The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-03 00:00:00

a feeling of revenge at his addresses having been
,rejected by the prosecutrix, it appeared to him that
the evidence did not support that suggestion, that
there really was an entire absence of Ynoti Ire for the
commission of such a serious crime, and that the
jury ought under such circumstances to pause before
they convicted the prisoner of an offence of such a
heinous description. He said he should not attempt
to deny that the prisoner was seen going towards
the reLideneo of the proseciitrix on the evening in
question, and that he had a gun with him, but he
argued that there was nothing to show that he had
wilfully discharged the gun, and that the discharge
might have been accidental. He also urged that if
the jury should be of opinion that the weapon was
wilfully discharged, the evidence would rather tend
to show that the prisoner intended to wound the
mother and not the daughter; and if they should
be of that opinion, he said he ought not to convict
the prisoner upon the present indictment, which
charged him with intending to murder the young
girl.
The learned Judge having summed up, the jury
almost immediately found the prisoner guilty of
wounding the prosecutrix with intent to murder
her, but recommended him strongly to mercy on
account of his youth.
His Lordship, in passing sentence, said that every
one must regret to see so young a man, who ap-
peared49,be in a respectable position of life, and to
have been respectably brought up, standing at the
bar of a criminal court convicted of so serious an
offence; and it was also painful to see the want of
feeling he exhibited when convicted of the crime of
shooting at a fellow-creature with intent to commit
murder. If the bullets he had discharged had taken
effect either upon the mother or the daughter, his
crime would, undoubtedly, have been that of wilful
murder, and it would have been his duty to have
sentenced him to death. His lordship then said
that the jury had strongly recommended him to
mercy, and he was at all times most anxious to give
effect to such a recommendation ; but in the present
instance he considered the offence was one of such
an atrocious character, that the interests of society
imperatively demanded that he should pass a severe
sentence, and he felt it his duty to order him to be
kept in penal servitude for 15 years.
The prisoner did not exhibit any emotion when
the sentence was pronounced, and when the learned
judge had concluded, he turned round and walked
quickly out of the dock.
The remainder of the day was occupied in dispos-
ing of several cases in which carmen in the service
of the London and South Western Railway Com-
pany were charged with defrauding that company
by means of forged turnpike tickets.
Sergeant Ballantine was specially retained with
Mr. Wood to conduct the prosecution ; and Mr.
Lilley, Mr. Ribton, and several other learned coun-
sel appeared for the prisoners.

CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and Common
Juries.)
KAVANNA V. JAMRACH.

This was an action of rather a peculiar character,
the plaintiff alleging in his de2laration that the de-
fendant had undertaken to let him have a crocodile
for the sum of £3O, and he claimed damages from
him for having broken his contract to supply the
reptile in question.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Joyce were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Philbrick
for the defendant.

The parties in this action were both foreigners,
the plaintiff residing at Lisbon, where he had an
exhibition of foreign animals, reptiles, & andlthe
defendant being a dealer in such " curiosities," in
Ratcliff-highway. In the beginning of the year
the plaintiff heard that defendant had a crocodile
for sale measuring, as represented, eight feet from
the snout to the tip of the tail, and a person named
Callez went to see it, but found it was only seven
feet long, but he agreed to purchase it on behalf of
the plaintiff for £3O, and £lO was to be paid by
him on account. The plaintiff afterwards came to
England, saw the animal at the Zoological Gardens,
and offered to pay the balance of £2O, but the de-
fendant refused to part with the crocodile until the
whole £3O were paid to him. The defence set up
was that Callez was the agent of the plaintiff and
not the agent of the defendant, and that the latter
had not authorised him to act in the matter, and
the jury ultimately returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.