The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1, 1808.

ing the middle of the engagement. I had just'
finished reading yours of March 19, when a round
shot came whizzing among us. I made sure it
had struck some of the men, it sounded so very
close ; but luckily it did not. Shortly after that
a round shot struck one of our boats. On
Tuesday we left Tsing-poo and went down to
Sonn-kong, Colonel Ward's place, where we
heard the news of the taking of Ningpo by
the corvette Encounter, despatch boat Ringdove,
and gunboats Kestrel and Hardy, but it cost us
pretty dear. Lieut. Cornwall, first lieutenant of the
Encounter, and three men were shot dead under the
walls of Ningpo,and 12 men and one officer wounded;
the lieutenant of the French gunboat was mortally
wounded. Ido not know how many French were
killed. IN e may not back to the ship before a fort-
night or three weeks, as there are two or three
more places to take. You must excuse my scrawl,
but up here I must write with anything I can get
hold of.

SHANGHAI,
our proceedings in the paper than I can give you.
" I suppose you will see a much betterMacacYou2n3t. of
By the time this reaches England you will have
o town,
heard of our affair at Narjon, where poor Admiral
Protet, the French Admiral, was killed. Suffice it
tt oh say e
w t o T aanndothlser wwuanl
Ideedd .
We
which we took on Tuesday, the 20th. One of the
advancede had three67th was killed; I do not know how many were
wounded. One man of my company was shot in
the shoulder. While up there we heard of the
danger of Cardeen (with a garrison of 200 men) and
g_poo. They say Chung-wang, the Emperor,
fighting chief, with 400,000 men, has advanced
Torsin
from Loo-chow to retake, as he says, these places,
and the settlement of Shanghai, and to avenge the
death his son, who was killed at Tson-dong, the
first place we took ; so of course we had to go as
quickly as possible to Shanghai, though there were
two more towns to take up there. Last Tuesday a
field piece,four boats fullof ammunition,and two with
commissariat stores went up Soo-chow Creek to try
to get into Cardeen. They had 17 blue-jackets and
15 Punjabees. When about half-way, the rebels,
about 4,000 strong, advanced suddenly on them.
They made a slight resistance, having three killed
and two or three wounded, and were then obliged
to retreat, leaving the boats and field-piece to the
rebels ; the field-piece they tried to spike, but could
nit. We returned to Shanghai yesterday, and
start with the whole force at four to-morrow morn-
ing for Cardeen.

" JUNE 3.

" We returned from our last expedition on Wed-
nusday, relieving Cardeen, and withdrawing the
garrison. The field-piece has not yet been recap-
tured."

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, THURSDAY MORNING.
MURDER OF MR. FyZGERALD.-TRIAL OF

IVAL§ff.

This important trial commenced yesterday morn-
ing at the Limerick Assizes. It excited immense
interest in the town, snd the court was crowded.
Mr. Justice Keogh took his seat on the bench at
10 o'clock. _

-J-arnes---Walsh was then ordered to stand forward,
and was indicted that he did, on the 16th Mav,
1862, at Garrymore, in the county of Limerick,
feloniously and wilfully, and of malice aforethought,
kill and murder Francis Fitzgerald.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty_ He appears to
be an athletic young man, of about 23 years of age,
with heavy brows, and a forbidding appearance ge-
nerally. He surveyed the court with a cool and
almost defiant air, although at first he appeared to
feel the position in which he was placed.
Denis Dillane was then put forward, and charged
in the terms of the indictment—" That Thomas
Beckham having on the 16th May, 1862, feloniously,
wilfully, and of malice aforethought, killed and mur-
dered Francis Fitzgerald; that he before the murder
on the 15th of May, did incite, move, and procure
him to commit said murder." Another count charged
him with having incited Thomas Beckham and
James Walsh to murder Mr. Fitzgerald.
The prisoner Dillane is an elderly man, grey
haired, and slightly bald. He had a defiant and
careless air when he appeared in court. He pleaded
not guilty, and said he did not know the nature of
the indictment brought against him, and that, hav-
ing no funds, he had no counsel or attorney, and
vas unable to employ either.
Judge Keogh directed the Attorney-General to
assign an attorney and counsel for the defence of
the prisoner.
The Prisoner, in reply to his Lordship, requested
that Mr. Doyle should be assigned as his attorney.
In reply to his Lordship, Mr. Doyle said he
would undertake the defence.
The Attorney-General then said—Gentlemen of
the jury, in this case you have heard that the pri-
soner, James Walsh, is charged with the murder of
Francis Fitzgerald. I need not tell you that the
charge of murder is always the most serious that
can be presented to a jury against a human
being. But lam sure I need not tell you that,
being so, it is always entitled to the gravest and
most anxious consideration from jurors. It is not
the less in this case entitled to your consideration,
because the crime charged against the prisoner here,
as the participator, is in its circumstances of a fero-
city almost unexampled. It would be affectation
in me to suppose that the facts of this case, in their
general scope, are not substantially known to you.
They have been impressed on you through the trial
which recently in this county attracted the peculiar
interest of the community. I refer to them now
only to tell you that you are not to come to any
conclusion by anything that occurred in that trial;
that you are not to be influenced in judging the pri-
soner at the bar by anything you have heard or
read, or anything that has been said to you by any
human being. You are bound to find your verdict
upon the evidence, and the evidence alone—upon
the sworn testimony of such faithworthy witnesses
as may be produced to you on the trial in this court.
LThe Attorney-General then stated the facts of the
murder, which are already before the public.] The
question for von will be this, and this only—Was
the prisoner at the bar, James Walsh, one of the
two men who upon that occasion encountered Mr.
and Mrs Fitzgerald ? She will be produced to you.
She is a lady of great intelligence and power of ob-
servation, and she had ample opportunity of observ-
ing the features of both the murderers. She saw
them clearly in the open day. There was no con-
cealment. They had their ordinary dress on. Their
features were not covered. One man had an ordi-
nary hat on ; the other wore a jerry or " Jim
Crow" hat. Mrs. Fitzgerald will depose with-
out hesitation or doubt that one of these men
was Thomas Beckham, and that the other was
James Walsh, the prisoner at the bar. I have
further to tell you this, and I believe I shall
be able to show you, that some days before the
occurrence of the atrocity I have described the pri-
soner and Thomas Beckham were:seen together upon
a car which runs to Kilmallock; and it will be seen
also that upon the day which preceded the murder
the prisoner and Beckham were seen in the imme-
diate neighbourhood of Mr. Fitzgerald's house,
going towards that house. Not only will we be
able to prove this to you, but that upon the very
day of the murder, and the very hour which pre -
ceded the hour of the murder, the prisoner was at
Kilmallock Hill, in the immediate neighbourhood
of the place in which the dreadful deed was perpe-
trated, between the hours of two and three o'clock.
A witness will tell you when it was and where it
was—that between these hours, near the immediate
neighbourhood of the place in which that as-
sassination was perpetrated, the prisoner
at the bar was observed. Gentlemen, it is
quite true that no human being saw the
prisoner fire the shot. Since Mr. Fitzgerald was
murdered this court-house was occupied, as it is
now occupied, by learned judges on the bench, by
jurors, and by counsel. The prisoner was not then
tried, because he was not amenable. Of the two
men who were present when Mr. Fitzgerald fell
one was tried then, the other was away. What be-
came of one of the men it is not necessary for me to
tell you ; but from the 18th of May, the day of the
murder, until, I think, the 23d of June, the other
was not arrested. He was looked for, earnestly
and energetically, by the officers of justice. They
did all they could to discover him, but they did
not succeed. The boundaries of the county and
the various ports were closed against him, and he
surrendered on the 24th of June, at Elton. He
had now stated the facts of the case against the
prisoner, and he concluded by commending the case
to the earnest consideration of the jury, confident
that they would find an honest and conscientious
verdict.

Mrs. Caroline Fitzgerald was then sworn, and
examined by the Solicitor-General. She looked pale
and careworn, and was dressed in deep mourning.
Her appearance in the court seemed to excite uni-
versal sympathy. She deposed—l resided at a
cottage at Kilmallock, in May last. I had
been residing there nine months with my late
husband, Mr. Francis Fitzgerald. I recollect leav-
ing the cottage on the 16th of May last. My poor
husband was with me on that occasion. We left
the cottage together, at about three o'clock in the
day. We proceeded to Kelly's farm, which be-
longed to my late husband. We rested there some
time, I cannot exactly say how long. We left the
farm together. We returned home through the
field, and then came out upon the high road. We
walked some distance homewards—about half way
—on that road ; I saw two men there ; they were
before us. I did not notice them until one stopped
us. One of them said, " Stand, you are my man."
I saw the man who used that expression. I saw
the other man. He walked on behind me until he
came to the other side of me, and stood there. The
first man said, " I want your money." He pulled
out a pistol and fired. There was another shot
fired immediately. My eyes were fixed on the man
that fired first, and he did not fire the second shot.
I did not see the person who fired the second shot
in the act of firing. I looked about me every way,
and there was no one but the two on the road.
Beckham fired the first shot at my husband.
The Solicitor General—Look at the prisoner, and
say if he is the man.
Witness--I am sure that is the man who was
with Beckham on that day. The second shot took
effect on
that when I was coming to him he was falling, and
my husband. The shot was fired so quickly,
he said, "I am shot by a villain." The prisoner
ran to the other man, and they ran straight over
the ditch,
and I ran screaming down the road.
Prisoner is the same man who came up the road
with Beckham. There was none other there.
Neither of them was disguised in any way. I had
an opportunity of observing him, for I turned to
say I could give evidence whether my husband had
money. Prisoner had a jerry hat on. Beckham
wore
a tall hat. I saw the prisoners running down
straight and jumping a little ditch. My husband
told me to call Mrs. Kelly.
call Mrs. Kelly, and I ran to the house, and, hav-
ingHe told me twice to
got assistance, I returned back to my husband.
He was then raised on the ditch by persons
there. He was brought home, and only survived
two or three hours. I remember meeting Dr. O'Con-
nell there. I next saw the man who wore the jerry
hat in the gaol with six or seven others. Ido not
know what day. I knew him amongst them at once,
and I identified him as the one who was with Beck-
ham on that day. This occurred in the county of
Limerick,

Cross-examined by Mr. Coffey—Beckham accosted
me first. I had no conversation with the first per-
son, except to say we would give the money. I did
not hear the sound of his voice at all. The moment
the shot was fired, this man ran to the other, and
they fled almost instantaneously. I was quite cool
at the time, and my eyes were fixed upon Beckham.
I waited by, and I did not think the pistol touched
my husband at all. He was partly coming down
when I went to him. I was not standing close to
him. He had walked away to speak to Beckham
I rushed to my husband the moment I saw him fall.
He was not bleeding. He was coming down quietly.
I ran when he told me. When my husband spoke
to me, the men were in rapid flight. I do not think
any person heard my screams; but I was scream-
in. I had never seen either of the men before, to
myg knowledge. My father accompanied me to the
gaol, and also my sister. My father advised me
that I was to go to the gaol to identify:the prisoner.
There were a number of magistrates there. Mr.
Barron and Mr. O'Donnell were there. I was told

that the man charged was to be brought with others
for identification. I cannot say who told me. Walsh
was not dressed in the same clothes as the day on
which he did the deed. He was better dressed.
He wore all dark clothes on that day. That is the
extent of my recollection. The smaller man (Beck-
ham) fired the first shot. I looked at the pri-
soner fixedly at once, and knew him. I did not
say it at once. I recollect saying, " I believe
that to be the man." Ido not know whether
anybody was placed in the room then. I turned
round and said that to all there. 1 did not hear
any reply- I did not mind anything. Ido
not know whether any reply was given. I did not
see the second shot fired. I was looking at Beckham
taking out the pistol. I saw it pointed at my hus-
band. I saw no second pistol. I do not think I did.
Re-examined by the Solicitor-General—l had no
idea my husband was injured until he cried out, "I
am shot!" I had a full opportunity of observing
Beckham. I looked at this man (prisoner) and saw
him, and I looked at him running away. From that
opportunity of seeing him, I am sure the prisoner
is the man 'I
saw there. I received no hint or assist-
ance from anyone on the day in the gaol before I
identified him.

Bridget Shannon was sworn and examined by
Mr. Sergeant Sullivan. She deposed—Remembers
the day of Mr. Fitzgerald's murder. I was living
at Kilmallock. I was in my father's house in the
middle of the day. I saw passing that day Walsh,
the prisoner at the bar. It was at about two or
three o'clock on that day. I could not say exactly.
I saw him before, and know him by appearance,
but never spoke to him. He wore a " Jim Crow "
hat that day, or jerry hat. I know where the late
Mr. Fitzgerald lived. It is not far from there to
Kilmallock, and it would take a very short time to
go from one place to the other. I did not see Walsh
again until I saw him in the gaol, and I identified
him there.

To a Juror—He was by himself on the day of the
murder, and I said, " There's Walsh from Ballyca-
hill."

Cross.examined by Mr. Keogh—l said so to the
people about me.
To the Court—l saw Walsh passing the door.
To Mr. Keogh—When I heard Mr. Fitzgerald
was dead, I made the information. I was sure it was
Walsh. (Information was read, in which witness
said she saw a man who she thought was named
Walsh.)
To a Juror—l was surprised to see prisoner pass.
To another Juror—lt is only ourselves that pass
by our way. It was not a public way.
To his Lordship—He had been remarked to me
in Kilfinan.

David Gorman sworn, and examined by Mr. De
Moleyns, Q.C.—I remember the day of the murder.
The day before that I was working in a quarry at
Kilmallock. I went home to dinner, and ,went
back again. There was a field named: Abbeyfield
on the way back. I knew Thomas Beckham before
that day. I saw him on my way back from dinner.
He was at the gate of the field. I knew Walsh by
sight before that day, and saw him that day. He
was within twenty yards of Beckham that day at
that place. Primer is the man I saw there. I
went on my way then, but I looked back and saw
them together.. I did not see Walsh doing any-
thing. They went away in the direction of Mr.
Fitzgerald's cottage. Abbeyfield is contiguous to
the cottage. I next saw Walsh three or four weeks
ago in gaol.
Cross-examined by Mr. Coffey—Did not think it
remarkable to see men together. I told that I saw
them together on the evening of the murder, I
think.

Daniel Dwyer sworn, and examined by the At-
torney-General—l am a car driver. I remember
the day of the murder. I know Walsh's appear-
ance, and also Beckham's. I saw them together
before the murder. I think about nine days. They
were at the Car Office at the Bruff Hotel. They
were on the car, on the same side, with a woman
between them. (Evidence objected to, and not
pressed by the Attorney-General, as to what took
place at the time.)
Dr. Morgan David O'Connell was sworn and
examined, and deposed to the nature of the wounds
which the deceased had received.

Dr. O'Connell, examined by Mr. Sergeant Sul-
livan—l am a magistrate of the county Limerick.
Knew the late Mr. Fitzgerald. Saw him in a dying
state on the day of the murder. He made a state-
ment to me. He knew then that he was past all
hope. His statement was taken down (produced).
It was taken by the clerk of petty sessions as
nearly as possible in his words. It was read to
him slowly by me. He put his mark to it. I held
his hand (statement read). The prisoner was not
brought before me. Saw him in gaol, when charged
with being one of two men who murdered Mr. Fitz-
gerald. Mrs. Fitzgerald was there, and was examined
in his presence that day. Prisoner was duly cau-
tioned before he was questioned.
Mr. Coffey objected to the form of caution given.
An argument followed, and the objection was
overruled. Witness's evidence was afterwards or-
dered not to be taken on certain points, on account
of informality.
Oliver Milling, Esq., sub- inspector of constabu-
lary, examined by Mr. De Moleyns, deposed—l
searched in Knocklong and Glengarra for Walsh on
the night of the murder. Search was unceasing
for him until the time of his surrender.

Cross-examined by Mr. Keogh—Walsh had, as
far as I know, no fixed residence.
Sub-constable J. Carty, examined by the Solicitor-
General—Deposed that on the 23d June the prisoner
passed him. Witness hailed him, and he turned and
said he was Walsn, and that he would give himself
up to Sergt. Deegan. He went into the barracks
and I kept him there. I cautioned him.
[Form of caution objected to, and the Solicitor-
General did not press the evidence as to what the
prisoner said.]
Constable M. Deegan sworn, and examined by
Mr. Sergeant Sullivan—Deposed to having searched
the prisoner's house, but was unable to find him.
This closed the case for the Crown, and after a
short adjournment 7;
Mr. Coffey proceeded to state the case for the
prisoner.
The Solicitor-General having replied,
Judge Keogh charged the jury at considerable
length, and, after an absence of less than 8 minutes,
the jury returned into court with a verdict of guilty.
Sentence deferred.
DUBLIN, Thursday Afternoon.
Walsh has been sentenced to be hanged on the
Ist of '6eptember. H. e addressed the judge, and
said he had been led into the transaction.

The trials of Dillane for inciting to the murder,
and Cooke for harbouring Walsh, are postponed till
next assizes.

Kenehan was found guilty of sending a threa-
tening letter to Lord Ashdown's steward, and sen-
tenced to 6 years' penal servitude.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, July 31.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.)
DELEVANTE V. THE LONDON CHATHAM AND DOVER RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for inju-
ries that were alleged to have been sustained by the
plaintiffs from the negligence of the servants of the
defendants who denied their pleas that they were
guilty of any negligence, and also alleged that the
damage, if any had been sustained by the plaintiff,
arose from his own want of care and caution.

Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Kaye ;;e-Counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr.
Round were for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, the Rev. Mr. Dele-
vante, is a clergyman of the Church of England,
and the curate of St. Saviour's, Chelsea, and it ap-
peared that, having occasion to go to Paris on the
10th of May, he took a first-class return ticket on
that day, at the Victoria Station, and proceeded to
his destination ; and having transacted his busi-
ness he started to return home, and arrived at
Calais about half-past one o'clock on the morn-
ing of the 12th, and at once proceeded on board
the mail steamer Queen, belonging to the defen-
dants, which was about to start, proceeded to
Dover. To get to the vessel he had to
pass along a gangway from the quay, and when
he was on board, according to his evidence, he
proceeded to the chief cabin, but found that every
seat was occupied, and he returned on deck, intend-
ing to pass the night there, and while looking for
a seat, it was alleged, that he walked into the sea
through the opening across which the temporary
gangway had been placed to enable passengers to
get on board the vessel. The plaintiff, it appeared,
struck out, as he was able to swim, and succeeded
in catching hold of the paddle box, and on an alarm
being given, he was assisted on board, and he now
claimed damages from the defendants for the injury
done to his clothes and to a watch he bad in his
pocket, and also for the shock he had sustained
by being thrown suddenly into the sea under
the circumstances above narrated. It was con-
tended, on the part of the plaintiff, that the acci-
dent had arisen from the negligence of the defen-
dants in removing the gangway, and in not having
lights to show the opening. The evidence, how-
ever, that was adduced on the part of the company
' put an entirely different aspect upon the affair, and
from the testimony of numerous witnesses it ap-
peared that at the time in question, so far from
the gangway having been removed, passengers were
actually still coming on board, and that two men
were standing with lights close to the spot, and it
was alleged that the plaintiff had actually pushed
past one of these men to get to the place where
he fell, and that the accident was entirely resulting
from his own imprudence and want of caution. It
Was also stated that when the alarm was given, and

the plaintiff was discovered clinging to the paddle-
box, the first thing he said was to make an inquiry
about his hat and umbrella, and ho was told that it
would be time to think about these things when he
was safe himself; and it was alleged that, after he
had been assisted into the vessel he made use of ex-
pressions that it was through his own fault that the
accident occured.

Mr. Baron Bramwell having summed up,
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict
for the defendants.
MALFORD V. CHILD.

This was also a special jury cause.
The action was brought to recover damages for a
nuisance occasioned by an extensive brick manu-
factory belonging to the defendant at Bromley.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Denman, Q.C, and Mr.
Prentice, were for the plaintiff; Mr. Lush, Q.C.,
Mr. J. Browne, and Mr. Matthew were for the
defendant. _

-----Theplaintiff in this action is a gentleman, resid-
ing at Bromley, where he has recently built a large
mansion, and alleged that the defendant, by the
manner in which he carried on his manufacture of
bricks in the neighbourhood, and the smells and
other annoyances occasioned thereby, was guilty of
a nuisance. The defence that appeared to be set
up was that the place in question had always been
used as a brick-field, and that the plaintiff was per-
fectly well aware of that fact before he came to the
neighbourhood.
The jury, after a long uninteresting inquiry, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff.

(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Special Juries,)

MENNEL V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF

ROCHESTER.

This was an action by the plaintiff, who is a
shipowner at Whitby, to recover damages from the
defendants for having, as was alleged, in their cha-
racter of conservators of the River Medway; used
defective and improper moorings, whereby one of
his vessels received injury. The defendants denied
by their pleas that they had been guilty of negli-
gence, and also alleged that the damage had been
occasioned by the anchor belonging to the vessel.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. F. J. Smith, and Mr. Biron
were for the plaintiff; Mr. Denman, Q.C., Mr.
Prentice, and Mr. Lumley Smith were for the de-
fendants.

This cause lasted for several hours, but the facts
were very simple. In August last the corporation
of Rochester had made arrangements that certain
newly-patented moorings should be placed in the
Medway at Rochester, and the work was certified
as being completed on the 15th of October. On
the 28th of October a vessel called the Tanner was
fastened to the buoy attached to these moorings,
and as the tide fell it was alleged that she grounded
upon a portion of them that was two feet six
above the surface instead of being completely under-
ground, and a hole was made in her, and she sank
and received considerable damage. With regard
to the plea of the defendants, that the injury had
been caused by the vessel's own anchor, several
witnesses swore that at the time the accident hap-
pened the anchor was hanging over the bows, so
that this could not have been the case.

Mr. Denman made a very able address to the
jury on behalf of the defendants, contending that
they had done all that could reasonably be expected
of persons in their position, and that no negligence
had been established against them. He called no
witnesses.

Mr. Baron Martin. in summing up said, that the
only question for the jury was whether it had been
made out by the plaintiff that the defendants had not
used proper care and caution with regard to the moor-
ing apparatus that had been placed in the river that
was under their control. He said that the defen-
dants were not insurers, and that they did not
undertake to prevent accidents. All that the
law required was that they should use reason-
able care and caution with reference to proceedings
of this description, and unless it was made out by
the plaintiff that they had not done so he could not
recover.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, the damages to be the sub-
ject of reference, but the defendants had leave to
move the Court upon some points of law.

PRALL V. HAYWARD.

This was an action of slander.

Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Bovill Q.C., and Mr. F. J. Smith
for the defendant. _ _

The parties to this action were professional men,
residing at Rochester, and both hold an official po-
sition in that city, the plaintiff being clerk to the
magistrates, a situation which he has held a great
many years, the defendant being clerk of the peace.
The slander complained of consisted of an allegation
that the plaintiff had neglected his duty in refer-
ence to his not having supplied the copy of the de-
positions against a prisoner who had been commit-
ted for trial in sufficient time to enable him to pre-
pare his defence.
When the case had been partly gone into,
_ _

Mr. Baron Martin said he thought the plaintiff
was quite justified in taking steps to vindicate his
character, and that this had been sufficiently accom-
plished, and it was not necessary to proceed further
with the inquiry.
Mr. Lush said the plaintiff had no other object
than to vindicate his character, and after the inti-
mation given by his lordship he was perfectly satis-
fied.

It was then arranged that a juror should be with-
drawn, his lordship observing that both parties had
acted most properly in the matter.
These assizes were brought to a conclusion about
six o'clock.