The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-02 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

M'DOWAL V. LYSTER.
This was an action to recover the sum of 2001. upon a
cheque drawn upon the firm of King and Co. by the defen-
dant, a Colonel in the army. The defendant had pleaded
that he was not liable for the payment the cheque, it hav-
ing been given for money lost at play, and at one sitting,
to which the plaintiff replied, that whatever the circum-
stances were under which the cheque was given, he was en-
titled to recover, as he was the holder of it for a valuable con-
sideration. This form of pleading threw the onus of proving
the non-consideration upon the defendant, and accordingly his
Counsel, Mr. Humphrey, opened the case to the Jury.
The defendant was at the late Doncaster meeting, and
, there unfortunately fell into the company of a gang of per-
sons, whose after-conduct proved them to be nothing more
nor less than —. He would leave the Jury to say what,
after he had laid his evidence before them. The defendant
left Doncaster in company with a Mr. Edwards,:Mr. Francis,
and Mr. Stubbs. They arrived at the hotel at Hortenbury-hill,
where the party dined ; they drank a considerable quantity
of wine, when play was mentioned, and dice introduced by
one of the party ; they played, and the consequence was
that the defendant was robbed of all the money he had
with him, and then the party got him induced to continue
playing with money advanced upon the cheque now in
question. The details of the case they would hear more
particularly when he called his witnesses. As to the man-
ner in which the cheque came into the possession of the
plaintiff, who was the keeper of a very notorious house, he
believed every one of.the Jury would know something of it,
No. 72, in the Quadrant. He would have a future oppor-
tunity of addressing the Jury.
The witnesses were ordered out of Court on the appli-
cation of the plaintiff's counsel.
The waiter at the hotel at Hortonbury Hill deposed that
he remembered the defendant and the party arriving at the
hotel, where they dined. They drank, during the evening,
ten bottles of port, and three half-pints of brandy.
Shortly after dinner they called for a backgammon-board
and dice. Witness gave them the board, but he had no
dice in the house. Some one of the party produced a box
and dice and cards ; he did not know which, and they
commenced playing at hazard. He saw large piles of
notes and gold beside them when they were playing. They
played very late, and early in the morning he was called
to bring in pen, ink, and paper ; he did so, and he saw the
defendant write upon a piece of paper like a cheque.
Edwards said, " Draw it upon a banker, and not upon
your agent—it will look more feasible and regular."
He was again called in, in fully more than an hour,
when he found the defendant very much excited, and hold-
ing the end of a handkerchief with the dice in one hand
and the poker in the other. He complained that the
dice were loaded, and said the party had robbed him.
He called them vagabonds and swindlers, and said if they
would give him back the check, he would give them back
the dice. Witness would not interfere, and left the room.
The defendant went away in the morning, and before the
other three.
The witness gave the same account of the transaction
in his cross-examination.
Messrs. Campbell and Monck, who had been present,
were then called, but did not appear.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS addressed the Jury for the plain-
tiff. As the evidence now stood, he would have a difficulty
in answering it, had his client been one of the parties pre-
sent. The plaintiff, however, was in no way connected with
them, and was the holder of the bona fide check for a
valuable consideration ; and therefore, however the check
might have been obtained, he had a right to recover. As
he was instructed, he would show that the check was given
at Doncaster for money actually lent, and that the play at
Hortonbury-hill had nothing to do with it. If he proved
that case, he must say he wondered at the defence being
persisted in. He then called
Ignatius Francis, who knew the defendant, and had seen
Mr. M'Dowal once or twice. He saw the cheque pro-
duced on the Monday after Doncester Races ; it was
shown him by Mr. Edwards, at the Ship Hotel, Charing-
cross. He said he had received it from Colonel Lyster
for money lent, and he wished to get it cashed. Mr.
M'Dowal: called at the Ship Hotel, Charing-cross, in con-
sequence of a note left for him, and gave money for the
cheque. Edwards told M'D. that it was for money lent to
Colonel Lyster.
Cross-examined—Did not see the cheque given at Hor-
tonbury-hill. He was there, and played at hazard. The
dice were produced, not by witness, but by Col. Lyster, who
said he had given a guinea for them. Edwards did not play.
The Colonel lost under 40/. Pen and ink were called for, in
consequence of a dispute between him and witness. The
Colonel said he would shoot witness in the morning, if he
did not play with him on his word. They did not play
any more, after the paper was brought in. He remem-
bered the waiter coming in when Colonel Lyster had the
poker in his hand. The Colonel then said, " The gentle-
man has dice in his hand, and I am determined to have
them." Witness threw them down, saying, " You know they
are your own. They afterwards made up the quarrel, but did
not play again. He had been at Doncaster with Mr. Edwards,
who was a private gentle ern. He (witness) had heard
that his father had been a tailor. Never had been at 72
in the Quadrant, except getting the check cashed, and once
since. He did not know it was a play-house. Witness
was living on an allowance of 10/. a month from his
father, who resided at Blackrock, near Dublin. On the
night of this play he won 35/. There was a good deal of
wine drunk. M'Dowal paid a 100/. note, eight 10/., and
20 sovereigns for the check ;it was about half-past 9 o'clock.
Mr. HUMPHREYS replied—He was not surprised that
they had seen such an exhibition as had just been shown
them. It would be strange indeed if parties such as these
could not have induced some of their convenient
friends to try and help them out of this scrape.
Here is one of the conspirators, who was a helper at
the concoction of the cheque. Would it not have
been strange that Colonel Lyster should have given a
cheque at Doncaster, dated on the particular night of this
dinner. Then what a lame account the witness rsave of
the use to which pen, ink, and paper were put ; and how
was it contradicted by the evidence of the waiter. It was
clear that the Colonel had been cleaned out when the pen
and ink were called for. The waiter had been out
for near an hour, when be came in and saw the
parties struggling:. What had they been doing all the
time ? Was it not quite clear that they had been at
play with the money advanced upon the cheque? Why
was not Mr. Edwards produced by the other side ? why
did he keep out of the way so that the defendant might
not subpcena him ? They all knew the difficulty of getting
evidence in these hell cases. The defendant had got one ;
they had induced a Mr. Campbell to come forward ; he
was actually in Court, when a fine trick was played,
after the Jury were sworn all the witnesses were or-
dered out of Court ; Mr. Dignum was walking up and
down, and when Mr. Campbell was called he was not
forthcoming. Who had an interest in his absence, but Mr.
M'Dowal and his satellites? He felt confident that now
the whole case was before them, they would make the con-
spiring parties be satisfied with the plunder they had al-
ready despoiled the defendant of.
Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up the evidence. The whole
question in the cause was as to the relative credit they would
give to the evidence of the waiter, and that of Mr. Francis,
the young man of 24 who was living on an independence.
of 10/. a month derived from his father, and who upon that
frequented Doncaster. If they did not believe the evi-
dence of Mr. Francis, then the plaintiff had proved no con-
- sideration at all.- One remark he would make. Suppose
one of the Jury was to see a friend getting a payment of
2001. it would be 20 chances to one if he could possibly
tell afterwards in what way the money had been paid ; yet
he had never seen in one of these cases but it was particu-
larly remarked and minutely described of what the :pay-
ment consisted.
The Jury consulted a moment, and returned a verdict
for the defendant.
,n-

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
William Thomas was indicted for stealing on the 31st
of October a liquor case, the goods of John Edwards.—
Verdict—Not Guilty.
(Before Lord DENMAN and Mr. JUSTICE VAUGHAN.)
Jane Hale was put to the bar upon an indictment for
having on the 12th of November murdered a male infant,
of whom she had been recently delivered, by suffocating the
same. In a second count she was charged with having
committed the murder by cutting the throat of the child
with a sharp instrument.
The prisoner who is a person of rather an interesting
appearance, seemed much affected during the progress of
the investigation.
Mr. BODKIN conducted the prosecution, and Mr. CAR-
RINGTON appeared for the defence.
Elizabeth Seymour—l am a nurse in the family of Mrs.
Jeffrey. She lives in the parish of Stoke Newington. I
know the prisoner. She was in his service since May last
as servant of all work. She is about twenty years of age.
I have no reason to know of her being married. In conse-
quence of her appearance, I taxed her with being pregnant
about a month before the 19th of November. She denied
it. She received notice to quit the service. That notice
would expire on the evening of the 19th of November. I
saw her on Saturday morning between seven and eight
o'clock. I saw her in the parlour, apparently unable to

move. She was sitting in a chair. She complained of a
pain in her back. She was so ill that she was obliged to go
up to her room. In consequence of this I thought it pro-
per to mention to my mistress what had occurred. I
went to her about nine o'clock, and again between ten and
eleven o'clock. The first time I opened the door, I then
saw her standing up dressed. She was packing her clothes.
I asked if she was preparing to go ? She said—Yes.
On the second occasion she was engaged in the same
way. I observed stains of blood on the floor close
by where I stood. I asked what was the mean-
ing of the stains. She said something had come from her.
I told her her misercss had gone out to bring her a phy-
sician. She said she did not want one. When I went
down stairs I found the doctor there. He went to her
room. I did not go with him.
Sarah Jeffrey—l am the wife of Mr. Thomas Jeffrey ;
he resides at Stoke Newington. The prisoner was in my
service. I gave her notice to leave in consequence of a
suspicion of her pregnancy, which she denied. From what
I heard from the nurse I went to the prisoner's room on
the morning of the 19th of November. She was there,
and appeared to be in great pain. I said I thought she
was in labour. She said she was not. She was then
standing. I gave her some brandy and water. When
last I went to her room I found her on the bed. She com-
plained of no particular pain. I told her I would go for the
doctor. I did not notice any spots of blood on the floor.
Cross-examined—While the prisoner was in my service
she conducted herself very well. She was three years in
her former place. I received a good character. I under-
stand her father has lived sixteen years in one employment.
I was in the house all the morning of the 19th of Novem-
ber, except while I went for the physician. I heard no
scream or cry of an infant child.
To Lord DENMAN—The prisoner was apparently of a
humane disposition.
George Drayton—l am a surgeon, attending the family
of Mr. Jeffrey. On Saturday, Nov. 19, I was called on
by Mrs. Jeffrey ; I went to the bed-room of the prisoner.
I saw her standing in the middle of the room ; a box was
quite near her. I asked her what she was doing? She said
she was preparing to go away, upon which I remarked that
she was too ill to go, and she replied she was then quite
well—nature had returned. The witness having stated that
he examined the prisoner's person, and having described
its appearance, proceeded to say that he supposed she was
delivered of an infant, and he told her what he thought.
She at first denied it, but afterwards admitted the fact.
She told me it was under the bed. I found it between the
bed and the bed clothes ; it was wrapped in a stuff cover-
ing ; the parcel was not altogether concealed ; when I re-
moved the covering I saw the head and face of a child ;
there was a gash on the neck. I sent for a policeman di-
rectly. I did not remove the infant. I have no doubt it
was then dead. I afterwards examined it ; the limbs were
quite flexible ; they were not then cold. I suppose the
child died about half an hour before I had seen it. I told
the prisoner, when the police came, that it would save her
uneasiness and them trouble if she would say where was the
instrument with which she had done the deed. She then
pointed to where it was found. There was the appearance
of some blood upon it, but not much. The witness said
that he made a second examination of the body of the
infant on Monday, the 21st—it had the appearance of a
full-grown child. There was a bruise upon the face,
the neck, and on the back part of the head;
the incision in the throat was an inch and three quarters
long. Mr. Robinson, a surgeon, and I made the second
examination ; we concluded that the wound in the throat
could not have caused death ; all the internal parts were
perfectly healthy, and no appearance of disease. From all
the circumstances of the case, my opinion is, that the
child when perfectly separated from the mother was alive.
Mr. Robinson, the surgeon, gave similar testimony.
William Epps, a policeman, swore that, being in the
room with the prisoners, and a nurse who was in attend-
ance on her on Sunday, the 20th of November, he heard a
conversation, in which Jane Hale said she knew she de-
served punishment. The nurse left the room for gruel,
and she then said to witness, " It's a bad job. What was
Itodo ? I concealed it from my mistress all along ; I
went down to get breakfast, and found myself so unwell
that I was obliged to return to my room. I took a knife
with me ; when the child was born I cut its throat, and
when I would be able I intended going away and despatch-
ing myself and it together." She said the father was the
driver of an omnibus.
The case for the prosecution here closed, and the pri-
soner, being much exhausted, was removed from the bar.
During her absence Lord DENMAN said that upon the
two points on which it was necessary to satisfy the jury—
namely, that the child was born alive, and that the prisoner
had done some act to cause its death—the Court were o
opinion the evidence regarding them was so very inconclu-
sive that the case was now ripe for the adjudication of the
jury, if they viewed the testimony in the same light as did
their Lordships.
The Jury expressed themselves satisfied, and without he-
sitation acquitted the prisoner of the capital offence.
The prisoner's former mistress gave her an excellent cha-
racter for humanity and previous good conduct.
After a few observations from Lord DENMAN, the jury
found her guilty under the 9th George IV., of concealing
the birth of the child, and the Court said, the case being a
very serious one, they should pass the severest sentence the
aw allowed, which was an imprisonment for two years.