The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 27, 1862.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Nov. 26.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
LEIGH V. THORP.-SEDUCTION.

The declaration in this case charged the defen-
dant with debauching and seducing the plaintiff's
daughter. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Philbrick were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry
and Mr. Morgan Lloyd for the defendant.
From the opening statement by Mr. Atkinson, it
appeared that Edward Leigh, the plaintiff, was a
journeyman painter, living at Old Ford, where his
wife kept a small shop for the sale of caps, and
that Samuel Thorp was a brevet major in the
Indian army. Major Thorp brought his child over
to England, and placed her with his grandmother,
the widow of the late Alderman Thorp, of London,
who lived at Walthamstow. The plaintiff's
daughter enterea Mrs. Thorp's service as nurse to
the child, and after remaining there some time, left
and went to her father's. In July last, being very
much attached to the child, she went to see her at
her former mistress's, and while walking in the gar-
den the major came up and asked her it' she was in
want of a situation. She replied that she was, and
he said if she would come to his lodgings, at 2, Re-
gent-square, Gray's-inn-lane, he would give her the
address of his aunt, who wanted a servant. On 15th
July she went there and saw defendant, who said
he had unfortunately lost the address, but that she
had better call on the following Monday. She called
again on that day, and the seduction was alleged to
have taken place on this occasion in the apartments
of the major, and also at several subsequent times
when she visited him at the same place. In the early
part of May she became ill and went home, where
she was delivered of a child. She was shortly after-
wards seized with puerperal mania, and for several
months remained in a state of insanity. The child
in the meantime died. The learned counsel said that
under these circumstances the father brought this
action to recover damages for the dishonour of bis
daughter and for the loss of her services.

Emma Leigh, a modest-looking girl, was then
called. She said—l am the daughter of Edward
Leigh, who lives at Roman-road, Old Ford. Before
June, 1861, I had been in service at Woodford.
Previously I had been in flu. Qorrioc of Mra. Thorp
at w aithamstow, where Major Thorp had his
daughter. I was engaged to take care of the child.
After I left I assisted in keeping my father's house.
In July, 1861, I went to see the child at Waltham-
stow. I saw the major in the garden. He asked me
if I was in want of a situation. I said" Yes." He
said, " I will try and get you a situation at my
aunt's in the country." He gave me his address at
2, Regent-square, and said if I would call upon him
there he would give me his aunt's address. He
gave me his address on a slip of paper. I promised
to go on the following Wednesday, and I did so. I
saw the major •, he said he had received the address
of his aunt, and asked me to call next day. I said
I should not be able to come then, and it was fixed
that I shot' ld come on the following Monday.
I went on Monday, between two and three in the
afternoon. The major opened the door, and he
asked me to walk upstairs. I did so, and went into
the front drawing room. Folding doors opened
into the bedroom. Afterwards he locked the door
opening to the stairs. I asked him for the ad-
dress. H-3 said I was in a great burry, and that I
was to sit down, and take my bonnet and shawl
off. I said, why ? And he replied, " You look very
hot." I did not take them off, and he said, " If you
do not, I'll take them off for you." I advanced to
the door, and found it locked. He took off the bon-
net and shawl, and put them in the bedroom. He
asked me to have something to drink, and I said
no. He said " You mast be faint." He gave me
some gin and water, but nothing to eat. After I
drank it he wanted me to go into the bedroom, and
I refused. He pulled the blinds of the drawing-
room down, and dragged me almost into the bed-
room. I almost broke the swing looking-glass in
resisting him. He took me in his arms and put me
on the bed. He took off his coat and had inter-
course with me. He asked me if I should like to
go back to his mother's to live. I said I should not
mind it. After I began to dress ha repeated the act.
I never obtained the address of the aunt. When this
happened I was 18. He asked me to call again on the
following Wednesday, but I did not until Monday
fortnight. I went altogether four times to Regent-
square between July and September, and the inter-
course was renewed on each occasion. In Septem-
ber I went to a situation, but was obliged to leave
it in consequence of illness. I then returned to my
father. I was confined on the 3d of May. The
child died in August following. Major Thorp is
the father of the child. I never in my life had in-
tercourse with any other man than Major Thorp.
_ _

Cross-examined—ldon't remember the date when
I first called. It was about the middle of July. I
was nurse of the major's child, who was about three
years old. Mrs. Thorp, the grandmother, engaged
me. I left her service in February, 1859. I gave
her notice ; she did not dismiss me. I was a fort-
night out of a situation. I had left Mrs. Thorp
two years before. I went to see the little girl in
July. I had not been with her more than nine
months. I often saw the major. He had his
meals and slept at his mother's. I was not dis-
missed in consequence of my too great familiarity
with Robert Hubble, the defendant's groom. I
left because my mother did not like me to be where
there were so many men about. I did not know
Regent-square before this event. I knew Sidmouth-
street, Gray's-inn-lane, before I went to Major
Thorp's. I did not meet Hubble there at a public-
house or coffee-house in June, 1861. I recollect
meeting him in Sidmouth-street in July, after I
had called the second time in Regent-square. I
met him between three and four in the afternoon
after I first had intercourse with Major Thorp.
Wright, the gardener, was with him. I don't
think we had ,ny ale or spirits together. I think
I had some ham and tea. Wright slept at the
coffee-house all night. Hubble walked home with
me to Walthamstow. I did not get home until 10
o'clock at night. When the first intercourse with
the defendant took place I might have been there
half an hour. I went to see him on the following
Monday, and then a fortnight afterwards. I did not
tell my mother what happened ; no one knew any-
thing about it until after my confinement. I was
not treated for the dropsy by any surgeon. I took no
notice to anyone that I was pregnant. I never saw
the defendant after the 3d Sept. until now. After
my confinement I told my mother how the matter
happened. I did not tell her that Robert Hubble
drove me up to No. 2, Regent-square, to Bee the
major about a situation, nor that the major took
something out of a bottle on the chimney-piece and
gave it me in a wine glass, that I immediately after-
wards became senseless. He gave me some warm
gin and water in a tumbler. There was sugar in it,
but no lemon. (A laugh.) I did not say that Thorp
and the groom drove me up to Regent-square under
pretence of getting me a situation, nor that Thorp
dragged me into some hovel and violated my person.
I remember in July the major prosecuting a servant
at Clerkenwell Police-court. That was the day I
met Hubble. I did not call upon the major of my
own accord when I first went. He asked me if it
would not be better for me to learn sewing by ma-
chinery instead of getting another situation. I said
I had no money to pay for learning. He gave me
half a sovereign, and said he would lend me two
sovereigns, if it was necessary, to learn the work.
I said if I coulu learn it I should repay the money.
On the first occasion I called at Regent-square the
landlady opened the door; afterwards defendant
always opened it.
Re-examined—Beyond mere conversation with
Hubble, who was a fellow-servant, nothing improper
took place between us. I never had any sexual in-
tercourse with him. The major kept horses but no
carriages at Walthamstow.
Edward Leigh, the father, said his daughter was
bred up carefully, and was a well-conducted girl.
She assisted her sisters in cap-making. When she
came home he saw she was ill, but never suspected
she was in the family way. He did not know it
until she was actually in labour. She kept her
senses three or four days, and during that time she
called him into the room and said she hoped he
would forgive her. She also stated that Major
Thorp was the father of the child. She lost her
senses for four months, and was at times nearly
groomtr
ha vine
cd r
doctor'
Cross-examined—She
sod. ma.ler, doxs
drove
bet
ni He
hn eaee
amounted
to
osn t
ht o
ee
Rdne keepgteovenextriel
sr3tqoauol l
Regent-square,
r xe ,m 1 thatt that
a. time and
ndatththaet
there Major Thorp dragged her into a place and
violated her person. I believe my brother-in-
law wrote a letter to the major, but without my
authority ; and I do not know what it contained. I
was away from home at work at the time. I did not
authorise my brother-in-law to say that the villain
had dragged her into a hovel and effected her ruin.
Ann Leigh, the mother, said her daughter was
very well behaved, and that she never in her life
saw any harm in her. She asked her several times
if she was pregnant, but she never received any
answer. _ _ _

Cross-examined—My daughter never said that
Robert Hubble drove her to Regent-square. She
did say that the major gave her a cake and some-
think to drink, and that she came over stupid. I
might have mentioned to Mrs. Hubble that her son
took her to Major Thorp's. That was my impres-
sion at the time; but my daughter was out of her
mind and did not know what she was saying.
By the Judge—She talked a good deal while she
was insane, and I repeated to Mrs. _Rabble what I
gathered from her.
Mr. Muggleston, a surgeon, who attended the
daughter in her confinement, said she was attacked
by puerperal mania. She was mad from the 4th
•Wiay until the 18th August, when be discontinued
bie attendance and she remained so afterwards.

During her illness she said very little, ft was more
not to be depended upon.
melancholy, but anything she said during that time
was certai2!y
Dr. T. Ansell, who had been called in consulta-
tion on the 13th May, said she was suffering from
a melancholy form of insanity, and that he also
thought no statement she made while in that condi-
tion could be relied on.

Mr. Sergeant Parry then addressed the jury on
the part of the defendant. He admitted that as
the young woman had undoubtedly been betrayed
and ruined by a sane man she commanded every
one's sympathy, but he earnestly appealed to the
jury not to allow their feelings to influence their
judgment, but to give a fair and impartial conside-
ration to the case for the defence. He then showed
the fearful nature of the issue to the defendant, as
almost the only answer to the charge must come
from himself, and a verdict averse to him would be
tantamount to his utter ruin in his profession and
the society in which he mixed. A woman could
easily make an accusation of this kind against a
man, even though there was no foundation for it,
and he stood in the perilous position of being alone
in giving it a contradiction. Though the man knew
the falsehood of the charge, he required great
moral courage to resist it; and in the present case,
if Major Thorp were guilty of having seduced this
young woman, was it probable, when he could easily
hal e compromised the action for a sum of money he
could have readily paid, that he would come into
court and brave a public exposure of the whole cir-
cumstance ? Knowing, however, that the young
woman's story was a fabrication from beginning to
end, as a gentleman and a man of honour he was
determined not to enter into any settlement of that
kind, but to have the matter fully investigated. The
learned counsel then said that the defendant was
between 35 and 40 years of age, and had served
with the army during the mutiny in India. He was
a widower, and having obtained leave of absence he
came back to this country, and had resided a part
of the time with his mother at Walthamstow. He
would have returned to India before this, but he
asked for additional leave of absence in order to be
present at the trial of the action. Mr. Sergeant
Parry then commented on some of the discrepancies
in the young woman's narrative, and said it was
impossible to believe that two or three hours after
she, a chaste girl, had been seduced for the first
time in her life, she went, as she herself repre-
sented, dangling about the streets with the groom
Hubble until a late hour at night. He stated that
he should call Hubble, and also the defendant him-
self, and h believed their evidence would satisfy
the jury that there was no ground whatever for the
action.

Mr. Baron Martin said as it was an important
case, and they had arrived at!an advanced hour, he
though;:, it better to adjourn the trial.
The else was then adjourned until to-morrow
(this day).

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the J-udge Ordinary.
PHELAN V. PHELAN AND WALTERS.

Mr. Prideaux and Mr. Pritchard for the peti-
tioner.

The parties were married at Clifton, in Novem-
ber, 1855. After a few days' cohabitation the hus-
band, who was a sailor, went to sea, and in his ab-
sence the respondent lived with the co-respondent,
a one-legged street sweeper in Bristol, to whom she
said she was married.
Decree nisi, with costs.
LAMB V. LAM 3 AND SHEIL.

Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner, who was
a master mariner. He married Ann Lundy at Ar-
broath, in 1846, and had five children by her, of
whom two were living. After cohabiting in Scot-
land till 1859, they removed to Liverpool, that
being Capt Lamb's usual sort of departure. Here
he took a house for his family, whom he allowed £8
per month while he was absent on his voyages.
Mrs. Lamb also let apartments. Amongst her
lodgers was a young man named Samuel Sheil,who
slept in the room next to the respondent's. A ser-
vant girl, Fanny Eddie, said that she had scan Sheil
kissing her mistress, and deposed to other familia-
rities which she had witnessed between them. Mrs.
Lamb was once ill, and had to keep her bed for
about three days. During that time the co-respon-
dent waited on her himself. Another servant stated
that the respondent had ordered her to regard Sheil
as the master of the house, alleging that her hus-
band had put him there as her guardian and pro-
tector. The witness remarked that tnat was very
strange, considering that Captain Lamb was always
quarrelling with her about him. The respondent
replied that if witness did not like it she might
leave. Had frequently seen the respondents go into
each other's bedrooms, sometimes only half-dressed,
and always without knocking at the door. Mr.
Hughes, a neighbour of the petitioner,said that one
night the respondent came and said that her hus-
band had turned her out of the house. She stated
that he had been drinking, and was very violent.
At his wife's intercession witness allowed her to
stay at his house. After a while Samuel Sheil
came to see her. He called her mother, and used
to go into her bedroom, as he said to read the Bible
to her. Witness afterwards found out that the lad
Was out het ow), and au waking further inquiries
he was satisfied that there must have been an im-
proper intimacy between them. Communicated to
him what witness had heard. The young man at
first was speechless, but at last said, " Mr. Hughes,
I can deny nothing." He subsequently called on
witness, and after telling him that he was going to
be married, he asked witness his advice. Told him
that he ought to make Capt, Lamb every reparation
in his power. Capt. Lamb had been to witness se-
veral times, and had begged him to reconcile his
wife to him, but witness could not do so.
After some confirmatory evidence,
The Court reserved its decision.
WALLACE V. WALLACE, MUTER, AND MACNAMARA.
The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Pritchard for the
petitioner ; Dr. Spinks for the co-respondent Mac-
namara.
The petitioner was the son of a retired banker in
Scotland. He married his cousin, Miss M. Catherine
Theresa Macdonald, on the 7th of Aug., 1849. The
lady was a Roman Catholic, and the ceremony was
performed in a church of that persuasion in St.
Marylebone. After the marriage the parties lived
at various places in England and Ireland, princi-
pally on an allowance which was made them by the
petitioner's father. They had three children, of
whom one survived. The first adultery was charged
to have been committed in Boulogne with a lieute-
nant in the 15th Regiment of the French army. In
the spring of 1855 the respondent addressed a let-
ter to her husband, of which the following are the
more material portions :
" 11, Bedford-street, Bedford-square, London,
April, 1855.
"My dear Friend,—I have received your kind letter, and
for which I thank you. My dear William, I have been to
find the good priest who married us. I held with his good
opinion, and meanwhile God has given me strength to tell
him what I had in my heart. I had the happiness of re-
ceiving the sacrament on Easter Sunday, and as God has
pardoned, as the priest has pronounced the words of absolu-
tion over me, do thou also pard,n me, my friend. Alas,
how many fall before God every day. I am not infallible,
and my temptations have been very great. * * *—Your
repentant and devoted wife, MAZY WALLACE."

Atter this letter the petitioner ceased to cohabit
with her ; and evidence (taken by a commissioner
in Paris) was now read, showing that she was ex-
pelled from several lodgings o❑ account of her im-
prudent behaviour towards French officers. The
respondent, subsequently to the separation, went to
Paris, and was charged with naving committed
adultery with a fellow-lodger named 111acnamara at
an hotel in Rue Grillon.
Sir C. Cresswell said ho had never known a case
in which the evidence was more slender, but he
would adjourn the further hearing :to permit addi-
tional witnesses to be called.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, Nov. 26.

OLD COURT.

George Robert Kilsby, 40, clerk, was indicted
for feloniously shooting at Henry Cooke with in-
tent to murder him—and in other counts the in-
tent was laid to do the prosecutor grievous bodily
harm, and to maim and disable him.
Mr. Ribton prosecuted; the prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Langford.
The learned counsel for the prosecution briefly
opened the facts of the case, and said he believed
that the act of which the prisoner was alleged to
have been guilty was committed under the impres-
sion—for which, as he was instructed, there was
not the slightest foundation—that an improper in-
timacy existed between his wife and the prosecutor.
The only question, therefore, they would have to de-
cide was, with what intent the injury was inflicted.
Henry Cooke, the prosecutor, said—l reside at
No. 1, Thorsley-place, Battersea-fields, and am a
grocer. I have known the prisoner for two years,
and he had lived in my house until the Saturday
before he shot me. I had previously heard some-
thing about what the prisoner had stated, and I
asked him how ho came to say that he had heard
me kiss his wife. He said he was under the impres-
sion that he had done so. I told him there was no
ground for it, and he must leave my house. An
altercation took place between us, and the pri-
soner ordered his wife, who was present, to go to bed.
She refused to do so, and the prisoner assaulted
her and seized her round the neck, and she ap-
pealed to me for protection, and I interfered, and
pushed the prisoner away, and told them both to
go to bed, and added that they should leave my house
OD the following day. The prisoner and his wife
did leave on that day, and r saw no more of the
prisoner until the Monday following, the Bth of
Sept., about 10 o'clock at night. 1 was engaged in
putting up the shutters of my shop at the time,
when I saw the prisoner coming across the fields

towards me, accompanied by his brother and his
brother's wife. The prisoner came up to me, and
said to me, "Well, Sir, what have you done with
my wife P" I told hint that I had a wife of my own,
and that I did not want to liaYe anything to do with
his wife. Directly I said this, the prisoner exclaimed,
"There," and at the same moment I heard the re-
port of a pistol, and felt that I was woundad in the
side, and I became very faint, and was assisted in-
to the shop, and the prisoner went away. He was
not more than two yards from me when he fired.
Cross-examined—The altercation that I have re-
ferred to took place on Friday night, and the pri-
soner and his wife left my house on the following
day. We had always been on very good terms down
to that time, and no quarrel had ever taken place be-
tween us. The pistol belonged to the prisoner, and
I had sten it in his possession before he left.
John Soe, a labouring man, living in the neigh-
bourhood, proved that lie was sitting outside a
public-house near the prosecutor's residence on the
night the affair happened, and he saw the prisoner
walking backwards and forwards in front of the
house before the prosecutor came out. He after-
wards saw him engaged in putting up the shutters
of his shop and the prisoner went up to him and
pointed the pistol de: iberately at his side, and fired,
and when he had done so he went into the Prince of
Wales public-house.
Mr. W. Austin, the landlord of the Prince of
Wales, deposed that the prisoner came into his
house about 10 o'clock, and be showed him a pistol,
and said, " This is what we poison or kill rats with
—I have done for him." Witness had heard the
report of a pistol just before the prisoner made th4s
statement.
The police-constable who took the prisoner into
custody deposed that from information he received
he went to the Prince of Wales public-house and
inquired if the man was there who had just shot
another man, and the prisoner came forward and
said he was the person, and he took him into cus-
tody. As they were going to the police-station the
prisoner made some observation relating to its being
a fine night and the harvest moon, and that the la-
bourers would be able to work all night, and he
added that he would not be able to work all night.
Mr. W. H. Kempster, a surgeon, proved that he
was called i❑ to examine the prosecutor shortly
after the occurrence and he found him lying on
the bed in a state of great exhaustion, and dis-
covered that he had received a pistol-shot wound in
the side. The injury was of a serious character,and
there were still some shots in the body, and he had
no doubt that a portion of one of the lungs was de-
stroyed, and it was impossible to say, although the
prosecutor appeared at present to have partially re-
covered, what would be the ultimate result of the
injury he had received.
Mr. Langford addressed the jury for the pri-
soner at some length, and having called their at-
tention to the fact that the prisoner and the prose-
cutor had always been on good terms down to the
time when this transaction took place,he urged that
the prisoner had no doubt been excited to commit
the act by a feeling of jealousy; but he contended
that the evidence was not sufficient to support the
allegation that he intended to commit the crime of
• wilful murder,and that the justice of the case would
• he satisfied by a conviction for unlawfully wound-
ing.

Several respectable witnesses were called to @peak
to the prisoner's character, and it appeared that
he had for some years been employed as a clerk at
the Westminster Bridewell, and they all described
him as being a kind-hearted, humane man.
Mr. Justice Byles having summed up, the jury
returned their verdict, finding the prisoner guilty
upon the second count, of wounding the prosecutor
with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
Sentence was deferred.
In the course of the day the grand jury returned
a tine bill against Edward Capel Whitehurst, for
misdemeanour. A writ of certiorari has, however,
already been obtained for the removal of the cause
to the Court of Queen's Bench, so that no further
proceedings in the matter will be taken in this
court. _ _

James Howard Percy, 23, a gentlemanly-looking
young man, described in the calendar as a labourer,
was indicted for feloniously and maliciously set-
ing fire to a stack of hay, the property of William
Baker.

Mr. Daly prosecuted.
This was a rather peculiar case. The prosecutor
is a farmer, at Hornsey, and on the night of the.
25th of October a stack of hay belonging to him,
and which contained about fifty loads of hay, worth
£2OO, was set on fire, no doubt by an incendiary,
and the whole was consumed. On the same morn-
ing, and while the fire was still raging, the prisoner
presented himself at the Highgate police-station,
and said that he wished to give himself up for hav-
ing wilfully caused the fire that was then burning.
The police-sergeant told him that it was a very
serious offence, and he had better be careful, but
he persisted in the charge against himself ; and on
his being asked how he had set the stack on fize,
he said that he, in the first place, set fire to his
handkerchief, and then with the handkerchief set
fire to the stack ; and he described the part of the
stack that he had set fire to. The prisoner, it ap-
peared, at first gave the name under which he was
now indicted, but he subsequently stated to the
constable that it was not his real name, but he re-
fused to state who he was, or where he came from ;
and ❑otwithstanding all the inquiries that bad been
made no information whatever could be obtained
respecting him.
The prisoner, when now called upon for his de-
fence, declared that all he had before stated was
false, and that he had nothing to do with causing
the fire. The fact was, he had been drinking, and
had spent all his money, and when he saw the fire
he thought if he gave himself up on the charge of
having caused it, he should obtain food and shelter,
and this was his only object when he gave himself
up to the police.
In answer to questions that were put to the police-
sergeant by the learned Judge, he stated that when
the prisoner was searched, only one halfpenny was
found upon him, but he was wearing gold studs and
a gold pin. It was also stated that the fire did not
appear to have broken out at that part of the stack
stated by the prisoner.
Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up, said this was
not the first time in his experience that a prisoner
had confessed himself guilty of a crime of this de-
scription, of which he was innocent, for the sake of
obtaining food and shelter ; but it was the province
of the jury to decide whether, upon the facts before
them, they ought to return a verdict of guilty
against the prisoner or ❑ot.
The Jury, after some deliberation, retarned a ver-
dict of Not Guilty.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)

John Redwood, 22, brace maker, was next placed
at the bar, charged with having, in company with
divers others, feloniously assaulted one John Roper,
with int*nt to rob him.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Cook appeared for the prose-
cution, instructed by Mr. Pollard, from the office
of the Solicitor to the Treasury.
The circumstances of this case lie in a very short
narrative. It appeared that the prosecutor, Mr.
John Roper, who was a commission agent, residing
in Argyle-place, was proceeding homewards along
Holborn, when an active police-constable, named
Davis, observed that he was followed by a number
of men, whose operations the officer noticed. He
observed that the prisoner came out from the body
I of his companions, and seized the prosecutor by the
throat with great violence and threw him on the
ground. The rest of the gang threw themselves
upon the prosecutor, bat were interrupted in their
spoliation by the arrival of the witness, who sin-
gling out the prisoner, pursued and took him into
custody, when he was fully identified by the prose-
cutor as having been his principal assailant.
The jury, in this case, after some deliberation,
returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Baron Bramwell intimated to them that he
rejoiced to find that they did not jump at conclu-
sions, but carefully weighed and considered the evi-
dence adduced before they pronounced a verdict.
He should now, in this case, wish to be informed of
the antecedents of the prisoner.
It was then proved by a police-constable that he
had known the prisoner as a thief from the year
1855 to 1858. In the year 1857 the prisoner had
been summarily convicted at Bow-street for at-
tempting to rob a gentleman in the Strand. He had
since been convicted of a burglary, but in 1858 he
had enlisted as a soldier and had gone out to India,
whence he returned in June last. A City police-
constable
proved that in October, 1858, the prisoner
had been convicted at Guildhall for an assault on a
gentleman with intent to steal, and had been then
sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Since
his return from India it was proved that the pri-
soner had been the constant associate of the worst
II
of thieves.

By direction of the learned Judge the prosecutor
(Mr. Roper) was recalled, and in answer to inter-
rogatories from the Bench, stated that when he was
seized by the throat by the prisoner, of whose iden-
tity he was certain, he felt himself nearly strangled,
so tightly was his throat squeezed. He was unable
to speak or to call out, and the violence he suffered
had occasioned a. spitting of blood, to which he had
never before been subject, but which had continued
to the present time.
The prisoner, when called up for judgment, pro-
tested his innocence of the present charge. He ad-
mitted that he bad been previously convicted, but
that after he had served his time he had enlisted,
and had served his Queen and country in India, and
ha. d been discharged from the service in consequence
of consumptive appearances. Me submitted
.m
that.
his state of heath was such as to incapacitate