The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-14 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V COCKING.

Thomas Coeking,of No. IP, Great Portland-street,
chemist and druggist, was charged with a similar
offence, of having in his possession and with vending
spirits of an illicit manufacture.
The defendant declined putting any questions to
the witnesses, and said he knew nothing about
the sale.

The Court said they should give judgment gene.
rally for the full penalty of 3001., and if the defend-
ant thought fit they would leave the case open for a
mitigation of the penalty, by a memorial presented to
the board.

THE QUEEN V. WRIGHT.

Benjamin Robert Wright, of Nos. 27 and 28,
Castle-street, Oxford street, oil and colourman, was
charged on a similar information.
The Court convicted him in the penalty of 1001.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Dec. 13.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
Patrich Joseph Catkin was indicted for having, at
Liverpool, on the Ist of August last, wilfully mur-
dered Catherine Calkin.

Mr. James was counsel for the prosecution. Mr.
Joseph Pollock was assigned, by the Learned Judge,
as counsel on behalf of the prisoner.
Mr. JAMES, in opening the case to the jury, said
that the crime they had to inquire into was committed
under the must heartrending circumstances; but he
would in the outset state that the main question would
ultimately turn upon the point as to whether the
prisoner was sane or not when the deed was done, and
that if they should think he was insane at the time
he would be entitled to his acquittal. The prisoner
at the time was in extremely poor circumstances,
but a respectable man, a schoolmaster by profes-
sion. On the Ist of August he was living with
his wife and three children, in -a small court in
Liverpool. The elder child, James, was eight years
old ; the second, Sarah, aboat seven ; and the
younger, Catherine, eleven months. When the
cholera was ravaging the town of Liverpool in the fall
of the year, the prisoner lost by it two whom he dearly
loved. On the Ist of August his daughter Sarah
on the 2d, his best friend, his wife, died; their death
caused him the deepest affliction, and he said he was
tired of his life, and could not survive the loss of his
wife if he could that of his child. He was receiving
parish relief and in great distress, the poor neigh-
bours doing what they could to comfort him. A neigh-
bour, Mrs. Kane, remained with him.in the house after
his wife's death, from which time he refused all food.
On the day of the murder she left the house about ten
o'clock, placing his youngest child in his arms, the
wife and eldest girl being laid out on the bed. Mrs.
Kane returned about three o'clock, and not being able
to get in at the door she got in at the window, and
then the melancholy spectacle presented itself—the
poor man stretched out on the bed with his throat eut,
one arm being round his dead wife's neck, and the other
on her breast. The boy and baby were lying at the
foot of the bed quite dead, their throats being cutfrom
ear to ear. A surge on who was passing was called in
by Mrs. Kane, and the police shortly followed. The
prisoner was then taken to the hospital, and, from his
manner and conversation, the jury would have to
decide whether the prisoner was sane or not.

The unfortunate prisoner, who is a most respectable
looking man, was overwhelmed with grief, and cried
bitterly during the speech of the Learned Counsel,
and indeed throughout the trial.

The first witness called was—
Jane Kane, a widow, who said, I know the pri-

goner. Ile had three rooms in a house near mine,
where he resided with his wife and three children ;
James, aged nine ; Sarah, aged seven years ; and
Catherine, about eleven months old. Sarah died on
the Ist of August of cholera, and the prisoner's
wife the next day. They were in great poverty, but
always kept it to themselves. The prisoner was a
very kind husband and father, and adored his children,
and would submit to f!ny hardship rather thm leave
them. After they died he was in despair. IVhen his
daughter was dead, he took her on his knee and said,
"Is she dead ?" I said " Compose -ourself, it is the
will of God." After his wife died he was still more

melancholy. I was with him from Wednesday until
Friday, during which period the prisoner never
slept at all. I left on Friday at ten o'clock, giving
him the baby in his arms—the boy James was
in the house. I laid the wife out, and he put
the dead daughter by her side. I returned about
two o'clock, but being unable to get in at the door, I
got in at the window, and found the prisoner lying
on the bed with his arm round his wife's neck, and
his hand on her breast. Much blood was on the
corpse and bed. James and Catherine were lying
dead at the foot of the bed. I got Dr. Gilmour to
come in, as ho was passing, and he sent for the police.
A razor was lying on the hearthstone.
Cross-examined—Ht kept talking to his dead wife,
and said to the child, " You are too faithful to survive
your mother."

- John Gilmour, surgeon—l was called into the pri-
soner's house by last witness, and found the prisoner
on the bed with his throat cut, the wife and eldest
danghter dead, and the two other children on the bed,
their throats cut from ear to ear, which caused their
deaths. I saw a razor covered with blood.

John Cannon, a police-officer—l removed the priso-
ner to the hospital. When there he said, " For God's
sake take me to my poor wife and children."
Several other witnesses were then called, some of
whom deposed to conversation and expression% of the
prisoner after the death of his wife, and in the hos-
pital, all tending to show that he had been deranged
in his mind.

At the close of the case for the prosecution,
Mr. J. Por.Locx declined, after the evidence of
insanity, to address the jury for the prisoner.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the
present was a most lamentable case, sufficient to
deeply wound the feelings of all who heard it ; but the
jury had to determine upon the guilt or innocence of
the prisoner, without suffering feeling to enter into
their minds. The question was, whether at the time
the fatal act was committed the prisoner was in such
a state of mind that he could distinguish the right
from the wrong, and could appreciate the consequences
of his act. The jury had heard the melancholy
statements of the witnesses, and he would not harass
the feelings of the jury by repeating them.
The jury, in a short time, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty on the ground of insanity.
John Lee was indicted for having, on the 7th of
September, wilfully murdered Thomas Richardson.
Mr. Monk and Mr. Sowler prosecuted ; Mr. Jo-
seph Pollock defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner keeps a blacksmith's
shop at Chorlton upon-Medlock, near Manchester,
and that the deceased had worked for Lim. On the
day in question, between three and four o'clock, the
deceased had gone into the smithy several times,
asserting that the prisoner owed him some wages. On
each of the occasions of his so doing the prisoner put
him out by the shoulder, and on the last occasion
that he did so the deceased struck the prisoner a
slight blow, at the time the prisoner was heating in
the furnace two long iron rods of about half an inch
in diameter. He immediately seized one with each
hand, and rushing towards the deceased, thrust at
him with them, the result of which was that one rod
went through one thigh, and the other rod through
the other, completely piercing them through, both
rods being red hot. The deceased cried out, " Oh,
my God, he has killed me," and immediately fell
down, and died in about an hour afterwards. The
prisoner put the irons again into the fire as if to go
on with his work, but shortly after went to fetch a
doctor, and on his way met a policeman, to whom he
said, " I have stabbed the man."

Mr. POLLOCK addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and said that the jury could only convict him of man-
sisttghter. The two men had been ¶uarelling, and in
the heat of the moment, being provoked by the
deceased, he had made use of the irons which were
close at hand.

His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that it was not
very slight provocation that would justify a man in
using weapons such as red hot irons ; if they thought
the prisoner really intended to murder the deceased,
or to do him some grievous bodily harm, they must
find him guilty of murder, but if they thought that
he seized the rods in a moment of passion, and simply
intended to drive the deceased out of the smithy, and
only to burn him slightly, they would convict him of
manslaughter.
After a short consultation, the jury returned a ver-
dict of Manslaughter.
His LORDSHIP, in sentencing the prisoner, said
that he had never in the course of his experience mgt
with a more cruel case, and sentenced him to trans-
portation for life.
(Before Mr•

John Hunt was indicted for having, at Eccles, on
the 19th of July, 1647, stolen a gelding, the property
of John Chadwick and others.

Mr. Cross prosecuted ; Mr. Monk defended the
prisoner.

The prisoner was not apprehended until the Ist of
October last, when a policeman hearing a returned
convict threaten the prisoner with the charge if he
did not pay 10s., he took him into custody.
Mr. MONK addressed the jury for the prisoner,
arguing upon the danger of trusting to personal
identity.

His tonustur summed up, stating that their ver-
dict depended upon the reliance they could place on
the evidence as to the prisoner's identity after a lapse
of two years.
Verdict—Not Guilty.
York, Dec. 12.
Mr. Justice Cress well and Mr. Justice Williams
arrived here last night and opened the commission
for the winter gaol delivery. Their Lordships this
morning attended Divine service at the Minster, and
proceeded at twelve o'clock to the Castle to try the
prisoners.

There were no less than 112 prisoners named in
the calendar, 7of whom are charged with murder,
12 with rape, 13 with burglary, 3 with manslaughter,
2 with attempting to poison, 2 with attempting to
murder, 17 with stealing from the person, 14 with
robbery 9 with cutting and wounding, 3 with stab-
bing, 4 with arson, and the residue with offences of a
less heinous character.

Mr. Justice Cresswell sat in the Crown Court and
charged the grand jury.
(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
John Murphy, a hawker, 22, was charged with
feloniously assaulting Henry Horner, and stealing a
silver watch from his person, on the Mt of August
last, near Thrisk, in the North Riding.
Mr. prosecuted, Price and Mr. Overend defended.
___.

The evidence showed that the prosecutor's watch
was found in the prisoner's possession, and that the
prisoner then made a statement that he had bargained
a quantity of waistcoat pieces for it ; and that the
prosecutor, having repented of his bargain, wanted
his watch back, and had charged him with felony in
order to get his watch, and had hid the waistcoats in
a field. The fields were searched, but nothing of the
kind was found.
The COUNSEL for the defence said he was in-
tructed that the prisoner's statement was true ; bnd
was proceeding to comment upon it as a fact, when
The Learned JUDGE said that this ceurse had long
been settled to be irregular, and that he had no right,
as a barrister, to state his instructions as facts.

His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury found
the prisoner Guilty.
Sentenced to be imprisoned for six calendar months
with hard labour.

(Before Mr. Justice WlLLrems )
A charge of manslaughter in a fight and several
cases of robbery were tried before his Lordship in
the course of the day, but were devoid of any interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Two young men, named Madd©x and Burns,
connected with the steam-boat called the Pink, which
plies between the City and Hungerford-bridge, were
summoned before the Lord Mayor for having cruelly
treated a dog. The prosecution was conducted by
Mr. Thomas, the secretary to the Royal Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Mr. G. Seott, of Conduit-street, Band• street,
stated that on Wednesday wed( he went on board the
Pink, at London-bridge, for the return passage, and
he saw a dog which had evidently been left behind by
somebody who had got out. One of the crew threw
a bucket of water upon the dog and knocked it down.
It then ran along the deck and took refuge in the
fore-cabin into which the defendants followed it,
one of them carrying a mop and the other a scrub-
bing-brush. After chasing the poor animal about
the cabin, one of the defendants called out to kill
the dog, and both of them struck it violently and
knocked it sprawling. Witness said they were dis
graceful vagabonds for so cruelly abusing the dog,
bat they merely asked him what right he had to inter-
fere, and, determined to allow that he had that

right, he applied at the Mansion-house, and was
directed to the society, the secretary of which at once
undertook to have an inquiry instituted. He found
a difficulty in obtaining the names, the captain of the
steamer having refused to give them, although he
acknowledged that he knew all the circumstances.
The secretary to the steam boat, however, at once
supplied them,

The LORD MAron—Ycu might have given them
at once into custody for cruelty to a policeman.
There was no occasion for waiting for their names.
The witness said he had no doubt it would be
beneficial to the cause of hurnazity that such a fact
should be known, as the difficulty he alluded to no
doubt operated in preventing many a prosecution.
The evidence of Mr. Scott, in its essential points,
was confimed by that of Mr. Ralph, who obsearved
the brutal manner in which the poor dog had been
treated, and said the dog, upon being put ashore,' was
unable to waik, but dragged its legs along and howled
most piteously.

Three or four persons, who belonged in some way
or other to the Steam Company, said, for the deflnce,
that the young nvn were exceedingly quiet characters,
and that they had used no more violence than was
actually necessary to eject the animal, which was
every moment endangering its own life by getting
amongst the machinery. They also stated that the
dog, upon being pursued into the cabin, bit one of the
defendants in the boot.

The LORD MAYOR said there was no doubt what-
ever as to the correctness of the charge, and fined the
defendants each in the penalty of 10s. and costs. Ills
Lordship hoped it would not be forgotten, that it was
in the power of any person who saw crthilty inflicted
upon an animal to give the assailant immediately into
the custody of a policeman.
Mr. Thomas requested that the moiety of the
penalty to which the society would be entitled might
be deposited
.in the poor-box, according to the estab-
lished usage with respect to all penalties inflicted
under similar circumstances
WO RSIIIP- STI? E E T.
_ _

Mr. James Eliot, solicitor and vestry-clerk of St.
Jude's, Whitechspel, was brought up from the House
of Detention; to which he had been remanded, in de-
fault of sureties, on the preceding day, upon the charge
of using language of a violent and threatening ten-
dency towards Mr. Alfred Bowers, a surgeon, in the
Curtain road, Shoreditch, who had furnished one of
the medical certificates, upon which the defendant had
been detained as an alleged lunatic in the Whitechapel
Union workhouse.

The complainant, upon being sworn, said on the
evening of Mon-lay last, whilst seated in my drawing-
room, I heard a ring at my surgery bell, and proceeded
to the door, on opening which I observed the defendant
and a young man to whom I was a stranger; the
former of whom said that he had called for a Bible
which he had previously lent to me. I invited him to
enter, which he did, and I went to an upper room to
procure the Bible, with which I returned and placed it
upon the table. The defendant then raised it and ex-
claimed in an excited threatening, " This book once
knocked down a policeman, and if you don't mind what
you're about, it shall knock you down also." The de-
fendant, with increased vehemence, after wards added "I
curse you and may all the curses in the Bible rest upon
your head. I shall include you in the action I am
about to commence (alluding to the action he had
threatened to bring against the parish authorities),
and I will sew you up." After repeating the same
language several times he at length left the house,
and I saw no more of him till about twelve o'clock on
the following night, when my night-bell was violently
rung, and at the same time I heard the sound of a
violin playing at my door, accompanied by a voice,
which I then recognised as the defendant's, singing a
psalm or hymn. After a short interval the ringing
at the bell was violently renewed, and on going to
the door I saw a man playing on the violin by the
side of the defendant, who was standing in the front
of the door-way singing at the height of his voice.
The defendant had a paper in his hand, which he kept
flaunting before me, and, continuing his singing, at
length flung the paper into the passage, and, shaking
his fist in my face, swore at and cursed me as he
had done on the former occasion, exclaiming, " I'll
make you smart for it; look out for squalls," and
then abruptly quitted the house, leaving the paper I
now produce. The witness handed in the paper he
referred to, which purported to be a summons to
give evidence issued fcom this court, and drew the
magistrate's particular attention to one portion of it,
which he stated that he knew to be in the defendant's
handwriting.
The defendant denied that he had done so, and
begged to explain in reference to his allusion to
knocking the constable down with the Bible, that
although he certainly adverted b that circumstance
during his interview with Mr. Bowers he had no
intention whatever to resort to violence, and should
be able to produce evidence that he had never uttered
the threats the complainant had so positively imputed
to hint.

James Warren, en Trish journeyman tailor, was
next examined, who stated that he accompanied the
defendant to the house on the occasion referred to,
and that although the latter certainly called the com-
plainant a blackguard for traducing his character, he
heard none of the threats deposed to by that gentle-
man, ai:d did not observe anything in the defendant's
conduct to induce a reasonable apprehension that he
intended him any personal injury.
Mr. ARNOLD .aid that the matter resolved itself
into a mere question as to the credibility of the two
witnesses, and as the complainant so positively de-
posed to the utterance of the threats on the part of
the defendant, whose witness merely went so far as
to deny having heard them, he considered that the
charge had been fully established, and he should
therefore require the defendant to put in sub3tantial
bail, himself in 50/. and two sureties in 301. each, to
be of peaceable behaviour for the next three months.
Requisite sureties were entered into, and he was
thereupon liberated.