The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-09 00:00:00

HAINES v. ILI7THERFORD.

The plaintiff in this action was lately the landlord of
the Mortimer Arms Hotel, in Tottenham-court-road.
The claim was for Si. Os. 6d. for goods sold, and 2/. for
money lent.
The defendant pleaded that he was never indebted.
Mr. BAGLEY, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that
the defendant was a student at law, and was a young
gentleman from the West Indies, and was in the habit
of using the plaintiff's. Some little difficulty always
existed to prove the delivery of each article, but it was
particularly so in this case, as the plaintiff had gone into
quite a different line of business, and had mislaid his
books. He (the Learned Counsel), however, could not
conceive what possible defence the defendant could have,
for he had applied for and obtained a judge's order to
stay proceedings on payment of debt and costs. The
good-, c, nsisting of port, sherry, claret, cigars, &c., were
supplied in August and September, 164:5, and in October
two or three letters were written, in which the defendant
apologised for the non-payment, and said he had been
" trusting to friendship of others and had been disap-
pointed," " that he was involved through having lent his
signature to a friend," but he fondly hoped that he
should soon be able to pay, so that the plaintiff should
have no further reason to regret that he had trusted his
honour.

These letters were put in and proved.
'Witnesses were called who proved the orders and de-
livery of great part of the wine, tic,c., and a general sup-
ply of cigars, &c. _ _ _

Mr. CLARKE, the defendant's attorney, put in a notice
to produce the books, which, however, w re not forth-
coming. Ile then addressed the jury, and said that the
defendant had put in an affidavit in which he denied
that he owed the money. When the writ was served
no particulars were given, and a judge's order was ob-
tained, and, after some delay, the case went on without
particulars being furnished, and ultimately an affidavit ,
was made that the plaintiff had torn out two of I
the leaves of the book containing the defendant's
account, in order to send them to Mr. Salomon,
his solicitor, but that they were lost in the transit. and
be had since mislaid the booki. This was a very impro-
bable story, and that in a case where the evidence was
doubtful, and regular entries in the books might have
confirmed it, their absence was a very suspicious cir-
cumstance ; to tear out leaves from a book, to say the
least of it, was an act of great folly on the part of a
tradesman. He also produced a bill of exchange for
25/, dated August, 1845. due in November, but witnesses
had spoken to larger dealings previously to the present
account.

The UNDER SHERIFF said defendant's affidavit denying
the debt could not be received in evidence, bat left it to
the jury to say whether the witnesses had proved the
delivery of the goods to their satisfaction ; as to the bill
it might have been given for other goods, or on quite a
different matter, at all events defendant had not pleaded
payment. which he might have done, and given evidence
on the point.
The jury almost immediately gave a verdiet for the
amount claimed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice CoLERIDGE.)
STEALING A. LETTER Alfred Triggs, aged 27, a
postman, was indicted for stealing a latter containing a
cheque on the Union Bank, for 131. 2s. 6d., the property
of the Postmaster-General.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Clarksnn, and Mr. Bodkin
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Payne for the
prisoner.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case to the jury.
He said, on the Ist of February it was the duty of the
prisoner to deliver letters in the Covent-garden district.
On that day the Rev. John Fletcher posted a letter
to Mr. Haynes, secretary to the Clerical Club, No. 13,
Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, containing a crossed
cheque for 131.25. 6d. on the Union Bulk. The letter
never reached its destination. The cheque was presented
at the Union Bank, but as it was crossed and not payable
except through a banker's clearinghouse, payment was
refused, and the cashier wrote across it, " Cross and
C 0.," to denote that it was a crossed cheque, and that
payment had been refused. He could not, however.
identify the prisoner. On the 10th of March the pri
soner pledged a frock coat and a pair of shears at Mr.
Fleming's, in St. Martin's-lane, for ss. 6d. Shortly after I
the shopman searched the pockets of the coat, and found
the letter, in which the cheque had been enclosed, in
the breast pocket. Mr. Fleming at once informed the
Post-office authorities of the circumstance, and the pri-
soner was taken into custody. He admitted pawning
the coat, and said he purchased it a day or two before
from a Jew, in Monmouth-street, whose shop he did not
recollect ; but it appeared that the coat was in his pos-
session some time before theioccurrence. The letter was
not within the district of the prisoner, but in that of a
person named Wells, who was at the time delivering
letters at that part of the town, but the prisoner
offered to deliver it, and Wells, who could speak
to the letter, entrusted it to him. These were the simple
facts of the case. In his opinion they proved that the
prisoner was guilty of the offence imputed to him.
Witnesses having testified to the ;acts stated by the
Learned Attorney-General,
Mr. PAYNE addressed the jury on behalf of the pri-
soner, and contended that the evidence was too slender
to convict his clienteof so serious a charge.
Mr. Justice COLIFRIDGE summed up the evidence with
the utmost care, and the jury, after a short deliberation,
returned a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was sen-
tenced to ten years' transportation.
The prisoner had been three years in the service of the
Post-office. Several unopened letters, of some days old,
were found at the prisoner's lodgings.
THE MURDER IN SHOREDITCH.
Immediately after Thomas Brooks, aged 21, and
described as an umbrella-maker, was placed at the bar,
and indicted for the wilful murder of William Gabart,
by shooting him on the 17th of March last.
The prisoner seemed borne down by the weight of the
awful charge against him. He looked wretched and
care-worn, and immediately after he was placed at the
bar he placed his handkerchief to his eyes and burst
into tears. lie is of a very spare figure, and has a
very youthful appearance. Certainly, looking at him in
the dock, we would hardly imagine that he could commit
so fearful a crime as that of murder.
Mr. Clerk and Mr. Robinsen appeared for the prose-
cution, and Mr. Clarkson defended the prisoner.
Mr. CLERK briefly stated the case for the prosecution,
and recapitulated the details, which have recently and at
length appeared in The Sun. It would be for the
jury to say, after hearit"e the evidence, whether the
prisoner was guilty of murder or of manslaughter. He
then called the following witnesses :
Richard Eaton, tin-plater, 3, Cock-alley, Shoreditch,
recollected Wednesday the 17th of March being near
Bare-alley. He went there about ten minutes to ten
James Vadkins and the deceased were with
him. By the desire of the deceased he went and called
on the prisnner, Be
down, as he had told
called
Tom, and the prisoner came
to him. (the d him the deceased wanted to speak
tickets ohis thingr
which aeked the prisoner for the
he would not give them Ite,,lhhe had in his box. He said
; and, 111):.a until he had paid him the
money he owed hhn
he should even give them to liaddedi he did not know
; adding further,
themawinute he would put
that if the deceased stopped therare
a bullet in him. He (witness) thena
" That he would not stop there to beAsleirenowtt aatw."ayieseawyjenngt
to his lodgings in the next court.
he heard the report of a gun. Ile went stairsdraoni'nnu‘les fter
hurried to the house in which the prisoner res'lat
the door of which he found the deceased lying in a
of blood. He did not see the prisoner there, u5171?'
went for a doctor.
Cress-examined by Mr. CLARKSON—He simply went
at the request of the deceased. in order that he might
call the prisoner down to speak to him (the deceased).
He did not go to annoy the prisoner, with whom he
never had an angry word. On his oath he did not
expect a row, and he did not go there for the purpose of
Creating one.
By the COURT—Ha saw a young woman sitting down
at the prisoner's door.
James Vadltins, alad, was next examined—Knew the
deceased. Recollected Wednesday evening, the 17th of
:March. He was at the top of Clare-alley about ten
o'clock that night. The prisoner, the deceased, and Eaton
were there. They were all close together. Heard
y to the prisoner " I'll give you
ead." The prisoner said, "If you stop
ill put a bullet in you." No blows
e were armed. The deceased had his
,te The prisoner then went in. He
ied at the top of the court with the de-
.msed was going down the court, and he
Don't go down, you'll be shot." He
lave I to be afraid of ?" He did, how-

—,..
ever, go down, and called "Tom"
at the prisoner's
Immediately after a gun was fired. He sawthe
and heard the noise. As nearly as
he could guess, the
door.
flash,
he had mentioned
d—We found those
firing took place about ten minutes after the prisoner
threatened to shoot the deceased.
Cross-examine
in the court. looked that they
angrilye y
the brother of Richard
Eaton said e was
if they had been qaarrelling.
The deceased andlie did
se nroitsoknneorw
at the top of Hare-alley on
other, and
Eaton. Recollected.
n His brother, the deceased, and
the night appeared.
being
say, if you stop there a minute I will
the prisoner
the prisonerinwqeureest,th,i°e_r_e.. When he came up he heard
nothing
lodging
d
Hiss
in reply.H went e
awayhea t o heard
put
hroytiii)eurr
ohne head."
'
leaving him (witness) and the deceased in the court,
The prisoner went into the house he lived in and went
up stairs. They iwitness and deceased) went down the
court and stopped at the prisoner's door. The next mo-
ment the deceased was shot on the threshold of the door.
He had nut said a word. The deceased instantly fell
and died. Immediately after the report he saw the pri-
soner with the gun in his hand.
Mary Jarvis, jun„ said she lived with ber mother in
Hare-alley, in the same house as the prisoner. They
lived on the third floor. The prisoner lived higher up.
She had kept company with the prisoner. Sha was
sitting at the door of the house on the night of the lith.
Eaton came to the door several times, and called the
prisoner, saying " Come down; I a ant to speak to you."
He came down, and they went together to the top of the
court, about six yards from the door. No one else was
at the top of the court at the time. Some words passed
between them, and she heard Eaton say " God
strike me dead." That was all she could recol-
lect. She went into the house and came out
again immediately after. She then saw the
deceased standing at tte top of the court. Saw the de-
ceased strike at the prisoner, and hit him on the forehead
several times. Gobart challenged the prisoner to come
out and fight him, but the prisoner said it was not worth
his while to do so. She then went towards Shoreditch,
but stopped on her way, and saw about half-a-dozen at
the top of the court. Heard Dick Eaton and some of
them say, " if they could get a good bullet they would
blow his (the prisoner's) bloody brains out, or blow his
b—g nose off." Gobart said, " No, if I had a knife
I'd stick it in his b---g guts." They then all went
into Cock-court ; she then went into Shorediteh, and
immediately after heard the report of a gun, but she
could not tell by whom it was tired. When she came
back she saw Gobart lying on the ground. She went
up to her mother's room, and found the prisoner there,
with his hands stained with blood. He threw his arms
round her neck, and exclaimed, " I have done it ; I
have done it." He had a gun in his possession.
Cross-Examined.—When Dick Eaton came down the
court he was alone. Asked the prisoner if he should say
that be was there, and he said " No, don't tell them that,
as I shall go up stairs and come down again." Dick
Eaton swore at the prisoner, and d—d his eyes, and
said he would have the prisoner's life some time or other.
Mary Jarvis, the mother of the last witness, stated
that the prisoner came to her door and opened it.
He exclaimed " Where is she—where is she?" She
added, " You know very well where she is." He then
ran down stairs, and immediately after she heard the
report of a gun, and she at first thought he had shot her
daughter. When he came first she did not see the gun
in his possession. After the report he ran up stairs into
her room, took hold of her arm, and exclaimed, " I have
done it—l have done it." He repeated this to her hus-
band, who was present. Her daughter ran in and ex-
claimed, " Oh, Tom, what have. you done !" He made
no reply, and fell on her neck and kissed her. A con-
!' stable came and took him him into custody.
Cross-examined—When he first came he did not
appear flushed or excited. Her daughter slept with
her.

Joseph Brooks, a boy, the prisoner's brother, said he
lived in the same room as his brother. While he was in
bed his brother came into the room. He heard some
one run up the stairs before he came. He did not see
what he did, as it was dark. There was a gun in the
room. His brother remained in the room two or three
minutes. There was a powder flask in his brother's
box -when he went to bed. Soon after he heard the re-
port of a gun, about a minute or two after.
Police-constable, 201 H—Was on duty near Hare •
court on the night in question. His attention was
called to the spot by shouts. He found the deceased on
the ground dead, and a ramrod near him. He went up
stairs and found the prisoner on the first floor with a guu
in his posy-ssion. He was about giving it up to some
person. The prisoner's father was there. The father
made some remark about what he had done, to which
the prisoner replied, "I hays had my revenge ; he has
injured my mother and sisters, and I have been re-
venged. If I had not done it he would have killed me."
Told the prisoner that Gibart was dead, and took him
into custody. He made no resistance. Found some
bullets upon him.
Inspector Harris deposed that the prisoner stated, at
the station, " If I had not done it, perhaps they would
have murdered me. Two of them threatened to drag me
out ten minutes before."

Mr. R. Hanoch, surgeon, High-street, Shoreditch,
said he was called to see the deceased. He found him
lying in the passage. He was quite dead. The wound
he had received caused instantaneous death.

This was the case for the Prosecution.
Mr CLARKSON then proceeded to address the jury on
behalf of the prisoner. He said, although they might
not exactly understand the difference, in the eye of the
law, between manslaughter and murder, yet it was
clearly defined amongst those who followed the profes-
sion of the law; and to him it clearly appeared that the
prisoner was not guilty of murder, but of the lesser
crime of manslaughter ; for when they reviewed the
wriole of the facts which had transpired in the course
of the inquiry, they could not fail to be of opinion that
the prisoner had been irritated by the deceased and
others, and that, considering that he and others in-
tended to do him some grievous bodily harm, he felt that
he was but defending his life in what he had
done. They could not fail to be struck that this
was the actuating motive in the prisoner's mind at the
time he committed the rash act. It was most remarkable
that they had not heard until to-day of the expression
which the prisoner used with respect to his sister.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE desired Mrs. Jarvis to be
called. She stated that the prisoner's sister had coha-
bited with the deceased for about twelve months before
the occurrence. She did not know that any ill-feeling
subsisted between the prisoner and the deceased with
respect to this intimacy.
Mr. CLARKSON said it was a lamentable fact that per
sons in the class of life of the prisoner were frequently
in the habit of living together like the deceased and the
prisoner's sister. But was it a wonder that so much
immorality existed, when houses, like that in which the
prisoner lived, were parcelled out in single roonv; to
whole families, and that where, as in this case, the father,
and mother, and daughter, who was grown up, all
resided in one room, that great laxity of morals prevailed.
But there was no reason to presume that the young
woman, Maly Jarvis, cohabited with the prisoner. She
herself had denied it. Let them look at the facts
adduced. The prisoner was found at his residence at '
ten o'clock at night; he was called out by Eaton, be-
lieving,
no doubt, that he was alone; he was induced to go
to the top of the court, where he was abused, aimed at
by the decease], and struck on the head by him. Lis
temper was thus naturally aroused, fur he had been irri-
tated, and struck, and threatened, and it was equally
natural th it he should resent t uch conduct by defending
hanself. Maddened, and fearin. that he was in danger.
he rushed into the house, seised' his guu, and shot the
deceased. There was considerable discrepancy between
the statements of the various witnesses with respect to
the time which elapsed between the threat of the pri •
soner and the reportof the gun. It was just probable that
when they said ten minutes elapsed, only three or four
might really have elapsed. Nothing was more falla-
cious than evidence with respect to brief portions of
time. It would be for them, therefore, to consider
whether the deceased and others had or had not so ir-
ritated and goaded the prisoner as to render him not the
master of his actions—whether he was or was not in

hat state of mind which the law required to constitute

manslaughter. It was a most melancholy occurrence,
buz, he could not help thinking that the deceased was the
author of his own death, and thst they could not, on
their consciences, convict the prisoner of the high crime
of murder. No doubt the deceased and the other young
men concerted together for the purpose of goading the
prisoner, and of leading him into violence, and that
he was induced to come out in order that they might
annoy him, lle was not there to justify or to excuse
the act of the prisoner. He had been guilty of a
grievous act of violence ; but, looking at the whole of
the case, he apprehended that they could not convict
him of murder. Nothing had been adduced to show
that the prisoner loaded the gun for the purpose of
shooting the deceased. He had been shooting rats in
the cellar a short time before ; and it was
possible that he might have left the gun loaded in
his bed-room, and taken it up in a fit of despe-
ration. It was equally possible that the deceased
simply came to the door for the purpose of frightening
the deceased and others with the gun, and that a
struggle ensued between him and the deceased for the
possession of the gun, and that the ram-rod fell out and
I the gun went off and killed the deceased. The Learned
Couns I concluded by an earnest appeal to the jury on
behalf of the prisoner.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE then elaborately and carefully
summed up the evidence, and clearly explained to the
jury the difference between murder and manslaughter.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at twenty
minutes after three.
The jury returned into court at a quarter to four with
a verdict of Manslaughter.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE sentenced the prisoner, in the
aanrfluseerAtevsniethei tear
most impressive manner, to be transported for life.
4 thT he prisoner sobbed bitterly during the passing of
\ su e
s. was led away in a helpless state,

pleada
(Before the Px
into the preinises ofitViiE3hat: COURT.
z)iyitation.
iviniam nen,,..yoTarica and Mr. Alderman HUNTER.)
hums, and stealing
t., weight of fl.ck, value 31.
Thomas Guilty to breaking
37
11::st,a employer, Mr. James IVil-
Sentenced to seven years'
to stealing a coat,
Thomas Gardner pleadeadn
~%°tter._S,ntonc©d to
value 10s., the property of JaraealL'Y
six months' imprisonment with hartlta7
George Barr, ag: d 19, pleaded Gpraoi(i)tuirtto stealing a
brass window guard, value 255., the
Reeves. The prisoner had been formePrlyytr9terds:lidutfl-
ferent charges, and acquitted.
The Learned RECORDER, in passing sentence of seven
years' transportation, said that he intended that this
individual should be sent out of the country, and be sub-
jected to the mildest form of transport punishnaput; that
was, as he understood, that a ticket of leave should be
given him for the term of his sentence, and that he
should be employed in the operations of husbandry or
as a shepherd. Some papers had been sent to him
(whence they came he knew not), shuwing that employ-

merit in this way could be given to above ten thousand
persons.
George Yarnold, aged 40, oilman, pleaded Guilty to two
several acts, charging him with stealing 39 pieces of
stained paper, the property of Mr. John Knight, and
30 pieces of paper, the property of Robert Denton.
The Learned JUDGE said that it had long been the
practice of the prisoner to rob from boys the property
which had been entrusted to them to carry home, and
where he could not do this he bad in many cases corrupted
and induced them to steal from their employers. One boy
with whom he was thus infamously successful was at
present undergoing a year's imprisonment. The sentence
was that he be for the first offence sentenced to seven years'
transportation, and for the second offence to seven years'
more, the latter term of punishment to commence at the
expiration of the first. _

John Donne, aged 25, a draper, pleaded Guilty to steal-
ing eighteen yards of silk, the property of his master,
Charles Terry.—Sentenced to a year's imprisonment
wit h hard labour.

Thomas Avery, a boy of 14, pleaded Guilty to stealing
a shilling from his master, Thomas Leonard.—To be
imprisoned for a month.

The RECORDER--If you come here again you will be
thoroughly well whipped.—(Laughter.)
The remainder of the morning was passed in hearing
similarly trivial charges.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
IN THE CASE OF BARTHOLOMEW BENIOWSXL
The ASSISTANTJUDGE said an application had been
formerly made for the postponement of this case, and he
wished now to ask what course the partiQs intended to
adopt on the present occasion. Was the counsel for the
prosecution in attendance ?

Major Beniowski—l wish for no postponement, my
Lord. I mean to defend myself, and I am quite ready
now.

Mr. FILER, on the part of the prosecution, wished for
a short adjournment, in order that Mr. Bodkin, who
was at present engaged at the Central Criminal Court,
might have time to attend.
The JUDGE—Then I shall take another case, which
will occupy the Court for about half an hour.
The deputy-clerk of the peace having read the indict-
ment charging the defendant with an assault upon
David Urquhart,
The defendant pleaded not guilty ; when
Mr. FILER (Mr. Bodkin not having arrived at the
expiration of the stipulated time) opened the case and
said this was an indictment for an assault of a most
aggravated nature, and one which, if the facts were fully
stated before the committing magistrates, might have
assumed a much more serious character, and then stated
the facts elicited in the following evidence :
Mr. BODKIN, having at length arrived, proceeded to
examine the prosecutor, who stated that his name was
David Urquhart, and that he had resided at 28, Clarges-
street, and had bee❑ secretary of embassy at Constan.
tinople. He had a residence near Southampton, and
whenever he came to London stopped at 15, St. James's-
place. He had written many articles fur the press, as
well as in the form of pamphlets, upon various subjects,
and any person who wished to find out his address
could have easily done so by inquiring at his pub-
lisher's. He had been much connected with the
Association of the Friends of Poland, and was present
at the late meeting at the Freemasons' Tavern on the
the subject of the annexation of Cracow. Previous to
that day he had not known the defendant personally,
but he was aware of his character by public report. He
(the defendant) was a Polish Jew by birth, and had been
in the service of Russia. After the meeting at the Free-
masons' Tavern was over, and as he (witness) was going
through the vestibule the defendant cane up to him with
the air of a man who felt grateful to him for having spoken
in favour of his country, as he (witness) had made a speech
that day on moving a resolution, and took hold of his
hand, and asked for a few moments' conversation with
him. When he heard that his name was Beniowski he
walked away from him The witness then detailed the
facts of the assault, which are already familiar to the
public from the report of the preliminary investigation
at Bow-street.
Cross examined by Mr. WYLD (who in the interim
had been engsged by defendant)—lle had not been
politically engaged since his return from Constanti-
nople. There was a cause for his quitting that situation.
That cause was the fact of his having countenanced the
voyage of the Vixen to the Black Sea. He had not
been employed since, but he believed the reasons why
he had not were groundless. He had not made any
charge stating that Lord Palmerston and Mr. Cobden
were in the pay of the Emperor of Russia.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said he did not see what
light the jury could derive from any arrangements
between the Emperor of Russia, Lord Palmerston, or
Mr. Cobden.
Cross-examination resumed.—He had no occasion to
look out for his livelihood since his employment had
ceased in 1837, as he had an independent property.
Whenever he sent any communications to the newspapers,
he invariably attached his name and address to them. He
had written leading articles, but, as a matter of course,
his name did not appear to them. A work had been
published at Glasgow, in which the name of the defen-
dant had been used. He had on many occasions said
the defendant was a spy, but in any observations he made
upon him, he only alluded to him in his public character,
as one of a class of agents who are employed, or may be
employed, or looking for employment, from Russia, in
this and other countries. One of his grounds for con-
cluding the defendant to be in pay, was, that he was ex-
ceedingly active in exciting the people to revolution in
England, and had been the chief organiser of the Chartist
conspiracy. His (defendant's) name was struck off the
Polish list by the English Government. Another reason
why he believed the defendant to be a spy was, because
he had published a work instructing the people as to the
best means of defending themselves against the military.
Mr. BODKIN re-examined the witness, he said when
that after his return from Constantinople, he was pre-
sented to her Majesty at the Drawing-room, by Lord
Palmerston, to prevent any unfavourable impression
from resting on his character, in consequence of his recall
from the embassy at Constantinople. With respect to
his (defendant's) relation towards the Poles, he (witness)
spoke upon the authority of Lord Dudley Stuart, and
he was authorised to state so. In 1839 he was invited

to stand for the borough of Marylebone, and in conse-
quence he had much communication with the leading
Chartists of London, and he wag borne out in his
opinions of Beniowski by what he was told by them.
The Rev. Hamilton Grey confirmed the statements of
the prosecutor with respect to the facts of the assault.
The police-constable, who took the defendant into
ca,tudy, and the surgeon who attended Mr. Urqhart,
having been examined,

Mr. WILD addressed the jury at great length for the
defendant, dwelling strongly on the great provocation he
had received in being denounced as a spy.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE summed up the evidence.
After a short consultation, the foreman of the jury rose
and said we are obliged to find the defendant Guilty.
Sentence was deferred to the next session, the de-
fendant being admitted to bail on his own recognizanees.

ee de .sed say-
a pad hea
thern-it;...10 to I w
wera none
han4o fie:. 8 kel
" air; ec
ceasti •ee decea
"E
to 70.' hat ha
_ I s