The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-13 00:00:00

come home. She replied that she should not, alleg-
ing, as he said, no reason, though, according to her
own evidence, she had added that she had her rea-
son, although she did not declare them. Mrs. Royle
kept the gate open for her till 10 at night, but the
girl did not return, but continued dancing until I
o'clock in the morning, and passed the night at the
house of Anne Moore, daughter of the parish clerk,
lying down upon her bed without undressing. Be-
tween 12 and 1 on the following day she went to
Mrs. Boyle's, and told her she had come for her
boxes and wages. Mrs. Royle bade her stop, and
put her hand across the door to prevent her passing.
The defendant said, "It is time I left. I went on
account of my character." Mrs. Royle answered,
" Stop, Emma; if you have anything to say bring
your mother with yoti. The defendant said that
her master had tried to get into her room. On Thurs-
day she returned with her mother, and repeated
the charges she had previously made of the plaintiff
having taken liberties with her, but not alleging
actual commerce with her. Mr. Boyle laid a writ-
ten retractation before her, which he required her to
sign, but she refused to do so, saying she would not
make him an innocent man when he was a guilty
one. Mr. Royle then told her that he must see fur-
ther into the matter. Mr. Royle, in consequence of
her persistence in her story, commenced an action.
On the part of the plaintiff it was insisted that the
story told by the defendant was differently told tel
different persons, and that the silence she main-
tained respecting it for three weeks after the alleged
occurrence of the first indecent liberties, and then
only making it when she was in disgrace, rendered
her statement altogether untrustworthy.
The statement made to Mrs. Boyle and to others
was that Mr. Royle had on the night of Friday,
the 4th of October, when Mrs. Royle had gone
to London, told her when she brought him the
keys, according to custom, that he should come
to her bed that night. After this overture, to
which it did not seem that she had made any reply,
she said that she went to bed and listened for Mr.
Boyle coming up, and, having heard him make fast
his door, she thought all was right, undressed, got
into bed, and fell asleep. She was awakened, she
said, by some one getting into her bed, and upon
screaming Mr. Boyle said to her, " It's only me,
Emma." She left the bed and went into the young
ladies' bedroom and locked herself in. Her bed-
chamber, it seemed, consisted Of a portion of a
room, divided by a partition, the inner portion of
which was her apartment, the other through which
she must pass to reach her own, being the young
ladies' room, the door of which opened on a landing
opposite to the door of the plaintiff. The door of
the young ladies' room had a lock and key, but that
of defendant, which was in the partition, formed of
poste, laths, and canvass, wasEonly fastened by two
large buttons. The latter door was the only one
she fastened, the ;outer door of the ladies' empty
room being left unlocked. On the following day
she said that Mr. Boyle asked her whether she had
seen the slit he had made in the canvass to undo
the buttons of the door, meaning, as she added, that
she should sew it up. When the churchwardens
came to investigate the case this slit was examined,
at Mrs. Royle's request, as she thought it too small
to admit a man's hand, but it appeared to be large
enough, and so situated as to allow of the introduc-
tion of the hand for that purpose. In the statement,
however, which she said she was ready to substan-
tiate on oath, it was affirmed that Mr. Boyle had
fully effected his purpose.
Mr. Royle denied on oath that there was any
truth in the imputations made by the defendant.
Mr. Boden addressed the jury, and contended
that there were no such discrepancies in her state-
ments as should lead them to discredit her. The
son, who was 14 years old, who slept with his
father, might have been called ; he was the only
one in the house besides the plaintiff and the de-
fendant. It was for the jury to say whether an
ignorant girl like the defendant had, or was likely
to have, fabricated a story which, if false, was so
likely to be detected, and for the fabrication of
which there was no apparent motive of either gain
or ill feeling, which was in several circumstances
corroborated, and to which, in spite of the threat
and institution of proceedings, she had constantly
adhered.
Mr. Macaulay addressed the jury in reply. There
was not one atom of corroboration or of probability
in the story. Was she brought before them as a
modest girl ? How, then, was that consistent with
with her having been violated on the 4th of Octo-
ber, and held her tongue till the 23d, when she was
in disgrace ? If she was admitted to be a girl of
loose morals, what reliance could be placed on her
statement ?
His Lordship then commented on the evidence,
and pointed out the question which the jury had to
determine. The jury retired and, after a short ab-
sence, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with ls.
damages.
His Lordship, upon an application for costs, at
once expressed his willingness to certify.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn sat at 10 o'clock
in the Crown Court, and proceeded with the trial of
prisoners.
Charles Marsh and Adam Marsh, bricklayers,
Martin Wilkinson, a sawyer, John Jackson, a boat-
man, and George Jeffrey, labourer, were placed at
the bar, charged with night poaching upon land in
the possession of John Whiteley, at West Drayton,
on the night of the 22d of November, being armed
with bludgeons and stones.
Mr. F. Stephen conducted the case for the prose-
cution ; the Hon. C. Leigh the case for the pri-
soners.
It appeared from the evidence that John Cardill,
Joseph Cardill, and William Jackson, keepers in
the service of his Grace the Duke of Newcastle,
were watching at Drayton on the night of the 22d
of November when they heard the squeal of a hare,
and going through a hedge near a plantation into
a field, called Whiteley's field they !law several
poachers. The keepers approached and were struck
at by the poachers, who were the more powerful
body, being six or seven in number, and who, after
pelting the keepers with stones and bringing them
to the ground, beat them very severely with sticks
and net-pegs about their heads, necks,and shoulders.
One of the gang of poachers gave evidence of their
proceedings in the course of the night in question,
and was corroborated by persons who met him on
the same night.
All the prisoners were found guilty, and were
sentenced to seven years penal servitude.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)
Francis Fretwell was placed at the bar, charged
upon an indictment and also upon the coroner's in-
quest with the wilful murder of Elizabeth Bradley,
at Bilborough, on 24th July last, and pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Cave conducted the prosecution ; Mr. O'Brieit
the defence.
Both the prisoner and deceased were in humble
circumstances. The deceased was a married woman
who had separated from her husband, and at the
time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed was living in service with a Mr. Towle,
a farmer at Bilborough. There had previously been
an intimacy between herself and the prisoner, who
was in service with Mr. Richardson, a neighbouring
farmer, and this intimacy resulted in her pregnancy.
The prisoner, with her full assent, if not at her sug-
gestion and by her desire, procured some white
powder, which he gave her, telling her that it was
to get rid of the child, and that she was to be care-
ful of it and take a little at a time. She took it in
gin, and was sick, and subsequently dangerously ill.
In the course of her illness she made statements re-
specting its cause, which led to the prisoner being
taken into custody upon the charge of having ad-
ministered corrosive sublimate with intent to pro-
cure abortion. On the 22d July an examination of
deceased by magistrates was taken in the presence
of the prisoner and his attorney. Questions put by
the prisoner in cross-.examination of the deceased
elicited that the deceased had herself desired to have
some drug for the like purpose, and had endea-
voured to purchase corrosive sublimate and oil of
savin, and that the prisoner's procuring it was with
her assent, if not at her request. She died on the
24th July, from the effects of poison, which the me-
dical evidence showed was corrosive 'sublimate.
Upon Mr. Cave's proposing to put in the deposi-
tion of Elizabeth Bradley, the deceased,
Mr. O'Brien objected, upon the ground that her
statement d
pi dx.
ins
oont
erre.fe
bt te
andemci
shsai
br gi
lei
tyn oowf a
thel le gdeed-
apgoasiitnisotntdheepended on his having had both opportu-
nity and capacity to cross-examine with reference
to
Theth Lordchra
Chief Justice regarded the case as ana-
logous to that of a charge of wounding with intent
to maim, upon which the examination of the
wounded man might be taken, and the prisoner
afterwards, in consequence of the wounded man's
death, being charged with murder, the depositions
would be admissible as relating to one and the same
transaction.
The deposition was then put in evidence and read.
i\Alt the
r. O'Brien conclusion
so bmoi ft
ttehde thatees e fort
there
the
r e
was
no
for the jury to support the charge of wilful murder.
Previously to 1 he act enabling accessories to be tried
as principals the prisoner could not have been put
upon his trial for the offence now charged. The
prisoner therefore, as being accessory to the act of
the woman, which was not at that time f 1 •
cdhidarngoet by
of murder,
eatord.nhebcecoonmteendleiad,
as
a marof
liable to
e answer
ot
tnew a
us ,
otaffact,khee
her own
bhoeawt
dntr
huwegiil
but prisoner
ua tndtht _that
didts,henowtaesaauesteintghethwroomugahn to
outot
or so far from being influ-
encedurging persuaded by the prisoner, was herself
and influencing him.
His Lordship then told the jury that it was not
suggested that the prisoner had any intention to
mule the death of the deceaged woman; but if they