The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-25 00:00:00

witneo —I do not. I first heard about it two

years Rg- el* tt said in some cases repute was sufficient
Mr. lic‘i, presumption of marriage.
ground fortt Gell, clerk to Mr. Butler, said he
Mr. Samuel , ;tng of Gibson, who was formerly
knew the bandwr,. i'vs, Tie believed the endorse-
f. iiril.ls," to be in the hand-
a client of My,. Butt
1s 0 a letteri,
.om i‘producedd
Monday
ment of the naine,
writing of Gibson, as a... . ~
Haydon, which he had received
of which were
The various notes produced, all , - , ,
part of whet had been given at the L'an'Gin Pay-
ell, and
went of the cheque, were shown to Mr.
his attention directed to certain endorselb,'elts,"
them, but he was not able to identify them as .ueLng
in Gibson's handwriting.
Mr. Mullens said he had been instructed th,.7t
Mr. Gell could prove the handwriting on these
notes, or he should not have asked the question.
As to the letter, bills, &c., he did not at present
propose to read them. He would charge the pri-
-1 soner with being an. accessory after the fact to the
forging and uttering.
Mr. Lewis said it was quite clear that the pri-
soner was Gibson's wife. .
Mr. Mullens said the prisoner's own statement
that her name was Aylmer, and also her statement
as to her mode of life, was quite consistent with
the supposition that she: was living with Gibson,
and not married to him. If Mr. Lewis could prove
that she was Gibson's wife, the prosecution was at
1
an end. He had been astonished to hear the wit-
ness Monday say the prisoner was married.
Mr. Hall— Quite so. A wife may be an acces-
I sory before the fact, but not after.
Mr. Lewis applied for an adjournment to the fol-
lowing (this) day, that he might produce evidence
of the ni2rriage, which, after some conversation,
was agreed to, and the prisoner was accordingly
remanded. __

----
suspEcTED AN.P ROBBERY
L'OLBORN.

Yesterday Mr. Payne, tcoroner for the City of
ie."
Londonresumed and conclude an inquest at St.
B art h olomOw'a Hospital, on the ../'ody of Thomas
David Coade, a reader employed at 1`..11° ,Morning
Chronicle office, who' came to his death un'ler very
mysterious and unexplul
ined circumstances.
It appeared that deceaseJ and a number of Ober
persons employed at the .31o)*.lng Chronicle offielei
held a meeting at the Ben Joneon Tavern, Shoe'-
lane, Fleet-street, on Saturday night,: the 6th inst.,
to consider what steps should be takeln in conse-
quence of the stoppage of that paper, and after
attending that meeting the deceased left to go
home, At the corner of Brook-street, Holborn, he
was found the same night, under very extraordinary'
and suspicious circumstances as stated in the follow-
ing evidence, his wife being unable to hear any
tidings of him for a week, and then she found him
in the above hospital.
Thomas Gregory, a compositor, said on Saturday
night, the 6th inst., he was, in the company of a
woman, about 11 o'clock, coming from Gray's-inn-
lane towards Brook-street, when the female who was
with him drew his attention to a man who was ree:-
ing and staggering. at the corner of Brook-street.
Another man had just left him, and was running in
the direction of Leather-lane. Two or three persons
had collected, and one of them asked witness to go
after the man and bring him back. Witness pur-
sued him down Leather-lane, where he lost sight of
him, and then returned to the spot where he left
the deceased. A policeman had come up, and the
female witness was supporting the man's head, and
her apron and hands were covered with blood. Wit-
ness suggested that the man should be taken to a sur-
geon at the corner of Castle-street, but the policeman
conveyed him to the hospital. He should not be able
to identify the man who ran away. but he was short
and wore a cap. He did net observe whether or not
he had his hands in deceased's pockets, but the
reason he ran after him was that he was under the
impression that the deceased had received some
injury from him. He could not tell whether
or not he had robbed him. The deceased was about
a foot from a lamp-post when he fell. When witness
got back to the deceased he was quite insensible.
Isabella Perry, the Woman referred to, confirmed
the evidence of the last witness.
Mr. Moore, house surgeon, said the deceased was
brought into the hospital on the night of the 6th
of April, with a large lacerated wound on the back
part of the head, and such as might have been in-
flicted by some blunt instrument, such as a stick.
On the Sunday afternoon he had five fits. He
went on well at first, but afterwards a change took
place, and he died on the 15th inst. from the effects
of the injuries. He had made a post-mortem exa-
mination and found a fracture of the skull four
inches long from the base of the brain. The brain
was highly congested, and large clots of blood
were on its surface.
The jury returned a verdict—" That the deceased
died from injuries received, but how occasioned
there is no evidence to show ;" adding to it—" The
jury also express their regret that nearly a week
should have elapsed from the time the deceased re-
ceived his injuries before his wife was enabled to
obtain any information as to her missing husband,
although she Inquired at Fleet-street and other
stations, and notwithstanding that a pocketbook
and its contents would have enabled them to dis-
cover his place of residence and friends:'

SHOCKING DRATII OF A YOUNG

W OMAN.

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.
Yesterday evening Mr. Carttar, coroner for West
Kent, held an adjourned Inquiry at the Druids Arms,
Tavern, Greenwich, into the circumstances attend-
ing the death of Mary Heddie, who was drowned in
the Thames on the night of Saturday, March 15.
From the evidence taken at this and previous in-
quiries, it appeared that on the evening of the 15th
March the deceased, who was 14 years of age, with
a girl named Sophia Spencer, aged 16, had been
drinking at several public-houses with Robert
Richards, master of the steamtug Esther, and a lad
named Mathew Ball, employed on board the same
vessel. The parties all became intoxicated, and
proceeded about 11 o'clock to the river-side, where
they were mat by a woman named Webb, who en-
deavoured to induce the girls to return home.
Richards however told Ball to place them in a boat
and row them to the steam tug, and then return for
him. The deceased and her companion were rowed
to I he tug, on nearing which the boat upset, and the
deceased was drowned. It was fully proved that
the deceased wished to return home, but was forced
into the boat by Richards, and both girls were so
much intoxicated that they were unable to sit, and
rolled about in the boat.

The coroner recapitulated the evidence at length,
and observed that Richards had endeavoured to pal-
liate his conduct by stating that he was so drunk as
not to remember what took place. It must be ob-
vious, however, that drunkenness, instead of being
an excuse, was rather an aggravation of his mis•
conduct in putting the girl into the boat in oppo•
sition to her wishes. A more disgraceful state of
things he never heard of on the part of those
who called themselves human beings, It was clear
that ltichards was the party directly responsible,
and his conduct was more reprehensible than that
of Ball, as he was master of the steam-tug and
directed the whole proceedings.
The jury returned a verdict of " Manslaughter
against Robert Richards and Matthew Ball," who
were subsequently admitted to bail to answer the
charge at the Old Bailey sessions.