The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-08 00:00:00

CROWN COURT.

James Holt, 42, a post-office letter-carrier,
pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged him
with feloniously stealing a letter containing two
half-sovereigns and two postage stamps, the pro-
perty of the Postmaster-General.
Mr. Hurrell and Mr. C. Pollock conducted the
prosecution.
The prisoner was employed as a letter-carrier
and sorter at the Epsom Post-office, and while em-
ployed in those capacities it appeared that he com-
mitted the offence imputed to him.
He was sentenced to four years' penal servitude.

Charles Rawson, 50, described as a tutor, was
charged with feloniously setting fire to a stack of
straw, the property of Thos. Lemand, at Kingston.
Mr. Kingston prosecuted. The prisoner Woe do-
fended by Mr. Oppenheim.
The prisoner was committed for trial at these
assizes in 1860, but upon that occasion it appeared
that he made a desperate attempt to destroy him-
self, and there was no doubt that he was insane, and
the jury found that he was not in a fit state of mind
to plead. Vpon this he was sent to Bedlam as a cri-
minal lunatic, and since that time, as his mind has
become restored, he was, by order of the Secretary
of State, sent back to take his trial. The evidence
went to show that prosecutor was a farmer, living
near Kingston, and that in the beginning of 1860
the stack in question was discovered to be on fire.
The prisoner was met by a police-constable coming
from the spot, and it appeared he admitted that he
had set fire to the stack, and his conduct was such
as to leave very little doubt that he was at the time
in a state of insanity.
Mr. Oppenheim having addressed the jury for
the prisoner, they returned a verdict of not guilty
on the ground of insanity, and the prisoner was or-
dered to be detained during her Majesty's pleasure.
Hobert Randall, 37, painter, was charged with
feloniously cutting and wounding Anne Hills, with
intent to murder and do her grievous bodily harm.
The prisoner was also charged with bigamy, in
having feloniously intermarried with the same pro-
secutrix, he having a wife alive at the time.
The Hon. G. Denman and Mr. Sharpe conducted
the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury.
The prosecutrix in this case was a woman about
the same age as the prisoner, and it appeared that
they were married at Croydon in Sept., 1860, and
lived together in that town, and about a year after
the marriage had taken place the prisoner admitted
that he had a wife living. On July 25th the real
wife of the prisoner came to the house where the
prisoner and the prosecutrix were living, and ex-
pressed her intention to give prisoner in charge, and
he asked the prosecutrix whether she would ad-
pear against him. She told him that she would,
and he then pulled her upon his knee and wanted
to caress her. She requested that he would let her
go, and got away from him, and went to another
room, and the prisoner's wife told her to put on her
bonnet and shawl and go with her to the police-
station, and they went out together, The prisoner
followed them, and they met a policeman, and the
wife wanted to give him into custody for bigamy.
The police-constable, however, refused to take the
charge without a warrant, and the two women and
the prisoner walked on towards the police-station.
When they had gone a short distance the prisoner
addressed the prosecutrix, and said, " Anne, do you
mean to press the charge against me ?" She replied
that she did. The prisoner then said that she had
better say " No," and if she did he would go right
away, and at the same time put his arm round her
neck, and again urged her not to press the charge.
She told him that she would, and the prisoner in-
stantly made a desperate attempt to cat her throat
with a razor, and wounded her in two places in the
neck. The injuries, however, were not of a very
serious character, and this probably arose from the
fact that she had on at the time a thick woollen
shawl, which was cut completely through before
the skin was reached. After the act had been com-
mitted the prisoner went into a shop, where he was
seen to close the razor, and he then went to his own
house, where he was taken into custody. It was
stated in the course of the case that the prisoner
had been at one time insane, and was confined in a
lunatic asylum, but that he was discharged cured.
The prisoner cross-examined the prosecutrix
at some length in a rambling incoherent man-
ner, his object apparently being to show that
the prosecutrix had conducted herself in
an immoral manner. She denied that this was true,
but she admitted that she lived with the prisoner
for some time after she was aware that he had been
married before and that his wife was living.
When he was examined before the magistrate it
appeared that the prisoner said " 1 am not going to
condemn myself much ; my first marriage was a
very unhappy One, and I walked the streets of Lon-
don all night, and was eventually sent to a lunatic
asylum; but thank God I am now,cured, and am
perfectly sane."
The prisoner, when called upon for his defence,
addressed the jury in an excited manner, and de-
clared he loved the prosecutrix most dearly—that
he loved the ground she walked on, but she had
acted most cruelly towards him, and she and her
companions had assaulted him, and he was driven
beside himself.
Baron Bramwell having summed up, the jury
found the prisoner guilty of wounding the prosecu-
trix with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.
Evidence was then gone into upon the charge of
bigamy, and it was clearly made out that he bad
married his first wife 16 years ago, and that she
Was still alive.
He was found guilty, and Mr. Keene, the gover-
nor of Horsemonger-lane Gaol, stated that the pri-

Boner had been convicted a great many

;imes

violent assaults.
Baron Bramwell, in passing sentence, said that
the prisoner had been convicted of a very serious
offence, and there was no doubt that he was a very
violent man, and it was absolutely necessary to pro.
tent the public from him for a very considerable pe- '
riod. Something had been said about his mind
being affected, and if it should turn out that this
was the case, it was possible if he was cured that
there might be some mitigation of the sentence, but
at present he felt it his duty to order him to be kept
in penal servitude for 15 years.
When the sentence was pronounced the prisoner
became very violent, and he made use of most foul
language to the prosecutrix, and it was with consi-
derable difficulty that he was removed from the dock.
George Rayson, 29, labourer, was indicted for
feloniously being at large before the expiration of a
period of penal servitude to which he had been sen-
tenced.
Mr. Oppenheim prosecuted.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
This, prisoner was one of three men who, it will
be remembered, escaped from Horsemonger.lane
Prison a short time ago, and the whole of them
have since been retaken.
He was sentenced to six years' penal servitude,
that being the sentence he was undergoing at the
time he made his escape. He had served a portion
of that time, but his present sentence will commence
from the present conviction.
James Mitchell, 52, labourer, was charged with
feloniously shooting at Richard Lawrence, with
intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Worsley prosecuted. The prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Pearce.
It appeared that the prisoner lived at 'Woking,
and that on the Bth of June there had been a
cricket match in that neighbourhood, and there was
a good deal of drinking and disturbance. Even-
tually some quarrelling and fighting took place, and
the prisoner was threatened with some violence,
and it appeared that he produced a stick and a gun,
and fired the latter among a crowd of persons who
had assembled near his cottage, and wounded two
of them, one of whom was the prosecutor, who
was shot in the face, but fortunately not seriously
injured.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of unlawfully
wounding, but recommended him to mercy, and he
was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

CIVIL SIDE,
(Before Baron Martin.)
The cause list was made up this morning, and it
appears there are 107 causes entered for trial, 27 of
which are to be tried by special juries.
The learned Judge, at the opening of the Court,
announced that it was arranged that at the conclu-
sion of the criminal business Mr. Baron Bramwell
would dispose of the whole of the common jury
causes from No. 50, and all the special jury cases
would be tried in one court. The special jurors are
not summoned to attend until Monday.
BATSON V. TROUNCE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover the sum of £lOO
that had been placed in the hands of the defen-
dants under the following circumstances :
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Biron
were for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., ap-
peared for the defendants.
From the evidence adduced for the plaintiff it ap-
peared that a person named Harrington, who car-
ried on the business of a wine and spirit merchant
at Gloucester, became insolvent at the close of last
year, and, in consequence of certain statements that
were made by him upon his examination at the
Bristol Bankruptcy Court, the Commissioner, Mr.
Hill, gave directions that proceedings should be
instituted against him for peljury, and he was
taken into custody and underwent an examination
before the magistrates upon that charge. The plain-
tiff, who it appeared was Harrington's brother-in-
law, went down from London, where he resided, to
assist him during these procceedings, and being anxi-
ous that he should be liberated upon bail, he applied
to the defendants, who carry on the business of auc-
tioneers at Gloucester, to become sureties for the ap-
pearance of Harrington upon his second examina-
tion. They consented to do so, but only upon the con-
dition that plaintiff should deposit in their hands the
sum of £lOO, which was the amount of the bail they
were required to enter into, and that sum was ac-
cordingly handed to the defendants by the plaintiff.
From circumstances that subsequently transpired,
it appears that the commissioners rescinded the
order that he had made for the prosecution of
Harrington, and directed that no further proceed-
ings should be taken in reference to that charge,
and an application was made to theidefendants to
refund the money, but they declined to give it
back upon various pretexts, and at last the plaintiff
was compefd to bring the present action, and the
above facts were distinctly proved by the plaintiff
and other witnesses.
Baron Martin asked the learned counsel for the

defendants what ,answer he was instructed to
make oittheir behalf to the present action.
Mr. Hawkins said he should submit that we
liability of the defendants had not ceased, and that
subsequently they were justified in retaining the
money until that liability was put an end to, in
accordance with the conditions under which the
money was placed in their hands.
He called as a witness the clerk to the magis-
trates before whom Hairington was examined,
who merely proved, however, that the defendant,
Harrington, was remanded, and that the defendants
became bail for him. It was admitted that the
magistrates had received notice that the Commis-
sioner had given directions that the prosecution for
perjury should not be proceeded with.
Baron Martin said he was of opinion that no
answer had been given to the plaintiff's case, and
that he was entitled to recover. He added, that
in his opinion the defence that had been attempted
to be set up was merely a fraudulent pretence to
keep the plaintiff out of his money.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Hawkins said he should except to his lord-
ship's ruling upon the question of law as to the
point whether the liability of the defendant had
ceased.
Mr. Baron Martin said, with some warmth, in
reply, " And I shall order immediate execution."
It the plaktiff is not entitled to his money now
he will never be able to get it, and I will do all I
can to put a stop to such proceedings as these.
BRECKNELL V. PAGE.

This was an action to recover /590 and interest,
which it was alleged had been paid by the plaintiff
for the use of the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins, Q C., and Mr. Watkin Williams
were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry for
the defendant.
The plaintiff was stated to be a person possessed
of some little property, and it appeared that he and
the defendant had been for a great many years on
the most friendly terms, and it was admitted by the
plaintiff that he had at one time placed a consider-
able sum it Consols in the name of the defendant,
although he at the same time had a power of attor-
ney, by which he kept the control over the stock in
his own hands. The case on the part of the plain-
tiff was that about three years ago he had advanced
the defendant nearly £6OO to put him into a public
house in Brewer-street, upon the understanding
that he should assign the property to him as secu-
rity. He, however, never did so, and when the
plaintiff applied for his money, the defendant as-
serted that the money was not advanced as a loan
but as a gift. This was the defence that was set up
to the present action, and the defendant swore that
the money was given to him as salary for services
he had rendered to the plaintiff during a great num-
ber of years. The latter swore positively that there
was no foundation for this statement, and his evi-
dence was confirmed by a witness, who proved that
upon one occasion the defendant had admitted that
he owed the money to the prosecutor.
Baron Martin, in summing up the evidence, said
it was perfectly clear that there must be gross and
deliberate perjury on one side or the other, and it
was for the jury to decide where the truth really laid.
The Jury, after a very short deliberation, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

THE FORGERY CASE AT CIRENCESTER.—In The
Sun of Friday last a report appeared of the examination at
Cirencester of Captain John Alexander Conroy of her
Majesty's Indian Army, who forged a cheque in the name
of Major-General Dames on the morning of his marriage
with the daughter of Mr. T. Date, of the King's Head
Hotel, Cirencester. On Saturday morning Mr. Date re-
ceived a letter from a gentleman named Ingram, residing
at Hampstead, to the following effect :—" 45, Robert-street,
Hampstead-road, N.W., Aug. 1, 1862.—Sir,—I perceive in.
The Sun of tc-day an account of a swindler who has
brought misery on your family. I have no doubt if you
apply to Mr. Win. Dawson, innkeeper, of Windsor, you will
find this fellow's antecedents may be of some benefit to you•
I have no doubt this man is the same who last winter,
nabiece,
Jaauary, put up at Mr, Dawson's house,
hisand
father,frged General
,bni
el lrafor
Scott.£loo , which c
shortly
oprut purported or
decalt marriede
d t
po e
snot
0,
and left
Windsor,
Royalfou n this
me from
his poor wife (only 21) without a
the name of the tavern kept by pennwy;on!bduot ntboetreknwoiwn
Z.-. Dawson has lived
be no difficulty in finding it out,Mifs.
there all his life, and his mother s, remain
household. Hoping the rascal will fe, Acting upon
your obedient servant, R. Isc""1"
hint, Mr. Date immediately,inquiries, which resulted •
out Mr. Dawson, and readesinqe in the
proceededer sv aseta hs
servant
vd:e nsdeserts,
ri
tnl
hthoerne ts:orrr ie
e db
e pMr er-.
A o a wre
grao i
ontfbabdi
gapiatemirosyno
to willat
h e
discovery that Conrohy
Dawson's niece.
ferred agaidst the P 1! 1
- only left his wife .forgeries. It
appears that C , Windsor on the
6th of April, an°dral:rfived at the Ring s Head Hotel, ir-
encester, 011 ---Bmonth. The prisoner
.
remand when when various wit-
eposed to the facts stated in the paragraph above
4. th,,n i
yesterday of t the same
was broughv -,
He wasagain
nreefsesrerseddto.. remanded. In addition to the
p, of bigamy from Windsor it charge
Peer has also 4 e 44(1 family at Chesterfield,