman was then assisted to a beer-shop in
the neighbourhood, when a surgeon was sent for,
and it was found that she had received very serious
injuries ; indeed, at one time her life was considered
in danger, and the surgeon stated that even at pre-
sent it was impossible to predicate with any cer-
tainty what the ultimate result might be, as the un-
fortunate woman was injured internally in a very
serious manner.
The jury found the prisoners guilty of the whole
charge contained in the indictment.
Baron Martin, in passing sentence, said that the
prisoners had been convicted, upon the clearest evi-
dence, of one of the most atrocious and unprovoked
assaults that he had ever heard of, and he ordered
them to be kept in penal servitude for the space of
three years.
James Boatman, 21, labourer, was charged with
feloniously setting fire to a shed, the property of
the Guardians of the Billericay union.
The prisoner, it appeared, was so deaf that it was
utterly impossible to make him hear the charge that
was preferred against him. He was able, however,
to read the form of the accusation contained in the
calendar, and the question, whether he pleaded
guilty or not guilty, was put in writing and shown
to him.
H 6 said in reply that he did not see what right
the guardians had to make him work in the fields
for sd. a day and half a quartern loaf. tie asked
them to give him a pair of shoes and they refused,
and so he went and set fire to the shed.
Baron Martin ordered the prisoner to stand down,
and he would consider what sentence should be
passed upon him.
Henry Green and Frederick Bates, two young
men, were charged with a misdemeanour in having
taken a girl, named Susannah Robinson, under 16
years of age, out of the custody of her father, with-
out his consent.
Mr. Shaw prosecuted.
The case was only partially gone into, but it ap-
peared that the defendants had met the girl in
question, who was about 13 years old, in the street,
at Prettlewell, near Rochford, and that they gave
her some liquor, and eventually her person was
abused by one or other of the defendants.
thteimre-
e
The learned Judge ruled that upon these facts
the case did not come within the statute under
which the indictment was raised, and that there
was no " taking away" of the girl, such as was con-
stf there-
fore, rmi
de p,
tdahi t
are
et datbehyde thea n a
defendantsacte ci
u t l
hadParliament.b grossly
u ta
the
i sconducted He,
same
themselves, and advised them, to be cautious in
their future conduct.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, July 22.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
THE SENTENCE UPON TIIE REV H. S. FLETCHER..
The Rev. Horatio Fletcher surrendered to his
bail, and was sentenced foe his frauds as treasurer
of the Bilston Savings Bank_
It will be remembered that the prisoner, who
was the incumbent of St. Leonard's, Bilston, and a
magistrate . for Staffordshire, was !build guilty at
the last assizes for defrauding the depositors of the
Bilston Savings Bank, of which he was
and trustee, of several large sums of treasurer
monry—to
wit, £lOO on the Ist of January, 1859;
£lOO on the
.
Bth of the sane month; £lOO on the 15th, £5O on
the 22d and £2OO on the 29th, all of the same
month ;, and £l,OOO on the 25th March, 1861, ''he

whole sum taken by him was about £7,000. Al ,1
though found guilty yet he was not sentenced, be-
cause a legal point was raised, whether or not he
was a trustee ; but that question having been de-
cided by the Court of Criminal Appea; in the affir-
mative, he now came up to be awarded the punish-
ment that was allotted him by the judge before
whom he was tried.
Mr. Baron Blackburn said that the prisoner was
found guilty upon evidence which left no doubt that
he had fraudulently misappropriated to his own use
the property with which he had been invested.
There was, however, some doubt whether the terms
of the act recently passed would meet such cases as
that of the prisoner, but after much deliberation—
Here Mr. Hemp, the Clerk of Arraigns, spoke to
his lordship, who paused, and then addressing Mr.
Matthews, the prisoner's counsel, said that the sen-
tence he was about to pass was the sentence which
Mr. Baron Channel', who had tried the case, had
thought was one which it demanded. If, therefore,
he had anything to urge that had not been urged
before Mr. Baron Channel', now was the time to
urge it, and he (Baron Blackburn) would communi-
cate with Baron Channel before delivering the sen-
tence.
Mr. Matthews having repeated that he had no-
thing more to urge,
The learned Judge, resumed his address to the
prisoner. After much deliberation, the Judges be-
fore whom the point was raised, and of whom he
was himself one, decided that the prisoner's case was
one which came within the terms of the act. At
no time did the Judges entertain any doubt of the
prisoner's criminality. And it now became his
duty to pass upon him the sentence which the Judge
7dao had tried the case, and had very carefully
considered it ever since, told him (Baron Blackburn)
was the proper sentence for such an offence. It
was a melancholy thing to see a person of such a
profession as that to which the prisoner belonged
in such a position •, but the disgrace was not in the
sentence, but in the offence. The sentence might
, have been a much severer one, inasmuch as penal
' servitude might have been awarded. The sentence
was that he should be imprisoned in the common
gaol for the space of two years.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-July 22.

_
(Before Mr. Bodkin, Assistant Judge.)
Marianni Sassi, an Italian, was indicted for steal-
ing the sum of ss. 6d., the moneys of Forbes
Winslow, Esq., her master. There was also a
second indictment against her for stealing the
several sums of £l4, £l5; and £2O, the moneys of
Forbes Winslow, Esq., her master.
Mr. F. H. Lewis (instructed by Messrs. Lewis
and Lewis, of Ely-place, Holborn) prosecuted, The
prisoner was undefended.
From the evidence it appeared that the prose-
cutor is Dr. Forbes Winslow, of Cavendish-square,
and that the prisoner was employed in his estab-
lishment as lady's maid. In consequence of money
being missed, on the 14th of July various coins
were marked and placed in Mrs. Winslow 's drawer.
The marked money consisted of half-a-crown, a
florin, eight shillings and one sixpenee. Mrs.
Winslow locked the drawer, and afterwards gave
the prisoner the key, and directed her to empty
three of the drawers, stating that she was going to
have new locks put upon them. The prisoner soon
afterwards brought Mrs. Winslow a bag containing
copper money, seven shillings, and one sixpence;
but the half-crown, florin, and one shilling were
gone. Police-sergeant White was sent for, and he
was told what had happened. The prisoner was
called down stairs, when Sergeant White desired
her to give him what; money she had about her ;
upon which she took out her purse, and in it was
found the whole of the marked money. Mrs.
Winslow, before this occurrence had lost
above £4O from her drawers, although she always
carried the keys of them in her own pocket.
When the prisoner was apprehended two keys
were found in her pocket, one fitting Mrs. Win-
slow's desk and the other the wardrobe. On open-
ing the prisoner's desk £5O in notes and gold was
discovered. She had in her possession a gold
watch. When the officer made known to her that
he was a police-officer, she said " She did not care
for the police, and that the money was all her own."
The prisoner, when called upon for her defence,
pretended she did not understand what was said,
although it was stated she was well acquainted with
and could speak the English language.
The Jury found her guilty.
The prisoner was then tried upon the second in-
dictment, charging her with stealing the sums of
£l4, £l5, and 120.
Mr, F. H. Lewis prosecuted.
It appeared that about the Ist of April Mrs.
Winslow received from Dr. Winslow a sum of
money in notes, which she put into her drawer,and
a few days afterwards, on being about to deposit it
in a bank, on counting it previous to making out a
ticket, she found that a £5 note had disappeared.
She subsequently counted the money, when, to her
astonishment, she found that it was minus £l4.
Inquiries were set on foot, but no informa-
tion could be , obtained how the money had
been abstracted. About the 25th of May the doc-
tor received a fee of £lO, in two notes. One of
them he gave away, and the other was abstracted
from his purse ; and about the same time some gold
was missing, together about £l5. About the 15th
of June Mrs. Winslow placed in her drawer an en-
velope, containing a £2O note ; and a day or two
afterwards having money to pay into her bankers,
she was about to add this sum to it, when she
found that this, like other sums, had disappeared.
She told the prisoner to go and search her drawers
for the missing money, when she brought her an
envelope containing a £lO note and not a £2O note
which was lost. The money was removed to a
more secure place ; but some other money being
missed, and the prisoner being seen near to the
drawers, suspicion was excited, and the police were
employed, which led to her conviction in the pre-
vious case.
The jury in this case found the prisoner guilty.
Dr. Winslow stated that he kept money in a
despatch box, on which was a Bramah lock. He
had two keys to it, both of which were in his pos-
session ; but a third key was found on the prisoner.
In that box was £2OO or £3OO at a time, and he
could not say how much he had lost.
Mr. F. H. Lewis said it had been ascertained
that the prisoner had, through the Union Bank of
London, in Argyll-place, sent various sums of
money to be deposited on her account in the bank
at Rome. In January s,e paid in £BO, in April
£43, and in November £43.
The Assistant Judge, after strongly condemning
the conduct of the prisoner, said it was the duty of
the Court to make an example of her, and sen-
tenced her to be kept in penal servitude for seven
years.
The third key was directed to be taken to Messrs.
rain ah.