The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-29 00:00:00

THELWALL V. VELYERTON.

In the Court of Common Pleas, Dublin, judgment
was delivered yesterday cn the motion on behalf of
the defendant to haVe the bill of exceptions amended,
by striking out of it the answers of the jury in re-
ference to the Scotch and Irish marriages.

The Chief Justice, after some preliminary obser-
vations, said it was the opinion of the majority of
the court, when a judge on his responsibility signed
a:bill of exceptions, and by so signing it made it as
his, the court had no jurisdiction to alter what he
had so made his—that if the party object in any
way to it another course is open to them. No case
had been cited in which what was required by the
motion had been done. Somo case was cited in
which, according to the report, without taking the
trouble of going before the judge, the court made
an order to amend a clerical error, assuming that
the judge would have no objection ; but there was
no case to show that the judge, having framed the
bill of exceptions in a particular way, that the court
would alter what he had made himself responsible
for. But, then, there was another question—whe-
ther, if the court had jurisdiction to interfere, the
present case was one in which they should do so,
assuming that they had a right to make the altera-
tion without consulting the judge. The majority
of the court on this point also thought that it was
not such a case as that they should exercise such a
jurisdiction, assuming that they possessed it. The
ground upon which the application was made was,
there was no instance of a finding like that in the
present case having been introduced on the record.
The case of Davis v. Lownes, which had been cited,
was a different case from one in which the judge, in
the presence of the parties, by his own act, actually
requires the jury to answer certain questions, the
parties being aware that these answers were recorded.
His lordship then referred to a case reported in 2d
Meeson and Welsby, 194, in which this was done
with the concurrence of a court of the highest au-
thority. It occurred to him that he was right in
having these findings on the record, and that it was
not for him to decide summarily (from which de-
cision there could be no appeal), what was the effect
of the findings of the jury upon those matters, which
though collateral, were pointed to the merits of the
case; and, therefore, it was that the majority of
the court thought, even if they•had jurisdiction to
make the amendment, that it should not be used.
As to what might be the effect of leaving these mat-
ters on the record he altogether abstained from de-
ciding—that question had not been argued before
them. If, on the argument, it became material to
consider the effect of them, it would be then for
them to consider whether they were bound to dis-
pose of this case as if they were not on the record ;
or that being there, admittedly a true account of
what did occur at the trial, the court may have the
power of having regard to them ; but they did not
offer any opinion at present on that point. The re-
sult would be that there would be " no rule" on the
motion.

Mr. Justice Ball concurred entirely in the judg-
ment of the Chief Justice, but he wished to add that
he reserved to himself the consideration of the effect
of leaving these findings on the record.
Mr. Justice Christian said, though he did not dis-
sent from what had been stated by the Chief Justice
and Mr. Justice Ball, and in the conclusions to
which they, with Mr. Justice Keogh, had arrived
as to which should be the order to be made, namely,
that the motion should not be granted, there were
some views thrown out by the Chief Justice with
which he felt unable to go along, and there was one
questipn of great importance in which he had the
'misfortune to entertain a contrary opinion. He was
of opinion that the court had full jurisdiction to en-
tertain the motion and to expunge the matter if
they thought proper. He did not propose to go in
any detail into his reasons for holding this opinion ;
but he should state a few of them, because this was
a question which possessed a bearing and applica-
tion beyond the limits of this particular case, and
might he of importance hereafter for the guidance
of those who would have to sit at Nisi Prius; and
when he felt himself under the necessity of dissent.
ing he should assign some reasons. He thought there
was a broadly-marked distinction between this case
and all in which it had been held that the
judge of assize is supreme as regarded the postea
and the bill of exceptions, and that the court cannot
control or alter what he has done. It would be
found, without exception, that in every one of these
cases the judge had confined himself strictly within
his proper office and functions, as such. These were
to try the issues sent to him upon the record, and to
return to the court above the verdict of the jury
upon those issues. With whatever he sent to the
court, with respect to that the court could do no-
thing except at his hands. It was from the judge
alone that the court could derive the knowledge of
what the verdict was : whether it was a verdict
which went upon all the counts of the declaration
generally, or upon some of them only, what were
the damages, what particular evidence was given or
rejected—what particular directions were given,
and what objections were taken. In all these cases
it was from the judge the court alone derived its
information, and in no case had the court any right
to alter any of the information so supplied, whether
given in the shape of a bill of exceptions. No doubt
cases of nicety arose sometimes as to how the ver-
dict should be entered, and the judge frequently in
such cases referred the matter to the court, that
was—he asked the assistance of the court; who,
assisting him, were confined to the information
which he supplied. But if a judge thought proper
to adopt a course which he would not say was
without precedent, but a course unquestionably
highly novel and exceptional (and here he would
make this observation, that, though this case hap-
pened to be tried by the chief member of their own
court, every one of whose opinions had the weight
of predominance which they habitually ascribed
to them here, and which, he would take the liberty
of saying, they were so pre-eminently entitled to
both here and elsewhere), that should make no dif-
ference in determining this case, which should be
considered as if it had been tried before the assizes,
and not by a judge belonging to the superior bench
at all, Supposing, as he had said, that such a judge
took upon himself to put in the postea questions
which did not come to him on the nisi prius
record. Supposing he put the opinions of the jury
upon other questions, he did a thing which might
be right or wrong, which might be highly com-
mendable or the reverse, which the Court might
approve or disapprove of, all he said was that it was
that it was impossible to hold that the Court was
under the same disability in dealing with that ex-
traneous matter thus introduced gratuitously and
officiously—he did not use the word in any offen-
sive sense. The distinction between the two cases
was obvious. In the one case, where the judge acts
simply upon the nisi prim) record, no question could
arise as to the propriety of his doing what he had
done, because the law obliged him to do it ; but the
moment it was shown to be the judge's own volun-
tary act, the clear right of the Court was shown to
consider the propriety of what he had done. The
issue in the nisi prius record in this case was,
whether at the time, when certain necessaries were
supplied, the lady was the wife of the defendant. It
was no part of that issue to find the validity of any
particular marriage; it was no part of it to find the
time; the issue was simply, was she his wife when
the necessaries were supplied? There was evidence
of a contract in Scotland and of a ceremony in Ire-
land, and also the cohabitation, reputation, and the
holding out of the lady as his wife. After some,

further observations, his lordship expressed his con-
currence in the opinion of the other members of the
Court that the motion should be refused.
The motion was refused accordingly.

THE GREAT _ROBB FRY OF JETVELLEBY

iN CORNIIILL.

George Ellis was yesterday again placed at the
bar of the Mansion -house before Mr. Alderman Rose
(who sat for the Lord Mayor), in custody of Hug-
gett, one of the detective officers of tha City police,
charged with being concerned with others unknown
in stealing a large quantity of watches and jewel-
lery, to the value of about £4,000, from the shop of
his master, Mr. Dodd, jeweller, Cornhill.
Mr. Mullens appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for the prisoner.
From the evidence adduced on the last examina-
tion it appeared that the prisoner was employed by
Mr. Dodd as porter, and he slept in the house.
On the evening of the 11th March last Mr. Dodd
and his family went out, and did not return
until after 12 o'clock at night, and in the course
of the evening the only assistant who slept in
the house went out also, and did not return until
half-past 11. The only persons left in the house
were the prisoner and a female servant. Before
leaving, Mr. Williams, the assistant, secured the
shop, and when he returned he found the fasten-
ings apparently in the same state as when he went
out, and when Mr. Dodd returned he found every-
thing apparently secure. A little before six on the
morning of the 12th, however, Mr. Dodd was
aroused by a violent ringing at the bell by the
poEceman. The fastenings of the sh ap seemed to
be secure, but on going into the shop it was found
that it had been stripped of almost everything that
was portable. It was found that the panel of the
stall board had been eat at the top and bottom and
at one end, and the end that had been cut was
pushed in about two inches, which attracted i'he at-
tention of the the policeman as soon as it began to
get light. It was contended, however, on the par:
of the prosecutitan, that no entry had been effected
by the panel, as one 6:2d of it was still fast,but that
the robbery was committed by or with the assist-
ance of some person in the ha.ese ; and the only
evidence against the prisoner wus tritzt on the night
in question, shortly after the assistant went out,
the prisoner went out without first telling the
housemaid he was going, as, according to Mr.
Dodd's instructions, he ought to have done ; and
after that there was a ring at the bell, and the pri-
soner said it was some one for Mr. Williams; and
further, that soon after he sent the servant to Bell-
yard to get a newspaper, and during her absence
the prisoner was the only person left in the house.
When the servant returned she remarked that some
man was leaning against the grating of the shutter
when she went out, and on her return he was still
there. The prisoner remarked that some one had
again been for Mr. Williams, and he supposed it
was he who was waiting. It was supposed that
while the prisoner was alone in the house he had
let the parties in who had committed the robbery.
Yesterday Elisabeth Clutterbnek, the house-
maid, was recalled, and stated—On the evening of
the 11th of March, before she went out for the
newspaper, the prisoner asked her if she
knew where her master and mistress had gone
to. She said she did not know, and he asked
her if they would be home to supper, and she
told him they would not. He then asked if Miss
Moody (Mrs. Dodd's sister) would be home to
supper, and she told him she did not think she
would.
On being cross-examined by Mr. Lewis, this
witness said the prisoner had to clean the knives
for supper, and if they were not coming home to
supper he would have no need to clean them. He
read the newspaper to her in the course of the
evening. She had been for a newspaper for the
prisoner before, and he had been left alone in the
house on several previous occasions. Some one did
call in the course of the evening, and she heard
the prisoner speaking, and beard him shut the door
and put up the chain ; but she did not hear what
was said. The prisoner told her it was some one for
Mr. Williams. As far as she knew, he was very
careful in locking the gates.
Upon being re-examined she said she had only
been for a newspaper for the prisoner once before,
and she had also been for some tobacco for him
on one occasion.
Mr. Dodd was then again examined, and said
there was a grating in the shutter of his shop,
through which the interior of the shop could be
seen, and the gas was left burning all night. The
part of the window-case next the door could be seen
through the grating, but only a few inches of it.
It was a practice that either he or his wife should
look through the grating before they went in at
night, and on the night in question Mrs. Dodd
looked in while he opened the gates of the passage.
The robbery was committed about five weeks ago,
and the prisoner had been in his service since uns
til last week. He was in possession of the same
facts five weeks ago as be was then, and the reason
he had not had the prisoner apprehended before
was that he was advised not to do so, otherwise he
should have given him into custody before. He
believed the prisoner had been watched, but he did
not know it for a fact. He had seen the police
concerning the case, and had had conversations
with them respecting the prisoner, but not as to
his having been watched. He was not aware that
any of the property had been traced to the pri-
soner.

Mrs. Dodd was then called, and stated that on
the night in question, when she returned home with
Mr. Dodd, she looked through the grating. She
could only see a portion of the window case, and
that part was dressed as usual at that time. She
saw it the next morning, and that part next the
door was still in the same condition.

Mr. Lewis put no question to this witness.
James Barlow, police-constable 557, who was on
duty in Cornhill on the night of the 11th March,
stated that he looked through the grating of Mr.
Dodd's shop several times during that night, but
did not see anything to excite his suspicion. At
about 20 minutes to six he noticed the panel of the
stall board dislodged, and he immediately gave the
alarm.

Inspector Kelly and detective officer Monger were
examined. It appeared that they had searched the
house, and were of opinion that no entrance had
been effected from the outside. A crowbar and a
small keyhole saw were produced, which were
found in the shop by Mr. Williams; but they said
they could find no marks to correspond with the
crowbar.

Robert Johnson, a carpenter, was also called, and
ho said he had examined the panel, and was of opi-
nion that it had been sawn out, the first incision
having been made with a knife, but he could not
possibly say whether it had been sawn from the in-
side or outside.

Mr. Mullens said that was all the evidence he
was prepared to offer then, and he asked for a re-
mand in order to enable further inquiries to be made
on the part of the prosecution.
Mr. Lewis submitted on behalf of the prisoner
that there was no evidence whatever against him
to justify his being again remanded, and that he
was honestly entitled to be discharged at once. He
said the same facts were known to the prosecution
five weeks ago, and yet he had not been appre-
hended until last week, and he was rather sur-
prised, after his apprehension had been delayed
for five weeks, because the evidence was not
sufficient, that Mr. Mullens should ask that the
prisoner should be again remanded, with no
other evidence than that which was in their pos-
session weeks before. The prisoner could be
apprehended at any time if further evidence
could be brought against him ; but he certainly
thought that there then was not one tittle of evidence
given which would justify his being detained any
longer. The housemaid or the assistant might, in
his opinion, just as well have been charged as the
prisoner ; and he remarked that although the pri-
soner was charged with being concerned in a rob-
bery to the extent of £4,000 no money was found
on him, and none of the articles had been traced to
his possession ; nor had he been seen in bad com-
pany, although he had been continually watched by
the police. As to the prisoner asking if his master
and mistress were coming home to supper, that
was easily accounted for, as he had to clean the
knives, and if they were not coming home to sup-
per the knives would not be wanted, and he would
have no need to clean them. The carpenter even
could not say whether the panel had been cut in-
side or out ; and a skilful housebreaker might have
cut the panel from the outside and passed his hand
through the aperture and withdrawn the bolts, and
when the board was removed there would be an
easy access to the shop.
Mr. Alderman Rose asked if it were possible to
withdraw the bolts from the outside when the
panel was open ?
The carpenter said he thought it was.
Mr. Mullens said there was a thumb-screw which
went through the top of the board and the shutter,
which would have to be unscrewed.
Mr. Lewis said that likewise could be removed by
a skilful man.

Mr. Alderman Rose then asked Mr. Mullens if
he had any reasonable ground for believing that he
could adducs any further evidence ?
Mr. Mullens replied that Mr. Dodd had received
an anonymous communication, but it did not at all
allude to the prisoner, although he was in hopes
something might come out of it.
Mr Alderman Rose said, taking all the circum-
stances into consideration, he did not think there
was sufficient to justify the prisoner being detained
any longer. He could be apprehended again if
any more evidence could be brought against him.
The prisoner was then discharged.

LOSS OF AN AMERICAN SHIP AND
TWELVE LIVES.

Particulars have been received relative to the
wire, ~.,k of the American ship Thirty-nine States,
,bl-5, b took l . place a few miles to the southward of
Syol .eiro, near. Vigo,
Cape The ill-fated ship was on a voyage front
when twelve of the crew'
edt;) Genoa, and on the 23th nit. she encoun-
teredsevere gale from the westward, which kept
pee Lil
'g, and carried away the most of the sails.
increase. t 1
midnight it was discovered that the ship
i_ ng much leeway and drifting on shore fast.
was running tremendously high, and as it
ut that the ship would strike, there being
Towards'Twhasemeeaa k
7 wear her, Captain Carleton ordered the.
forward (Ii lug) boat to be lowered, which was got
under the
nwouroevomid€t•
stern all safe. The commander then
directed the hands to get into the boat, but they,
feariug apparently that she would get stove against
the ship's aid‘ 3 by the heavy sea, hesitated in going
into her. T 1 18 captain, by way of showing an
example, then jumped into the boat with a rope,
much h urt. This rope was then secured
and
_several of the men came down by
taendthe was'e t3rn,
it, SOI . knocking the boat a little to sea-
faril:avtteYnedl the remainder of the crew on.
they :,•efused to let themselves down.
The steward,
board, and
who had been endeavouring to obtain
some food, then"
tc, sok to the boat, and the captain.
'r of the crew to leave, as the'
breakers, and there was not a.
ship
pled was the
threehma in indL
the
moment to be lo st. The unhappy creatures, how-
'ed to make off, and at length
boat
not
lwaeletbe go„
aduhcei ,
'n the course of five minutes
e thevr e
so the ship stru ek and
soon went to pieces, when
all on board, twelve in nut
e r
u
nber, perished. The boat
had groat difficulty in keeptig out of the breakers
and being dashed. ashore, and ii fter bearly twelve
hours' hard rowing the survivors safely landed on
one of the Bayoua Islands. 01) the following day
the mates and -consul visited .the scene of cata-
strophe, and found the coast strews.' with wreck, but
no bodies. The ship was largely ivsnred.

filE BULLION TR A N C7lO S ()F TH7e
11.4. NE. OF _EMI-L.4ND FOR THE YELL!? ENDINcI
31st PEC_ENIBER, 1861.

(Fiona -the Money Market Review.)
By a retui:u rem Itly matte to tilt , uuL.. ur CumwortS of
the bullion bou:-I'ht L lnd sold by the Bank of England from
the 31st December, h. 160, to the 31st December, 1861, it ap-
pears that, with the el 'ception of the month of January,
the purchases were la; gely in excess of the sales, thus
accounting for the abond ance.of money. The explanation
becomes still clearer if we are to believe that the excess of
payments in coin remain On the country. It appears that
the—
Bar. gold purchased 1:7 the Bank
amounted to
Foreign Coin ditto ditto 1,615,208

Total Bar Gold bougl:'t •• • .411,790,095
II 501 d..., 693.102
Balance of bar gold bouit, ht. £11,096,993
The transactions in silver were as foilow :
Sold •.......... £1,824,928
Bought ....., 411,101
•••••

Balance sold d:1,413,827
If, then, the amount of silver sold bt deduced from the
gold bought, there will be a balance of bullion )ought by
the Bank of England of £9,683,166.
It would appear, however, that the Bat k paid a way a
large portion of this bar gold bought, in the shape of coin,
for the excess of payments in coin amounted to £6,691,629.
Consequently, if we deduct the excess of payments in coixt
from the balance of bullion bought, the balance remaining:
in the hands of the Bank, so far as the transactions of 186 L
are concerned, amounted to £2,991,537. But the most in-
teresting question is—What has become of the £6,691,629,
which the Bank paid away in the form of coin? No doubt
a considerable portion of it went to the United States., and
the remainder is in the country forming an addition to
our specie reserves, which may yet stand us in good stead.
Last year the exchanges, especially those with Amerioa,
were against this country ; whereas now they are in our
favour. It seems probable that, in spite of the foreign loans
raised or threatened, bullion will continue to accumulate,
and the money market remain in its present easy condition.
Nothing can militate seriously against this prospect unless
our capitalists entangle themselves imprudently in the
gigantic Russian Loan, which is on the point of being
brought forward.

COUNTRY 111ARKE2 ss'.

COLCHESTER-APRIL 26.

A better supply of wheat to-day, but as millers were
not foxious buyers the trade was dull, and prices were is
under iormer rates. Malting barley still in demand, at
very high prices. Beans were is dearer and rather scarce.
No peas at market.
Wheat, whitd. 54s
red
Barley
Oats

66s Beans, Mazagan 3ss 3Gs
62s middle & small 378 40s
40s Peas, white 38s 423
—s gray 38s 423

cHELLMSFORD—APRIL 25.

A rather larger supply of wheat to-day, with a very slow
trade
maintained. Spring corn was
uealte cas, Partridre,d.
and late rates barely
Wheat, old white 27s 59s I:ge - ... 37s 415
new 46s 66s N,Thite 39s 425
old red... .26s 51s Bot-2ing 4ls 445
new 51s 620 Dun. . 36s 405
Barley 30s 398 Ditto new ~ • ...-9 —s
Chevalier 3os 42s Beans, Tick, olt3 ..338 385
Grinding 24s 32s new...33s 385
Malt 6ls 67s Harrow Ticks ~37s 43e
Chevalier 64s 69a new. , 3,5 s 4
0a
Oats 23s 30s Mazagan ..30a 40a