The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-30 00:00:00

;THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 30, lEtl.

ducing him to a friend, who lived in the Green-
lanes. They accordingly met, and after they had
walked about for some time the prisoner told him
that he could not see his friend that night, and he
wished the prosecutor to meet him on the following
evening. The prosecutor was prevented from keep-
ing this appointment, bat on the next morning it
appeared that he met the prisoner again, and ex-
plained to him how it happened that tie was unable
to meet him on the previous night, and he said it
was of no consequence, and asked him to meet him
that same evening at a quarter-past 7 o'clock. The
prosecutor did so, and the prisoner took him down
the Ball's-pond-road and in a roundabout direction,
and upon the prosecutor observing that he was not
going the nearest way h the Green-lanes, the pri-
soner made some excusr and then led the prosecu-
tor to a lonely spot near the New River. It ap-
peared that he then crossed one of the bridges to the
side of the canal which was not used as a footpath,
and upon the prosecutor saying that it was very
muddy and asking him to go on the other side of the
bridge he said that the nud did not signify, and that
he could easily wash his boots clean. When they had
gone a short distance by the side of the water the
prisoner asked the prosecutor to walk ou first, say-
ing that he mild see better than he could, and when
he had got a few paces on ahead, the prisoner rushed
at him and struck him a tremendous blow on the
head with a life-preserver, which knocked him
down. He then, it appeared, seized him by the
coat and waistcoat, andendeavourcd to drag him to
the water, apparently for the purpose of throwing
him in, but prosecutor struggled as well as he could,
and by giving a sudden wrench with his body his
garments gave way, and he was released from the
prisoner's hold. While this was going on the pri-
soner, it appeared, had laid the life-preserver on the
ground, and he picked it up and recommenced beat-
ing the prosecutor oa the head with it, and again
laid hold of him and tried to force him into the
canal. After struggling for somo time the prose-
cutor succeeded in slipping down the embankment
and tried to get away, and in doing so he fell into a
pit. The prisoner then came up to him and asked
what ne wun acing (hero, and told him to come out,
and the prosecutor In arswer to his inciniry said—
" I want to get away from you, you villain ; I know
you want to murder me." The prisoner, upon this,
it appeared, went away, and the prosecutor suc-
ceeded in getting out of the pit and went to a cot-
tage a short distance off, where he obtained assist-
ance, and was removed to St. Bartholomew's Hos-
pital. It appeared upon his being examined that he
had no less than 20 contused and lacerated wounds
upon the head, and Mr. Ellis, the house surgeon,
said that all these injuries were such as were likely
to be inflicted by an instrument like a life-preserver,
and this gentleman also stated that for some time
he considered the life of the prosecutor in danger,
and it likewise appeared that he was still, suffering
severely from the injuries he received upon the oc-
casion. The prisoner was taken into custody on the
same nihgt, and he then declared that he had not
seen his brother that day,but upon his being subse-
quently informed that inquiries had been made at
the hospital, and that his brother was very ill, he
replied, very coolly, " Well, it is a very bad job.
buil I shall get over it, I suppose, somehow.
Mr. Baron Channell, at the close of the cm for
the prosecution, asked the prisoner whether he
wished to say anything to the jury in answer to
the charge.
The prisoner, who did not put any questions to
his brother, and only questioned one or two of the
other witnesses upon some unimportant matters,
turned to the jury and said that his brother had
been unfortunate, and he had given him money to
enable him to go to New Zealand, but he did not do
any good there, and when he returned, instead of
paying him the money he had advanced him, and
which he had promised to do, he was informed that
he only ridiculed him and expressed his determina-
tion that he would never pay him. This, he said,
provoked and aggravated him to do what he did ;
he declared that be had no intention to murder him,
although he was scarcely aware what he was doing
at the time.

Baron Channell, in summing up, said that, as the
prisoner appeared to admit that he had assaulted
his brother in the way that had been described, the
only question for the jury was with what intent that
assault had been committed, and whether he in-
tended to murder the prosecutor or only to do him
some serious mischief. He then called their atten-
tion to all the material points in the evidence bear-
ing upon these two questions.
The jury, after deliberating for a short time,
found the prisoner guilty upon the first count of
the indictment, of wounding with intent to mur-
der, but they at the same time recommended him to
mercy.

Ba-ron Channell inquired upon what ground they
gave this recommendation,
The jury said they did so on account of the pri-
soner, after his brother was in the pit, going away
without attemptingf„,,thpr injury.
Baron Channell, in passing sentence, said that
the prisoner had been convicted of the offence of
wounding with intent to murder—an offence which,
under any circumstances, was one of a most serious
character, but which was aggravated in the present
instance by the fact that the person whom he had
been convicted of attempting to murder was his
was his own brother, and the jury had only returned
this verdict after very careful consideration. It was
true that they had at the same time recommended
him to mercy, and had also given the ground for
their doing so. He was always most anxious to
give full effect to a recommendation to mercy by a
jury, but when the ground for such a recommenda-
tion was, in his opinion, not a satisfactory one, he
felt it was his duty, although it was undoubtedly a
painful one, not to give any effect to it. The pri-
soner, therefore, stood before him convicted of the
offence of wounding his own brother with intent to
murder him—an offence for which only a very short
time ago his life might have been forfeited, and he
was still liable to ba sentenced to penal servitude
for life. He should not go to that extent ; but,
taking into consideration the very aggravated cha-
racter of his crime, he felt that his duty to the public
compelled him to sentence him to be kept in penal
servitude for the space of 20 years.
The prisoner, who did not exhil'lt the slightest
indication of feeling, was then removed from the
bar.