The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-10 00:00:00

HORRIBL AIURDER.

The Court of Assizes of the Vaucluse, sitting at
Carpentras (says Galignani), has just been occupied
during three days with the trial of a farmer named
Leonard, for the murder of his wife and two chil-
dren under horrible circumstances. The following
are the principal facts of the case as shown by the
evidence and the prisoner's confession. About one
o'clock in the morning of the 21st October last, a
farmer named Bonnaud, residing in a lone house
in the commune of Pertuis, was awakened by cries
of help, uttered by some person in the yard in front,
and on going out he saw a man dressed in shirt and
trousers only, both of which were stained with
blood, and who said that he had just escaped from
the hands of persons who had attempted to murder
him. Bonnaud recognised this individual as a far-
mer named Leonard, whose tonse was at some dis-
tance across the fields, and immediately got his
horse and cart to convey him home to La Thuil-
liere, where his family usually lived, though they
had another farm at Martelly, where they also some-
times resided. On arriving there, however, he found
the house closed, and could make no one hear, so he
drove off to the hospital at Pertuis to obtain assis-
tance for the injured man, who bad been wounded
by a gun or pistol-shot behind the ear. The
surgeon observed that the sides- of the wound
were burnt with powder, but could not find
any trace of wadding or ball, As soon as Leonard
was able to give explanations, be stated that he
had been working with his wife and children
the previous day at the farm of Martelly, and that
he was just getting his cart out ready to return to La
Thulliere when he was shot by some one from in-
side the house. He fell, and remained insensible
for some time. As soon as he recovered his senses,
he had with difficulty dragged himself to Bonnaud's
andfa farm to
children obtain
he
help. What had become of his wife
did not know. The gendarmery
were at once informed of Leonard's statement, and
two men were sent to Martelly to look after the
wife and children. On arriving there, they found
the outer door open, and the rooms full of smoke,
while in the middle of the bedroom lay a smoulder-
ing heap, from which the smell of burning flesh
proceeded. On examination the bodies of the woman
and her children were found, cut in small pieces,
and half carbonised. If the falling of the roof had
not partially smothered the fire the house must have
been entirely destroyed, and scarcely any trace of
the crime would have remained. The surgeon's
doubts as to Leonard's statement respecting the
manner in 'which he received his wound excited
suspicion that he was the murderer of his wife and
family, and had inflicted the wound on himself with
a pistol. Having been taxed with the crime, he at
last admitted that, aggravated by something his
wife said, he struck her a blow which killed her;
that he afterwards murdered the children, and set
the house on fire. In his remorse for what he had ;
done he then attempted to kill himself, but failed.
Circumstances, however, were soon discovered ;
which proved the murder was premeditated, and ;
that his object was to obtain the sole possession of a
piece of land worth about 2,500 fr., which belonged
to his wife and her children, and which he had
already attempted to mortgage without her consent.
The evidence was conclusive against the prisoner,
who was found guilty by the jury without extenuat-
ing circumstances, and condemned to death. The
execution was ordered to take place at Pertuis, near
the scene of the crime.

" We learn that on the 25th ult. an illustrative
little book, purporting to be a lecture on vesico-
vaginal and recto-vaginal fistula, delivered in May,
1861, in the neighbourhood of St. George's Hospi-
tal, London, by T. Spencer Wells, Esq., F.R.C.S.,
surgeon to the Samaritan Hospital, &c, and re-
printed from the British Medical Journal, was left
as a gratuity at the George Hotel, Buxton, by the
author ; as some documents forwarded to the College
of Surgeons, of which we subjoin a copy, will show.
(Copy.)
" George Hotel, Buxton, 26th Sept. 1861.
" This pamphlet was left last Tuesday evening
or the following morning with the' boots' of this
hotel (by Mr. Spencer Wells), to be placed in some
conspicuous place, and was accordingly exposed by
him on the post-shelf at the hotel, where ladies of
all ages, and gentlemen, and other people, go to
seek for letters. We, the visitors now assembled
here, especially those with us, cannot but express
our indignation at so revolting a violation of de-
cency, so flagrant a disregard of social privileges;
to say nothing of so quackish as well as indelicate a
mode of advertisement. Such a means of notoriety
among professedly orthodox practitioners is very
sickening.
" We hope this reproof will have the effect of
preventing the extension of so demoralising a sys-
tem of publicity.
" W. ANDROS (President), R. J. GRIFFITHS,
C. POLIIILL, S. S. BRITTAIN, GEO. W.
EVANS, AUST. ODLING, CHAS. MITCHELL,
8.A., R. EVERS."
" Copy of the Letter of the Landlord of the Hotel,
addressed to the Visitors, thanking them for their
Protest against the course adopted by Mr.
Spencer Wells.
"George Hotel, Buxton, Sept. 26, 1861.
" Gentlemen,—l am much obliged to you for the
course you have taken, as I fully concur in the sen-
timents you have expressed relative to the indecent
pamphlet by T. Spencer Wells, F.R.C.S.,' &c.,
London, which was handed to the boots' (to be
laid where it would be seen!) by a person who left
this hotel, in company with two other visitors, on
Wednesday morning, and who, I have reason to be-
lieve, is the author of it. I also conclude he is known
to the medical gentleman forming one of your num-
ber, as *he left Lila cuiliplhucuta for him' wt darting
to Chatsworth on his way to town.' The pamphlet
to which you have appended your protest will there-
fore be transferred to that gentleman, with a copy
of this letter, and an intimation of your expressed
opinion that it should be forwarded' to the College
of Surgeons, of which it appears the author is a
fellow.
"The ' boots' was of course not aware of the con-
tents of the book so handed to him, and therefore
did as he was directed. lam not aware that such
an obscene publication has ever before been left ex-
posed at this house; and in order to prevent a repi-
tition of such a disgusting and discreditable an oc-
currence, I have given strict orders to my servants
to bring at once to me all such pamphlets and ad-
vertising papers which may hereafter be left with
them.—l have, &c.,
"E. LEES, pro WM. LEES.
" To the President and Gentlemen of the
Dining-room and Drawing-room."
To the above the editor appended the following
note :

" We have deemed it necessary, in the course of
our duty, to publish this correspondence, inasmuch
as we are informed it has been forwarded to the
council of the Royal College of Surgeons for its con-
sideration. What that body may decide with re•
ference to it we shall hereafter know; but as we
cannot believe that Mr. Spencer Wells, who is the
ostensible editor ofa medicaljournal,would intention-
ally offend public decency, some explanation of this
occurrence is absolutely required, in vindication,
not only of his own sense of propriety, but of the
character of the profession."
Mr. Webber's name did not appear among the
guests who signed the document, but he sent it and
the other papers to the Medical Circular, together
with a letter of his own, making further charges
against the plaintiff, and also transmitted them to
the College of Surgeons. The plaintiff afterwards
received a letter from the College of Surgeons, call-
ing upon him to explain the statements, and take
the earliest opportunity to vindicate his character,
suspending their own judgment upon the matter
until they knew the result of the present trial.
The Lord Chief justice observed that the College
of Surgeons had acted with the greatest discretion
and judgment in suspending their decision until
this case had been tried.

Mr. Phinn said he believed that the accusation
made by the defendant was actuated by professional
rivalry, and commented upon the :njurioas effect it
was calculated to have upon a professional man like
the plaintiff.
Mr. Huddleston said that if Mr. Wells gave an
assurance that the learned counsel's version of the
sending of the document was the true one, the de-
fendant, under his advice, was ready to withdraw
any observations he had made upon the plaintiff.

The Lord Chief Justice—lt i; a matter in which
I do not feel justified in interfering.
_ _

Mr. Phinn—l think it is due to Mr. Wells that
the case should be investigated.
Mr. Thomas Spencer Wells, the plaintiff, was then
examined in corroboration of the learned counsel's
statement. He said he received six copies of the
pamphlet by the post, and he presented them all to
medical men. His account as to the one given to
the defendant was as follows—l said to the "boots,"
"Do you know Mr. Webb r, the doctor ?" He
said he did, and I said, "Give him this pamphlet
with my compliments." Mr. Parker said, "Do you
know Mr. Webber's room ?" and he said he did.
Mr. Parker then observed, " You had better take it
to his room." I and my two friends then left the
hotel. On the day on which the Medical Circular
was published-9th of October—l heard first about
thepamphlet. Within a day or twoafterwards I re-
ceived a letter from the College of Surgeons calling
for an explanation of the charge against me. I did
not distribute other pamphlets in the course of my
journey,
Cross-examined—The pamphlet has not been
withdrawn from circulation. I only had 150 copies
printed for private circulation and I have some left.
There was some medical conversation in the smok-
ing room. There are plates in the book which
would make me desirous that it should not be left
about in a public hotel. I should have been exceed-
ingly annoyed if I had known that it had been
exposed in a conspicuous position. It is not a book
that I should wish a lady to take up. There is,
however, nothing obscene in it.
The Lord Chief Justice—There are no more illus-
trations than are necessary for scientific purposes?
Witness replied in the affirmative.
The Lord Chief Justice—l suppose if the book
had been intended for general circulation instead of
entirely for professional men, you would not have
shown what you have done ?

Witness—i would not. The book is utterly use-
less for general circulation. The public would not
understand it.

Mr. Huddlestoa—l suppose you were in a hurry

When the jest arrived or you would have put the
look for Mr, Webber in an envelope ?
Witness—Yes.
Cross-examination resumed—l have not seen the
" boots" since. I certainly did not tell hint to place
the pamphlet where it might be seen.
Mr. Robs, the editor of the Medical Circular, the
plaintiff's two friends, the secretary of the College
of Surgeons, and other witnesses were then called.
Mr. Sadler said that at the hotel Mr. Webber said
to him " If Mr. Wells had said of me what I have
said of him I would not speak to him again." Mr.
Trimmer, the Secretary of the College of Surgeons,
said that Mr. Webber had been elected a fellow,
but he had declined to sign the bye-laws. He be-
lieved he had before been black-balled.
Mr. Huddleston did not call any witnesses, but
addteased the jury iu mitigation of damages. He
said the defendant was quite content and desirous
to retract anything he might have rashly said or
written about Mr. Wells, and to tender him an
ample apology. Up to the time of the trial he had
never been asked to apologise, nor offered any ex-
planation of the circumstances under which the
pamphlet got into the public room, and if Mr.
Wells now assured him that he never intended it to
appear there he was prepared to make the repara-
tion he had mentioned. From the carelessness of
the " boots," perhaps, the pamphlet, which was cal-
culated to shock the sensibility of modest and un-
professional persons, was found in the room, and
created very great disgust among the visitors. The
defendant thought it had been placed there by the
plaintiff as an advertisement of himself, and, indig-
nant at such conduct, took the course which was
now complained of, and which he (the learned
counsel) now admitted was unjustifiable.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said the
action was brought for a very serious libel, because
if the plaintiff had, as alleged, placed the pamphlet
in a conspicuous place in the hotel for toe purpose
of advertising himself as a medical man, he ought
to be expelled from all decent society. He had no
alternative, therefore, but to challenge his accuser
in a public court of justice, and to vindicate his
character from such a charge. It now appeared
that the accusation was destitute of the slightest
shadow of foundation. The defendant said that,
having heard Mr. Wells' account, he was iTady to
withdraw all he had said and apologise, and it vas
suggested that with this Mr. Wells ought VI be
content, and allow the matter to drop. He could
suppose that the defendant, from a momentary
feeling of indignation at the plaintiff attempt-
ing, as he imagited, to advertise himself by means
of the pamphlet, at the risk of offending the
modesty of female relations in the hotel, might
honestly have taken the course he did ; but
it would have been more fair and generous to
a brother practitioner to have first given him an
opportunity for explanation. If Mr. Webber had
appeared in the box, and explained Low he came to
be the party to promote the circulation of the docu-
ments, there would be considerable force in the
learned counsel's observations; and he (the learned
judge) could not help expressing his great astonish-
ment and regret that any consideration whatever
should have induced him not to offer himself as a
witness upon that point, The defendant had chosen
to trust to the last word of an ingenious counsel
rather than to his own version of the matter,
honestly and straightforwardly given in the box ;
he thus left himself open to the serious imputation
of foul play on his part in stimulating parties to
engage in a course of action injurious to the cha-
racter and position of a brother medical man. It
was for the jury to say with what animus and object
he published these serious and grave charges. If
they believed he had preferred them with malig-
nant, sinister, and bad motives, they could not suffi-
ciently mark their sense of such conduct, but on
the other hand they thought he had acted honestly,
though rashly, they would deal with him in a very
different manner, although in any view of the case
it was impossible not to feel that the defendant's
conduct was open to severe censure.
The Foreman, after the jury had been a few
minutes in deliberation, asked if there was any in-
formation as to the position in life of the defendant.
The Lord Chief Justice said it only appeared that
he had retired from practice.
The jury, after being locked up for about a quar-
ter of an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £3OO.
HANCOCK V. CASE.—SLANDER.
This was an action for slander. The parties resided
at Liverpool, and the words spoken had reference
to some shipping matters.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. C. Russell were coun-
sel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett and Mr. Aspinel
for the defendant..
The Lord Chief Justice thought there had been a
mistake between the parties, and that they ought
to come to some terms.
The defendant's counsel said the defendant never
intended to make any imputation against the
plaintiff.
Mr. sergeant Shee said the case must gn
jury, as no full and complete apology had laeen
made. - -
The jury retired at five o'clock, and returned into
court at seven, and gave their unanimous verdict
for the plaintiff, with damages 40s.
The Lord Chief Justice—What say you, gentle-
men, en the question whether the statement was
made bonafideor not, and also on the question whe-
ther it was a privileged communication of not ?
The Foreman—Eleven of us are agreed, my lord,
that it was not a privileged communication, and it
seems perfectly impossible to expect that the dis-
seatient juror will agree with us on the point which
your lordship has put.
The Lord Chief Justice—Then, gentlemen, you
must retire again.
They accordingly retired, and after some further
time spent in the consideration of tin questions,
they added to their verdict the expression that the
statement was not privileged, and that it was made
mala fide.
Verdict for the plaintiff accordingly.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
TIIWAITES V. THWAITES.

This part-heard case was resumed this morning,
when

Mr. Karslake, Q C., for the defence, denied that
his client had ever treated the petitioner with
harshness. The learned counsel then called _

Mr. Thwaites, the respondent, who said that
when he married the petitioner he had a business
as a dentist, at Bristol, which yielded him £3OO or
£4OO a year. He denied that he had kicked his
wife itt bed. She once told him to get up to the
child, and, being half asleep, he made a movement
of impatience and accidentally touched her with his
knee, but she made very little of it at the time.
Had never struck her while his son Willie
was at the breast. Remembered showing her
in 1856 two £lO notes and three or four sove-
reigns, which he said ho had been able to save
towards George's education. She seemed pleased.
Had met her that day on her return home
from the country. Did not fire pistols that
night, but did go into her room at two in the
morning. Had been told by the nurse that Mrs,
Thwaites had ordered two of the children to be
placed in her bed, so that witness might not sleep
with her that night. Was highly excited about it.
Went out for a walk, but returned at 11. Remained
in the drawing-room reading or writing till two.
Then went up to her, and tried to take the child
from her side to put him into another bed. There
was a struggle, and witness ultimately left the
child with her. Did not kick her or pinch her, or
pull her hair, or pull her out of the bed. Boxed her
ears in 1856 for calling him a liar ; but remained
on friendly terms with her at that time. Remem-
bered once taking a letter from her which she was
writing. She shut the lid of her desk down upon
his hard, but he did not strike her a stunning or
stinging blow on the head, or any blow at all.
Once at supper she had called him a liar, and he
touched her face with the mustard spoon, which he
happened to have in his hand. She was always
irritating him, and he had once intended, to destroy
his life. tie fired a pistol in a dresser in his work-
room ; his wife then came rushing down, and he
said, " Thank God, Minny, I have not done it."
He had taken her teeth out simply because they
required to be extracted. Her gums were tender
after that. Took chloroform to a great extent,
owing to worry of wind. Was in debt when he
married. Four days after the wedding the peti-
tioner expressed a strong desire to have a diamond
ring. Refused to let her have one because he could
not afford it. After her father's death ahe bought
one with money which he had left her for mourning.
Was exeessiv annoyed at her for doing so, but
she excused herself on the ground that her sister
had also bought a ring like hers. It cost £l3.
After that she made a list of mourning which
would have come to £35. Told her he could not
let her have the articles, The day after she came
down to him and said, "Hear what I have to say.
Unless you give me £3O for mourning only, I will
expose you to all the world, and that will ruin
you." Made her not the slightest reply. She
repeated the same threat on the day follow-
ing. After that she refused to take her meals
with witness, and confined herself to her bed-
room. They did not speak at all for three
months, In November, 1860, she came down
and said, "You shall hear me speak—l will tell you
somethinF." Merely said, "Now Minny dear, don't
quarrel." She replied, " Dear, indeed ! dear, in-
deed!" Then she began abusing witness and also
the servants, whom she called "harlots" and ''kept
women." Once while the children were at dinner
she came up and began abusing him. She said,
Willie dear, I'll
help you to apple sauce." As her
object was only
to annoy witness, he told her to

leave the room. She refused to go. Tried to force
her out, but did not succeed. In the struggle she
might have touched the clock outside the door. On
the occasion spoken to by witness's sonshe had
burst into the room while he was talking to him.
'rook up some clean water and threatened to ,`hr ow
it in her face, but put it down without doing so►
and left the room. She followed him, and he tried
to put her out. Dared say that her arms weje
bruised. His own hands were scratched. Took up
the water a second time, and again put it down.
At last he threw it in her face, saying, " Well, if
you will, you must; and if that won't do, I'll give
you a bucket-full, for I won't be insulted in my
workroom." Nothing had been said about dirty
linen on that occasion ; but there had been some
talk about it on the evening before. Did not call
up the servants, but they had come up hearing the
noise. Mrs. Thwaites kept the house till after she
took to her room; but at last she sent down a list;
of things, with a message that if he did not supply
them she would go to law. After that witness man-
aged the house himself. Her conduct was constantly
abusive ; but witness never sanctioned any rudeness
on the part of the servants towards her. Never
sent her hard and gristly pieces of meat for the pur-
pose of annoying her. She had exactly what the
rest of the family had, and that without stint. For
months she had a pound and a half or two pounds
of beef every day to make beef tea with. ,She had
also jelly regularly for a month or six weeks
while she was ill. Till 1858 she had an tAllow-
ance of £36 a year for clothes. After that a
friend of his asked her if in his present circum-
stances she would take £2O. She said sbe would not
have less than £3O. Up to 1858 witness's position
had been improving, but it had then began to
fall off, and £2O was more than he could afford. In
1858 she sent him word that she had been obliged
to borrow a warm cloak, whereas she had at that;
time the very same cloak, to the best of his belief,
as she had worn in the court. Never called her a.
bad woman except once, when she said she would
take her little daughter, who was ill, and expose
her to the magistrates. Did tell the laundress,
Tovey, , that the petitioner must be out of her senses ;
but had been informed at the moment that she had
allowed his son George to cut the banisters. The
list of clothes sent after her to Mr. Welsh's was
made out with the aid of the two servants. It was
a correct list; and though some of the things were
worn there was an ample wardrobe for a person in
petitioner's condition. Sent her everything that
belonged to her, except a locket, which he kept for
his daughter. Witness's practice had seriously
diminished ; and after his wife left he gave up his
house and went into lodgings. Had never threat-
ened to poison her, or said that he had a subtle
poison which would destroy life without leaving a
trace. She never said that she locked her room
because he had so threatened her. Her room was
never locked with witness's consent.
At the close of the witness's examination in chief
the court adjourned.