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

7-

1.11-ilt
P.), Ifik , „Ai-$:1,
~,,,,-,-,-„.,:, • q
~ ~._,,, ,•?;:',...4 42ps.
/
f ........,
__. :; .• 7 ' :ss i,,,N,-,- e.::;--..''•
L ~---,---.-
~..:.r!',- i-,--:; J.._,,-...., ," .1:'
_-:,,,-;..,-
......:_,,,J,,,,,::....,;....,-,_ A _ , _ ',.
.1.,--.v!tz:....,,. , ; - -......, -'.. q.-,,Ns „,- \, ) ,;:,6.._, '
..7:., --- -.,,,,,--. , •,----.,, , --,-.... ::::-/A , .
4::,.%, i, 7 „ r, i',. ?,,,-,.,'''' ',,,5, FG ~,,( i ',--,' •''..• .- ---71., i e)-;› ', -.'''t. .7.,.-'"-, ----7,,` -7.-
_t) . ..'2,-:'Z't 12....--.'6?"' - , ~'', , , T.- , \.L...:..;• ,77.,=7 ~,,y,,' .5i;,... ',, , ' r-,Vv7--,-.0,1" -- '''-- t. ,''''''' C'+'.X .
ti-:=1,,,.:-..,....4 , ,:.- "1.-7,,, 1- ',.i,, V A,-,111114 tl, ;:,.411: t; ';. , , , ~. s:
,v-,o` .....,..s.ki.,-,ste. ff- 121; oi T . ':,,..i..,,, "h 1
''(•-... '..er/•
Vi .:- ~- './,'„, ~// / ..1/4,,,,k --- ,alr---„„..-....4.y,—.
4,',..--;; 4 , -_:-:6 =,=, -•44,..-___LLb. v ~,av'"3.llig------- c4•l-
- j''' •

,f„ -

/ ✓!\
.~ ~~/ ;

.....
....--- .
,A 9,46.,,,, --,•.;. '
-.1,:.T4.
~,..- ....%

u N
APRIL 5,

useless to produce it, as not answering to the description,
he could not say; but at all events they had seen it, and
considered that it did not suit the case which they were
getting up against him. Everything he had said were
facts, and plain facts. He now wished to apply for Mrs.
Jermy's deposition.
The JUDGE—If you read that deposition as part of
your evidence, you read it as evidence of some true fact.
The prisoner did not say that Mrs. Jermy had given
truthful evidence. The jury would have to say whether
she had or not. He would have the evidence read, as he
thought it would throw light upon the value of the other
evidence which had been given.
The JUDGE—Very well. I should like you to repeat
what you stated about the dress worn by you on the
night of the murder.
The prisoner had no secret to make about it. It was
a blue frock dress which he used to slip on after his
knowledge of the transactions of parties who were about
to take possession of Stanfield-hall. Having guile out
with it, and hearing guns, and knowing that he might
be suspected by the police, he put the dress in a certain
place in the yard.—(Sensation.) Yesterday he had sent
for the dress, in order to show that it would contradict
the evidence which had been given as to the dress which
the man wore who was seen at the hall. He also wished
to show the place in the loose frock where he could put
his hands, and the manner in which he put it on by put-
ting his neck through. That he had no doubt was the
dress spoken to by some-of the witnesses. It accounted in
some measure for the evidence which had been given on
the subject. That having been described in some way
accounted for the evidence as to the length given by
the witnesses, who stated that the cloak did not
come over the knee. They might have known,
after seeing that cloak on him, that such evidence must
have been given.—(Sensation.) The judge stated that
Mrs. Jermy's evidence was against him; but the jury
were men of sense and understanding, and he said that
that evidence was not against him. They would com-
pare her evidence with that of Watson and Chestney.
She said, " I did not see his face at all, but it struck me
immediately it was Rush." Now here it was again. Mr.
Jermy's favourite time for seeing him was after dinner,
and that might strike Mrs. Jermy and give her the idea.
On the cross-examination, if they thought that evidence
against him, why then God Almighty knew it was the
worse for him, and they would give a wrong verdict.
He would prove that Mrs. Jermy was the person who
had given the best description of that man, and par-
ticularlyi -
ticularly of his dress. He had no hesitation n statin
that she had given a correct description of the man's
dress; there was not a question of it.—(Sensation.) They
could not for one moment suppose that the person Mrs.
Jermy saw at the Hall was the same as Watson saw, He
said again to the jury that they ought to take time, and
for the sake of his children, whose hearts were breaking,
and for the sake of themselves and their families, to
divest their minds of all prejudices which they might
have contracted before they came into court. They
would consider if it was possible for him to be the man
seen in the Ball that night. They would consider the
discrepancies between the evidence of the different wit-
nesses, and the remarks which ho had made upon them.
Let them consider the distance from the one place to the
uther and what had been stated on that point, and he was
sure God would lead them to decide in his favour. He
trusted that God would guide them; and if there was a
difference of opinion they would think it the happiest day
of their lives to stand firm and give no verdict; but if
they found him not guilty, they would be blessed for it
in their dying moments that they did not return a ver-
dict of guilty against an innocent man. He said again
to them, let them trust in God and do their duty, and let
them net be led away from the facts by the false evi-
dence that had been given against him. Might God
Almighty bless them and make them discern, and give
them a wise and understanding heart. Ile desired and
expected only justice at their hands; and he asked them
this for the sake of his poor little children, who were des-
titute of a mother, and who were looking to them to
return their father to his home.—(Great sensation.)

This was the prisoner's defence ; the concluding sen-
tences being read by him from a brief, and delivered in
a slow and even manner, amidst the breathless silence of
the court. Once or twice his voice seemed choked with
emotion, but, after a pause, he recovered, and through-
out his long defence ho appeared calm and self• possessed.
The JUDGE—WiII you repeat, prisoner, what you said
about Dick, Joe, and the lawyer?
The prisoner produced in evidence a letter, stating how
he came to know what had happened.
The JUDGE—It can be no evidence; it is a letter from
you to your solicitor. That is no evidence at all.
The prisoner here said, I want to ask Mr. Cann once
more if he has any more letters to produce. There aro
Letters of his written to me which I wish particularly
to have in evidence—particularly two written in October.
He was in the habit of sending letters to me very often,
but I don't recollect the dates.

Letters from Mr. Jermy to the prisoner on various
matters connected with the farm, and a notice sant by
the prisoner to Mr. Jermy requesting valuators to be
appointed for the Felmingham farm, were next given in
evidence.
Mr. George Waugh, solicitor, of London, was then
called, and examined by the prisoner—On the Ist of
December last he went down to Wymondham in conse-
quence of a letter from the prisoner. He sent up his
card to announce his arrival. He saw the prisoner im-
mediately afterwards. Could not recollect what room
it was in. The police were present at the time.
Several similar questions having been put to the wit-
ness,
The JUDGE at last said—l cannot allow you to pro-
ceed with those questions. They have nothing to do
with the case before us. All you have to show is
whether you are or are not the person who murdered Mr.
Jenny.
Prisoner—Yes, my Lord; but I wish to show the un-
fair way in which I was treated by the magistrates.
JUDGE—I really cannot allow it. I have listened very
patiently to all you have had to say, but really there
must be some bounds to this discussion.
Examination continued—Returned from the Bridewell
in about two hours. Mr. Cann, the solicitor, was with
him. An inspector of police was sent to the Bridewell
along with him. The inspector went to give directions
that witness should not see the prisoner without a police-
man being present. Mr. John Caun went into the room
where the prisoner was with witness. The police had
retired into the passage The prisoner made some ob-
servations to Mr. Cann.
Prisoner—What was said by you when I made those
observations to Mr. Cann?

Mr. Sergeant BYLES—I really must interpose now, my
Lord, for all this is quite foreign and irrelevant to this

inquiry.
Prisoner—My Lord, I want to show tho villany of
Cann. He knew he was acting as nay solicitor up to the

time—
The JUDGE—You cannot ask the question. It is im-
possible for the prosecution to be prepared with evidence
to refute such statements, and I really am at a loss to
know what all this evidence is coming to.
Prisoner (to witness)—Did you make use of words to
the effect that I could not put my case into better hands
than those of Mr. Canny—l said you ought to put your
case into the bands of some respectable solicitor, and that
I know of no one better than Mr. Cann.
The witness was not examined by the Crown, and he
retired, but WiLS called back by the prisoner.
Who is William Frederick Howe—he says he has been
a clerk of youro?—Yes, he has.

Is he a man you would believe on his pith?—Certainly
not, if he was contradicted by respectable testimony.
What did he leave your employment for?
The JUDGE would not allow the question to be put
and the witness left the court.
Arthur Hyde called and examined by the prisoner.

What is your profession?—l am au accountant and
arbitrator.
Do you know William Frederick llcwe?—l do.
When did you first see him?—On the 4th of December,
in the coffee-room of the Wheatsheaf Tavern, about 8
o'clock in the evening.
Had you any conversation with him on the subject of
the Stanfield-hall murders?—l had only one conversa-
tion with him; but I heard him make several remarks
about it.
State the expressions ho used?—The witness was pro-
ceeding to do so, when
Mr. Sergeant BYLES objected, and called on the priso-
ner to put to the witness only such questions as would
enable him to affirm any statement the witness Howe as-
serted he had denied.
The JUDGE—Those questions certainly are irregular.
(To the prisoner.) You have been without counsel
during this trial. You had the means of having counsel
if you thought fit, but you did not do so. An enormous
latitude has been allowed to you all through, but there
must be bounds to it. If you call one witness to contra •
diet another, you must only call him to say that another
witness said something which he says he did not say.
Prisoner—How could Ido so? How could I know what
the man would say? You tic my hands because I am
not a lawyer like these learned gentlemen below me.
The JUDGE—You should have asked Howe at the
time.

Prisoner—But how should I know what Howe was
going to state? How could I tell what he was going to
say? It is most cruel and most unjust to treat mo in
this way.
The JUDGE—It is very unjust to the other parties in
this case to allow you to do otherwise. Witnesses must
be protected as well as the party accused. It you can
show Howe had money it is another question.
The jury here got together in their box and consulted
for a moment, and
The JUDGE said—Perhaps the hest thing you can do
is to have Howe called back, and ask him what he said;
that would be the most re; ilar course.
The Counsel for the Crown having agreed, Howe was
sent for, and meantime
Maria Bianchitower was called and examined by the
prisoner.
What aro you?—l was nursery-maid at Stanfield-hall.
Were you there the night of the murder ?—I was.
Where were you when you heard the first report?—
In the nursery.
How long were you before you came down stairs?—l
did not come down till I heard three more reports.
How did you go down?—By the back stairs from the
nursery.
Pid you see Eliza Chestney lying at the bottom of the
stairs?—No; I think they had removed her.
Where did you go when you went down stairs?—To

-e

717
'

[PRICE SD.

The JUDGE—What assertion are you speaking of?
Witness—He said, my Lord, he had evidence to hang
_Rush; and I sai it L. vry sari. us assertion unless
he could sustain it.
The JUDGE—But you never said anything of this be-
fore. All you said was, that he offered to go duwn to
Norwich for 201. on either side.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—What did Howe say he knew of
Rush?

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. All
this, I say, is taking advantage of me, after the whole of
this fact has been found out. I say it is most shameful
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 examining these
witnesses at all is ono I committed at your request.
Cross-examination continued—Witness'e expenses had
been paid by the agent to the prisoner's solicitor. Had
received 31. for coming down to Norwich.
The witness retired.
The JUDGE then 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 man Howe never has been brought in till
the last moment. Why? Because this man was coming
against him. If I had time I could get other witnesses
in the same way.
The JUDGE—But you cannot ask this witness 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. Jenny one more chance bbfore
he published the pamphlet alluded to in the course of the
trial, was read by the clerk of the court ; also another
letter of the 26th 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 he had ex-
pressed his regret that the prisoner had no counsel to
defend bins. 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 oirlhem in 'Consequence
was, he thought, one of the longest that hisd ever been
inflicted on a jury in the annals of judicial suffering. He
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 confounding 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.
He (Sergeant Byles) trusted that the jury would ntt; be
of opinion that anything coming out in the pris ner's
cross-examination reflected on the conduct of the, magis-
trates. He could not help saying also, that as to the
accusation against Mr. Cann, it was denied by that
gentleman, and disproved by Mr. Waugh. It was quite
unusual for the prosecution to give the accused copies
and documents such as the prisoner's solicitor had been
furnished with. The prisoner's solicitor had been allowed
to ransack all the documents of the prosecution, and was
allowed to make any copies that might be useful for his
defence.
The prisoner hero 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-
servation to make. The prisoner seemed to have pro-
ceeded on the notion that if there was any variation in
the details of the evidence when the evidence of one wit-
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 received a shock which
perhaps permanently unhinged their nervous system?
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 door with-
out rapping or ringing. He believed that at one time
the prisoner occupied the house. It now appeared, also,
that he had 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. He 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.
Ho 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 out the
long and formidable circumstantial evidence affecting the
prisoner. If ho was not the man, who else could be?
The story he had told to-day bad never before been
heard of. It was not mentioned before the magistrates.
The prisoner—l had then no idea who it was, and had
e men could not know the
nobru.ssineersgsetaontacßcyuLseEsa—nyTobnee.
s
intricate apartments of the Hall. But there were pa-
pers in the case.—written agreements, which purport, d
to be signed by Lerner and Jermy, neither of whom had
signed them, and the latter of whom could not even
write. Joe, Dick, and the lawyer did not represent
Jermy and Lerner, and the story of the prisoner was
entirely without proof. Human affairs are so constituted
that, looking back, no one could fit a false tale so as to
fit the facts of the case. The prisoner said that the frock
he wore on the night of the murder was hid in the yard.
Why was this done? Then the wig and whisker* were
left in the room with the cloak, while the boots and the
frock were 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 dismiss
it from their consideration, they would do so; but he
would refer them to the statements of the witness
Bacon, to the letters and pamphlet of the prisoner
expressing strong hostility to Mr. Jermy, and to the
forged agreements witnessed by Emily Sandford. The,c
documents would be produced with a greater chance of
success if Mr. Jermy, his son, and his son's wife, wi re
dead. He (Sergeant Byles) did not think that the pri-
soner intended to injure Eliza Chestney. He gave the
butler a hint to get out of the way, which the other
very prudently took. He had proved malice and motive.
The fact of the murder was beyond dispute. There
was no one to whom suspicion could, by possibility,
attach except to the prisoner, for Jermy and Larner
had both been produced before the jury and examined.
The case, however, was before them, and he was quite
satisfied that they would do their duty to the prisoner
and their duty also to public justice and the Crown.
The JUDGE (turning to the jury)—lf I have an
mation from you, gentlemen, that you think your atten-
tbieofnories
you
tabned r
ethatul a nyou g cannotbours
of considerthe t
evening,he case
must, at any inconvenience, adjourn.
A juryman—We wish to go on.
afterwards, and
ytheimportant
ntthatwhich
the
I havejury
at prisoner—lt rkei
take
timedn eenrc—et.
oI t e iss
dveerr
casells mustbeen begi
ven formedin
thisene
should e
could do so so
,—Gentlemen of
ettthjohreueerifjYtiortyns Theyo firstu r °Pt
opinion
° ht
therefore, is to consider what
twhesee h now testimony
laims inquiry. We are inquiring
theßnarcoonmjmeLniceidShaiiild tehheisynrgis Ho said
anTdnuantdyerouwhmantscrlceuamm
liarcei ntaatnonnetoeh tsebe
circumstancesan y reasonable
itay maybe
doubt;
desirable bu t ,
from the testimony given in the
few preceding days. It
is detailed by a number of witnesses, and of the fact there
he murdercame a
by
y Isaac
his wJdeeriamethhy:
toas showfrom thhaet dPeeectiti-
took place, I shall call your attention to what each wit-
ness says on the subject. [The Learned Judge read
in succession the evidence of Watson, Eliza Chestney,
and Margaret Reed, the cook.] He then continued,
—That is the account of the murder given by the
three witnesses alluded to. It is confirmed by two
pieces of evidence put in on the part of the pro-
s( cution. I allude to the depositions of Mrs.
Jermy, one of the unfortunate sufferers, and
of Maria Blanchflower, the nurserymaid. Therefore,
you have now the account of five people, who were more
or less witnesses of what took place. Again, the testi-
mony of Edward Harvey, the young man who was called
ed
early on Friday, is not unimportant. (The Learn
Judge read the evidence.) The testimony of Heuer
Holmes differs from that of Harvey, in this respect, that
she did not see anything, and that when they got 145
yards they heard a sound like the slamming of a door,
and that when 200 yards away the sound was repeated.
I may say here, by way of anticipation, it being certain
that only four shots were fired, that the difference of the
witnesses prepares us for what human experience shows,
that when people are giving an account of transaction*
which excite them strongly, they never give the same
account of them. This is admirably illustrated by the
present case; and you, gentlemen, must not attribute)
the least importnice to such discrepancies. God knows if

a;