The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-30 00:00:00

THE SUN,

T\ 1-1 AT T witness to vvllo
4 I Eav,iy

to act as umpire. He woul i read to the House
opinion of the law officers of the Crown, which

sflov,- that the Government-had

up those hanks. The au_.
" whether the Conarnissionf.

National Debt had the power to e eat.ks?• au:
their answer was, " We are of opinion the t the Com-
missioners for the reduction of the national debt have
no power whatever to close the banks." That was the
opinion of Sir Frederick Thesiger, Sir Fitzroy
Kelly, and Mr. Tidd Pratt. Thus it was the
opinion of the law officers of the Crown, that
Government had no power whatever to close the banks;
and with that opinion, he thought it would be hence-
forward hard to say that it was the duty of the Go-
vernment to do that which they had no power to do.
That was in 1845. He might also observe that the
Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt,
had no duty whatever imposed upon them as to the
number of depositors; their only duty was to take ac-
count of the amount of the sums returned to them as paid
in, and to make a return of it. It was no part of their
duty to know whether the depositors were larger than
the Act of Parliament allowed. He would not at present
go farther into the matter than to repeat in conclusion,
that the House would do well not to proceed to the ap-
pointment of the Committee while the decision of the
Court of Law was pending.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said it had been stated to
those poor people, that they kad Government security
for their money, and now it was asserted by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer that they had no such security.
What, then, he would ask, were those poor people to do?
A great amount of suffering had been inflicted upon a
number of persons whose only fault was that they had
placed their trust in Government, a trust which, it ap-
peared, was a most mistaken one.
Mr. GROGAN said it appeared that the bank in
Cuffe-street was, in 1831, insolvent, and Mr. Tidd Pratt
had found that this had been the fact. The Govern-
ment were aware of the insolvency of the bank, and
they were, therefore, blameable in allowing the bank to
receive deposits from 1831 to 1847. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer suggested as an answer to the case, that
a retrial of the case ought to take place. How could
this be when the trustees resigned, and refused to recog-
nise the authority of Mr. Tidd Pratt to inquire into
the case. Then, again, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said that the Government were not liable for
the deposits in the bank in question. Now it ap-
peared that by the sth of George IV., that in the event
of the trustees of the bank not forwarding an annual
official account of the affairs of the bank to the
Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt,
then the Commissioners had the power to order that
no account should be opened, either in the Bank of Ire-
land or England, with these trustees. Now it appeared
that for years the accounts furnished by the Commis-
sioners were informal and defective, and yet they took
no steps to prevent this bank from carrying on its busi-
ness. This being so, the Government were undoubtedly
liable, in a moral point of view, for the money deposited
in the bank. Again, the Committee was opposed on the
ground that there was a legal point before the Courts of
Ireland in respt ct to the Dublin savings' banks. But,
long before that point could be decided many of these
poor depositors would be in a position to make it unim-
portant to them how the question would be settled in
Ireland. _ _ _ _„__

After a few words from Mr. MORRIS,
Mr.COWAN said that this was a very important
question, but he must say that neither morally nor le-
gally was the Exchequer of the country liable for the
losses sustained by the depositors in the banks in ques-
tion. At the same time it was the duty of the Govern-
ment to interfere to place the savings banks upon a
more stable basis than they now rested on.

Mr. W. KEOGH said that in the case of the Kerry
savings' bank the gentlemen connected with the batik
made good the deficiency upon all sums up to 201.
(Hear, hear.) He would further state, as better illus-
trating the difficulties which gentlemen resident in Ire-
land had to encounter, as well as to account for the ex-
tent of the public distress, that out of the rents paid in
that country, amounting to 34,0001., so much as 30,0001.
had to be transmitted to landlords resident in England.
—(Hear, hear.) Be thought the comments which had
been made on the conduct of the Learned Judge who
presided at the trial, which had been alluded to, were
most unfair. Mr. Tidd Pratt had stated, that the de-
fendant in the case had afforded him every facility for
inquiry, and he would ask how in such a case could the
defendant be held to be guilty of wilful default? He
could not believe, had he not heard it, that such an
answer as had been made could have been given by
her Majesty's Government, to the motion of the Hon.
Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds). It had been ar-
gued that the appointment of a Committee would inter-
fere with the proceedings now pending in Dublin, but he
thought such an objection extremely futile. It was next
alleged, as a reason against the appointment of the Com-
mittee, that there was no legal liability on the part of
her Majesty's Government. But who had said that the
Government had incurred any legal liability? If the
Government could be made legally liable, the depositors
would, no doubt, be advised to take proceedings to en-
force their rights. But if there was no legal liability he
would contend that the Government was morally re-
sponsible.—(Hear, hear.) But the Government had
neglected to use a power which the Act con-
ferred, and which would have been of the utmost mo-
ment to the public. By the 30th section of the Act of
3d William IV., it was provided that if the annual
returns were not made by a savings' bank, as directed
by the 9th of Geo. IV., a notification of such de-
fault should be made public in tho Gazette. No one
could doubt, had that provision been attended to, that
much mischief and loss to the public might have been
prevented. Another point he would call attention to
was, the circumstance that the actuary of a savings'
bank was called upon by the Act to enter into a bond;
and if that proviso had been attended to in the case of
the Killarney Savings' Bank, much loss to the deposi-
tors would have been prevented. Under all the circum-
stances, he thought a strong case for inquiry had been
made out, and the losses and injuries which had been in-
flicted upon a large class of depositors made it incum-
bent on the House to take the matter into their most
serious consideration.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said as the Hon. Gentleman who
bad just addressed the House had made reference to the
Government of 1844, he hoped to be able to give a
satisfactory explanation of the circumstances to
which the Honourable Member had alluded. He
would first observe, that it was quite natural his
Honourable Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Grogan)
should speak warmly on the subject; but it was impor-
tant that the House should take a calm review of the
case. He held that it was quite erroneous policy to
snake the Government responsible for anything that
was benevolent.—(Hear, hear.) Savings' banks had
been in existence before the Acts were passed, giving
Government a certain control, and that control was
given for the protection of the depositors, and net with
a view of Government being made responsible. The
distresses of the banks which had been alluded to by the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Keogh), did not commence in
1844, but in 1831. A course had been recommended to
the banks which, had they pursued, would have pre-
vented the consequences which had resulted. When it
had been explained to him that the banks had not fol-
lowed the course they were advised to pursue, he had
an inquiry instituted, and he found that the banks then
had the means of paying 18s. 63. in the pound, and he
accordingly advised the bank to close, and to make
the payment to the depositors to that extent.—
(Hear, hear.) The bank refused to do so, and then
legal advice was taken, as had been stated, when it was
found that the Government had not the power of closing
that bank. Perceiving, however, that the Archbishop of
Dublin was stated to be the president of the bank, ho
(Mr. Goulburn) accordingly wrote to the Archbishop,
requesting that he would use his influence to have the
bank closed, when the Archbishop wrote in reply that
he was ignorant 'that he had been appointed to such
an office, and could not interfere. The Right Hon. Gen.
timers then alluded to the charge which had been made
that the Government should, at all events, have closed
the account; but he denied that any good could have re-
sulted from their doing so, and that it would not have
had the effect which the Hon. Gentleman had antici-
pated. The only other important question was, whether
it would be expedient to appoint a Committee. The
Hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) had said that
a Committee, to make a general:inquiry into the state of
srvings' banks, would be very desirable, but that object
could not be obtained by means of the proposed Com-
mittee. It had been said that the pending legal pro-
ceedings should be no bar to the appointment of a Com-
mittee, and on that point he would observe that he had
no doubt the parties who had instituted legal proceedings
would not have the slightest objection to evidence being
taken before a Committee, as it would afford them an
opportunity of examining such evidence with a view to
supporting the legal proceedings which they had insti-
tuted.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the argument of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer an exceedingly good one.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that after what had been said,
as all the arguments were on his side of the question, he
was saved the trouble of replying.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 49
Against it
Majority
It was thus decided to add the amendment to the main
motion.
Upon our re-admission,
Mr. F. O'CONNOR observed that there were
strangers in the gallery, upon which it was immediately
cleared.
The discussion was continued with closed doors for a
considerable time.
On our re-admission the House had divided on the
main question, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 51
Against it
Majority

The motion was Consequently carried.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half• past Ten o'clock.

A full report of the trial of Rush will appear in
the Observer of Sunday. April 1, and of Monday, April
2. The extensive publication of the Observer com-
mences at five o'clock, Sunday morning ; the Mon-
day's edition (best for the country and abroad) at four,
Monday afternoon. A sixpence, or six postage stamps,
enclosed to Mr. Clement, junior, 170, Strand, will insure
a copy of the Observer by return of post. The Obser.
ver regularly reports the parochial matters of Maryle-
bone, Pancras, and Paddington.
THE NAVY Cum.—The members of the Navy
Club dined together last evening at the Thatched House
Tavern, St. James's-street. Admiral Sir Augustus
Clifford presided, supported by Sir Thomas Hastings,
Admiral Sir Thomas Cochrane, the Hon. Captain Hot-
ham, Captain Talbot, Captain E. Munday, Captain
Clifford, Captain Elliott, Captain Townsend, Captain
Johnston, Captain Eden, and Captain Milne.

TIT ,

1 P-~ FP
.L p jl.i.tJr

Tiii_AL OF RUSH.

Nortwion, THURSDAY.—From a very early early hour
this morning the Court-house was besieged at every
door by crowds of persons anxious to be present at the
trial of the prisoner, James Bloomfield Rush. The
court -was fixed to be opened at nine, but by half-past
seven the court was more than half filled, and by eight
o'clock it was crowded in every part. Among those
present were the Earl of Leicester, Lord-Lieutenant of
the county; the Lord Bishop of Norwich, Earl Cadogan,
Lord Hastings, the Marquis of Douro, Colonel Mason,
die High Sheriff of the county; J. J. Ireland, Esq.,
High Sheriff of Suffolk; Sir J. P. Boileau, Sir H. Dro-
nant, Mr. Bagge, M.P., Hon. W. Rufus Rous, Hon.
and Rev. Edward Pellew, Rev. Archdeacon Collyer, Sir
T. Beauvoir, Bart., Henry Dover, Esq., Chairman of
Quarter Sessions; Professor Sedgwick, Col. H. Fitzroy,
'Hon. E. Keppel Coke, M.P., Lord Huntingfield, William
Burroughes, Esq., M.P., &c.,
There was a ♦ery numerous array of barristers in
Court.

Mr. Sergeant Byles, Mr. Prendergast, and Mr. Evans
appeared for the prosecution.
Before the Judge entered, a model of Stanfield-hall
and of the Potash farm, very neatly executed, which lay
on the table before the bar, was regarded with a good
deal of curiosity, and served, in aid of the very general
conversation which was going on, to amuse the audience
till nine o'clock, when Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat on
the bench, and immediately after every other feeling was
absorbed in anxiety to see the prisoner. He was brought
into the dock in the custody of the Governor of the gaol,
and of a turnkey, and advanced with a firm but slouching
step to the bar, where he deposited a large bundle of
papers. His features were resolute and set, but his
hands trembled excessively, not only at first, but during
the day, so that it may be habitual. Without any at-
tempt at minute description, it may be said that Rush
is a powerfully made man, with strong but rather
coarsely moulded limbs, and below rather than above
the middle height. His shoulders, which are slightly
inclined forwards, support a short bull-neck, on
which a large and massive head, which a craniologist
would declare indicative of the possession of
strong animal passions and considerable intellectual
power, is firmly set in such a way as to render it rather
difficult for its owner to look straight before him. Ilis
mouth, and the general formation of his jaw and the
lower part of his face, betray great determination and
an unflinching will. He was dressed with care and
❑eatness in a suit of black and a white cravat; his gray
hair was carefully brushed, and his appearance alto-
gether that of a respectable yeoman.
The indictment was in the usual form, and charged
him with the murder of Mr. Jermy by shooting with a
pistol, &c. On being called on to plead, he said in a
firm and distinct tone, " Not guilty," and put in the same
answer to an indictment on the coroner's inquisition.
The prisoner having requested a few momenta to arrange
his papers, the swearing in of the jury was suspended
till he had done so. On one juror having been passed
over he asked, " Why, has he been challenged?" and
the clerk of the court informed him he was challenged by
the Crown.

The prisoner challenged one juror only, but after the
first two or three had been sworn said, turning to the
jury-box.—" There is one observation I should like to
make to those gentlemen; if they have anything on their
minds which might have any influence over their ver-
dict, I hope they will retire without my challenging
them, and let others take their place. If they have ex-
pressed any opinion as to the trial, they ought to du so.
I don't know how many of them there may be, but I
hope those who may be influenced will retire." The
jury having been sworn, after a pause, the prisoner said,
—" My Lord, I wish to make an observation before the
counsel makes his address."

Mr. Baron ROLFE—This is not the time at which you
can make any observation.
The prisoner—The evidence has been got up in such
an extraordinary way,—
Mr. Baron ROLFE—That is matter for observation
afterwards. I cannot hear it now.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES then proceeded to state the case
for the Crown, and, in doing so, necessarily went
over a great portion of evidence, some of which is
known to the public, and the rest of which
will be repeated in the course of the trial. The pri-
soner at the bar, said the Learned Sergeant, was in-
dicted for the wilful murder of Mr. Isaac Jermy, late
Recorder of Norwich. It was to be regretted he had not
thought fit to avail himself of the very able assistance
the bar of that circuit could have afforded him in con-
ducting his defence, but, as he had preferred to do so
himself, it would be doubly incumbent on the counsel for
the Crown not to produce any evidence as to the admis-
sibility of which the smallest doubt could exist, while
the Learned Judge who presided would take care the
prisoner's ignorance of the law should not prejudice him.
As they might naturally ask what motive the prisoner
could have for such a crime, it would be necessary, in
order to give a satisfactory answer, to go into the his-
tory of transactions some time back between the late
Mr. Jermy and the prisoner at the bar. The
deceased gentleman had been Recorder of Nor-
wich and a gentleman of fortune. Often had he
sat on the seat then filled by the Learned Judge
before them. His father, the Reverend Mr. Preston,
died in October 1837, and the deceased had taken the
name and arms of the Jermy family on coming to the
estate of Stanfield-hall. In the immediate vicinity of
the hall was the Potash-farm, of which, as well as of
Stanfield-hall farm, the prisoner had been the tenant.
The deceased had also two farms at Frelingham, at the
other side of Norwich—one of them occupied by the
prisoner, and the other by the prisoner's mother, since
deceased—so that he occupied four farms in all. In
1844 Mr. Jermy advanced to Rush considerable sums of
money on Potash by way of mortgage, and one of the
deeds connected with this transaction, dated the 20th of
September, 1844, would have a most important bearing
on the case. It set forth that 5,000/. was charged on
the estate by way of mortgage at 4 per cent., making an
annual charge of 200/.2 and was to run till November,
1848. The money became due on the 3Gth of Novem-
ber, 1848, The murder of Mr. Jermy took place on
Tuesday, November 28, just two days before. In the
prisoner's pocket-book was this entry,—" September 20,
Potash farm, interest due; principal due, Nov. 30,
1838"—the latter date being evidently a mistake for
1848. Soon afterwards disputes arose between Mr.
Jermy and Rush about the Stanfield-hall property, and
in October, 1847, the former put in some distresses, and
brought an action against the prisoner for miscultivation
of the farm, so that no good feeling existed on the pri-
soner's part towards the deceased. In fact, it would be
proved he had expressed himself with great hostility
towards the deceased, and declared " it would not be
long before he served Jermy with an ejectment for the
other world."
The prisoner—What are those words; will you repeat
them?

Mr. Sergeant BYLES did so.
The prisoner—That's the first time I ever heard of
them.
Mr. Baron R 0 FE—This is the statement of counsel ;
and what he says won't prejudice you unless it is proved.
You have a right to ask him anything if you don't hear,
but otherwise you had better not interfere.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES continued—lt would also be
proved that he said, 'speaking of Mr. Jermy and of Mr.
Clarke, a solicitor engaged in these proceedings, " ll—n
them; I will do for them the first opportunity I have."
This, however depended on verbal evidence, which was
not so satisfactory as written
,testimony, being liable to
be misunderstood at the time.
The prisoner—Who proves these words?
Mr. Sergeant BYLES—William Howe.
The prisoner—Who is he? I don't know him. how
is his name spelt?
Mr. Baron ROLFE—I cannot allow you to inter-
fere now.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES continued—The person who
would prove those expressions was clerk to a London
attorney. But the evidence he was now about to read
would not be subject to any such observations as the evi-
dence of which he had just spoken, inasmuch as it con-
sisted of passages from a pamphlet printed by Rush, and
purporting to be a report of the trial at Norwich on the
action brought by Mr. Jermy in March, 1848, and also
a case, "Jermy against Jermy, as to who is the right
owner of the Stanfield-hall and Frelingham Estates."
It might here be necessary to observe, that shortly after
the death of Mr. Preston persons named Lerner and
Jermy had laid claim to the estates in question. The
passages were as follows:—"Even if the villain had be-
haved as he ought to have done—to have acted with com-
mon honesty—l would never have done myself so much
good—not half so much, as if I had remained at Dow-
ling."
Prisoner—Will the whole of the pamphlet be read ?
I should like it certainly.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES assured him it would all be read
if he desired it. Another passage contained these
words :—" That fellow Jermy has no right to the
Stanfield-hall property. He knows it, and he knows
that I know it as well. His whole conduct in keeping
possession of the estate and taking the name of Jermy,
and his behaviour to the poor people who have a right
to the estate, have been most villanous and disgraceful
to any man with any pretensions to respectability, and I
shall be happy to prove it whenever I am called upon to
do so." And further on—" Why I have published this
is that some one who has money may come forward and
see justice done to this poor man Jermy, who is the
real owner, and who is only kept out of it by want of
means to employ counsel, and to have it brought to
trial." And again, " I hope some one will come for
ward and oust this fellow, who has not half as much
right to the property as I have. I hope this may be
done by the steps I have taken, and am
about to take." Again—" If there is truth in
the Bible, such villany is sure to be overtaken,
and that when it is least expected." There was also a
letter in the prisoner's handwriting, dated April 28,
1848, and addressed from the Angel, Islington, to his
son, in which he said—" I have at last got Jermy into
a fix, and the rogue and villain knows it well. How he
will act now we shall soon see. At all events ho now
knows if he attempts to ruin me I can ruin him, or you
would not have seen him as you have." (The prisoner
here, referring to the documents before him inquired
what number it was, and was informed by the Learned
Sergeant, who stated that the Crown had furnished
Rush with copies of all the papers used on behalf of
the prosecution.) In May following, the prisoner be-
came bankrupt, and a witness would prove that a meet-
ing took place between the prisoner and men named
Jermy and Lerner, the claimants already alluded to, on
October 3, at the prisoner's lodgings, No. 2, Milne-
street, Pentonville, when an agreement had been signed,
to which he would call their particular attention. The

Yu 'IOUS,

by itosh as governess for his eei!dren
ors bu pfAnt would be confiremci by a li

soner'sh tindwriting, dated Oc,c'her 2, 2.,0,1 9,1,1,
person named Reed, who seemed to be disposed to lend
his assistance to Lamer and Jermy in obtaining the
Stanfield-hall and Frelingham properties :
" Dear Sir,—l expect to be in town to-morrow, and as
I now think you have got a layer (sic in orig.) who will
do all in his power that justice may be done to Mr.
Jenny, I will let you and him know how far I am dis-
posed to assist you. You must bring Mr. Jermy up to
town, and you must bring Lanier, and his eldest son,
and Jermy to meet me at the house of a lady No. 2,
Milne-street, and I will at once tell you my plan—and
the only plan—by which you will ever get the estates.
* • "' No one is to know it but us end the lady who
is going to find the money to carry out our plan into
execution till afterwards. * * I will want Jermy
down to take possession on Wednesday."
At that meeting Emily Sandford was pointed out as the
lady who would find the money, and the result of tho
meeting was, that an agreement was written, in which
Jermy and Lanier agreed to let Rush have the Potash-
farm for 21 years, from October, 1848, at a rent of 2301.,
while on his part he agreed to put them into possession
of the estate, and assist them in maintaining it. Rush
at this time being in possession of Frelingham-farm, it
was arranged that Thomas Jenny should go down there
and be put in possession of it, and, aecordingly, on the
4th of October, he went over there, accompanied by
Lanier. Next day Emily Sandford returned from
London to the Potash.farin. On the 10th of October
Rush, accompanied by Emily Sandford, and a boy named
Savory, drove over, though it was so late that the night
was quite dark, to Stanfield-hall, and went in to see Mr.
Jermy, leaving Emily Sandford at the bridge leading across
the moat round the house. He could not state what took
place at the interview, but he returned to the Potash-
farm, while Emily Sandford proceeded to Norwich the
same night in the gig, and took lodgings at Stacey's, in
Theatre-street. This happened on the 10th. It would
be observed that Rush's interest in the farm would ex-
pire on the 30th. While she was there Rush asked her
to sign a paper, which purported to be a memorial of an
agreement by Mr, Jermy to let to James Bloomfield
Rush the farms lately occupied by him for 12 years for
3001. a year, reserving the right of shooting and the use
of bedroom and sitting-room to his son. She hesitated
to do so, but as Rush told her it was only a copy she put
her name to it as witness. Subsequently she became un-
easy at having done so, and kept a copy of a letter she
had addressed to him about it. He appeared angry with
her, and remonstrated with her for writing on such a
subject, and destroyed the copy. On the 4th of Novem-
ber she returned to the Potash-farm, and about the same
time Lanier and Jermy left Frelingham, where they had
nothing to do, and returned to London, against the will
of Rush, though he gave them money to go. On the 21st
of November the prisoner produced some more agree-
ments for Emily Sandford to sign, one dated the 10th of
October, purporting to be an agreement to let the 5,0001.
remain on the Potash-farm for three years beyond the
term of the original deed at 4 per cent., signed by Mr.
Jermy and the prisoner, and the other, dated the 21st,
by which Mr. Jermy was made to cancel the mortgage
altogether.

The prisoner—Let them all be read.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES stated that they would be read
hereafter, and then proceeded to call the attention of the
jury to this fact, that if Lamer and the other Jermy
were in possession, Rush had a lease of the farms for
21 years, and if the deceased Recorder were, he had in
his possession two agreements,—one cancelling the
mortgage altogether, and the other extending the period
of the mortgage. As the latter were forgeries, they
would be much more likely to take effect after than be-
fore his death. About this time the prisoner was in the
habit of going out after dark, and on Friday, the 24th
of November, and on Monday, the 27th, as well as on
previous occasions, ho went out at night, and remained
away for some time. Oa the Tuesday following there
was a concert at Norwich, for which the prisoner bought
a family ticket; and en Sunday his son and daughter-
in-law went to that city, as did also a female servant,
leaving Rush and Emily Sandford the only persons in
Potash-farm, the Monday following. On Tuesday, the
28th of November, about half-past tour o'clock, it would
be proved by a Mrs. Cooper that Rush inquired whether
Jermy was at home. He dined that day at the usual
hour. He inquired what time it would be ready, and
on Emily Sandford replying " Very soon," he observed
he would have just time to go into the garden and dis-
charge his gun. He did so, and returned to dinner. At
the usual hoar he sat down to tea. Emily Sandford ob-
served he was agitated, and in answer to her inquiries he
said he had been thinking a great deal about the story of
the Scotch Chief, alluding to the well-known story of
Robert Bruce before Bannockburn, who, on observing a
spider fall six times in endeavouring to gain a beam in
the ceiling, and succeed the last, said, " Well, I have
failed several times, I will try now again, and I dare say
I shall succeed." " And," said the prisoner, " I too
have tried five or six times. I may succeed in my object
this time also." She expressed her alarm, and asked him
what ha meant? but he only replied, " I shall like you
better if you don't ask me now." He was in tears at the
time. Some time between seven and eight o'clock he
went out. Emily Sandford heard, but did not see him go.
And here it would be necessary to remark, that the path
leading to Standfield-hall from the Potash-farm had
been covered over with fresh straw by the command
of the prisoner some days before, up to the commence-
ment of the greensward, so that no impression of a foot
could be visible from the farm up to the hard gravel
outside of Mr. Jermy'a residence. About the same time
Mr. Jermy was sitting alone in his dining-room. Ilis
son and daughter-in-law were in the drawing-room pre-
paring for a game at picquet. (The Learned Sergeant
here accompanied his description by references to the
model, which made the whole of the awful occurrence
plain enough to the spectator, but would only embarrass
a reader.) Mr. Jenny left the dining-room and pro-
ceeded to the hall-door. The moment he opened it and
came into the porch before it some person discharged a
gun or pistol, loaded with slugs, at him, blowing his
heart nearly to pieces and breaking several of his ribs.
He fell, and instantly expired. Immediately after this,
a man of the size, shape, and carriage of the prisoner,
with a cloak and fire-arms—whether a short gun or
guns, or a brace of double-barrelled pistols, he would not
attempt to say—entered by a door on the same side of
the house, but further down than the hall-door, and
proceeded along the passage, in which he dropped two
papers, to which he would hereafter call their
attention. In his way he encountered the butler,
whom he pushed back into the pantry. Mr.
Jermy, junior, also came out of the drawing-
room to learn the cause of the report. He
encountered this man at the door leading into the hall.
The man again presented his fatal weapon, it was
discharged, and Mr. Jermy, jun., fell down dead in the
hail. Mrs. Jermy was at this time in the drawing-
room. She left it, and, proceeding towards the hall,
passed over or by the dead bociyfof her husband. She
screamed for help. Her maid (Eliza Chestney) ran to
her, and, taking hold of her by the gown, exclaimed—
" Oh, my dear mistress!" At this moment the man,
who had proceeded into the dining room, returned from
it, and saw the women in the hall. He presented a
pistol, with a little inclination downwards, and the shot
hit the servant in the leg. He fired again, and hit Mrs.
Jermy in the arm. He then proceeded along the pas-
sago, and went out by the same door at which
he had entered, but not till some observations
were made by him, and which they would hear
in a future stage of the proceedings. About nine
o'clock the prisoner at the bar was heard at his own
door. lie knocked and Emily Sandford went to the
door, opened it, but did not see him come in. He
went up to his own room, and, after a short inter-
val, returned down stairs without his shoes, with
his stockings about his legs and his coat off, and ad-
dressing Emily Sandford, said, " If any inquiry should
be made, say I was not out more than ten minutes."
Emily Sandford slept that night in her own room, for
the first time during a long period, as among other mis-
fortunes that had befallen her, was an improper con-
nexion between her and Rush. He told her to do so.
Meantime messengers had been dispatched to Norwich
from Stanfield-hall, and the police were at once sent to
watch Rush's house. They reached the Potash-farm about
twQ or three o'clock. Whether Rush observed them or
not he could not say, but about half-past two o'clock Rush
rapped at Emily Sandford's door, and desired to be let
in. She opened it, and he said to her, " Now, you be
firm. Say I was only out about ten minutes last night."
She became extremely agitated. She questioned him,
but could learn nothing further than that " she
should hear further in the morning." She ob-
served also that his hands trembled violently.
Her hand trembled also, and the prisoner remarking
it, said he thought she must have the ague, and went for
a cloak to cover her. The police continued their watch
till towards morning. They then apprehended the pri-
soner; and it was deserving of attention that some of
the police would depose that he mentioned the hour at
which Mr. Jeraiy's murder took place, although it had
not been previously mentioned. The direct evidence
against the prisoner would be that of Eliza Chestney,
Watson, the
.butler, and Reed, the cook at Stanfield-hall.
Another species of direct evidence was contained in the
papers left by the man in the hall. They were in a large
disguised hand, written on the outside covers of a book,
and were as follows:—" There are seven of us—three
outside and four inside the hall—all armed. If any of
you attempt to leave the premises you will be shot dead.
Therefore all of you keep in the servants' hall, and you
shall not be touched. (Signed) J. JEeMY, the owner."
The object of these papers was to make it be be-
lieved that the parties who perpetrated the outrage
were Jenny and another man ; but both Jermy
and Lanier had returned to London before that
time. Persons well acquainted with the prisoner's
handwriting would inform them that the writing of the
notices was that of the prisoner, though evidently
disguised. The paper on which they were written had
formed apparently the covers of a book, and among the
prisoner's property had been found two books, the covers
of which were nearly similar. (The covers were of
marbled paper, of a quarto size, and on the centre of
each was a printed label, with the name, &c., of the ma-
kers and the nature of the account-book.) The book-
sellers in question, Messrs. Garrard, would tell them
that they were in the habit of selling such books in sets
of three, and on the covers on which the notices had been
written the printed labels had been scratched off, so that
it would have been impossible to say what had been on
them. It was equally impossible to say what Rush had
done with the contents of the third book. It would be
proved he went up stairs with his books, and that he
came down without them. It would be easy, however, to
destroy the insides of the book by an ordinary fire. The
jury would meantime require a satisfactory answer from
the prisoner as to where he was and what he was doing
on the night in question. Meantime it would be
his duty to state how the evidence of Emily
Sandford was corroborated. She stated that Rush told
her he kept his pUpers in a secret place, known.
only to his mother and to himself ; the posp