The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-19 00:00:00

BECKLEY V. LAURIE.

Mr. Brett, Q.C. and Mr. H. James were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. R.
Clarke were counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a saddle and harness maker,
carrying on business in Oxford-street, next door to
Messrs. Laurie and Marner, carriage makers, of
which firm the defendant is the senior partner.
The plaintiff purchased his business from Mr.
Laurie. He paid him £3OO a year rent for the pre-
mies, and £l5O a year under an agreement relative
to the purchase money The plaintiff made all the
harness required by Messrs. Laurie and Marner,
and the course of business between them was that
the plaintiff gave bills, as_ his Daymiant.},......... avic,
Which were field and renewed by Mr. Laurie until
the settlement of the business accounts. They both
banked at the Union Bank ; and, by inadvertence
the defendant paid one of the plaintiff's bills into
the bank which the latter charged the plaintiff
with. This reduced the plaintiff's balance to about
£B. Not knowing what had been done the plain-
tiff drew a cheque for £5O in favour of one of his
creditors, which, on presentation was not paid. The
plaintiff alleged that in consequence he bad suf-
fered in the withdrawal of the confidence which
that creditor formerly reposed in him.
The Lord Chief Justice suggested a settlement of
the case. There was no dispute as to the facts, and
it was evident that what the defendant had done
was done in mistake. _

The learned counsel conferred together, but were
unable to come to terms, and the case proceeded.
Before the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence,
The Lord Chief Justice again interfered, observ-
ing that no possible good could result from the
exposure that was likely to take place. It was to
be regretted that respectable tradesmen had differed
in this manner upon a matter that a mutual friend
might have satisfactorily settled in five minutes.
Both parties were at fault. There was no doubt
the plaintiff had suffered some damage.
The learned counsel on both sides said they were
ready to abide by his lordship's decision.
The Lord Chief Justice then directed a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, £25.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron Wilde

and Special Juries.)
This was the first day of the sittings of the term.
The cause list contains 57 cases, 11 of which are
remanets, and 23 for special juries.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. 21`LEAN.
This was an information at the instance of the
Commissioners of Inland _Revenue against Mr.
M'Lean, carver and gilder, carrying on business in
Fleet-street and Oxford-street, to recover four seve-
ral penalties of £6O each for the nondelivery of

returns, in respect of assessed taxes to which he
was liable. _ _

The Attorney-General, Mr. J. Locke, and Mr.
Bevan were for the Crown; and Mr. Sergeant
Hayes and Mr. H. Matthews for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence that the defendant
had omitted to return a man servant, a dog, and a
tilted cart. The latter he was in the habit of
using in goii]g to and from his place of business
to the railway station.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes did not adduce any evidence
on the part of the defence, but submitted that the
defendant was not liable, as the terms of the act
under which the information was filed applied only
to the place where the defendant resided, and there
was no proof that the defendant resided at either of
his shops. He also contended that the cart was
exempt from duty, and the defendant used it for
the purpose of his business when he drove in it
to and from the station, and that if the defendant
had been guilty of the offence specified by the act,
he was only liable to one penalty of £5O, and not
to that sum for each of the alleged omissions.
The learned baron said he would reserve the
points for the Court above, but he should hold, as
at present advised, that the defendant was liable
to the whole four penalties. Perhaps, however,
the Crown would be satisfied with one of £5O. _

. .._ .. ._ . ..
Mr.— J. Locke said he would press for the four
penalties.
Mr. Baron Wilde said he recollected when the
Crown was not so severe.

Mr. S. Locke said he would consent to accept two
penalties if the defendant would not move the
Court on the points of law. _

Mr. Sergeant Hayes could not agree to that pro-
posal.
The Lord Chief Baron directed the jury to give
a verdict for the Crown for £2OO.

Verdict for the Crown accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL T. GOBETZ:

This was an information against the defendant, a
jeweller, in Commercial-street, Whitechapel, for
selling tickets in a foreign lottery.
Mr. Welsby was for the Crown, and Mr. Hodg-
son for the defendant.

The defendant, Mr. Gobetz, was proceeded
against under 6 Geo. 111., c. 35, sec. 29, which
enacted that any person who should sell a ticket for
a chance in any foreign lottery should be liable to a
penalty of £2OO. It came to the knowledge of the
Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the defen-
dant was advertising the sale of tickets in foreign
lotteries, and by their direction two officers in the
detective force went to his shop and purchased each
a chance in the Royal Netherlands State Lottery,
for a sum of 6s. 6d. The defendant had been warned
not to deal in these tickets, but he continued to do
so, and the Crown therefore proceeded against him
for the recovery of two penalties.
Mr. Rodgson, on the part of the defendant, sub-
mitted that the act did not apply to the sale in this
count*" of tickets in a lottery established by lawful
authority in a foreign country.
Mr. Baron Wilde was clearly of opinion that the
legislature intended to prevent gambling by the
Queen's subjects in foreign lotteries by means of
tickets sold in this country.
Mr. Hodgson said, in extenuation of the defen-
dant's conduct, that he was a foreigner, and had
been for some time in the habit of selling tickets
in these lotteries without knowing it was illegal.
He had also been fortified by the decision of Mr.
Sergeant Storks, the judge of the Shoreditch County
Court, who, in 1858, in a case brought before him,
said he was clearly of opinion that the act only
applied to lotteries got up in this country, and that
if a lottery was legal in Holland they had no right
to question the legality of the sale of tickets for it
in this country.
The defendant thought he was
more justified in acting upon this decision than
upon the interpretation given to the act by the
police.
The fact of the sale of the tickets not having been
denied,
The learned Judge directed the jury to find a
verdict for the Crown.
Mr. Welsby said he Would be content with one
penaltwny, and the jury returned a verdict for the
Cro for £2OO.
Leave was given to move upon the point of law
raised by the learned coaneel in the event of the
£2OO being paid into court within a week.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—June 18.

Edward Gregory, 34, was charged with the man.
slaughter of James Driscoll.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted. The prisoner was de
fended by Mr. Sleigh.
_

....__
The prisoner and the deceased it appeared were
employed with a number of other labourers upon
the works of the Metropolitan Railway at King's-
cross, where a station is in the course of erection,
the former being what is called the ganger of the
others. They were both employed upon sume gir-
ders, or ribs, upon which an arch wee to be thrown
over the line, on the evening of the 27th of May,
when it appeared that a quarrel toot Place between.
exchanged between
them, and after some very angry wordeblows were
them. The deceased struck the
prisoner on the arm and face with an iron instru-
ment called a podger, Which he was using in his
Tilled for some time, and.
work. The struggle continued
at length,
according to the
evidence of two wit-
nesses, the prisoner laid hold of the deceased by the
collar and one of his arms, lifted him off his legs,
and deliberately dropped him down into the cut•
ting, a depth of nearly 40 feet, and by the fall be
received such severe injuries as occasioned his death
very shortly afterwards. There was
some contra-
diction, however, as to the circuuistanceS under
which the deceased fell or was thrown from the
girder, and one of the witnesses stated that he saw
the struggle, and that he expected both the men
would have fallen from the place where they were,
and that he threw a rope over the deceased to save
him, but he was very excited and pulled it off. An-
other witness also said that the deceased was the
worse for liquor at the time of the occurrence, and
that he had threatened the prisoner with personal
violence.

Mr. Sleigh in his address to the jury for the de-
fence endeavoured to show that the unfortunate oc-
currence was the result of accident, and argued that
that this was more likely than that the prisoner
should have lifted np the deceased, who was proved
to be a man nearly as heavy and powerful as him-
self, and have thrown him into the cutting in the
way that had been stated.

The learned Judge having summed up, the jury,
after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty
of manslaughter, bat intimated that some of them
entertained a doubt whether the prisoner intended
to throw the deceased from the girder.
The learned Judge, in passing sentence, said it
was clear that the death of the deceased had been
occasioned by the illegal violence of the prisoner,
and it was fortunate for him that the jury did not
believe that he had intentionally committed the
wicked act of throwing his fellow workman from
such a height, for if they had done so he should
have felt it his duty to inflict a very severe punish-
ment, as such an offence would have been very little
short of murder. He then sentenced the prisoner
to twelve months' hard labour.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
Edward James Smith, 31, letter carrier, was in-
dicted for stealing a post letter containing one £5OO
Bank of England note, and also a valuable security.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.
It appeared that the prisoner was a letter sorter
and carrier, and was charged with being in posses-
sion of a post lcttcr containing tow
that his lodings would be searched, and asked if he
had any other notes, he said he had one large one,
and the officer there found a note for £5OO in two
halves. The prisoner accounted for the possession
of the note by stating that he found it in Finsbury-
square, and had kept it in hopes of getting a re-
ward. This note was afterwards found to have been
sent as far back as January last year from a stock-
broker, at Sheffield, to a client in London, by post,
but was not delivered.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and
upon another indictment to which the prisoner
pleaded guilty, sentence was deferred.
John Smith, 26, labourer, was indicted for at-
tempting to murder James Jones.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Orridge prosecuted.
The prisoner, it will be remembered, was a con-
vict in the Milbank prison, and had attacked the
prosecutor Jones, who was one of the warders, and
stabbed him with a weapon which he bad con-
structed out of a piece of iron tied to a wooden
handle.

The prisoner, who was not defended, said that
the excitement he was under made him mad, he
having been in a lunatic asylum.
Thejury found him guilty, and he was sentenced
to penal servitude for life.
Charles Tillbrook, 27, collar maker, was indicted
for feloniously wounding Mary King, with intent
to murder her.
Mr. Mellor conducted the prosecution.
The prosecutrix in this case was a feeble old
woman, and stood in the relation of grandmother
to the prisoner. The evidence went to show that
the prisoner had been a soldier, and for 12 months
after his discharge had been in receipt of a pension,
but had recently been supported by her and his
mother, as he would not work. On Sunday, the
13th April last, after dinner, she Was dressing her-
self in her room, 31, Charles-street, Westminster,
when she observed the prisoner come in with some-
thing like a knife or razor in his hand. He at once
struck her with it across the forehead several times,
until she bled profusely, and he afterwards beat her
about the head with a stick until the bones of her

head became sore and had been so ever since. A
surgeon, Dr. M'Cann, of Parliament-street, was
sent for, and he directed her immediate removal to
the hospital, where she remained for seven weeks.
She had not had any quarrel with the prisoner, but
he had told her before this happened that she should
not live to see May day.
Prisoner (sullenly)—l never used any such
words. If I had wamted to take her life I should
have locked the door. I merely intended to draw
some of her blood, and that is the fact of the matter
(sensation). If she does not work at devilish arts
or witchcraft I am willing to forfeit my life for her.
The evidence of the prosecutrix was corroborated
by her husband, a venerable-looking old man, who
proved that alter the struggle he found on the
table in the room where it occurred his own razor,
which he had not seen or used for months.

_ .
W. Marshall, constable 227, was then called and
proved that from information he received he went
to the residence of the prosecutrix, whom he found
bleeding profusely from the head, and supporting
herself with a chair by the side of the bed. The
prisoner was there, and said, " I have done it, and
Ido not wish to run away." The witness told him
not to say anything to criminate himself, as the
wounds might prove fatal. The prisoner he then
saw drop a razor from his hand, and said he had
done it with that and a stick, which witness would
find under the table. Both razor and stick were
covered with blood. The prisoner added, " She
(pointing to the prosecutrix) ought to have
been dead years ago." Witness had the pro-
secutrix conveyed to the hospital on a stretcher,
and took the prisoner in custody to the station-house.
George Searle, police-sergeant 32 A, proved that
he took the charge against the prisoner when he was
brought in by the last witness. On hearing the
charge witness used the expression, " Poor old
woman!" On which the prisoner said, " Damn her,
she ought to have been dead years ago. Serve her
right. She has done me harm enough. I did not wish
to kill the old lady outright. I wanted to see her
blood, which I have done. It is not for what I shall
have to suffer in this world, but in the next.'
Mr. C. Clarke, house surgeon at the Westminster
Hospital, proved the reception by him of the prose-
cutrix and the nature of the injuries she received.
Her life was in great danger for some time, so much
so that he had felt it his duty to send for a magis-
trate to take her evidence.

The prisoner, when called on for his defence, re-
peated his former statement, as already given in
evidence, and added that the reason why he shed
her blood was that she should not possess that power
over him that she had done ; 200 years ago such a
woman would have been put to death foi withcraft
without any ceremony.
Mr. Baron Bramwell told the jury that though a
plea of insanity had not been raised in the present
case, he would draw their attention to the laws by
which that plea was regulated. Having done so, his
lordship said it was for the jury to say, upon the
facts proved before them, whether, applying those
laws to which he had directed their attention, they
were of opinion that the prisoner at the time knew
what he was doing and what would be the conse-
quences. As, if so, he was responsible for the act
he undoubtedly committed.
The jury, after conferring for a few seconds, re-
turned a verdict of guilty of wounding with intent
to murder.
Mr. Baron Bramwell expressed his concurrence
in the verdict, and sentenced the prisoner to be
kept in penal servitude for life.
Richard Henry Walker, a respectable-looking
young man, surrendered in discharge of his bail, to
answer an indictment for feloniously killing and
slaying Charles Field. He was also charged on the
coroner's inquisition, with the murder of Charles
Field.

Mr, Eyre Lloyd prosecuted, and Mr. Dickie de-

fended the prisoner:
The facts of the ease were exceedingly simple•
The prisoner was the driver of a Hansom, and the
deceased the driver of a four-wheel cab, and while
in Piccadilly about 12 o'clock on the night of the Bth
of May a quarrel ensued between them,which ended
in the prisoner, leaving his own vehicle and ascend-
ing the fore wheel of that of the deceased, seizing
him by the collar or the leather belt to which his
badge was attached, and in a struggle they both fell
to the ground, the head of the deceased coming in
contact with the kerb-stone. He was conveyed to
the hospital, where he died on the 25th May, of the
injuries he had received. The prisoner when taken
into custody said he was very sorry for what had
happened ; but the deceased had called him a liar,
and had struck him with his whip before he (pri-
soner) had done anything to him. It was also ad-
mitted that the prisoner had visited deceased fre-
quently at the hospital, and had paid him every
attention by contributing wine and other comfort
to him.
The Jury returned a verdict of guilty, and
The learned Judge, after remarking upon the
peculiarities of the case, sentenced him to one day's
imprisonment.

COUNTRY NA_RKL2

... 1.,- ----- -

LYNN-TUESDAY.

The supply of wheat was again small, and prices were
fully 2s dearer. Spring corn prices were in favour of the
seller.

New white 54s to 57s I 8ar1ey...... 30s to 32s
Red .. ..52s to 54s 1 Oats .22s to 26s
Beans .4os to 44s I Peas 44s to 48s
NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE --TUESDAY.

At to-day's market there was a better demand for wheat
of all descriptions, and prices were rather improved upon
last week. Flour steady, at the advance on this day week
of about 2s per sack. Spring corn as of late.