The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-11 00:00:00

" THE T'N',

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES' COURT, August 10.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
CRIM. CON.—EIINN V. CARTER.

This was an action to recover damages for criminal
conversation with plaintiff's wife.
Defendant having suffered judgment to go by default,
this was an inquiry to assess damages, which were laid
at
_l,OOO/.

Mr. PARRY said that the defendant, by not pleading,
admitted all the facts alleged in the declaration, and
under such circumstances it was generally unnecessary
to prove the adultery, but in this case, Mr. Bunn, the
plaintiff, instructed him to do so in order that the facts
might appear on the notes. The object of the
plaintiff was not to obtain a verdict for
the sake of the money, but in order to take pro-
ceedings in the House of Lords to obtain a divorce.
The Learned Counsel then stated that plaintiff is a re-
tired licensel victualler, at present residing at Hurst-
tey•race, Hoxton. WhA defendant was now, or where
b e resided, he could not' say, but, in 1845, when the
offence took place, he was a man-in-possession in a
tavern in Bucklersbury under a levy by the sherlf.
Plaintiff was Married in 1835, but it was soon discovered
that Mrs. Bunn was addicted to habits of intem-
perance, and a tempTary separation took place,
but they again cohabited tegether till 1842,
when a deed of separation took place in which
plaintiff undertook to make her an allowance,
aro loag as she conducted herself with propriety.
It wo-ald be proved that in June, 1845, when defendant
was in possession at the tavern, Mrs. Bunn was also
there, and the connexion between her and defendant
there took place, and as he believed frequently when she
was in a state of intoxication. It was necessary to
observe that although the plaintiff had good reason to
suspect his wife, yet he had no means of obtaining legal
proof till five or six months ago. The Learned Counsel
then called
Thomas Eggbear, a picture-frame maker, in Chapel-
street, Clerkenwell, who proved he knew defendant, who
was in possession at the Albion. On one occasion he went
up stairs to speak to defendant, and on opening the door
he saw the defendant and Mrs. Bunn together. (The evi-
dence here was quite conclusive.) Defendant followed
him, and told him not to tell Andrews or White. White
was a sheriff's officer, and put defendant in possession.
Defendant used to boast of his connexion with Mrs.
Bunn.

The SECONDARY thought this evidence was sufficient.
Mr. PARRY said his client was anxious for the case to
be gone into, as it might be important hereafter.
Mr. W. H. White was called. Was a sheriff's officer,
and put defendant in possession. Mrs. Bunn was in
possession under a bill of sale put in by Mr. Giddye, a
clerk to Messrs. Helmsley and Preston. He had
seen familiarities pass between defendant and plain-
tiff's wife. Witness cautioned him, and said
that it would get him (witness) into discredit,
and he wished he had not put him in posses•
sion. Defendant said "Never mind, it's all right."
Witness had frequently seen Mrs. Bunn intoxicated, and
had carried her up stairs. Defendant had also said he
had. taken her up stairs when in that state, and made an
Ohservatiou to the effect that an improper intercourse had
taken place between them on the occasion.
A Juror—Was she conscious at the times you have
seen the familiarities should say she was.
Juror—Did defendant know she was a married
woman ?—I can's say; she went by the name of Mrs.
Dunn.
Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor, of High-street, Harrow-on-
the-Hill, also gave corroborative testimony.
Several witnesses were then called, who said plaintiff
was a highly respectable and sober man.
The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and said that, per-
haps, defendant did not know that Mrs. Bunn
was a married woman, for she might have
been a widow, but in any way the defen-
dant's conduct, had been exceeelingly improper, con-
sidering the situation he had been in ; the filets were
clearly proved, and the question of damages was one
entirely iGr the jury, who, on the one hand, must take
care not to give excessive damages; and, on the other,
notwithstanding the circumstances of defendant, they
ought not to give small damages, so that if the case went
before the superior Court it would be thought that the
jury had considered the case and thought it trivial.
The jury, after some consultation, gave a verdict for 50/

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTERLY CIRCUI T.—Devizes, Aug. 9.
CROWN COURT.—(Be!ore Mr. Justice CRESS WELL.)
Rebecca Smith was 'fleeted for the wilful murder of
Richard Smith, by administering to him a quantity of
deadly poison called white arsenic, on the Bth of June,
and on other days between that and the 12th of June, on
which day he died.
Mr. Slade and Jr. Lopes were counsel for the prose-
cution, and Mr. Haddon for the prisoner.
The facts of the present case were extremely simple:
—The prisoner was the wife of Philip Smith, a labourer,
residing at Westbury. They had been married 18 years;
she had been the parent of 11 children; all of these
children, with the exception of the eldest, died in extreme
infancy. The prisoner, with her husband, had resided
for many years at Bretton, but about three years since
they removed to Westbury. The child Richard Smith,
whose death the prisoner was charged with having
caused, was born on the 16th of May in the present
year; it was full-grown, and was a fine healthy boy; it con-
tinued well up to the 7th of June, on which day it became
sick, and on the 12th of June it died. Certain suspicions
having been raised in the minds of the authorities, the
body of the child was disinterred. The intestines were
then submitted to the investigation of two medical men,
who having found arsenic, the- intestines were taken to
Mr. Herapath, the eminent chemist of Bristol, and he
found solid arsenic in the stomach, and frOm the ap-
pearance of the stomach the medical men were clearly
of opinion that the death bad been caused by arsenic,
and, as the child was not morn than three weeks old, it
was evident that the poison must bare been administered
to it by some one, end it must have been given at
different times; the important question then arose by
whom was the arsenic administered? Before her con-
finement the prisoner had asked at different houses for
poison, which she stated she wanted to destroy mice.
Persons who lived in the prisoner's house stated that
they had never seen or heard of rats or mice there, nor
had they heard the prisoner complain of them. On the
25:h of May the prisoner sent for a girl of the name of
Caroline Mackey, and wanted her to go to Mr. Taylor's,
the chemist, and buy a pennyworth of poison for her;
the girl's mother, however, would not suffer her to do so,
and the girl did not go. On the 7th of June the
prisoner saw a woman of the name of Prudence Mead,
and after some conversation the prisoner - said she
wanted to buy a pennyworth of poison, but, as she could
not o3tain it without a witness, she begged Prudence
Mead to accompany her to Mr. Taylor's shop, as she
said she had so many mice that she cuuld not put any-
thing out of her hands for them. Prudence Mead accom-
panied her to Mr. Taylor's, and the prisoner asked the
apprentice for a pennyworth of poison. The apprentice
asked her what kind? She said she did not know. He
took down a bottle of white arsenic, and told her what it
was. She said that was the kind she wanted. He said
it was a very dangerous thing. He put her one drachm
on a piece of paper. He then folded up the arsenic in a
white paper, and wrote upon it " Arsenic—poison" in
large letters. He then wrapped it in a blue paper, and
tied it up and gave it to her, and told her she must be
very careful of it, and be particular to keep it out of the
way of children. The prisoner said he need not be afraid,
as she was not going to use it herself; it was for her
sister at Bratton, who was infested with rats and mice.
The sister, however, stated that she had not asked
the prisoner to get any poison for her, though she
had rats and mice in the house. The poison
having been thus obtained, on the 7th of
June the prisoner returned home. The child

had had some boils on its ears, but had been
otherwise well; but on the evening of the 7th of June it
was seized with vomiting, and was in considerable pain.
The child pined and on the morning of the 12th of June
died. Then some statements made by the prisoner were
brought forward. After she was taken into custody a
woman of the name of Ann Staples had the care of her.
She (the prisoner) told her that the girl Mackey had
told a great many lie 3 about her. She hal never asked
her to go for poison more than once, although the girl
had said she had asked her to go three times. The pri-
soner then told Staples that she had bought the poison,
but had thrown it over the hedge going home, that she
had bought it for her sister at Bretton, to kill rats and
mice, but she had thrown it away because her child was
ill, and she thought her neighbour might say sbe had
given it to the child. Staples said that if she could
tell where she had thrown it, perhaps the police would
go and find it. The prisoner answered that they
could not find it, because she had thrown it into
the water at the back of the chapel. She said it
was tied up in two papers of white and blue, and the
inside paper had " poison" written on it. Before the
child was taken ill, on the 7th of June, the prisoner
asked several persons if they did not think the child
was " wasting," but they said they thought it was per-
fectly healthy. The prisoner said it was very cross at
night. During the illness of the child the prisoner was
advised to have medical aid, but she said it was of no
use to so young a child. The prisoner was in a weakly
state, and had very little nourishment, being extremely
poor and badly off:
Mr. HAnnos, for the prisoner, addressed the jury, and
urged upon them the improbability of a woman speaking
to so many persons about poison who had the intention
to murder her own off3pring—a circumstance of itself so
unnatural that it could not be believed unless proved by
the most clear and cogent evidence. He also urged upon
them the absence of motive.
.nrMr. Justice CRESSWELL summed up the case to the
y with his usual ability and care.
ret/:/uae Jury retired for half an hour, and then on their
pounce rn the
the Foreman said—lt is our painful duty to prc-
her to mercy.prisoner Guilty, but we strongly recommend
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—On what ground, gentlemen?
Foreman—That she real time to repent.
Mr. Justice CRESSW4La;7loaevnitl put on the black cap
tanedpri%,,ner:—Rebecca
proceeded to pass sentence
Smith, an intelligent, patient,
jury have
found it their duty to return a verdiacntlii;"
you upon a charge of the most awful kingduioltnyuenasdguabjinecstt
can commit against another. Murder must,
circumstances, be a dreadful crime, but I wat words
express the horror of it when perpetrated by a mother
against her own offspring. There may ba unhappy in-
stances in which the feelings of a mother are stifled by
an overwhelming sense of shame which may induce her
to put away her child in the desire that its existence '
may never be known.
We have had dreadful instances,
in which avarice and the desire of gain has led to the
same fatal result. But it is new to me to have to in-
quire into a case in which a mo:her has been proved by
evidence most conclusive to my mind, to have sacrificed
her own child for no traceable motive, but that of saving
herself the trouble and the charge of maintaining it. It
is, indeed, an awful crime—one which may well call for
repentance, which the jury have laid as a foundation for

a recommendation to mercy. That recommendation
will, of course, be forwarded to the proper quarter;
but I cannot bold out to you th© smallest hope that
it will be attended to. The law allows a certain time
for repentance and preparation for that dread trial
which takes place hereafter than you have undergone
before an earthly tribunal. The law allows that, and
I cannot apprehend that the insufficiency of that—
if it be insufficient, can bo considered a sufficient
ground for allowing a person guilty of so awful a
crime to escape the last penalty of the law. I should
only mislead you, and turn away your thoughts from
repentance, if I held out to you the slightest hope that
y our sentence will not be carried into effect. It is my duty
to impress upon you the certainty that the last penalty
of the law will be inflicted,—that within a short time
your career will close, and then you will have to account
for all the deeds you have done here, and I impress
upon you the necessity of attending to the admonition
and instruction of the chaplain of the gaol, to whose
care you will be hereafter committed. It is not for me
to point out what you have to dread or what you may
venture to hope as to futurity; that is his duty. He
bears a sacred commission so to teach, and so to alarm,
and so to comfort, as may best discharge the functions
imposed upon him by his holy office. I entreat you to
indulge no false hopes. Do not imagine you can escape
the consequences of the deed you have done, for it is
necessary, for the security of the public, to award that
the extreme punishment should be inflicted when so
dread a crimp is distinctly and satisfactorily proved.
Rem3mber, that iu a few days your life must go, and
then you will commence an existence, for good or for
evil, to endure for ever. To the instructio❑ of the
chaplain, then, I recommend you. His Lordship then
passed sentence upon the prisoner, who throughout
evinced not the slightest feeling.
The court was crowded almost to suffocation. There
were many ladies of the county in court.
During the proceedings, at one answer given by a
witness, there was a general laugh, upon which his
Lordship remarked, that the barbarous curiosity evinced
upon this occasion was sufficiently disgusting without
such grossly improper conduct being exhibited.

NORTLIERN ClRCUlT—Cumberland, Aug. 4.
LIBEL CASE.—COWEN V. STEEL.
This was an action for libel brought by Robert Cowen
Esq., against Mr. Steel, the proprietor and editor of the
Carlisle Journal, for a certain article published in that
paper on the 23d February last. The declaration set
forth that the publication of that article had "damnified"
the plaintiff in his business or profession as a "consult-
ing engineer"—and he claimed damages to the amount
of 1,0001.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. llnthank appeared for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Cowling
for the defendant.
sMerigUeaNnTteelvaelultiasvianagidle—rimefiyy oLpoerndedantaheGpelneatldtimnbgeesnf,oroef
the Jury, I have the honour in this case to appear.
events
iyoun
hiso on
ire behalfha have
eof
caused the
him plaintiff,m more
ed
pain
aai
nm t shuarne
thatt e w
whieh
has rendered it absolutely necessary for him to come into
a court of law—not to put money in his pocket—not to
seek to make a market of his reputation, and to
dip deeply into the purse of his opponent, but merely
for the purpose of setting himself right before the world,
having no more than a proper and righteous regard for
his own reputation, as well as for the 'dignity of the
offices which he is called on to fulfil. He has come be-
fore you to-day with great pain to himself, to ask at
your hands compensation for the injury he has sustained,
but he has a higher object in veiw—to submit his con-
' duct to the fullest investigation, in order that he might
be set right before those whose good opinion is as dear
to him as life. Even now—at this stage of the proceed.
ings—before I enter into topics which may have a ten-
dency—though I will guard against it as much as pos-
sible—to widen the breach which has unfortunately been
made between parties, and to increase the feelings which
in my opinion ought never to have existed, and which
my client is anxious should subside—l am instructed to
say that if the other side will only do him the justice
to which he is entitled—if they will only acknowledge
that in the heat of the moment, in the strife of party feel-
ing, they have been led to state that which, on refl• ction
they cannot justify—he has instructed me to say that he
is anxious no further disclosures should be made, or no
statements entered into which might disturb the peace
and tranquillity of his neighbours. And I will go
further, and say, that from what I have known, heard,
and read vvi.h regard to this transaction, there is nothing
my client is more anxious for than to be at peace with
even those who have attacked him, and co-operate with
them in public measures they may engage in for the
public good. All he asks is that they should do justice
to him, and that done, he does not ask for a single
farthing beyond that which is necessary to pay the ex-
penses of bringing the case here to clear his character.
If that is accepted, I think it would be best for all parties,
because he is perfectly aware of the talents, he is per-
fectly aware of the worth, he is perfectly aware of the
influence in society which the gentleman who is defendant
in this action properly and righteously exercises in this
town, and he believes that if they were united, and past
angry feelings forgotten, they might co-operate for the
public good—and those virulent attacks which have
been repeated week after week might be forgotten—and
those who had hitherto been enemies without causs,
might, with good cause, become friends, and the city of
Carlisle rejoice at it.
Mr. KNOWLES—I really don't know what my
Learned Friend means.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINs—If they will withdraw the
imputations contained in the article in question, and
admit that in the heat of party feeling they stated things
which sober judgment will not justify, that is all my
client asks and is anxious for.
(Here there was a consultation for a few minutes be-
tween the counsel and solicitors in the case.)
Mr. Sergeant WILKINs—I am instructed further to
state that they have put an entirely wrong construc•
Lion on anything Mr. Cowen has done. He has repeated
over and over again, and he repeats it now—he never
meant to cast the slightest imputation on Mr. Steel,
or those who act with that gentleman. When he found
fault it was not with their integrity or honour,
for he believed them to be men of integrity and honour,
and only thought that as a man engaged in scientific
pursuits all his life he might impugn their judgment in
those matters without offending them or subjecting him-
self to the charge of arrogance. He never meant to re-
flect on their honour or to impute improper motives to
them.
The JUDGE (to Mr. Knowles)—What do you say to
that?

Another consultation took place between the parties,
after which,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS resumed—l am happy to state
that we have come to the arrangement I suggested,
which, I have no doubt, will add to the respectability
and honour of all parties. I am quite sure that Mr.
Steel, whom my client has always regarded as a very
talented and respectable member of the Corpora-
tion of this town, will do him equal justice, and
say that Mr. Cowen is far too well known for any
person to believe that he came here for the sake
of money. There is one part of this libel which
requires some little explanation. It is that which im-
putes to my client a deliberate intention of burning a
deed in which the municipal interests of Carlisle are in-
volved. The facts are these. There had been for some
years a gas company in this city, and the charges which
that company made for gas to the consumers had become
a subject of complaint. The consequence was that in
1845 a new company was projected, but it was thought
that Carlisle was not large enough to admit of two cum-
pearl.. companies, and a number of gentlemen came for.
ward, entirely and exclusively for the benefit of the
town, and proposed that the shares of the old company
should be purchased and put into the hands of trustees
and that these new trustees should carry on the gas
works for the benefit of the town, and hand over the
profits to the corporation. It did so happen, however,
that five persons held out and would not agree to that
arrangement, and ultimately they file a bill in
Chancery. It was then feared that the parties who
had become trustees bad violated the original deed,
that the whole affair would be undone, an immense
amount of money expended in vain, and the town which
it was intended to benefit very much injured. Mr.
Cowen and a gentleman with him met a third person in
the town, and this became the subject of conversation.
The gentleman who was with Mr. Cowen said it was a
pity that the deed was not destroyed, whereupon Mr.
Cowen, without for one moment seriously intending what
he said, remarked "it was a great pity it was nut
burnt." Ile never thought more of the expression; he
entirely forgot it; but a political opponent conveyed it
to Mr. Steel, and led Mr. Steel to put an interpretation
upon it that was not exactly correct. This is the real
history of that affair. No one will suppose that Mr.
Cowen seriously contemplated to destroy the deed, for in
the first place he could not benefit himself a farthing by
it. It was merely a mode of expressing his regret that
anything should stand in the way of the interests of the
city at large. With regard to other portions of the libel,
I presume there will not be a moment's hesitation on the
part of my Learned Friend in retracting all that has been
said on that point in as far as anything has been said
that trenches on the reputation of my client. There
is another part o: the libel which I shall shortly refer to.
It is that portion of it relating to the Maryport deed.
Some time ago that topic was introduced into the paper
by Mr. Steel, and Mr. Steel introduced an article the
following week stating that it had been so introduced
without his knowledge, and that he believed Mr. Cowen
incapable of any such dishonourable conduct. What-
ever Mr. Steel has been led to think, I am sure there is
no men in Carlisle who thinks more highly of him than
Mr. Cowen, the plaintiff in this action. And it is a great
pity that two men who, by their conjoined efforts, have
it in their power to do so much good to this city, should
be at so much variance with each other. They have
both engaged in local politics—which, no man who re-
gards his own happiness but avoids—and in a moment
of
not
justify. But whatever Mr. Cowen has said or
written, he instructs me to say that he never in his life
tparti,osnumoinugthe honour
that Mr.
oinrteinndteegdrittoicaosft t3lhier.slisgth,
etel.st tAmnp(ui
Steel deserves the high opinion that Mr. Cowen enter,
tains of him, I am iure that after this he will guard
himself with vigilance with respect to Mr. Cots en.
Mr. KNOW ES then said—My Lord, and gentlemen
of the jury, after the statement just made to you by
my Learned Friend, I feel bound, and so does my client,
to meet him in the same spirit in which he has met us.
It does appear, from the explanation of my Learned
Friend, that my client might mistake the meaning of
those) particular words with reference to burning the
deed. My Learned Friend has stated what the language
was, and after that I cannotb hesitateo to say that it is
likely
n my client
mistakethat
meaning of those words.
having
m p
amply
did
declared inno
ta anything hriet ttheant
the
alg so a
honourclient
my meant
part entirely withdraw any-
thing in that publication which may teem to Mr. Cowen
to 'Ant upon his honour.
A verdict was then taken for plaintiff. Damages 404