The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-23 00:00:00

(Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.)
REX V. HonsoN AND OTIIERS.
After Mr. Serjeant WILDE had concluded his address
for the defendant, the following witnesses were called on
the defendant's behalf :
Mr. John Johnson called and examined by Mr. Serjeant
WILDE—I reside in the East Riding of Yorkshire. I
was agent, and managed the affairs of Miss Stevenson, the
sister of the testator. On hearing of Mr. Stevenson's
death, I proceeded to Beverley and Hull. Mr. Henry
Powell went with me. Mr. Powell was Miss Stevenson's
solicitor. We saw Dr. Turnbull in bed. We told him
that Miss S. was the heir-at-law, and I pressed to see the
will. He said there were things in it which ought not to
be seen till after the funeral. I pressed him again, and he
said Miss S. was left 100/. a year for life, and all would
he right in the end. He never saw me before. He said,
" God forbid he should do wrong to the dead." I went
to the funeral on the 18th of March. Mr. James Powell
went with me. We met at Mr. Stevenson's house at
eight o'clock in the morning. After the ceremony, and
we had had dinner, the will was read. He (the Doctor)
spoke to Nancy Watson in private for about half an hour
previously, and they returned together. Dr. Turnbull
read the will, but in a way I could not understand it. I
reques►ed him to let Mr. Powell read it. He did so. Mr.
Powell asked him who made the will ? He said an emi-
nent conveyancer at Hull, named Dale. Mr. Powell said
it was extraordinary he went to Hull when there were so
many respectable solicitors in Beverley. He said he re-
ceived his instructions from Mr. Stevenson to get a person
from Hull. I took a copy of the will which Mr. Powell
had. Dr. Turnbull took the original will. Dr. Turnbull
shortly afterwards said he was robbed, alluding to the copy
I took. No violence was offered to him by me, nor by
any one else to my knowledge.
Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARLETT--Miss Stevenson
was an old lady (she is since dead). She had a good fortune.
Mr. James Powell examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE—
lam in partnership with last witness. I was at Mr.
Stevenson's funeral. Read the will.—[Witness corrobo-
rated the evidence given by Mr. Johnson.]—l made no
attack on Dr. Turnbull. Miss Watson, who was the most
ignorant of the party, used strong language to Dr. T.
Mr. Richard Casson examined—l am a surgeon in
Hull. I attended Dr. Turnbull, on account of his being
thrown from his horse; this was shortly after Mr. Ste-
venson's death. I had a conversation about the will with
him. I told him there was a strong impression against
him as regarded it, and I said I thought it would injure
him in his profession. He told me he had no hand in
manufacturing the will; that Mr. Stevenson sent to him
and produced the will, and had made him sole executor.
Cross-examined—l have resided at Hull all my life. I
don't know Hodson nor Young. I have been a surgeon
seventeen or eightee❑ years. I have been tried for taking
a body from a church-yard. That was when I first com-
menced in nay profession. The impression against Dr.
Turnbull was very general, and continued so till the trial
at York. Don't know who spread the report. Sawyer's
will was talked of before this.
An extract of the will ,vas put in and read, by which
2,000/. was bequeathed to Nancy Watson, testator's house-
keeper ; and to his sister, Miss Stevenson, 100/. a year
for life.
Jane Wyndus examined—l know Robert Cooper. 1 re-
collect his leaving Mr. Stevenson. I told him of a place at
Mr. Williams's. He said he could not take a place, as he
was engaged by Dr.Turubull till after the Assizes at York.
William Andover examined—l know Robert Cooper.
He lodged with me seven weeks. He did not pay for his
lodgings. He told me he would pay when Dr. Turnbull
paid him. He told me Dr. Turnbull told him not to take
a place till after the Assizes, as he (the Doctor) would pay
him fur his time.
Sir John Bingley deposed as to Mr. Hodson being a man
greatly respected amongst gentlemen, and beloved by the
poor, and witness considered him incapable of doing any
thing contrary to the character of a gentleman.
The Hen. James Stuart Wortley examined—l have
known Mr. Hodson eight or ten years. From all I have
known of him I consider him a highly honourable man.
The following witnesses bore testimony to the general
good character of the defendant Young, viz.:—Mr. Dick-
son (steward to Sir Joseph Ratcliffe), Mr. James Dalby,
Mr. T. Gardner, Mr. Tewnend, and Mr. Nicholson.
Here the defence closed.
Sir Jaatzs SCARLETT then commenced his reply, which
occupied nearly three hours.
Lord TENTERDEN summed up the evidence at great
length. If the witnesses spoke the truth (and that was a
question solely for the Jury), he was bound to say that
evidence of a conspiracy had been produced. If the Jury
entertained any doubt, the high character they had heard
given of the defendants, but Mr. Hodson in particular,
ought to have due weight in their favour.
The Jury retired at ten o'clock to consider of their ver-
dict, and, after being absent about an hour, returned into
Court, finding Ann Young Not Guilty, and the defendants
Nancy Watson, Thomas Hodson, and William Young,
Guilty.
The Jury, in pronouncing this verdict, begged to ex-
press their opinion " that Dr. Turnbull's conduct had
been highly unprofessional, and discreditable to himself."
The Court continued crowded during the whole trial.

COURT OF REQUESTS, DEC. 22.

A HORSE SHAVED.

A gentleman named Wear was summoned before
the Commissioners by Thomas Field, a hair-dresser,
for the sum of 30 shillings, the price demanded by
the plaintiff for shaving a horse.
The plaintiff swore that the defendant brought to
him a horse to be shaved, for the purpose of " show-
ing a new coat" upon the animal. The horse had
been attempted to be shaved by the defendant, on
part of the stern, but from want of skill in the art
the poor beast was moat miserably notched. The
defendant got tired after four hours' work, and then
handed over the job to the plaintiff. The razors of
the shop were in great requisition for ten days,
during which the shaving was going forward, and
the plaintiff was obliged, as he proceeded, to wrap
up the ball parts to protect the horse from celd.
The Commissioners, he said, could not possibly
judge of the difficulty of shaving a horse from shav-
ing themselves.—(A laugh.) It was quite a diffe-
rent sort of a business, and he defied any man to
" go over" such a sized animal for less than three
shillings a day, and to go over the chins of his usual
customers at the tame time.

Mr. MFA-Flts (of St. Michael's-alley, one of the
Commissioners) asked what objection was made to
the charge ?
The defendant said that he considered the sum of
thirty shillings, for merely taking the hair off a
horse, entirely too much, especially as he (defendant)
had done a good deal of the job himself.
The hair-dresser declared that the part upon which
the defendant had operated was so badly done, that
if it had not been shaven again the coat would have
been as rough over the stern as a hedgehog, while
all the rest was as smooth as the body of a new-
born babe.—(Laughter.)
The defendant said that any horse clipper would
have completed the business for a great deal less

money.
The hair-dresser said that was quite impossible.
He had never shaved a horse before, but it was a
regular sweater.
Mr. MEYERS asked the defendant what he gene-
rally paid for a shave for himself.

The defendant (feeling his chin)—Why, two-
pence I think is generally the price.
Mr. MEYERS—Aye, a penny a cheek. Now, how
many of your jaws do you think would make up the
size of a horse ?—(A laugh.)
The defendant said there was less delicacy nem:-
sary in shaving a horse than a man.
Mr. MEYERS—Not a bit more than in shaving an
ass.—(Laughter:)
The hair-dresser—Look at the lather and the
chance of a kick !—(Laughter.) Besides, I went
over the beast as clean as possible. I turned him
out as smooth as my hand, down to the fetlock.
Mr. MEYERS said he was surprised at the refusal