The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-07 00:00:00

Tha prisoner had appealed collected throughout the
whole trial up to the last. He betrayed but little agita-
tion on hearing the verdict and sentence, th:Aigh be wa3
considerably paler, and seemed to grow somewhat faint
towards the end of the day.

NORTH WALES CI RC U Aog 5.
CROWN C01:13,
r.—(l3=-fore Nit-. Justice CF.EsIvEm...)
Cit./atom, Oir CiLLWa MURDIEB. —"Ile nal catie which
remained for trim tnis cnortung Was that of young
female, famed ice Deaysi, aged- 22, who was charged
with the wilful murder of her own illegitimate child.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Townsend and
Mr. Yardley; the prisoner was umiefentled.
When placed at the bar the prisoner became dread-
fully excited, wept aloud, and it was some time before
the proceedings could be gone on with from her inability
to pay attention to them. During the examination of
the witnesses sue several times fainted, and hod it not
been for the kind attention of the Rev. H. S. Josaph,
chaplain to the gaol, and that of the matron, it can
hardly be supposed she would have been able to sustain
the dr, a 'ful ordeal.

Mr. ToWNSEND, in stating the ease to the jury, was
roceeding to ooserve that it the jury were of opinion
that the laudanum, of which th- ciant died, had not been
administered with the intention of destroying life, but
negligently and carelessly of lulling it, then they !night
find her guilty of manslaughter, when
The Learned JCDGE expressed his dissent. He was
aware it had been held so with regard to surgeons and
quack doctors; but so far as relate to other parties he
rather inclined to a different opinion; but it Mr. Town-
send could show him any authority on the subject he
should feel obliged.
The case then proc,eded, and a number of witnesses
were called, from whose evidence it appeared that on the
31st of March last the prisoner was delivered of a female
illegitimate child. That on the 7th April she was engaged as
wet nurse in the family of Mr. Drinkwater, Mortimer-
terrace, Birkenhead, having on the same day placed her
child out. On the 21st of April the deceased was given
up to the prisoner with the intention of both going to
the workhouse. She, however, did not succeed in obtain-
ing an order of admission. About five o'clock the same
afternoon the prisoner purchased 120 drops of laudanum
and at seven the child was found to be ill. At ten it had
become worse, when a surgeon was called in, and fuu,id
the child king from what he believed to be the effect of
laudanum. It lingered, however, until tour o'clock in the
morning; and on a post-mortem examination the ~uspic-
ions or the stirgeon:we.re coutirtned. The prisoner on
being takenintodtatody admitted that she had given the
child laudanum, but said she did not think it w-uld kill it.

His LORDSHIP, in summing up the cis•., said if they
were of opinion that the pri,oner administered the lau-
danum for the purpose of injuring the child she was
guilty of murder; hut it it were only for the purpose of
quieting it, although incautiously, it was no more than
an accident.

Verdict—Not Guilty.—Thin ended the business.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Wartvick, August 6.
CROW couRT. •
The court was opened this morning at nine o'clock by
Baron Rolfe.-

Two young men, named Frederick Beston, alias Alfred,
and William Brown, alias Richard Smith, alias Robert
Short, were charged with haying, at Birmingham, on the
2,i of July laic, assaulted and robbed Jobeph Jackson
Smith of 11. 103.

Mr. Willinore prosecuted, and Mr. O'Brien defended
die prisoners.
After the evidence ha I been heard,
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict, finding the prisoners guilty of an assault with intent
to rob.
His LoRDSHIP said he would not receive such a ver-
dict. If they were not satisfied that a robbery bad been
committed, they must find the prisoners guilty of the
assault.

The foreman, accordingly, without consulting his fel-
low-jurors, returned a verdict, finding the prisoners
guilty of the assault only.
His LORDSHIP then sentenced them to be imprisoned
for one year, with hard lah•tur.
A man named Edward Tieynkam was charged with
having broken into tne. Betsey Page, a
wino v, residing at Btrford, and stealing two watches,
brooches, motley, and jeweltery, to a the extent. There
were two other men, stained John Margett3 and Jo!in
Biyan, alias Clarke, charged with the offers e in con-
jillieLloll with the prisoner, but they pleaded guilty. The
case as against Twynham was then proceeded with.
Sir E. Wilmot prosecuted ; the prisoner was un-
defended.

On Thursday, the 22d of April last, the prosecutrix
had occasion to leave her house for some time, but be-
fore leaving she locked up the house carefully. She did
not return till next day, and in her absence the house
had been robbed. On the Thursday k veiling James
Hewitt, the constable, saw the prisoner and two other
men (Nlargetts and Bryan) standing in a barley field
opposite Mrs. Page's house. Later in the course of the
evening, about a quarter-past eleven o'clock, he saw
one of them co:ne from Mrs. Page's house. He spoke
to the man, who said he lived in Warwick, and then ran
off. Atter waiting some time the constable heard a
noise as of some one playing a piano in Mrs. Pages's.
The thieves were fond of music. He got the assistance
of three men ; sent two of them over the wall into Mrs.
Page's back premises, and one at the front door.
Shortly after the men got over, the constable heard a
cry of " help," and, on going to the spot, secured Mar-
getts. Having heard a noise in the house again, he
went there, and then heard a cry of "murder" from
the bottom of the garden. Bryan was then appre-
hended, and be and Margetts were searched. About a
quarter-past three o'clock in the morning, he saw
Twynham on the turnpike-road, and took hold of him
saying—" You are the man who ran away from me at a
quarter past eleven o'clock last night." This the pri-
soner denied. In taking the prisoner he endesvoured to
escape, but did not succeed. The property stolen was
found on the prisoners Margetts and Bryan. Some of
flewitt'a assistants corroborated his evidence. Mr.liryse,
inspector of police at Coventry, identified the prisoners,
whom he saw in company together on the day on which
the rubbery was committed. On the. same day they
were seen together in Warwick. Numerous other wit
nesses were called to prove the identity of Twynhaus,
who ingeniously cross-examined all the witnesses with
Lhe tact of a practised hand.
. .

After a brief address from the prisoner, who urged the
difficulty of identification,

His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury returned a
verdict of Guilty.

All the prisoners had been previously convictel.
His LORDSHIP sentenced them respectively to fifteen
years' trausprtation.

OXFORD CIRGUI F.—Gloucester, Aug. 5.
Twenty years ago the average entry of causes here
was over 50, Ole average number of prisoners over
150, and the average length of the assiz !s about
seventeen or eighteen days. To-day the entry of causes
is 20, the number of prisoners 67, and the assizes
may be over by Saturday night. The eonimission was
opened yesterday. The judges went into court to-day at
ten o'clock, but no parties being ready to proceed in the
Nisi Prius Court, Mr. Justice Coleridge, who presides
there, was obliged to adjourn for a coupe) of hours. Lt
the Crown Court, the charges to the city and county
grind juries had not closed before twelve o'clock. The
cause list contains only twenty entries, and, is regarded
as a must rotten one, most of the ca es in it hing unim-
portant, several undefended, and only three reserved for
special juries. Of the 67 prisoners named in the calen-
dar there are charged—with the murder of an adult, 1;
the murder of au infant, 1; manslaughter, 4; conceal-
ment of birth, 2; rape, 1; assault with felonious intent,
2; burglary, 16; kiting a fallow deer, 1; the remainder
being charged with larcenies that should have been
tried sessions. It appears that the magistrates of
Staffordshire are the only intL:istrates throughout the
circuit who hold an adjourned sessions immediately
before each assizes, in order to relieve the calendar from
all offences which are not of importance enough to be
reserved for the consideration of her Majesty's justices
of oyer and termtner and general gaol delivery. It is
desirable that their example should be more generally
followed, as thus ample time would be afforded for the
rftueroa ltlhyeiam,psiozretsa,natncdasteosr,
the ia
pl orni
ties schatums
el ds. by v
hriecshe r vaerde
commonly, but not on this circuit on this occasion,
barked by being,referred or made remanets
CIVIL SIDE.--4tlefore Mr. Justice COL.ERIDGE.)
The first contested case was
Yanvd. 11;tiltrD.
HAuNdDdAkt:tOLITER
pd.
ee appeared f)r the
T plaintiff;his w aAsl
ar Godson..action
traoenerd:icNvolevrde.
recover
otrhat
heyesfupornr:
iouft
j2tl6.
Mr. Alexanderci-t
furso.m defendants.thde
defendants for money
on an account stated. The defendants were attorneys
practising practising in the town of .Upton-on Severn, and had been
concerned in the sale of a public-house from a person ofn
the name of Scannel to the plaintiff, and in the re-sale
of the same to a person of the name of Griffin. For
the plaintiff it was alleged that Scannel had undertaken
to pay all the expenses of the first sale, and that Griffin
was liable to the expenses of the second; that the pur-
chase-money had been received by the defendants from
Griffin. and had been accounted for with the exception of
the 96/. claimed in this action. The defendants pleaded
a set-off f.pr work and labour in respect of the sale to
Griffincal a
led wgi
Erneeastseers n amountsupp
otrtita n
of the
tthe
balanceiea }c,ltari med,
theand
plaintiff it was suggested in reply that this was only an
atter-thought to meet the claim for the bal tnce.
His LORDSHIP summed up strongly in favour of the
defendants; but the jury, after a short consultation, said
they found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

RILEY V. WARDEN AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Greaves and Mr. Keating. appeared for the plain-
ftehnedva
plaintiff
tpi lyre ardee di i
epday
tiff; Mr. Cooke and Mr. Huddleston for the defendants.
This was an action for
by the detenZts assumpsit for wages. The de-
ment and a set-off. To the set-off,
set-off was supplied
, that he was a workman, employed
and. that the subject matter of the
The defendants
wnaarejoined,w:,,krtnaising
in contraveTition of the Truck Act.
the plaintiff
ievidetrhicee
aTidr,u,sc,ktAhecte.asAe greatztrin issue whether
trw„hre:dh : ,b) rot::
gde,a,cl,ll2,:an. within the terms of the
srawlere these ;—The de-
the Court for upwards of
four hours. The substantiPal(flact
the plaintiff
contractors on
employed till
forpaintiff as a sub-
afelnadragtei tsseawiee,rearibdrich!kadatekmerpsion)
xtcoanvaiting for
collavyerharn
sub-
contractor, as he said, to ge‘tv
making bricks, but, as they alleged, for thee purpose of
the Oxford, Worcester, and
The plaintiff did the work in question, partlyP W.j.iitihwthYi;
own hands; but his principal character in the transaction
was as a contractor, engaged in hiring other men to do
the work which he had engaged with the defendants to
have done for them. At the close of the case,
His LoRDSHIP left it to the jury to sa% whether the
plaintiff was or was not a workman within the terms of
the Truck Act, and they without much hesitation found
that he was not, which was a verdict for the defendant,.
CROWN COUR r . ( B e fo r e Mr. Justice EaLa.)
Samuel White was indicted for breaking open the
41,414)g-house Qt Jesse Tanner, it Woad, 924 gig act

•
of January. 1845, and stealing a jacket' and other
articles.

Mr. Gray appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Ket-
tle for the defence.

The facts proved were, that the articles were left safe
un the 14;h January, when the house was locked up. On
the 2.Bth the prisoner pawned part of the prupprt7' and
soil another part. On the 29th it was di,e,ivered that
the house had Been eatered through a hole made in the
wall., 'l'h, prisonfsr ,baconcied upon a warrant being
issued; and was afterwards found at Pi eston, in id Inca
shire, where he had eurnrnirtefi another offence.

Upon the prisoner being asked in the usual way why
he should not suffer judgment, he made a long state-
ment, and urged particularly that he had b en already
punished for this offence, as the judge who sentenced
him at Lancaster, where the charge was stealing a shirt
of the vilue of Is., told him thet he was also guilty of
housebreaking at Stroud, and, theref,re, gave him a
heavier punishment.
Sentence—Trinsportation for ten years.
John Campbell and Edward Ma•hews were charged
with robbing ..laria Thou pson, on the highway, of 10-.
Mr. Skinner prosecuted ; Mr. Smythies defended
Mathews.

The prisoner Campbell lodged with the prosecutrix
and her husband, to whom he owed 16s. for rent, &c.
The prosecutrix knowing that he was to receive more
than that sum in wages, [net him as he came from
receiving it, and importuned him strongly and pub-
licly for payment. Campbell at last paid her lOs on
account, unseen by any one, as they were walking, and
told her she should have some more if she came to a
public-house he named. On their way thither the two
prisoners seiz-d her, and forcibly took away the 10s.,
which up to that time had remained in her hand, and
ran away.
Mr. SMYTIIIES contended, on behalf of Matthews, that
no felony could be ir,tended by Campbell, because
having no receipt or any witness to the payment, he
would remain liable for the rent, and would not volun
tarily part with the money to steal it back in five
minutes, and that if Campbell gave the money to the
prosecutrix, as his agent to take it to her husband, he
would have a right to resume the money before it was
paid over, and though his right to do so might be
doubtful in point of law, Matthews might well think that
he had such a right, and if he thought so, would not be
guilty.
The Learned JUDGE directed the jury that the
wife was the' agent- et •her husband to receive the
money, and not the-agent of Campbell to take it'to her
husband.

The jury, after consulting about 20 minutes, found
both Guilty, and strongly recommended Mathews ro
mercy.
Campbell was sentenced to six months, and Mathews
to one week's imprisonment.

HOME CIRCUIT.—Croydon, August 6.
(Before lianin PARKE and << Siwiai Jury.)

ARMSWORTH, EXECUTRIX, U. THE SOUTH-EASTERN

RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action brought under the recent statute
by the widow of a lab purer who had been in the service
of the defendants, and who was alleged to hare been
killed in consequence of the negligence of their servants,
to recover compensation from them for the injury she
had sustained by his death. This action was brought in
forma pauperis.
Mr. Petersdorff and Mr. Charnock were for the plain-
tiff ; and Sergeant Channel!, Sergeant Shee, and Mr.
Bodkin, for the company.
It appeared that in January last a quanity of chalk
had fallen upon the railway in the deep cutting at
Merstliana, and a number or labourers were engaged
during the night in removing it in trucks and clearing
the line. On the night the unfortunate occurrence took
place it appears that the deceased and above fifty other
labourers were engaged in this manner, awl they had
twenty-eight ballast-trucks and two engines, and there
were four gaugers superintending the work. As soon as
the waggons were all filled the chalk' was conveyed to a
place called Battle-bridge, near Nierstharn where it was
shot out, and it was here that the fatal accident occurred
to the deceased. According to the evidence of the
plaintiff's witnesses the train of carriages had arrived at
the pltee in question, and had nearly, if not entirely,
become stationary, and the gauger had given the usual
signil far tne men to take their shovels and begin
, emptying the trucks. The deceased was at this time, it
appears, sittieg.ort'the—top of the chalk in one of the
leaded waggons, and while he was in the act of obeying
the order given, the engines made a sudden plunge for-
ward, causing a violent jerk, which threw the unfor-
tunate deceased under the wheels of the train, and he
was crushed to death almost immediately. Upon the
cress•examination of the witnesses it was admitted to be
a violation of the orders of the company for any labourer
engaged as the deceased was to ride upon the loaded
trucks; and it appeared that a luggage waggon had been
sent with the train purposely for them to ride in, and
that some of the men availed themselves of it, but
others, and among them the deceased, rode upon the
trucks loaded with chalk, in order that they might begin
their work of emptying them sooner when the signal
was given fur them to do so. There also did not appear
to be any clear evidence of the signal for stopping the
train having been given; and one of the witnesses, who
was examined before the coroner, expressed an opinion
that the accident would not have happened if the de-
ceased had rode in the truck that was provided for the
labourers, and had not disobeyed orders by riding upon
the truck that was loaded with chalk.
Mr. Sergeant CIikNNELL, in addressing the jury for
the company, said. that, ,lia.tever course they might
have taken in this matter from a feeling of sympathy
with the unfortunate woman who had been deprived of
the support of her husband under such circumstances, it
was impossible for them to admit any legal liability, as
they were satisfied that the accident arose entirely from
the act of the deceased, in wilfully disobeying the rules
and regulations of his employers. The managers of
railways had very great difficulty in making their ser-
vants obey, not only those regulations which were in-
tend, d tor the protection of the public, but even those
affecting their own safety, and in this case he submitted
that there could be very little doubt that if the unfortu
nate man had rode in the truck that was provided for
him and his companions, the accident would not have
happened, and that his death was the result of his own
negligence and disobedience of orders. Under these
circumstances he submitted to the jury that it would be
a great straining of the statute to say that the defendants
were liable to make compensation to the widow of the
deceased; and he at the 'same time urged that when the
safety of the public travelling by railway so much de-
pended upon the regulations being strictly attended to,
it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent to
give compensation in a case where the injury had been
occasioned entirely through disobedience and di-regard
of the regulations that had been made.
Several witnesses were then examined, from whose
evidence it appeared that special orders were given by
the company that the labourers should not ride upon the
loaded trucks, and that the deceased had been particu-
larly cautioned on several occasions not to do so. It was
also positively denied that any signal was given to the
men to commence their work.

Baron PARKE, In summing up, told the jury that they
ought not to allow their sympathy fur a person placed in
the position of the plaintiff by so unfortunate an occur-
rence to operate at all upon them in deciding upon the
question, but they should consider all the circumstances
as in an ordinary case. The questions they had to de-
cide were, first, whether there was any proof that the
accident had been occasioned by any negligence on the
part of the defendants' servants; and, secondly, whether
it was nut ace..rding to the evidence more to be attri-
butel to negligence and disobedience of orders on the
part of the deceased.
Tin- jury, atter deliberating about 20 minutes, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1001.; 501.
for the widow and 251. for each of her two children.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
111 AIN SIOA-HOUSE.
CONDUCT OF STEAM-BOAT CAPTAINS.—The LORD
MAYOR, upon taking the chair, stated that he had re-
ceived a letter, which as it contained a serious complaint
01 a public nature, and described a practice which he
had reason to believe was becoming very prevalent, he
should notice in such a manner as would be likely to
abate the e vil. His Lordship then read the following letter:
". My Lord,—l beg leave to apply to your Lordship
for advice how to obtain redress under the following
circumstances :
" On Tuesday afternoon (August 3). a gentleman ac-
companied me to the Hungerford-bridge pier, where we
each took tickets to go by the seven o'clock Kew boat,
the gentleman for Chelsea, and I for Kew, where I re-
side. We waited on the pier from seven o'clock until
the arrival of the boat for Kew and neighbouring places,
when I paid the officer of the Iron Steam baat Company
sixpence, being the fare, and took a ticket for Kew. He
said the Kew boat would-be up in ten minutes from Lon
don-bridge. On the arrival of the Kew boat at the pier
we were summoned by the officer in charge of the pier,
who called out " Passengers for Barnes, Kew, Brent-
ford," &c., There were a dozen who immediately
went onboard of the steam-boat " Twilight," when
eagiannaffiilpmieharteiveavt.t.entcyvhteeolseKpar,eowc
proceeded
had nee dnd
ialyst 'hs'
oac su
fu'
arr
raee
tdhn captain,e passengersas N
further.
ofr etTtot t
the
edincc
aa
dtp
surprise,( requested uesed
passengers)all thede-
murred,
ototghois7adrsehmore, saying he should go
and remonstrated with him, saying we had paid
and taken tickets for Putney, Hammersmith, Brenttord,
and Kew, and objected to go on shore, there being no
other boat or conveyance of any kind by which we Could
proceed to our respective destinations trom that place.
I, with several passengers, was compelled to return to
Hungerford• bridge by the same boat, in order to be
conveyed by some other means ; consequently we were
put to extra expense and very considerable inconve-
nience by the delay. On relanding at Hungerford-
bridge pier I complained of the company's shameful
conduct to the officer (Thomas Simms), who had handed
us on board the Kew boat. He offered no explanation,
neither did he require the deliv..ry of any tickets from
turn their money, which they refused to accept, as they
the passengers reterred to, but offered to ienne to re-
informed me. I proceeded with five others by om•
nibus.
" As Lord Mayor and Conservator of the Thames
Navigation, I h.,pe I may, with my fellow-passengers,
obtain some redress for this unwarrantable dereliction
of duty, and that the public may, through your Lord•
ship's instrumentality, receive some guarantee against a
repetition of a similar imposition.
" It appears to we the incentive to this disgraceful
conduct was the mercenary motive of taking on board a
vast number of passengers then waiting at the Ca,dogan
pier to return to London-
" I beg to return a list of some of the
passengers
re-
ferred to, at whose request I make this communication
to your Lordship.
" I have the•honour to remain
" Your Lordship's ;wet, obedient servant,
Aug. 0, ;447," "Wed. BROWN.
.4.