The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-09 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

Field Marshal M'Mahon, Duke of Magenta, and I
a party of superior officers belonging to the French
service, accompanied by Major-General Cranford,
yesterday visited Woolwich. A notification of the
Duke's intended visit having been telegraphed on
the previous day from the Horse-guards, the field
batteries of the Royal Artillery were supplied with
20 rounds of blank ammunition, and assembled yes-
terday morning on the review ground at 10 45, in
heavy marching order. The Marshal was received
by Sir R. Dacres (the General commanding the
garrison) and other officers in full uniform. On his
appearance, facing the line, the troops went through
the usual salute, and defiled in order of defence and
attack, taking up the most favourable positions
overlooking the garrison, and advancing and re-
treating in the face of an imaginary force of superior
numbers, which occupied about two hours. The
troops then marched past and returned to quarters,
whereupon the 'Duke and party proceeded to the
mess-room to luncheon, after which they paid a
hurried visit to the departments of the Royal
Arsenal.
Since the opening of the Great Exhibition the
number of visitors to the departments of Woolwich
has increased ten-fold. Yesterday, and on each
Tuesday and Thursday, being public visiting days
(by tickets only ), the numbers have generally ex-
ceeded 1,000 each day to the Royal Arsenal. To
the dockyard (where no tickets are required) the
weekly visitors are stated to average about 2,500.
Major-General Sir Frederick Abbott, formerly of
the East India Company's corps of Engineers, and
recently Lieut.-Governor of the Military College at
Addiscombe, has been selected to succeed Major-
General Portlock, RE., as member of the Council of
Military Education. Sir Frederick entered the corps
of Engineers of the East India Company in 1822,
and served in the first Burmese war in 1824.26,
where he was wounded. He was Chief Engineer
with General Sir George Pollock's force against
Cabool in 1841-43. He was also employed with the
army in the first Sikh campaign, when he had the
direction of the bridge and pontoon operations, and
took part in the battle of Sobraon. From 1841 to
1847, in which year he retired from the service,
he was Superintending Engineer of the North
Western Provinces of Bengal, and in 1851 he was
made Lieut.-Governor of Addiscombe.

FOREIGN MAIL PACKET EMT.
MAILS DUE.

July 19.
Auraalia and Mauritius, via Southampton.
via Marseilles ..July 13.
.
.drazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. July 4.
CF(l:l;ter
laoalftand:losvld_iaanildsospe, Ascension, and St. Helena.. Aug. 1.
China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton. July 2.
via Marseilles ...July 13.
India (July 4.
July —.
:,iailata(C, alszenu...pt.:a).:lla.al:ni.tadlalCiii:7ylon, via Southampton.. July 2.
via Marseilles.... July 13.
via Southampton
Lisbon July —.
Oporto and Vigo ................ July 1.
July —.—
via MarseillePst"
Newfoundland July 5.
July 9.
U. S. and BritishN.A:
. .
taeriea,b.y Brit. packet July 3.
and ,V Canadian packet. July 2.
by U.S. packet
SV.C. of Africa, Madeira
nn 1 3 aniaP, via New York . enel'ifro July 10.
......... July 3.
AioNico. ......................
I Ail paritl of West Indies, includin tHivi ........ June 28.
Co.ll.lun.li;:, ;21.1d ..I;:itibil Columbia., ' Fent' I June 28,
..........
Boratay):uthampton

MYSTERIOUS MURDER IN GLASGOW.

Between the morning of Sunday last and INIor.-
day a mure.er of almost unexampled ferocity was
perpetrated in the west end of the city of Glasgow,
the circumstances of which are at present shrouded

in obscurity. Tie victim is a woman ; but the facts
so far as have been ascertained, do not point to any
motive which could have urged to the committal of

such an atrocious deed. The name of the woman is
Jessie Macpherson ; she was between 30 and 40
years of age, unmarried, and employed as a domestic
servant by Mr, J. Fleming, accountant, Sandyford-
place, a two-storey house, with sunk flat, the block
of building in which it is situate running west from
Elderslie-street. The occupants of the house are, be-
sides other members of the family, Mr. John Flem-
inz, with his son, John Fleming, and his father, Mr.
Jas. Fleming. The family have a house at Dunoon,
and it was the custom of Mr. John Fleming, with his
son, to go to the coast on Friday, remaining generally
till Monday. On Friday last they proceeded thither
as usual, leaving in the house Mr. James Fleming,
who is 87 years of age, and the deceased. About
half-past 9 in the evening Mr. Fleming went to
bed, at which time the servant was in the scullery ;
and about 4 o'clock on the following morning—as
he learned by a casual reference to his watch—the
old man states that he was aroused by hearing two
or three screams, which seemed to proceed from the
lower part of the house, in which the kitchen and
the bedroom of deceased are situated. He paid no
attention to the circumstance, however, thinking
that she had perhaps brought in a female friend to
sleep with her, as there were so few people in the
house, and that the noise might have been occasioned
in some trivial way. This opinion he still held when
on the following morning he arose about 10 o'clock
and found her bedroom door shut, the idea then oc-
curring to him that she might have gone out with
her friend, as the front door was only on the check.
At all events, he did not seek to investigate the
matter further, but after making and partaking of
breakfast quitted the house ; and in the evening he
again retired to rest, her apparent absence from
home still unaccounted for. On Sunday he went
twice to church—the day and night passed, but still
there was no tidings of the missing woman. His
son and grandson came home about 4 o'clock on
Monday afternoon to dinner, and to them her dis-
appearance was made known. They went down
stairs to the sunk flat, but found the bedroom door
locked, and the key missing, The key of the pantry,
however, secured ingress, and on entering the room
the body of the murdered woman was found lying
on the floor, face downwards, and in a state of al-
most absolute nudity, with three fearful wounds in
the head, which had seemingly been inflicted with
a heavy and sharp instrument—one above the right
ear, and so large as almost to admit of the finger
being inserted, another across the forehead, and
the third over the bridge of the nose, while one
of the jaws was smashed in several places. The
clothes of the murdered woman were strewn
about the room, covered with blood, and the bed-
sheet, also red-stained, was found wrapped up and
placed behind the door. Leading from this room to
the kitchen streaks of blood were also descried,
and on close examination the conclusion was come
to that here the murder had been committed. After
the deed was consummated, the body had appa-
rently been dragged through the lobby to the bed-
room, there placed on the bed, undressed, and
afterwards left on the floor in the position in which
it was subsequently found. The kitchen appeared
to have been partially washed alter the murder was
committed. On Saturday morning the door opening
on the back part of the house was found locked
and the front door, the only way in which egress
could have been obtained, was found on the check.
No definite opinion can be formed as to the mode in
which ingress to the house was obtained, and it is
equally a matter of uncertainty as to whether one
or more persons were concerned in the deed. No-
thing was removed from the house.—Nerth British
Mail.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-July 8.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Nici Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr.
Baron Martin, and a Common Jury.)
BEADMAN V. FISH—ASSAULT AND SLANDER.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. Daly were. counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins and Mr. C. Pollock for
the defendant.
Mr. Ribton said that this and the following ac-
tion in the cause list arose out of the same transac-
tion, The plaintiff, Jane Beadman, brought the
first action, through her father, as next friend,
against Mr. C. Fish, a builder, of Cambridge wharf,
Grosvenor-road, Pimlico, for an assault consmitted
upon her by him while she was in his service. The
learned counsel then detailed the nature of the trans-
action as given in the followiug evidence :
Jane Beadman, the plaintiff, said—l entered tie
service of the defendant on the 23d of November lasi
as a servant. I had been with a Mrs. Nicholls before.
In January last my master called me. He was
coming down stairs from the bed-room ;it was in
the morning. He said, " Jane, come here, I want
you." I went into the dining-room, whore he had
gone before me. He shut the door, took hold of
my hands, and placed his back against the door.
He put my hands behind me and kissed me. He
did it violently.
Mr. Pollock—He kissed you violently? (laughter.)
Witness—He put my hands violently behind me.
I tried to get from him. He sat down on a chair and
pulled me on his knee, still holding my hands. He
tried to raise my clothes in an indecent manner,
and to pass his hands up my petticoats. I asked
him to let me go, or I would tell Mrs. Fish
and call out. I got away from him. He again
took my hands and tried to kiss me. I
then got away and went into the kitchen.
About five minutes afterwards he came into the
kitchen. I got up and stood against the kitchen
table. He tried to catch hold of me round the table.
He did not succeed, and he went into the yard. He
told the groom to bring his boots. They were
brought, and he put them on. He then said, "Jane,
I think you and I had better sleep together.
(Laughter.) You perfectly understand me. I will
leave you to fix your own time." I said, "I don't
know what you mean." He then left. Immediately
afterwards I saw Mrs. Pigott, a person in the yard.
I sent the groom, whose name is Noble, to fetch her.
Mr. Fetlock objected to what she said to Mrs.
Pigott being given in evidence.
Mr. Baron Martin allowed the objection.
Examination resumed—The same day I wrote a
letter to my mother. The defendant returned in
the evening. I went into the dining-room. He
touched me under the chin and said, " How cross
you look." I said, " Yes, and I intend to leave y 6.12
tc-night." He said, " What do you mean 2" I said,
" You know perfectly well what I mean. You
grossly insulted me this morning." My mother
came about nine o'clock the same evening, and we
both had an interview with Mr. Fish. Mother said,
" Jane, repeat everything you said Mr. Fish did to
you." He denied it at first. He said, " I cannot
understand it; I don't know what you are going to
leave for." Afterwards he said, " Jane, you must
remember you gave me a little encouragement." I
dared him to say so at his peril, and denied that I
gave him any encouragement. I left with my
mother the same night. I called with my mother
in the morning and saw Mrs. Fish. In the even-
ing I saw the defendant in the dining-room. My
mother, Mrs. Fish, and her sister were present.
Mrs. Fish asked me to repeat what I had said, and
I did so. She said she did not believe it. The
defendant said I must have some other object in
view in doing what I did. I said I had no other
object, and that I had until then been very com-
fortable in my situation.
Cross-examined—l had been in the defendant's
service from November to January. There are
four bed-rooms. Before this Mr. Fish had kissed
me once, but nothing more. It was on the night of
a party in January, when we were in the dining-
room. I said "Do not you do that again if you
please, sir." I did not mention that to any one at
the time. Ho has two children, one of them is 11
years old. On the night before he called me as I
was coming upstairs he had been out with the
children till two o'clock. They were let in by Mrs.
Fish. The defendant only kissed me once when he
had hold of my hands. I said, "Do not do it again,
sir." I did not call out. If I had done so I might
have been heard in the yard, but not up stairs. I
struggled, but I did not call out, because he let me
go as soon as I told him. He touched my knees
with his hand. His dress was not disarranged. I
sent the letter to my mother by a boy. After the
defendant went out I went upstairs and helped my
mistress to dress. She told me she was going to
.take her little girl to school, and that she would
.most likely not be home to dinner. Mr. Fish came
home and dined with a Mr. Prestige, and I waited
upon them. Mr. Prestige went into the office to
get some books, and while he was away, Mr. Fish
said, "How cross you look." Mr. Prestige was
only absent a few minutes. I never told Mrs
Nicholls, with whom I before lived, that Mr.
Nicholls used often, after I left, to come over the
bridge to see me. I said Mrs. Nicholls, on Christ-
mas morning, passed a joke about people going
over the bridge. Mrs. Nicholls lives in the Wands-
worth-road.
Mr. Baron Martin said that during a very long
experience of courts of justice he had never known
a case of this kind tried before.
Mr. Ribton said it would not have been brought
but for the second action, which was for slander,
seriously affecting the plaintiff's character.
Mr. Baron Martin thought that the two cases
ought to have been tried together.
Mr. Ribton said that when his lordship heard the
second case he would see the necessity of trying the
present one first.
Mr. Baron Martin said if such actions were to
be brought there must be a new court for the trial
of them. He thought that the matter might be
discussed much more satisfactorily in a private
room than in a public court.
Upon the suggestion of the learned judge it was
agreed that the two actions should be tried at the
same time.
Mr. Ribton then opened the case of Beadman v.
Fish and Wife," which, he said, was an action for
slander uttered by Mrs. Fish to Mrs. Nicholls on
the 25111 of January, the day following the alleged
assault. The words complained of were—" Jane
Beadman has brought a false charge against my
husband of taking improper liberties -with her.
While in my service I missed some collars and din-
ner napkins, and I believe she has stolen them, I
also believe she was in the family way when she
left my house." The learned counsel said that those
charges seriously affected the character and pros-
pects of a young woman like the plaintiff, whose
father had been in a much better position in life.
In consequence of Mrs. Fish's statement Mrs.
Nicholls had refused to give her a character ; and
although two applications had been made to
the defendant for a satisfactory apology none
whatever had been offered, and the plaintiff was
compelled to bring an action.
Jane Beadman, the plaintiff, was again cross-
examined, and denied that before she went to Mr.
Fish Mts. Nicholls refused to give her a character.
I never walked out arm in arm with Mr. Nicholls.
I never told Mrs. Fish that Mrs. Nicholls was
jealous of me, because he came over Vauxhall=
bridge to see me. In a joke Mrs. Nicholls said "It
must have cost him a good many pennies•to come
over the bridge to see you." I merely laughed.
Mrs. Fish told me that she had missed several
collars and other things, and that she believed the
laundress had got them, She also said that some
napkins were missing.
Re-examined—My father is a butcher by trade,
and works for a Mr. Smith. lam 19, and have
been in service four years. I have had five situa-
tions during that time. Mrs. Nicholls gave me a
character to Mrs. Fish. There is no pretence for
saying I am in the family way, or for saying that I
took the collars and napkins,
Mrs. Pigott deposed to the defendant calling
upon her at nine o'clock in the evening of the as-
sault, and asking her what Jane Beadman was
going to leave for. Witness told him that she com-
plained he had been very indecent to her_ He said
he knew nothing about it, and added, " It is a very
pretty thing for Mrs. Fish to know when she comes
home." Next day Mrs. Fish asked witness if the
plaintiff had said anything about money. Witness
replied that the plaintiff had said that Mr. Fish had
offered her £5 on the night she left. Mrs. Fish
told witness, after a letter had been received from
the solicitor, that she had said that the plaintiff
was in the family way, and that she believed so
still. She also said that she thought the plaintiff
had the missing collars and napkins.
Crosa-examined—l am wife of the carman, who
has been seven years in the defendant's service,
and I lived on the premises. I left his service
in February last. My husband has also left. I have
not heard my husband say that the defendant com-
plained of his not using his corn fairly. All I heard
was that the corn came in short weight. My hus-
band gave the defendant notice. Mrs. Fish had
before said that she would sack us as soon as this
affair had blown over. I also heard her say that I
was "a sly person." (Laughter.) She also called
me a sly hussey. We left on Feb. 24, and the as-
sault took place on Jan. 21.
Mrs. Beadman, the mother of the plaintiff, said
that on January 24" she received a letter from her
daughter saying
Come directly; I have had a
great upset with master; come for my sake. I shall
expect you directly. If you do not come you must
expect me home to-night." (The letter was put in
and read.) She then corroborated the evidence of
her daughter as to the interview with the defen-
&alt. Mr. Fish said, "She (the plaintiff) ulut have

some other object in view. She has trumped up this
tale against me in order to get away." He also said
to the plaintiff, " Why did you not scream out, or
go upstairs and tell your mistress ?" Witness re-
plied, "That is the only loophole you have to creep
out of." Witness then asked Mrs. Fish if she would
give her daughter a character. Mrs. Fish said, "I
never shall, and, looking to her husband, ",Tor

shall you."
Mrs. Nicholls said that Mrs. Fish called upon her
on the 25th of January, and said that she believed
the charge the plaintiff had made against her
husband (Mr. Fish) was not true. She also
told her that she believed the plaintiff had
robbed her, and that she was in the family way.
On a subsequent occasion Mrs. Beadman called and
complained that Mrs. Fish would not give
Jane a character. Witness said, "In that case
she will be thrown out of a place. I will givs,
her a second character." Afterwards t3he said.,
" I will give her a recommendation. I shall not be
justified in giving her a second character." Mrs.
'Veadman said, " She cannot take that, but must
eicar her character." Witness said that if a lady
came to her for her character she would tell her
wha;. she had heard from Mrs. Fish.
This being the case for the plaintiff,
Mr, Pollock submitted that no case of slander or
special damage had been made out.
The learned Judge said there was no case of
slander, unless he amended the declaration, and. the
special d, Image had been clearly disproved.
Upon tlf..e application of Mr. Ribton,
His Lora'ship amended the declaration, and said
he would give leave to move the Court above upon
the question whether the conversation with Mrs.
Nicholls was a nrivileged communication, and in th.e
event of the Court being of opinion that it Was a
nonsu;t would be entered on the slander counts.
Mr. Pollock then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and contended that the whole story of the
plaintiff as to the assault was totally devoid of
truth.
Mr. Fish, the defendant, was then examined, and
denied in toto that he had ever kissed or taken in-
decent liberties with the plaintiff, or asked her to
sleep with him.
Mrs. Fish said that the plaintiff did not appear
at all excited or flurried when she came up to her
bed-room on the morning of the alleged occurrence
or the next day. She asked the plaintiff why she
did not tell her before, and she replied that she was
so good a mistress that she did not like to hart her
feelings. Witness denied having said to Mrs.
Nicholls that the plaint iff robbed her. She told Mrs,
Nicholls that the plaint;ff had accused her husband
of having taken liberties with her, and Mrs. Ni-
cholls replied, " Don't believe it—a bigger liar
never came into a house." Witness did not say the
nlaintiff was in the family way, but she remarked,
1.1-rhaps she is in the family way and wants a
We read of such things in the newspapers."
father.
(Laughter.; Mrs. Nicholls, said, "Do you think
so ?" and she a,'swered " No ; I do not say that is
the case."
Mr. Prestige, the de._
he ever left the room whim.
master on the 24th January.
Upon the conclusion of the eNa.
fence, the trial was adjourned.

'fendant's clerk, den ied that
ho was dining with his

;deuce for the de-

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, in London, before. L ord
Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
SPECIAL JURYMEN AND THEIR FEES.
At the sitting of the Court a special juryman
summoned in the case of Zychlinski v. Maltby com-
plained to the Court that on two previous occasions
the jury had been summoned, but at the last mo-
ment the cause had been withdrawn. The same
thing had now happened again, and he submitted
that it was hard that the jury should have re-
peatedly to attend without receiving any fee ; for
if they had failed to attend they would probably
have been fined £lO each,
The Lord Chief Justice said ho felt the hardship
of the case, and he could assure the jurymen that
he exercised all the power which the law gave him
in favour of jurors, and when that was exhausted
ho often tried his powers of persuasion, though fre-
quently without effect. If he were consulted upc.n
the subject by those who made the law he would
suggest that they should give to the judge power to
order payment of fees in such cases as bad been re-
ferred to.
FOSTER V. THE BANK OF LONDON—DISCLOSING A
CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT.
This was an action to recover damages in conse-
quence of the state of the plaintiff's account at the
bank having been disclosed, which led to the ba-
lance being drawn out in payment of a bill of
exchange.
Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
Bovill and Mr. J. Brown for the defendants.
The plaintiff was a young man, who at the time
the action was brought was under age, but still he
had been in business as a merchant, and had kept
an account at the Bank of London. The short facts
were that Messrs. La Perre de Roe and Co., in con-
sequence of some dispute with the plaintiff, saw fit
to present an acceptance of his for £542, which had
been for a long time in their hands, and was consi-
derably overdue. The cashier at the bank replied
ithat there were not sufficient funds ; but the assis-
tant manager, who stood by, said " How can that
be, there was plenty of money this morning."
Some other words passed, from which the state of
the account was gathered, and the gentleman who
presented the bill asked whether if £lO4 were paid
into the plaintiff's account the bill would be paid,
and being answered " Yes," he paid in that sum,
and in that way drew out nearly the whole of the
plaintiff's balance.
In the course of the address of the defendant's
counsel, the case, in consequence of an intimation
from the jury, was stopped, and a verdict was en-
tered for the plaintiff for £438.
It was submitted, as a matter of law, that there
was no duty on the part of a banker not to disclose
the state of a customer's account.
The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion
that there was such a duty, and he also thought
that it was a question for the jury, and they had
ex-pressed their opinion, but he would reserve leave
to move the court.
PENNY V. MANN.—ASSAULT.
This was an action by a servant girl to recover
damages for an assault ; and the circumstances have
been already before the public in an action against
Dr. Clarke, her master, who had given a certificate
that she was a lunatic. The present action was
against Miss Mann, Mrs. Clarke 's sister, who acted
as housekeeper in the doctor's establishment.
Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
Huddleston and Mr. Barrow for the defendant.
The plaintiff's case was that in 1860 she was in
the service of Dr. Clarke, of Staines, and that in
March of that year she was about to leave; and, in
consequence of some words between Mrs. Clarke,
Miss Mann, and the plaintiff, they insisted upon
searching her boxes, and when they got upstairs
they locked the door, all three being in the room.
Some words took place, when the plaintiff said that
Miss Mann had worried her, and Miss Mann there-
upon struck her on the side of the head. When the
door was opened plaintiff ran downstairs for assist-
ance, hut was pursued by Miss Mann, who seized
her, and with violence prevented her going out.
Mrs. Clarke also threatened to strike her with the
surgery fireirons, even if she killed her. The plain-
tiff was held down at the bottom of the stairs by
the two ladies until two men came in. Her hair
was all down, and she was scratched and bruised,
the bruises being seen for several days.
In cross-examination she said that she told Miss
Mann that she would do no more work there. She
did not lay hold of Miss Mann until she caught
hold of witness. Miss Mann called her sister, say-
ing that witness was killing her. Witness did not
say that she would kill Mrs. Clarke also. She did
not bite through Miss Mann's hand, but she might
have bruised her in the struggle.
ke-examined—She used no more violence than
was necessary in self-defence.
John Laver, a policeman, said he was called in.
Miss Mann showed him a mark round her wrist,
saying it was in consequence of the plaintiff biting
her. There were no teeth-marks, and it looked
like the result of a grasp, He saw no assault, but
two men were holding her. Her comb was broken
in three pieces, and her shoulder was so hurt she
could hardly move her arm. Plaintiff said Miss
Mann had struck her.
Mr. Huddleston said that on the day in question
the plaintiff's conduct was very strange and excit-
able, and ultimately she, in a most infuriated state,
seized Miss Mann, bit her, and threatened to kill
her. Neither Mrs. Clarke nor Miss Mann had
touched the plaintiff, except to restrain her violence
until they could get some assistance.
Miss Mann said that, having heard a ring
bell, they asked the plaintiff what it w as. plaintiff
bell, question
ntthiffe
said, `:lt is somebody for me;" and, onntoheliar.she
being repeated, she said that she. we a_sas a thief, and
said she imagined they thought sn w
ifne t
cahf few minutes
policemanmin ut e s sahned
essai d
searched, she wouldun -
bleosxsetsh.eyTwo epnatciwfyithhe,
h'
Ie sl d thatup
rl
thehrae to
vent t h eTchoendoor
was
not
articlelocked,
tei
ca
eh I
in
nd the,th,
their
thingsfaces,
saying,ut and
4s'hlestliat yoxfr s The plaintiff was very
said she should do no more work there,
in yours.sol'ent";
afterheart
gi?ing out p
toput them ail in the
she was
said, " Don't go out in that way,"
°lithe plaintiff seized her by the neck, and
wlicreup
apnapdetrhztwshi
she was very much alarmed. Witness called for as-
sistance, and her sister came and said, " You are
killing my sister." She then flew at Mrs. Clarke and
kicked her. She bit witness's hand, and the mark
seas still there.. She said, "Let me get up upstairs,
won't "smash your windows and j tulip out." They