The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-25 00:00:00

LONDON SESSIONS.

(Before the RECORDER, Aldermen KELLY, GIBBS, H.
SIDNEY, HUNTER, HOOPER, &C.)
These sessions commenced on Saturday morning at
Guildhall, and there was a very crowded court, in
consequence of the case of the exposure of a glan-
dered horse for sale in Smithfield-market being ex-
pected to come on for trial. After several other cases
of minor importance had been disposed of,
Wm. Duchwel‘ was indicted for having exposed
for sale in Smithfield-market, on the 15th instant, a
mare, he knowing her to be suffering under the visita-
tion of the disease called the " glanders."
Mr. Laurie conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Payne appeared for the defendant.
Mr. LAURIE, in stating the case, said that the pre-
sent prosecution had been instituted by the Corpora-
tion of the city of London, under the 011 l conviction
that if the practice of the commission of which the
defendant was accused were to be permitted to be
carried on, it was impossible to calculate how la-
mentable, how extensive, or how fatal might be the
results. A feeling of public duty as well as a feeling
of humanity, therefore, had induced the present
prosecution. It would be found that on the 15th
inst. the defendant was discovered by one of the police
on duty to be offering for sale a mare which was
glandered, and the City veterinary surgeon having
been called upon, had examined and pronounced her to
be suffering from that noxious disease, and that she
had been sent to the knacker's, where she had been
killed, and afterwards a post mortem examination
made, when proofs of the most convincing description
as to the presence of the disease had been found. The
defendant had pleaded "Not guilty," that was, if the
mare was so afflicted he had not known it. Now, it
was somewhat difficult to understand such a plea when
it had happened that during the early proceedings of
the seizure of the mare, and the taking into custody of
the defendant, he had said that the discharge from the
nostrils was the result of a cold and not of the
glanders; and furthermore, that the mare had been
examined by a veterinary surgeon of the name of
Dawes. How was it that, without a word having been
uttered upon the subject of the glanders, the defendant
should mention the disease, unless he had known that
the mare had been labouring under it ? It was of the
utmost importance that a stop should be put to the
exposure of these horses in the public market, and
therefore the City authorities had directed these pro-
ceedings..

Several witnesses were called who entered into a
detail of the matter, which went to the establishment of
the case as opened by counsel.
Mr. PAYNE, on behalf of the defendant, was per-
fectly ready to admit the necessity there was to pre-
vent the existence of such a proceeding as that with
which his client was charged, but at the same time,
in his particular instance, he was prepared with wit-
nesses to prove that he had not been aware, any more
than was his master, Mr. Bardell, that the mare had
been afflicted in the manner which had subsequently
been discovered. The question of knowledge on the
part of the defendant was the only question in this
case, and in support of his assertion, that he was
ignorant of the fact, he would, in the first instance,
call the man's master.

James Bardell was examined, and now stated
that he was an extensive omnibus proprietor and job
master ; that he always had from 80 to 100 horses,
and that the defendant had been in his service for
seventeen years. This mare had been sent up to him
by one of his hay farmers, either for him to work or
to sell, whichever he might think the better. Ile tried
her, but found she was of no use to him, and he con-
sequently directed the defendant to sell her at
Smithfield for 31. 10s., at the same time saying that
he was not to refuse 3!., rather than bring her home
again. His belief at that period was, that though the
mare might be labouring under an attack of cold, there
was still not the least indication of glanders. Had he
thought that the latter had been the case, instead of
sending the mare for sale he should have had her killed.
The witness then proceeded to say, that although the
mare had been put into a stable with other horses
while he had had her, not one of them had caught
the infection. As a proof that he had no idea of the
mare suffering under such an attack, he had offered
to bet a sovereign to a shilling upon it. He did not
see any iyinptoms or indications of the disease until
the post mortem examination had taken place, and
then he certainly did. Those indications, however,
were too high up the nostrils to be seen prior to the
death.
Cross-examined—He had tried the mare at omnibus
and other work, but had found her useless. Knew
nothing about the nostril having been greased with
the view of disguising the character of the discharge,
and, what was more, he had not seen any of the
latter. He first sent the mare to Smithfield three
days after he had had her. He had not had her ex-
amined by a veterinary surgeon before she was taken
to Smithfield.

A veterinary surgeon of the name of Ainslie stated
that he had examined the mare prior to her death,
butihad not found any indications of the disease. He
had seen a more violent and a worse discharge of
mucus from the nostrils of a horse which had arisen
entirely from cold.
Cross-examined—On the post- mortem examination
they had found the evidences of the disease. There
were also tubercles on the lobe of the lungs ; but simi-
lar appearances usually resulted from age in a horse.
‘Vith reference to the contagiousness of the disease,
he did not entertain the opinion that it was so much
so as others did.
H. Dawes, another veterinary surgeon, said he had
examined the mare on the Friday evening after she
had been taken to the knacker's, but had been unable
to discover any symptoms of glanders, although he
must say he regarded it as a case of suspicion. He
had never seen her until that evening, and, therefore, if
the defendant had stated that he had examined her
prior to her being taken to Smithfield, he had said
that which was not correct.

Mr. LAURIE replied.
The RECORDER then summed up, and said that th e
simple question now was, had the defendant, when
he offered this mare for sale in the public market of
Smithfield, known that she was so glandered ? That
she was so was quite clear from the evidence. Well,
then, if the jury were of opinion that he was, their
duty would be to find him guilty. It was a most
serious case in every way. If the defendant were not
himself guilty, he had no hesitation in saying that
there we others who were far more so.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, but said that
they considered he had acted under the direction o
his master. _ _ _

The RECORDER, in passing sentence, said he quite
athgarteeidmpornesstiohnis
thlaettceor point with the
urthopedthat jury, a
the punishment
nd with
which was about to be passed upon the defendant
would be felt by the person under whose directions
he had acted. With that view the Court intended
to impose a fine, and until that penalty were paid to
direct the defendant to be imprisoned, and atter the
highly favourable terms in which his master had
spoken of the defendant, if that person were a man
possessing any conscience, or regarded his character,
he would not permit the alternative to come into
operation even for one moment. The fine the Court
sentenced the defendant to pay was 101., which sum
must be paid ere he could be set at liberty. If the
Court did not think that there was some other person
to blame, the defendant might rely that a much
severer punishment in the shape of imprisonment
would have been ordered, for the great frequency of
this offence rendered it a matter of necessity that a
heavy punishment should be inflicted, in order that
others might be deterred.

The fine was immediately paid by Mr. Bardell, the
defendant's master.

ESSEX QUARTER SESSIONS•

On Saturday a well-dressed woman, who gave the
name of Elizabeth Dolby, was indicted for robbing a
lady named Kent of a purse containing 2/. 175., in a
carriage on the Eastern Counties Railway. The
prisoner came from London.
Maria Kent, the wife of a tradesman residing at
Upper Holloway, stated, that on the 7th of September
last she got into a carriage at the Shoreditch station
of the Eastern Counties Railway, and, having just
paid for her ticket, she still had a purse in her hand
with 2/. 18s. 6d. in it ; the prisoner followed her into
the carriage, took her seat close to her, and got into
conversation with her. Witness attempted to put
her purse and money into her bosom, but being un-
able to do so, she stood up and placed it in her
pocket, observing to the prisoner, that though rob-
beries were often committed on railways, she had
never lost anything yet. To this the prisoner re-
marked that neither had she. They went on till
they got to Ingatestone, about twenty miles from
London, when the prisoner got out. Before reach-
ing Chelmsford witness discovered that her purse and
money had been stolen. On reaching that station
she gave information of the robbery, and, as every
other passenger in the carriage volunteered to be
searched, suspicion attached to the prisoner. On this
witness promptly returned to Ingatestone, and gave
information to the police.
Cross-examined—ln the course of conversation,
the prisoner told her that she resided at the west end
of town, and was going on a visit into the country.
William Conyers, a policeman, said, he received in-
formation of the robbery, and traced the prisoner to
the neighbourhood of Cougar, where, he asked her if •