The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-29 00:00:00

HE SUN, ]LONDON, SATUR OA. V EVE A. Well 29, 1862.

SHOCKING MURDER AND ATTEMPTED
SUICIDB,-(THIS DAY.)

Soon after the opening of the Marylebone Police-court a
constable of the S division made known to Mr. Mansfield
the fact of a man having at six this morning murdered a
young woman named Bettel, by shooting her through the
neck with a gun, and thereby causing her instant death.
He afterwards shot himself in the head, and blew off the
left jaw, as also a greater portion of his cheek. The con-
static, who had hoard the report, rushed instantly to the
spot, and found the man, whose name our reporter has
not yet been able to ascertain, lying in a pool of
blood, with the gun, a double-barrelled one, by
his side, and on a question being put to
him by the officer, he replied in a faint voice,
" I could not help it." The shocking occurrence took
place near tho Adam and Eve, Mill Hill, Hendon. It
appears the parties were sweethearts, and resided next door
to each other in cottages adjacent to the public house
alluded to. Tho murdered young female was convoyed to
her own home, and the man himself was taken to Middlesex
Host ital, where, from the frightful nature of his injuries
he remains, without the slightest chance of his recovery. .
Up to three o'clock this afternoon the man was still alive.

LAT ILVIELLIGENCE.—(7his Day)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
SMITH, BARRY, AND CO.-A CURIOUS QUESTION.
COLLINGRIDGE V. MAGULLICAN.
. _

This was an action to recover for some advertisements
inserted.

Plaintiff's clerk produced the order, which purported to
be signed by " Smith, Barry, and Co."
His Honour—Well, defendant, did you sign this ?
Defendant (looking at the document with both eyes)—
Well, it is very like my waiting, but I don't think I could
have signed it, as I was not in the firm then. (Laughter.)
His Honour—ls there any person here who saw the
order signed

A respectable-looking young man said—l saw defendant
sign the order.
Defendant—l say I did not.

The firm of Smith, Barry, and Co. was then called over
the coals, and one of the plaintiff's witnesses said that, when
ho applied for payment, he was referred to some person in
the Queen's Bench. (Roars of laughter.)
His Honour—Who is Mr. Smith ?
Witness—l was always introduced to the defendant as
Mr. Smith. (Laughter.)

Defendant —I deny it, and beg to say that my name has
been in the Directory for ten years. lam not liable for
this debt.

His Honour—You see, defendant, that if, in consequence
isa nothing to prevent
of
memberabad
persons, consisting of 14
good and one bad, getting £15,000 worth of goods, and
of a firm,
a firm debtsot. l ght be invalidated, there
izis
sending the bad partner through the court. (Hear, hear.)
I must believe the witness for the plaintiff.
Defendant—lf your honour will adjourn the case, I can
produce Smith. (Laughter.)

His Honour—Oh, no; it might be inconvenient to have
him hero. (Renewed laughter.) I am inclined to think
we have Mr. Smith here.

and said the action was
a aDpiotfeefnadl aanntep. roteste_d against this,

His Honour considered that plaintiff had made out his
case, and gave plaintiff a verdict with costs.
Some stir having been made about the Saturday sittings,
his Honour inquired of each suitor if Saturday was an
inconvenient day, and at least eight out of ten said it was
the most convenient day in the week, the legal profession
in a body speaking strongly of the convenience.

POLICE INT.ELLI9B2V6:.—( This Day.)

BOW STREET.
. ..._

orge Lockyer, was
placed uneedyaotgm
the bar,an man,
namedcharged wilithensrtyeal6ineg three £lO Bank of
England notes.

The prisoner, it appears, was a footman in the service of
Mr. Wilkin, of 10, Spring gardens, and in consequence of
certain circumstances, he left the service in October.
Shortly after that he was taken into custody for obtaining
a situation by means of a false character and was sentenced
to three months' imprisonment. On the expiration of that
sentence he was again taken into custody and charged with
stealing the three £lO notes.

Mr. -Peach said—l am clerk to Mr. Wilkin, of 10,
Spring-gardens, who is receiver to the Crown for the
Principality of Wales. The prisoner was employed as a
domestic servant in the establishment. On the evening of
the Bth of October I placed three £lO notes in my desk,
and on my return the next morning I found they had been
taken away. The prisoner had access to the office.
The numbers of the stolen notes were 09,427-8-9.
Mrs. Mary Davis, the wife of Mr. Davis, baker, of 19,
George-street, Portman-square, said—l changed a £lO
note for the prisoner on the 16th of October last. I did not
know the prisoner. I took him to be a servant of a custo-
mer of ours. The man was dressed in plain clothes, and
wore a Glengarry cap. He was not in my sight more than
a minute. I was first shown to the prisoner to-
day in a room adjoining the court. here were
other persons present I had no description of the
prisoner. The officer first told me he had got the man
who had changed the note, and then I was brought down
to see if I could recognize him. I told the officers I was
not sure that I should be able to recognize the man. lam
quite sure the man I changed the note for wore a Scotch
cap. The people were all sitting round the room when I
was taken in to recognize the prisoner. I gave a descrip-
tion of the man who changed the note. The reason the
name of the party changing the note is not on the back is
that the prisoner took up the gold very hurriedly and left
the shop.

The number of the note changed at the shop of this
witness was 09,428.

In answer to the magistrate, witness said the gentleman
who took the note from her husband placed his (Davis's)
name on the note.

Mr. Carrie said it would be necessary that the gentleman
should be in attendance.

Mr. Lewis, who appeared for the prisoner, contended
that his client had been unfairly treated. Hs was wearing
a hat when he was taken into custody, and because he had
a carpet bag, in which was a Glengarry bonnet, the hat
was taken from him, and was compelled to wear the Scotch
cap. He did not consider such a course at all fair.
Mr. Corrie thought the officer had done no more than his
duty, and said be should remand the prisoner for further
evidence, which he was informed would be produced on
the next occasion. The witnesses, however, who had given
their evidence to-day might sign their depositions, and that
would dispense with their attendance when the prisoner
was again brought up.