The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-05 00:00:00

The prisoner then put a great many questions as to
the positions of the farm and its boundaries, which could
not be rendered at all intelligible to the public.
The JUDGE—When you were asked before the ma-
gistrates what was the latest time you saw the prisoner
that day you said it was between seven and half-past
seven o'clock? Was that the case?-2es, my Lord.
Prisoner—Will you swear it was about eight o'clock
when you saw me?—No, sir.
The JUDGE—What do you mean by that?—l swear it
was not eight o'clock, my Lord.
Prisoner—Did you not swear—
The JUDGE—No, you cannot ask a question in that
way. You are examining now your own witness to the
truth.
Prisoner—Do you not contradict your evidence?
Who told you to do so? Contradict, sir? No.
The JUDGE—NO, I tell you you cannot ask such
questions; you are tendering this man as the witness
of the truth, and as one whom we are to believe.
Prisoner—Who told you to make alterations in the
time you spoke about? No; who told you to make any
alterations in your statement, and speak different from
what you did at first?—l don't know I did make any
alterations.
The JUDGE—Really I cannot allow this.
Prisoner—When I spoke to you at the back door had
I my indoor dress on?—Yes, sir; it was about seven or
half-past seven o'clock.
To the JUDGE—The prisoner gave me his light boots
to clean about live or halt. past five o'clock, but I don't
clearly recollect, and I washed them.
The prisoner again asked the witness some questions
as to discrepancies in his depositions, which the Learned
Judge would not allow to be answered, considering them
Quite irrelevant. At the request of the prisoner, a lapse
of lo minutes was allows d, and on the return of the judge,
jury, and prisoner to court,
William Frederick Howe was recalled and placed in
the wituess-box, but before he was examined
The JUDGE said—We consider you have no right to
this privilege, but I shall allow you to ask him a few
questions.
Prisoner—My Lord, certain parties whom I never saw
wrote me word about this witness, and I want to ask him
if what they say of him is true.
The JUDGE—You may ask him if he ever said or
made use of certain expressions which have a bearing on
the case, but you cannot go into matters not in evidence.
Prisoner —lf I am not allowed to ask him questions

think important what is the use of it at all? -How could
I know what evidence ho would give till I heard him—
he never was produced till the last moment? There is
no use in it.
The JUDGE—WeII, take your own course about tbat.
Every witness does not come prepared to answer all the
questions about himself you like to ask him.
Prisoner—Well, I believe I will ask him a few ques-
tions. William Howe, do you know John Lincoln—No,
I don't. George Blean 2—No. James Berkey ?—No,
I never heard of him. Nor of Mr. J. H. Smith ?—No.
Nor of Frederick Grey?—No. I never heard of his
name to my knowledge.
The JUDGE—Have you never stated you would go to
Norwich and swear one side or the other for 20/.2 Wit-
ness—Never, to my knowledge.
The JUDGE—Never to your knowledge ? Could
you have said such a thing without knowing it? Did
you ever say such a thing ? Witness—Mr. Hyde told
me I did so, but I never did. Some people were talk-
ing about it, and it was said in a joke that a man alight
get 100/. for coming flown, but I did not say it.
Prisoner—Did you ever say anything about getting
money for it?—l never expected any money. I have
received none. I have never mentioned anything about
it. Indeed I could produce my surgeon to show I was
most anxious to avoid coming d)wn, but that he did not
think me ill enough to give me a certificate.
Prisoner—Oh, then, you felt some compunction at
coming down?—l eNI not wish to come down. lam
perfectly a stranger in the place. It was against the
wish of my friends I came.
The JUDGE.—The witness denies ho ever said any-
thing to the effect that he would come down and swear
ono side or another for 201.
Witness—l deny that I ever said such a thing. I was
told by a witness I said so, but I deny it.
The JUDGE—Now call your witness.'
Arthur Hyde was then placed in the witness-box
and examined by
The JUDGE—Did you ever hear William Frederick
llowe say he would come down to Norwich and swear
at either side for 201., or anything of that sort ?—I did,
my Lord.
else to
Prisoner—Well, I don't know I have anything
_ .

ask you. Incas anitbing
The JUDGE—You cannot ask the
14..1 h the
else unless you wish to ask him something
n
other witnesses stated be never aid.
whla'rtilso:aveenr—t. No, my Lord. I have got quite enough for
rtsi
r.then
isTurpbjreueat cads
Tt
,o an
dsesatracthe n glieVesd-
exTamheinwatiitonneSt.l7
at 15, James street, /slow-road, at the top of Baker-street,
but had his ofefi
rc as a
accountant t 39, Lamb's Conduit-
street. The st time he had even seen Howe was on
the 4th of December last, when the latter used the ex-
pression in question. His name was not on the door,
but pail 251. a-year rent for
the tthiresrt° wasflooroor aans°oilitlicece-bell;
been in occupation
since the Christmas before last. Would swear he kept s
clerk; the clerk's name was Williamson. Witness beside
keeping books and accounts was an estate-agent. He
managed the estate of Laxton, in Shropshire; it was a
brewer's. He went to the Wheatsheaf, because there
was an Elocution Society there. He was chairman of
the society on the 4th of December. Before ho became
an accountant he had been a publican. Had never kept
a c )ffee•shop, but had the lease of a house in which a
coffee-shop was kept. Had been once in the police of
London, but had resigned. Otiginally. had co from
Ireland. When Howe used the words in questme ion they
were all joking and laughing in the coffee-room of tli•
Wheatsheaf. They all treated what ha said as a joke.
Witness said that the assertion made by Bowe was very
maim.

The JUDGE—You cannot ask that question—it is ir-
regular.
The prisoner (who seemed rather impatient at the
cross-examination of this witness). See that, now. .A 11
this, I say, is taking adVantage of me, after the whole of
this fact has been found out. I say it is most slieuaetiil
and disgraceful to go on so.
The JUDGE—But there was nothing irregular except
the last question.
The prisoner—l say their objections to this witness at
once shows what they are. They are irregular.
The JUDGE—The irregularity of exereleing these
witnesses at all is one I committed et your request.
Cross-examination continued—Witness's expenses hed
been paid by the agent to the prisoner's solicitor. Ilad
received 3/. for coining down to islorwich.
The witness retired.
The JUDGE than asked the prisoner—Whom do you
call now?
The prisoner—Oh, there's no use in my calling wit-
nesses, my Lord. What is the use of my doing so?
There's this matt Howe never has been brought in till
the last moment. Why? Because this man was coming
against him. If I had time I could gee other witnesses
in the same way.
The JUDGE—But you cannot ask this witless to con-
tradict anything the other has not said.
Prisoner—Yes, they keep him back to the eleventh
hour. Is that the way to have justice done ? No, they
only care about getting up their case ; when this man
comes forward, every one knows how they have treated
him.
The JUDGE—I cannot hear you make a speech. Call
your witnesses.
The Prisoner, sitting down—l have no more witnesses.
At the request of the prisoner, a letter dated 6th of
January, from the prisoner to Mr. Jermy, in which he
stated he would give Mr. Jermy one more chance before
he published the pamphlet alluded to in the course of the
trial, was read by the clerk of the co irt ; else another
letter of the 26:h of April, from the same to the same.
The prisoner applied to the Court to have a copy of
his application to the magistrates to have certain papers
and documents necessary to his defence given by Mr.
Cann to his (prisoner's) solicitor given in evidence. The
magistrates refused ; but stated that his solicitor should
see the papers at any reasonable time.
The JUDGE decided that it was not an admissible
document.
The evidence in support of the prisoner's case was
closed about three o'clock, when
Mr. Sergeant BYLEs rose to reply. When he ad-
dressed the jury at the opening of the case ho had ex-
pressed his regret that the prisoner bad no counsel to
defend him. He could not, however, help saying that
the prisoner had had advantages he would have been
denied if he had not conducted his own defence. The
inquiry which had been inflicted on them in consequence
was, he thought, one of the longest that had ever been
inflicted on a jury in the annals of judicial suffering. Ile
would make one observation, and one only, on the pri-
soner's line of defence. He would then allude to some
of the evidence given in the case. The prisoner had
fallen into two very great mistakes. The one was that
of c infounding the conduct of the prosecution, to
which most of his observations and evidence applied,
with the question whether he was innocent or
guilty. He could not help saying that the ma-
gistrates who were intrusted with the public
safety, and who were the guardians of the peace of
the county, had an extremely difficult duty to perform.
They had to conduct the examination of Emily Sandford
in the presence of the prisoner, who, they were told,
conducted himself so violently that he had to be removed.
lie (Sergeant Byles) trusted that the jury woleld not be
of opinion that anything coming out in the prisoner's
cross-examination reflected on the conduct of the- zusgis-
trates. He could not help saying also, that as ito the
accusation against Mr. Cana, it was denied by that
gentleman, and disproved by Mr. Waugh. It was quite
unusual for the prosecution to -give the accused CO :32Q5
and documents such as the prisoner's solicitor bad been
furnished with. The prisoner's solicitor had been allow.sd
to ransack all the documents of the prosecution, and we a
allowed to make any copies that might be useful for hie
defence.
The prisoner here interrupted, when
The JUDGE said—l must have you removed, prisoner,
if you interrupt.
The prisoner—Well, then, I must be removed.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES continued—He had another ob.
nervation to make. The prisoner seemed to have pro-
ceeded on the notion that if there was any variationw in
the details of the evidence when the evidence of one it-
ness was compared with that of the other, that evidence
was to go for nothing. He would make only one obser-
vation to the jury on that point. When three or four
witnesses spoke to a fact which they had seen, if they
gave trustworthy testimony they would agree in sub-
stance, but differ in minute details. If an accident took
place on the Castle hill, and four persons saw it, and
came in and gave the jury their statements on the sub-
ject, they would agree in substance—in minute details
they would differ. If that was so in an ordinary trans-
action, how much more when four or five wit-
nesses were called, and stated that an armed man ap-
peared in a dwelling after dark, when they were struck
with fear—when they had r(ceived a shock which
perhaps permanently unhinged their nervous re.Fatem?
It was not to be wondered that, under such terrible
circumstances, in minuter details these four or
five witnesses should disagree. The real question Was,
did they in substance agree the one with the other?
He (Sergeant Byles) proposed to call the attention of
the jury not to the evidence of two or three, but five,
eye-witnesses of the transactions at Stanfield-hall. It
was perfectly clear that the prisoner knew the house,
that he was in the habit of coming in at the dour with-
out rapping or ringing. Ile believed that at one time
the prisoner occupied the house. It now appeared, also,
that he hail bought Stanfield-hall, and that it was ac-
tually his property for nearly two years. He begged
the attention of the jury to the direct evidence which
had been given as to the murders. He would be ex-
tremely short. Ho would brush away the chaff, and
come to the corn and substance at once. The Learned
Sergeant then proceeded to read in a very clear and im-
pressive manner the direct testimony given by Eliza
Chestney, Watson, the footman; Margaret Reed, the
cook; Blanch Flower, the nurserymaid; and Mrs. Jermy.
lie then in regular order directed the attention of the
jury to all the leading facts of the case. He explained
that the straw laid down on the way to the hall would
be a guide to the prisoner in a dark night until he got
either on the gravel or greensward. He pointed cut the
e
long and formidable circumstantial evidence affectin4
prisoner. If he was not the man, who else could be?
The story he had told to-day had never before been
heard of. It was not mentioned before the magistrates.
The prisoner—l had then no idea who it was, and had
no business to accuse any one.
Mr. Sergeant BYLTS—These men could not know the
intricate apartments of the Hall. But there were pa-
pers in the case.—written agreements, which purported
to be signed by Larner and Jermy, neither of whom had
signed them, and the latter of whom could Lot even
write. Joe, Dick, and the lawyer did not represent
Jenny and Larner, and the story of the prisoner was
entirely without pro,ff. Human affairs are so constituted
that, looking back, no one could fit a false tale so as see
fit the facts of the case. The prisoner said that the freak
he wore on the night of the murder was hid in the ya d.
Why was this done? Then the wig and whiskers were
left in the room with the cloak, while the boots and the
frock wore missing. As to the evidence given by the
witness Howe, he did not think it altogether destitute of
weight, though, if his Lordship told them to
bombe
iss
it from their consideration, they would do of
would refer them to the statements of the witness
Bacon, to the letters and pamphlet of the prisonee
expressing strong l.ostility to Mr. Jermy, and to the
forged agreements witnessed by Emily Sandford. These
deeuments would be produced with a greater chance of
success if Mr. Jermy, his son, and his sou's wife, WC Ti
dead. lie (Sergeant I3j lee) did not think that the pri
th soner intended to injure Eliza Chestney. He gave use
bather a hint to get out of the way, which e othcz
very' prudently took. Ile had proved malice and motive.
The fact of the murder was beyond dispute. There
was no one to whom suspicion could, by possibslity,
attach except to the prisoner, for Jermy and Larntr
had both been produced before the jury and examined.
The case, however, was before them, and ho was quito
satisfied that they would do their duty to the prisouer
and their duty also to public justice and the Crown.
The JUDGX (turning to the jury)—lf I have en :tent.
inatiun from you, gentlemen, that you think your s
he
Lion is exhausted, and at you cannot considevrerf_g,;
before you during the rthemaining hours of the e w
must, at any inconvenience, adjourn.
A juryman—We wish to
shTouhld
put in as evidence..said,
—Gentlemen
nanoa
tParkles° tuimere—toiteciissid7rrYgthol°2°Lrent ttiihwathitchhel jhriaryye
f
then commenced
opinion on this case must be formed este
your
Baron Roeste: shail
the jury. cal tehhertyr ge. could
Ile do
testimony which has been given in thist
The first thing, therefore, is to consider whet
he fact is which now claims inquiry. We are inquirir g
tireri.r. on the .
into the murder of Isaac Jenny, and under what ctrcum
stances he came by his death. That you must leatri
from the testimony given in the few preceding days.
It
is detailed by a number of witnesses, and of the fact there
cannot be any reasonable doubt; but, as from the pus'
liar circumstances it may be desirable to show that debt!h
took place, I shall call your attention to what e
ness says on the subject. [rhe Learned
in succession the evidence of Watson, Eliza ,
then continue:it
ju—slichgee.bst.:ieeaYd,
and Margaret Reed, the cook.] He , _
—That is the account of the murder given by
two
three witnesses alluded to. It is confirmed y
ro.
pieces of evidence put in on the part of thie,
secution. I allude to the depositions o 151
of Maria Blanchflower, the nurserymal .
mot _
Jermy, one of the unfortunate e.tdrTerisle,reour:
or less witnesses of what tcok place. Ag
who,
was
csned
you have now the account of five people, wahine) %tree
mosy of Edward Harvey, the young
of nor
Judge read the evidence.) The testimonyes
pect, that
early on Friday, is not unimportant.m
o(nThe Leer-nod
Holmes differs from that of
thatHsrvee h testi:
when they gOt, 145
she did not see any
and that when 200 yardsof anticipation, it being certain
yards they heard a stolluinngcii!!WkileytthheassloalhanmdihNsgaso
rapes
a ot
,0
I may say here, by
witnesses prepares us .
what ts. d,
human hat theexdipffeerrieennccee
shows, it ti
that only four shotsviw'a•feyorre
that when people are g
which excite them stron
tvarg an account of transactions
gly, theytibnl
account of them. This is admir
not attribute
the least ialportaace to Mich discrepancies.
present case; and you, gentlemen, must
God knew*
ycivielrlusgtirvaetedlhebysarhae