The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-29 00:00:00

ARSON AND MURDER.

John Horsley, 18, a miserable looking lad, was
charged with wilfully and feloniously setting fire to
a stack of straw, the property of John Kingworth.
He was also charged upon another indictment
with the wilful murder of a man or boy, whose name
was unknown.

Mr. Biron conducted the prosecution.
It appeared from the evidence of a police constable
named Hills, that on the night of the 3d of July he
was on duty, when he observed the appearance of a
fire in the direction of a farm occupied by the prose-
cutor, called Plane Farm, near Folkestone. As he
was going towards the fire he met the prisoner, and
asked him if he knew where the fire was, and he
made no answer, but stepped on one side and up.
peered desirous to avoid him. He asked him Et

second time where the fire was, and he then said that
it was a stack that was on fire, and that he had set
fire to it with a lucifer match. He then took the
prisoner into custody, and as they were going to the
police station he inquired of the prisoner what he
did it for, and he said that was his business. The
prisoner was searched and nothing was found on
him but two
pieces of paper. The charge was en-
tered against him at the police-station, and, after he
had been cautioned, he was again asked how he
came to do it, and he then said he had done it
through want. The prisoner afterwards said that
when he set fire to the stack he did not think it
would have blazed so, and he asked Mr. Martin,
superintendent of police, whether he thought he
should be transported for what he had done.

The prisoner, when called upon for his defence,
replied that he had nothing to say.
The learned Judge having summed up, the Jury
returned a verdict of guilty.
The prisoner was then tried upon the charge of
wilful murder.

Mr. Biron, in opening the case, said this charge
arose from the fact of an unhappy person being
sleeping in a barn adjoining the stack at the time
it was set fire to by the prisoner, and he explained
that the law held that every person committing
a wrongful and felonious act was responsible
for all the consequences ; and, although the
prisoner, when he set fire to the stack, was
probably entirely ignorant that any person was
inside the barn adjacent; still, as he had com-
mitted a felony by setting fire to the stack, and
the death of the unfortunate man was the
consequence, he was in law guilty of the crime of
wilful murder, if the evidence established the facts
to which he had referred_ _

The police-constable was then again examined,
and he repeated the evidence he had given in the
former case, as to meeting the prisoner. He added
that, upon going to the farm of the prosecutor he
found a stack of straw, two sheds, and a barn in
flames, and heard some one shouting for assistance
from one of the sheds, and this turned out to be the
deceased. His clothes were all in flames, and he
screamed for help, but it was impossible to render
him any, and he was burned to death. The pri-
soner was present, and he wanted to go to the as,
sistance of the deceased, but the witness told him
he could do no good, and refused to allow him.
The prisoner, when called upon to answer the
charge, said that on the night in question he went
to lay down to sleep outside the stank, and being
very cold he set fire to a small quantity of straw to
warm himself, and it spread to the stack and set it
on fire. He declared that he had no intention of
causing the mischief that had taken place.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up, said that
the law had been very correctly laid down by the
learned counsel for the prosecution, but he would
add this to the observations he had made, that in
his opinion there should be proof that the person
who lost his life was in the building at the time
the felonious act of setting fire to it was committed,
and that if he had merely gone into it from curi-
osity, or with a view to assist in extinguishing the
fire after it had broken out, in that case the prisoner
would not be responsible for his death.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.
The learned judge deferred passing sentence upon
the conviction for arson.

Waiter Naylor and Jacob Hales were charged
with feloniously throwing a stone upon the South-
Eastern Railway, at Sittingbourne, with intent to
cause injury to the carriages and passengers travel-
ling upon the line.
Mr. Round and Mr. Kaye conducted the prose-
cution ; Mr. Ribton was counsel for the defence.

It appeared that on the day named in the indict-
ment, as a train was passing under one of the
bridges near Sittingbourne, a stone was dropped
upon it, which remained on the top of one of the
carriages. The prisoners were seen near the spot,
and there was very little doubt that one or other of
them had dropped the stone upon the train ; but
there was no evidence to show under what circum-
stances the act was committed.

His Lordship,upon these facts, expressed his
opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to
support either of the felonious intents imputed to
the prisoners by the present indictment ; and the
jury therefore, under his direction, returned a ver-
dict of not guilty.
The prisoners were then tried upon another in-
dictment for misdemeanour, in having unlawfully
done an act that was calculated to endanger the
safety of passengers travelling upon the railway.
The evidence in this case was the same as in the
former.

Mr. Ribton made an ingenious address to the
jury on behalf of the defendants, and he contended
that not only was there was no conclusive evidence
that either of them was that person who threw the
stone upon the railway, but that even if this fact
had been established, there was nothing to show
that the occurrence was not the result of accident.

The jury, after some deliberation, again returned
a verdict of not guilty.
The learned Judge told the defendants to be cau-
tious in future. The offence with which they had
been charged was a most serious one, and if they
had been convicted of the felony they might have
been sentenced to a long period of penal servitude.

CIVIL SIDE.

(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Common Juries.)

EASTMAN AND WIFE V. ATTWOOD.

This was an action to recover damages for a tres-
pass and false imprisonment. The defendant ad-
mitted the trespass contained in the first count
of the declaration, and paid £5 into court as satis-
faction for the injury the plaintiffs had sustained.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Ribton were for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Nl. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Prentice for the defendant.

The plaintiffs in this action, it appeared, had
formerly kept the Bell public-house at Minster,
but they let it three or four years ago, and have
since kept the Masons' Arms, another public-house,
at Dover. It appeared that some tine in last year
Mrs. Eastman happened by chance to be at Minster
upon business, and went to look at the " old
house," for which she said she always had a great
liking. She had some refreshment, and in the
course of conversation she introduced herself to the
defendant, who was then the landlord of the Bell,
os having been the former landlady, and he invited
her into the bar-parlour, and she went over the
house ; and the parties appeared to have parted
very good friends. Soon after she had left it
seemed that the defendant missed a mode-
rator lamp, and from some extraordinary cause or
other he appeared to have suspected that Mrs.
Eastman had taken it away with her; and, acting
upon this supposition he went before a magistrate
at Dover, and swore to an information by which
he alleged that he had reason to believe that a
lamp, his property, had been feloniously stolen,
and that it was secreted at the Masons' Arms, the
public house of the plaintiff. Upon this informa-
tion a search warrant was granted, and the defen-
dant and two policemen went to the plaintiffs'
house, and ransacked all the drawers and boxes,
but without finding any trace of the lamp ; and
it subsequently turned out that the defendant or
his wife had sent the lamp to a tradesman to be re-
paired, or to have something done to it; and, as
was now represented on their behalf, that they had
forgotten the circumstance. The plaintiffs, it ap-
peared, had expressed their willingness to accept
of an apology from the defendant, but as this could
not be obtained they were compelled to bring the
present action.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs,
with £2O damages.