The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-15 00:00:00

OLD COURT.

r The December sessions commenced this morning before
the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs.
The calendar contains the names of nearly 100 prisoners✓
for trial. There are two charges of murder, one against a.
young woman named Nacmi Newman, for killing her ille-
gitimate child, and another against two. seamen named
George Mitchell and Thomas Hewitt for causing the death.
of a porter in the course of a quarrel and fight in the neigh-
bourhood of the Victoria Docks. There are a few cases of
what are described as robberies with violence, but there is
only one charge involving what may be termed a garotte
robbery; so that it would seem that the example made of
this description of offenders has not been without its
effect in repressing, to a certain extent, the commission of
this desperate crime. The present calendar does not contain
a single case of Post-office robbery ; and the present is the
fourth session in which the calendar has presented a simi-
lar satisfactory result. The principal case of importance
that will have to be disposed of at the ensuing session will
be the charge arising out of the extraordinary robbery of
bank-note paper from the mills of M essrs. Portal, the ma-
nufacturers of the whole of the paper upon which the
notes of the Bank of England are engraved, and in
which six prisoners are implicated, and it is understood_
that the Attorney• General will conduct the prosecution.
It is very likely, however, as the case is one of a very com-
plicated and unusual character, that after the grand j'sy
have found the bills that may be presented to them, an ap-
plication will be made to postpone the trial to the January•
session. The Judges who will preside at the December
session are Chief Justice Erle, Mr. Justice Crompton, and
Mr. Baron Martin.

Two men named Knowles and Brown wore indicted far
stealing 235., the property of Robert Brown.
The prosecutrix said that on the evening of Nov. 7 she
company with her husband, was in a public-house taking-
some ale. She was standing near the bar, and by her side
were seven or eight men ; her husband was sitting a few
yards from her. According to Mrs. Brown's statemmt,
she said the men, amongst whom were the prisoners,.
surrounded her, and then she discovered that she had lost.
her money. She called out " Robert, I'm robbed," when
Knowles knocked her down' and Brown held her .by the
shoulder, while his companion took the money from her.
Before her husband could get up Knowles ran away. In
e
c et h
lrleeed wee
for
st'h aft
eepro heee, prosecutrixand mt
heat
ct he en pt
er
bleen
tooker s .
hSehh
of Knowles, Brown threatened to knock his brains out if
he did not let his companion' go. A violent struggle took
place, but the prisoners were ultimately secured.
One of the prisoners said the woman was drunk, and
that she fell down and lost her money.
The jury found both prisoners guilty.
A previous conviction was proved against Brown.
The police said Brown was a very desperate nian, and
was wanted for another robbery.

The Common Sergeant said Brown was evidently a very
desperate person, and if he had used any great violence on
the prosecutrix he should have given him a very severe
punishment. Under all the circumstances he should sen-
tence him to 10 years' penal servitude.
Brown, on hearing the sentence, said, " Aint that
severe ? Why don't you hang me at once P "..and was with
some difficulty removed.

The Common Sergeant told Knowles, as he was unknown
to the police, he should only sentence him to four years'
penal servitude.

Knowles—Thanky'e, my lord, I am obliged to you.
THE GREAT BANK PAPER ROBBERY.

Mr. Giffard, on the part of the prosecution, applied for
the postponement of the trial of the prisoners charged with
being concerned in the robbery. He held in his hand an
affidadit from a medical gentleman, which stated that Mr.
W. Portal was at present suffering from erysipelas in the
head, and was quite unable to undergo the fatigue of giving
evidence during the present session. Under these circum-
stances he hoped the whole of the witnesses, numberiDg
over 50, might be compelled to go before the grand jury.
The Common Sergeant asked if Mr. Portal was examined
before the magistrate?
Mr. Giffard replied he was not.

Mr. Lewis, on the part of Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, who
had been retained by Brewer, hoped the application would
not be granted. He did not think that the gentleman re-
ferred to was such a material witness as his friend hail
stated. There had been five or six examinations before
Alderman Cubitt, at none of which was Mr. Portal exa-
mined. He presumed Mr. Portal knew nothing about the
abstraction, and his evidence he supposed merely related to
some points relative to the manufacture of the paper. The
prisoners were indicted under the Bank Act, and that
rendered Mr. Portal's evidence of less importance than it
otherwise might have been. if the application was granted
he hoped Brewer would be admitted to bail, because he was
prepared with two securities to the amount of a thousand
pounds each if it should be required. The cost of bringing
the witnesses to town during the present session ought
not to stand in the way of the present proceeding.
The Common Sergeant said the cost of bringing the wit-
nesses to town did not arise, but he thought that the con.,
venience of so large a number of persons ought to be
thought of.

Mr. Lewis thought it was of the highest importance to a
person not guilty of a charge imputed to him that the wit-
nesses should be compelled to go before the grand jury at
the earliest moment.

Mr. Pator, on the part of Buncher and Cumming, also.
opposed the application. His clients had been in prison
nearly three months. One of them, Buncher, had had his
trade ruined by his shop being closed, and he thought it
was extremely hard that the trial should be postponed until
January. Mr. Portal could only give evidence as to the
stock of paper he had upon the premises, and at the proper
time he intended to make an application that Buncher and.
Cumming might be tried separate from the other prisoners.
The Common Sergeant said he was of opinion that Mr..
Portal was a material witness, and he therefore should as-
sent to the application for the postponement of the trials till
next session. The application of Mr. Lewis with respect to
the admission of Brewer to bail was quite out of the ques-
tion.

Mr. Lewis hoped there would be no objection to his renew-
ing his application relative to bail before a judge at cham-
bers.

The Common Sergeant said the learned counsel was quite
at liberty to do so.
The prisoners were then removed from the dock, and thQ
trial was postponed until next session.

POLICE-THIS DAY.

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, DEC. 13.

Mr. Justice Keogh this day passed sentence upon
two paupers, Anne Daffy and Ellen Carey, sho
picaded " Guilty' to the charge of setting fire to
the South Dublin Union Workhouse. His lordship
said the prisoners had been found guilty of a great
offence, but as they gloried in their crime it would
be a waste of words to address any observations to
them in the way of remonstrance. He would, there-
fore, sentence them to four years' penal servitude.
The prisoners were delighted, and immediately said,
s‘ Thank your Lordship; we have got out of hell, at
all events."

Seventeen male paupers were then brought up
for the same offence, and were sentenced to the same
punishment. Several of them cried out, " Thank
you, my lord and gentlemen of the jury, we have
got out of a house of persecution."
Four other paupers, found guilty of riotous con-
duct, got 12 months' imprisonment with hard
labour. They seemed to have learnt from some
of their associates in the workhouse, who had per-
son experience of prison life, that convicts are
much better treated than paupers ; and it was for
the express purpose of getting themselves trans-
ferred from the workhouse to the prison that they
attempted to burn down the building. It is not un-
likely that many more will follow their example.
It is a strange state of things when the prospect of
penal servitnderis actually an inducement to the
commission of the most atrocious crimes. One used
to read of the " horrors of transportation," but we
never hear of the " horrors of penal servitude." In
fact, as a punishment, it has no terrors for the class
which produces most of our criminals. They are
sure of good board and lodging and the kindest
possible treatment from the moment they get into
gaol, and they are animated by the hope that by
good behaviour—that is, a quiet and respectful
demeanour—they will bo able soon to rejoin their
former associates in vice and crime. This hope has
no reformatory influence whatever, but the reverse.
Banishment to the opposite side of the globe would
b, dreaded as a real punishment, giving no hope
but in a real change of character, which useful
employment in a strange country, free from old
corrupting associations, would assist powerfully in
effecting.

In the Commission Court yesterday, Frederick
Caldwell Spear was placed at the bar charged with
having uttered a forged check for £192 12s 6d on the
Bank of Ireland in September last. He was tried at
the last Commission, but the jury disagreed. The
check was forged in the name of Mr. Du Bedat, a
stockbroker in this city. The prisoner had written to
him to the effect that, in the absence of his clerk, who
was the prisoner's cousin, the latter had opened Mr.
Du Bedat's desk and abstracted a blank check, which
had been filled up and presented for payment at the
bank by another person, and that his cousin, Satin-
deraon Spear, the clerk, knew nothing at all about
it. The tatter was examined, and corroborated this
testimony. He denied that he had any knowledge
of the transaction, and stated that he was the first
to inform Mr. Du Bedat of the forgery. The per-
son said to have got the money for the check was
William Waldron, who hed kept an cffice at 18,
Essex-quay. Acting Inspector Smith deposed that
after the discovery of the forgery he made inquiries
for this person, and could not find him. Re had
reason to believe he had left the country and had
nor returned. Among the papers found on the pri-
soner was the notice of a bill from the bank, directed
" 'William Waldron," also a notice from the Hiber-
nian Bank to the effect that his draught on Waldron
had been protested. Mr. Curran addressed the jury
for the defence. They brought in a verdict of
guilty, and the prisoner was this day sentenced to
four years' penal servitude.
A jury was empannelled to assess damages in a
breach of promise case before Mr. Hitchcock, one
of the Masters in Chancery, yesterday The plain-
tiff was Isabella Rattle, 21 years of age, the daugh-
ter of a Dublin solicitor, who, in consequence of her
father's decease, was obliged to take the situation
of a governess in the family of Captain Graham, of
Cashel. The defendant was the Captain's brother.
He was 24 years of age, and held the appointment
of medical officer in the Dundrum Dispensary,
County Tipperary. From the correspondence pro-
duced, and other evidence, it appeared that he not
only promised marriage to the young lady, but had
formally proposed for her to her brother and her
mother, but the match was broken off through the
interference of his family, on the ground that he
had an income of only £9O a year, on which it would
be impossible for him to support a wife, two ser-
vants, and a horse. As to damages, counsel de-
clared that the defendant's brothers would not`pay
them, and that he would have to go through the
Insolvent Court, and perhaps lose his situation.
On the other side, counsel stigmatised the defence
put forward as highly dishonourable. The jury re-
tired, and, after an absence of a few minutes, re-
turned with a verdict for the plaintiff, with £250
damages.
An important and curious will case came before
another Master in Chancery, Mr. Litton, yester-
day. It appeared that Daniel Lyons, late a lieu-
tenant-colonel in the East India Company, by his
will, made at Almorah, in,the:province of Kumaon,
in the East Indies, and dated Sept. 10, 1819, be-
queathed all his personal estate to his nephews,
Robert and Thomas Bell, and to two other persons,
as his trustees, upon trust, in the first place to set
apart a sum of £lO,OOO to pay several annuities of
£lO each to different charitable institutions in the
city of Dublin. The testator then proceeded to re-
cite that if his life should be prolonged for a few
years he intended to purchase a small landed estate,
to be inherited by his nephew, Thomas Bell (the
petitioner) and his heirs, on condition of their
assuming his surname and professing the Protes-
tant religion, with remainders over. The will then
went on to state that he (the testator) having lately
read Mr. Brougham's (now Lord Brougham's) let-
ter to the late Sir Samuel Romilly, describing an
institution in Switzerland, on Mr. Fellenburgh's
estate, he directed that 250 acres of the estate in-
tended to be purchased by him should be appropri-
ated for the establishment of a similar institution
in Ireland; and then gave the most minute direc-
tions for the management of the institution and for
the education of the boys and their maintenance;
and concluded by directing that the neighbouring
rnlgistrates shouid visit the institution, and that
on such occasions they should be treated with
Irish hospitality, without locking the doors to force
the guests to drink. The testator then gave several
annuiiies to different relatives, and directed that the
estate intended to be purchased by him should de-
volve on his said nephew, Thanes Bell, to enable
him to carry on the institution, The testator after
wards made another will dated the sth of Nov.,
.1819, revoking all former wills, and simply be-
e.etathing annuities of the same amount to the i ela-
II:" mentioned in his first will—but by a codicil to
secondt will, and dated the same day, he di-
rected that there should be a benefit of survivorship
between the annuitants, and then, after the decease
of the Bum
of the annuitants, he gave all his
real and Per7nto his al estate to his said nephew, Thos.
Bell, trusting
wibb,
euntaie,e4
in performance of his (testator's)
gnerl Almorah, in the
rn
province of Kua„,woill 8;
if
he
livedn the 10th of Sept. 1819, and
'which he stated
perfected by legal
advice, he intended to be is-islastand will. The testator
died in two days afterwards
further tes'amentary docu
C uac Wace whether the
awselrda of tip,
question in the
theik lel in the
trust ah prcesed on the devise
on the sth of Nov., 1819, had
iivicipg all the trusts in the first will, or only of
that
or rtion thereof relating to the educational Pu
r -
ftei Master, in an able judgment, reviewed
nu'Bo-'•
the yrguiriipo s of all the counsel, and stated that the
question was one of grtat difficulty; but that he
came to the eonetusiol contended for by the peti-
lie thought it would be inconsis-
tioner's counsel.
of trust the meaning con-
tent to give the words
-
A t torn ey General,
tended for by the counsel for the
as that would defeat all the purposes of the testator.
fie thought the words of reference related only to
the trust imposed on the petitioner f or education
allal
purposes, and that the petitioner was entitled. to
~
the testator's property, subject to the obligation
parchas'ng '250 acres for the support of the insti-
tution mentioned in the Almorah will.
Another will case has been before the Court of

Probate for the lastfew days. It was a suit broaght
to establish the 'validity of a paper writi g pur-
porting to be the will of Ann Kenny, deceased.
who resided at Kingstown. The defendant pleaded
that the said will was re s oked by a übsequent
instrument, dated the 12th of Februar 1862, and
containing an express clause of revocation. The
plaintiff resisted this latter will on the ground of
its not being executed in accordance with the
statute, and also that the deceased was not of testa-
mentary capacity at the time. The issue was
whether the will relied on by the defendant, of the
12th of February, 1862, was the last will of the
deceased, and whether it contained an express clause
of revocation. The deceased died 13th February,
1862, in Wexford, but left assets to the extent of
£2,000, and a bill in the hands of Messrs. Cathcart
for £5,000. The defendant was maternal aunt and
next of kin of deceased. On the 30th of April,
1860, she executed a will, bequeathing all her pro-
perty to the plaintiff's wife, " in trust, to apply and
dispose of it for the use of such poor persons, and
for such charitable uses and purposes as she shall
see fit," and, in case any residue remained after the
death of Jane Daly, then to descend to the plain-
tiff for the same purpose. Subsequently, however,
the deceased expressed her dissatisfaction with this
will, and executed another, by which she bequeathed
her property to Mr. M'Carthy, a barrister, and his
wife, with these words—" Trusting to their chari-
table and pious recollection of the spiritual wants
of me and mine." This will, which contained an
express clause of revocation, revoking all former
wills, was subsequently destroyed by Mr. M'Carthy,
who thought that it was not a valid instrument.
Mr. Dennis F. M'Carthy, barrister, was one of
the witnesses examined. He deposed that he knew
deceased. On the day previous to her death he was
sent for by her. He went to her house, and she
told him she wanted him to prepare her will. He
asked her what had become of the will she had pre-
viously made. She said it was in a box. Witness
called the housekeeper, searched for it, and got it.
Deceased then LictEtted a will to witness. She made
it in favour of witness and his wife, "in the hope
that they would attend to the spiritual necessities
of me and mine." The will disposed of property to
the extent of about £B,OOO. Deceased first signed
" Miss Kenny," but subsequently signed it "Ann
Kenny." Witness subsequently, from a conversa-
tion he had with Messrs. Cathcart, came to the con-
clusion that the will of 1860 was the one in which
her wishes were expressed, and acting on that con-
clusion he buret the other will.

To the Court—His impression of the will of 1862
was that the intention of the deceased was to leave
the property to him in trust for charitable purposes.
The jury found a verdict that the will of Feb.,
1862, containing the revocation clause, was the last
wilt and testament of deceased.

It is worthy of remark that in this case two
Roman Catholic clergymen, the Rev. Thomas Hore,
County of Wexford, and the Rev. John O'Rourke,
Kingstown, deposed that they advised the testator
to leave her property to be distributed among her
poor relations.

THE LATE ALLEGED INFANTICIDE 1N
ST. P.ANC.RAB.

On Saturday Dr. Lankester resumed an inquiry
at the Elephant and Castle, King's-road, Camden-
town, touching the death of a newly-born child, the
supposed illegitimate offspring of Elizabeth Day,
which was found in a box, with its throat most
severely cut, at 42, Windmill-street, Tottenham-
court-road.

Mr. Randall, solicitor, appeared for the suspected
young woman.

The Coroher, in continuing the case, said they on
the last meeting adjourned for the appearance of the
supposed mother of the infant, in order that she
might hear the evidence adduced against her. He
wished to know if she was present.
Mr. Randall answered in the affirmative, but
hoped it would not be necessary to have her before
the jury, as he wished to spare her feelings as much
as possible.
The Jury considered it necessary, whereupon she
was brought into court and accommodated with a
seat.

The Coroner then read over the evidence taken
on the last occasion, and called
Margaret O'Connell, a monthly nurse, who said
that on Saturday, the 22d Tilt., she was sent for to
42, Windmill-street, and saw a young lady (Eliza-
beth Day) ill in bed. She did not see the baby until
the Thursday following, when she gave witness the
key of a box which was under the bed, and which
contained the child. She opened the box and found
the child there, with its throat cut. Witness did
not say anything to her about the child. She said
the child was born on the Thursday morning pre-
vious, and was born dead. On the following Satur-
day witness saw a baby's cap in a parcel, but she had
seen no baby's linen on any previous occasion. She
said Mrs. Henderson, her landlady, was aware that
she had some baby linen.
Mr. Henderson said that witness was telling an
untruth. His wife knew nothing whatever about it.
Witness said that all she had said was true, and
she had been allowed to eat her dinner for three
days with the knife which had been used to cut the
baby's throat.

Mr. Henry Obre, surgeon, who had made the post
mortem examination,on being re-examined, said the
injuries to the head were quite sufficient to cause
death, without the cut throat, which latter he be-
lieved was inflicted after death. The bones of the
head were completely dislodged, as though by
squeezing in the hand, and under the scalp, over the
whole of the head, it was covered with extravasated
blood. The injuries to the head might have been in-
flicted by an unskilful midwife, or by the mother
herself unintentionally,
The Coroner then summed up, after which the
jury requested to be allowed to consult alone, and
after a short deliberation they returned a verdict,
" That deceased died from injuries before or after
birth; but by whom those injuries were inflicted
there was not sufficient evidence to show."