The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 5, 18621.

mtnhiaptot he t en.
was H
ae
the slaveowners was accepted by the anti-slavery
party,t
or . B whonxt o n
)w
dider e
nota t that
think,
ini
then,
eno,
traitor to his father's principles in acknowledging
that he should look with abhorrence upon a military
subjugation of the South
Southerners, and he could not
wish well to the North in its attempt to subjugate
the South by force of arms. Weighing all the con-
tending considerations of the case, it seemed to him
that we ought to wish that the North should own
herself that the Union was gone for ever, and
should offer independence to all that portion of the
South lying between the Mississippi and the Poto-
mac. Could that be attained Texas and all the vast
territory lying beyond the Mississippi would before
long be freed from the curse of slavery. Slavery
would be hemmed in between borders which on the
northern side would every day be narrowing, while
at the same time the world would be saved the pre-
sent heartrending spectacle of civil war. (Hear.)
The proceedings throughout were distinguished
by much spirit.

TWO .IIUIZDE.RS IN LIVERPOOL.

LIVERPOOL, THURSDAY.

This morning a shocking murder was perpe-
trated in this town, the victim being the wife of a I
tinker, named Read, residing at No. 7, Lower
Myrtle-street, off St. Anne-street. From the facts
which are at present known it appears that Read,
his wife, and a son, about 11 years of age, resided in
the cellar of the house in Myrtle-street, and that
this morning a police officer was accosted by ayoung
woman, who informed him that a woman had been
stabbed in No. 7, Lower Myrtle-street. The con-
stable at once went to the house, where he found
the deceased, Ann Read, lying on the floor bleeding
from a wound under the left arm. He immediately
went to the St. Anne-street dispensary and procured
the assistance of Drs. Nieven and Jones, who
accompanied him to the residence of the deceased.
Every effort was made to revive the poor woman
and stop the bleeding, but without avail, and she
died immediately after the arrival of the doctors.
People in the immediate neighbourhood state

that they heard a cry of " murder" early
in the morning, and that they believe it must
have come from the house occupied by the deceased.
Read and his son have absconded, and not-
withstanding the vigilance of the police had not, up
to the time of the departure of our parcel, been ap-
prehended.

The victim of the second murder is also a woman.
Her name was Isabella Tongue, and she cohabited
with a man named Thomas Edwards, a butcher who,
however, instead of making a living by fol-
lowing his trade, supported himself on the earnings
of his paramour. Last Sunday morning, about four
o'clock, while Edwards, the deceased, Jane Wilson,
and a man named Thomas Sullivan, a ticket-of-leave
man, were sitting round the fire in a house in Nor-
bury-street, Edwards seized a butcher's knife, and
rushed at Tongue, whom he stabbed in 19 places.
He also stabbed Wilson and Sullivan, but not seri-
ously. The unfortunate woman Tongue never rallied
but died this morning. An inquest was held to-day
by the coroner, when a verdict of wilful murder was
returned against Edwards, who, instead of appear-
ing affected with his position, said he was very glad

that he had " done for her," that he had made his
peace with God, and did not care whether he was
hanged or not. He intended to kill her, and was
glad that she was dead.

caused by a cancerous tumour in the stomach, and
Mr. Sheppard, a surgeon at Hindon, coincided with
him in that opinion. Atter a great deal of evidence,
the Coroner's Jury returned an open verdict—That
the deceased died by poison, but by whom admini-
stered there was no evidence to show," and Mrs.
Trowbridge, who had been remanded by the bench
of magistrates on the 19th in order that the con-
tents of certain bottles found in her house might be
analysed, was this morning again in attendance in
discharge of her personal bail. She seemed consi-
derably better than on her last appearance, and was
accompanied by several personal friends of respec-
tability.
The Chairman, addressing Mr.
,Dann, the supe-
rintendent of police at Hindon, said—This woman
was remanded by us, Mr. Dann, on the last occa-
sion, in order that the contents of some bottles
which had been found in her house by the police
might be analysed. Has any application been made
to you by any one in relation to the matter ?
Superintendent Dann—No, sir, none at all.
The Chairman—Have you any further evidence
to lay before us ?
Superintendent Dann—No, sir, nothing further.
I may say, that the coroner's jury has returned a
verdict entirely exonerating her from all blame.
The Chairman—Very well; if there is no more
evidence she is discharged. (To. Mrs. Trowbridge)
You are discharged, madam.

Mr. Chitty having applied for and obtained leave
to procure a copy of the warrant of commitment and
of the depositions, the unfortunate lady left the
court with her friends.

EXTRAORDINARY DEATH OF A LADY

An inquiry was held by Mr. H. Raffles Walthew,
the deputy coroner, on Wednesday night, at Poplar,
respecting the death of Mrs. Ann Benson, aged 59,
who lost her life under the following singular cir-

cumstances :
John Webber, a bargeman, said that on Monday,
as he was navigating his barge near the Five Mills,
Bow, on the River Lea, his attention was attracted
by the loud barking of dogs, and a moaning sound.
He saw something floating under the surface, and
upun getting near, he found it to be a lady full
dressed. She was still alive, and he got her on
shore. He saw two rough-looking men standing
near, and he called to them to go for the police and
a doctor. They ran off, however, and no one came
until he shouted out for help. Ultimately she was
removed in a cab. She could not have got into the
river, where he found her. by walking in, as there
was an Iron railing around.
Wr. C. F. Wilson said that deceased was his sis-
ter-in-•law, and was possessed of property. She had
lost a sum of money in the Deposit Bank, and being
apprehensive that under the winding-up of that
concern she would have to pay for the deficien-
cies of others, her mind more or less gave way,
and she became subject to delusions, and thought
she was doomed to poverty. That fear was, how-
ever, quite without foundation. On the day men-
tioned by the lust witness she went out to visit at
Bow, which she evidently did by railway as the hall
of a return ticket was found on her. She had not
been robbed, as a guinea was found in her purse.
He did not know how she got into the water.
Dr. Carnell said that he was called to the de-
ceased, who was in a state of collapse. She became
sensible, but did not say how the affair occurred,
merely stating " that it was too dreadful to talk
about." She died from the immersion. He had
recently been called in to the deceased, and found
her prostrate from poison—laudanum. When with
difficulty he recovered her, she said she took poison
only as a medicine. She was subject to delusions.
He discovered a quantity of laudanum in a bottle."
The jury returned a verdict—" That deceased
died from immersion in the River Lea, but how she
came into the river there was no evidence to show.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Dec. 4.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

- - -
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Lord
Chief Justice Erie and a Specal Jury.)
IRWIN V. SIR GEORGE GREY.-ACTION FOR NOT PRE..

SENTINO A PETITION OF RIGHT.
The plaintiff in this case, George O'Malley Irwin,
by his declaration, complained that the Home Sec-
retary had refused to lay before the Queen a peti-
tion of right, and for this refusal he claimed dam-
ages £lOO,OOO.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
The plaintiff appeared in person, and the Attor-
ney-General and Mr. T. Jones represented the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff addressed the jury, informing them
that the action was brought under the Common
Law Procedure Act, 1854, and the Petitions of
Rights Act of 1860, commonly known as Mr.
Bovill's Act, and the petition of right in question
prayed for a jury for the purpose of enforcing an
award made by the present Lord Westbury some
four years ago. He also detailed the history of his
affairs for many years past, and the state of the law
previous and subsequent to Mr. Bovill's Act.
In the course of the address Lord Palmerston and
the Lord Chancellor took their seats upon the
bench. Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr_ Walpole, Mr. Wad-
dington, and other official gentlemen, were also in
court.
As far as could be gathered it seemed that the
plaintiff's claim arose out of these circumstances.
In 1832 he was an assistant barrister in Ireland, but
was convicted of a misdemeanour for deceiving the
Government by sending in the resignation of an-
other official without authority. The representa-
tives of the Government failed to produce on the
trial, and also on another trial for perjury arising
out of it, certain letters, and the plaintiff contended
that in consequence of this non-production he had
to submit to a sentence of nine months' imprison-
men and a fine of £5O. The damage that he sus-
tained was that his father diverted away from him
the descent of an estate worth £40,000, and this
amount he asked by his petition of right to be al-
lowed to claim from the crown, together with
£30,000 for loss of enjoyment of the property, and
£30,000 for injury to his professional prospects, &c.
The plaintiff's speech was of a very diffused cha-
rat(l.. and Vujip in Te
suite of rmated
exhibitions of impatience on the part of the jury
and of remonstrances by his lordship, until three
hours had been consumed in its delivery, and even
at the expiration of this time it was finishea some-
' what abruptly.
Mr. Johnston, a clerk at the Home. office, was
called to speak in reference to some documents, but
it appeared that he had not got them and knew
very little about them.
Lord Westbury was next examined as a witness,
and said—My letter of the 11th March, 1858 (a do-
cument spoken of as an award) I have no doubt was
sent to Mr. Walpole. There was no official decision
at all upon your case. The only document I recol-
lect is a note to Mr. Walpole.
The Attorney-General, in consequence of a ques-
tion by the plaintiff, objected that he could not give
evidence in reference to matters that took place
previous to the 24th April, 1861, the date of the
petition of right.
Mr. Irwin contended that such evidence was ne-
cessary, in order to show the damage which he had
sustained.

The Lord Chief Justice thought the truth or false-
hood of the allegations in the petition of right was
not now in issue ; and after some discussion he added
that the great question was whether there had been
any breach of duty on the part of Sir G. Grey, and
the circumstances to show this were that the petition
was left at the Home-office whilst Sir G. C. Lewis
was Home Secretary, that subsequently Sir George
Grey was appointed, and there were repeated appli-
cations to him upon the matter without any satis-
factory result.
Upon this point two letters by Mr. Irwin were
put in evidence to show that he had made applica-
tion to the Home-office, but he refused, though re-
peatedly appealed to by his lordship and the At-
torney-General, to put in evidence the answer
received to one of these applications, saying that he
had no notice to produce it, and he was not to be
dictated to as to how he should frame his case.
The Lord Chief Justice, after a good deal more
discussion, expressed his opinion that the only da-
mages which Sir G. Grey could be held responsible
for were those arising from the delay in presenting
the petition, and not for the £lOO,OOO which was
claimed from the Crown in the petition of right.
After more time spent in discussion it was ar-
ranged that the defendant should give evidence
upon the question whether Sir G. Grey had or not
refused to present the petition.
Sir George Grey, however, was called by plaintiff
and examined at length, but the greater part of the
questions put seemed to be by no means pertinent
to the principal point in the cause. lie said, amongst
other things, I received a subpoena duces tecum, but
I have not any of the documents mentioned in it
with me. Many of them are not in the office, and
others are of a confidential nature. I believe Mr.
-Waddington and Mr. Fitzgerald have searched for
them, and they will be better able to speak about
them. I have not got your petition of right of
1844 which Sir W. Follett as attorney-general sub-
mitted to the crown ; but I do not know whether
Mr. Waddington or Mr. Fitzgerald has it.
Mr. Irwin—Then, Mr. Waddington, or Mr. Fitz-
gerald, hand it to me. (A laugh.) I submit that the
Secretary of State is bound, like everybody else, to
obey a subpcena.
The Lord Chief Justice--Yes, according to law.
He says he has not the document in question.
Sir George Grey—All the documents that were in
the office are in the possession of Mr. Waddington
and Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Irwin—l say it is the duty of the head of the
office to produce the documents.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf he does wrong in this
matter he is answerable, and you can, if you think
fit, proceed against him hereafter.
Mr. Ir win—l am open and fair ; and where there
is so much shuffling about a document, I am the more
anxious to see it.
Mr. Fitz ; erald—l could not find the petition,
though I have made strict search.
Sir G. Grey (to his lordship)—l have not seen the
document, and I do not know whether it exists or
not.

Mr. Trwin—l contend that that is not a sufficient
answer.

The Lord Chief Justice—lt will answer for to-
day, and if Sir G. Grey has done wrong you have
your remedy.
Mr. Irwin—There is an original letter which Earl
Russell has sworn in his affidavit that he had in his
possession on the 10th June, 1839, as Secretary of
State—the letter of the 20th May, 1834, on which
Lord Westbury states that the case depends- 1-".
you Proluee that docutneut in obedience to your
subpmna.
Sir G. Grey—A search was directed by me to be
m/de, to ascertain whether all or tin 9 of the
,Torne.
docu-
ments mentioned in the subpeena were in the '