The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SA FURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1841.

payable by Messrs. Daintry, Ryle, and Co., of Manchester,
and of the surplus of the separate estates of Messrs. J.
Wells, sen., and F. Whitmore. Should the hopes of the
assignees in respect to these be realised, the creditors will
probably receive a further and better dividend.

GARRY AND CURTIS'S BANKRUPTCY.
A second dividend was declared to the creditors under
this bankruptcy to-day, the parties to which were en-
gaged in the Baltic trade. The junior partner has filled
the chair of the Bank of England, and was for a long
period one of the Directors of that establishment. The
dividend is expected to amount to between 6d. and 7d.,
and will, with the former dividend declared (2s. 2d.),
make a total dividend of 2s. Bd. and a fraction, announced
payable by this estate. The creditors will,receive notice
of the time of payment in regular course.

CRIMINAL COURT:-THIS DAY
OLD COURT.
TRIAL OF THE PACKARDS.

John Richard Packard, Joseph Packard, and Alfred
Kennett, were placed at the bar, and indicted for killing
and slaying Michael Aungier.
In our Afternoon Edition of yesterday we gave the
case for the prosecution, we now proceed to lay before
our readers the defence :
Mr. CHAMBERS then addressed the Jury in behalf of
John Packard, and, after expressing his satisfaction that
the present unprecedented case had come to be tried be-
fore one of the Judges of the land, proceeded to quote
Justice Foster on homicide, and contended that in
order to make the case culpable homicide it must
appear that what the prisoners were engaged in was
nsalum in se. The allegations of the indictment were, he
contended, not proved. It alleged that the prisoners did
administer to one Alicha,el Aungier, certain quantities of
spirituous liquors, &c., such liquors so taken being then
and there likely to procure his death, and which the said
prisoners then and there well knew. Therefore, before
the Jury could convict, they must be satisfied that
the prisoners administered these spirits to the deceased,
and that at the time they administered them they well
knew that it would cause his death. Now, not only
was it not proved that such was the case but
he did not think that any one who had heard the evidence
could for a moment believe that the three young men at
the bar had any idea that what the officer was taking
at the supper-table would cause his death. The indict-
ment then went on to allege that they had forced the de-
ceased to go into the cab, and had driven him about,
thereby causing his death. They must be satisfied that
the administering the spirits and the driving about
caused his death. If there was another cause such as
the administration of solid food, or another cause effusion
of water on the brain, or another cause adhesion of the
dura mater to the skull conducing to his death, then they
could not final that the death 'vas solely owing to the
causes laid in the indictment. In allusion to the answer
of the surgeon relating to the danger of dinner parties, he
would ask, was a personwho at the festive board induced
a friend to take a glass more than would do him good
actuated by any evil intention ? Why then should they
assume such an intention on the part of these unhappy,
young men. He utterly denied that there was the slightest
foundation to suppose that there was any original
intention to get the man out of possession by making
him tipsy. Finding the man there, and that he wanted
liquor, they all got drunk together, and then it was that
the first idea of this foolish trick entered their minds.

There was nothing in the case to impute to either of the
prisoners a design to put him out of possession. Had they
entertained any secret design they would have introduced
some narcotic into his first glass of grog, and have sent
him off in *cab, and that would have given them plenty
of time to get rid of any property they might have
wished. Had it been their intention to do any
thing wrong or illegal, one of them would
have taken care to keep himself sober, in order
to take advantage of the man's intoxication. Had
they had any design against the man, they would
have asked the servant to sit down to supper with them.
The whole conduct of the parties denoted the most kindly
intention towards Aungier—there was no pressure
upon him, no attempt to induce him to drink more than
would do him good. The wine and the grog were
there, and every one took what he liked. The pri-
soners had not administered the liquor to the
deceased—they did not know that it would lead
to his death. There was nothing more in the case
than a kind of supper party, which had ended
fatally and miserably. The prisoners had been miserable
—they had met their trial this day for the purpose
of vindicating themselves, and they trusted that they
would be sent forth to the world re-established in the
opinions of their friends and of themselves by the verdict
of the Jury.
Mr. C. 'loxes then addressed the Jury on behalf of
the prisoner Kennett. He contended that as his client
knew nothing of the fact of an execution
being in Packard's house until his arrival there at ten
o'clock at night, after Aungier had commenced drinking,
there could be no pretence for saying that he was engaged
in a conspiracy to make the man drunk to get him out of
possession. Finding the man in a dangerous state of
intoxication, fearing perhaps he might die in the house,
they did what any other men would have done ;
they put him into a cab, and directed him to be
driven home to his master's, in Chancery-lane. Mr.
Kennett left the house at that time, and never
returned after. He was drunk when he was taken
into custody, and therefore no reliance could be
placed upon any denials he might have made while
in that state. There was no evidence whatever to show
that Kennett was connected with the medical pro-
fession, as had been stated by the Learned
Counsel in his opening speech. If they had
wished to get rid of the old man, why did they
not take him by the shoulders, and turn him out at eleven
o'clock at night. They might easily have done so. They
had not done so, and there could be no pretence for say-
ing that they had any desire to get rid of him. There
was no evidence whatever against Mr. Kennett, and
therefore he confidently hoped the Jury would acquit him.
Mr. CHARNOCK then addressed the Jury for Joseph
Packard, and after complimenting the Learned Counsel
for the prosecution on the temperate manner in which
he had opened the case, and on his candour in at once
admitting the respectability of the accused, complained
of the conduct of the prosecutors in not producing
either the maid servant Jemima or Mr. Folkes, instead
of relying solely on the evidence of the boy Pearson.
There was not a particle of evidence to prove the aver-
ments in the indictment. There was nothing in the
evidence at all affecting Joseph Packard, who appeared
throughout to have been merely a silent spectator of
what was going on.
Mr. Baron PARKE, in summing up, said that in order
to constitute the offence of manslaughter, it was neces-
sary to prove that the deceased came to his death by
some act of carelessness or of neglect on the part of the
prisoners. It was not necessary to prove the whole
of the indictment to constitute the offence. If it had been
proved that the prisoners knew the spirits they admi-
nistered would be likely to cause death, that would con-
stitute a crime amounting almost to murder ; but it was
not necessary to prove so much as that. If the prisoners
had induced Aungier to take liquor for an unlawful pur-
pose, or if they had forced him into a cab for
an unlawful purpose, that would be sufficient
to constitute the offence. If their object was to get
Aungier out of possession, then that was an unlawful
act, and they must find the prisoners guilty. If what
took place had been merely for the purpose of making
themselves merry ; or, if the Jury entertained any doubt
on the subject, then they would acquit the prisoners.
The Jury, after an absence of three hours, returned a
verdiet of Guilty of Manslaughter. The prisoners were
then sentenced to one month's imprisonment in Newgate.
Michael Briant, aged 13, and Charles Donovan, aged
15, pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing certain quan-
tities of rope-yarn, the property of John Thompson, jun.
It appeared that Donovan had been twice before sum-
marily convicted.
Mr. Baron PARKE sentenced Donovan to six months'
imprisonment, andßriant to three months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION HOUSE.
A ragged fish-dealer, named Stephen Berry, was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with having
stolen a lot of dried haddock out of the shop of a sales-
man, in the neighbourhood of Billingsgate.
A porter stated, that, as he was passing along the
street, he saw the prisoner walk out of the shop, and he,
at the same time, observed that the shopman was at some
distance within, and with his back to the street, so that
a. robbery might have been effected without his notice.
Judging from the cut of the prisoner, and the manner
in which the man was conveying away a lot of fish, that
it was got at too cheap a rate, he ran in, and asked
whether his suspicion was just, and he and the shopman
soon collared the prisoner, who, upon turning a corner,
walked as boldly as if he had made the purchase. The
prisoner said he had paid for the lot, and pointed out a
shop in a different part of the street, from which he said
ht had had It.
The Loan MAvoa—Why, Mr. Berry, you often pay
us a visit. Prisoner—Never here, my Lord. It's true
I've been to see you in Freeman's-court, Cornhill, when
I've jobbed for you.
The LORD MAYOR--4 have seen yon at Guildhall
Office. This is one of your old tricks, Mr. Berry.
Prisoner—Tricks ! No, your Lordship, I never played
a trick in my life. I've being doing upright business in
Billingsgate these twenty-two years.
The LORD MAYOR (to the shopman)—Do you know
anything of the prisoner ? Shopman—No, my Lord, I
never saw him before in my life.
Prisoner—Lord 1 Do you hear that ? Why didn't I
go in and pay you down tiro bob for the haddocks as
they stood.
Shopman—Never. You never paid me-a halfpenny in
your life.
Prisoner—Poo, pool Come, you know I did. All I
had was 3s. 6d. in the world, and you agreed to let me
have them for the two bob, and I put the silver shillings
into your hand.
Shopman—The price of the lot was 4s. 6d. to 55., so
that I could not have taken so small a sum.
:Prisoner—All' I know, my Lord, is, that the young
man did take the two bob, 'selp me G—d!—(A laugh.)
But how could any one believe him? Why he says he
don't know me; and I'm blessed if I aint been buying
fish on him for years. There !
The LORD 111Avost—You sell your fish cheap, Mr.
Barry? Prisoner—I do, my Lord, as cheap as any
dealer, and as good, though I say it.
The LORD MAYOR—You can afford to sell it cheap,
for you get it very cheap.—(Laughter.)
Prisoner—Why, my Lord, I got it as cheap as I can.
The LORD MAYOR—Exactly so. 'Tis for getting it at
so cheap a rate that I shall send you to the treadmill.
Prisoner—You don't mean that, do you, my Lord ?
The LORD MAYOR—You shall certainly go either to
the treadmill or the Old Bailey. Which do you prefer ?
Prisoner—I'd rather just go between the two my Lord,
if you'll allow me.—(A laugh.)
The LORD MAYOR--I shall save the trouble and ex-
pense of a prosecution, and commit you to the mill.
Prisoner—But whatare yon going to do with my fish?