The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-03 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1841

fendant would have taken the liberties that'Were
On the contrary, the most indecent familiarities IN ore
openly permitted and encouraged by Mrs. Orfeur, and
although seen by several parties, not the least notice was
taken of it, showing that she was hardened in her guilt. Let
them then look at the position of the plaintiff; who was
scarcely ever at home, and at the absence of any evi-
dence to show what terms the plaintiff and his wife were
living previously to the last voyage, and the natural infe-
rence must be that the affection of Mrs. Orfeur for her
husband must have been for a long period diminishing.
The Jury could not doubt that the overtures must have
come from Mrs. ()deur in the first instance, and that she,
not the defendant, was the seducer, because it was shown
that she had actually gone to the house of the defend-
ant's father to solicit these interviews. Now if that
were so, it would form a very important ingredient
in their consideration of the damages which the plaintiff
was entitled to, and they would not give one farthing
more than such a womaoi was to be considered worth. It
appeared to him that this young man had been en-
trapped into a connexion which would redound to his
shame and disgrace to the last hour of his life, and
that, on the whole, " he was more sinned against than
sinning." He did not mean by that to extenuate the
offence of an adulterer, or to screen him from the
penalty of such an offence. Allowance, however, must
be made for the youth of the defendant, and the tempta-
tions thrown in his way, when a woman older than him-
self stooped to solicit his affections. He had fallen a
prey to arts which it was impossible for him to resist ;
but he was there to pay the penalty of the law fbr the
injury he had inflicted on the plaintiff. He would now
call their attention to the circumstances of the defendant,
and he would observe that they had no evidence to show
that he was possessed of any property whatever. That
did not prevent his being liable for whatever damages
the Jury might award, but it would form a necessary in-
gredient in the conclusion they should come to. He now
left the case in their hands, trusting that the verdict
they would pronounce would be of a very light charac-
ter, and duly commensurate with all the circumstances
of the case.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN having summed up,
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 20/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 1.
CARPENTER V. SMITH.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL called the following wit-
nesses :

Samuel Thomas, forty years a locksmith in Birming-
ham, who proved the model of the Martell° Tower lock, of
which he which he made upwards of eighty, for which be
was paid. They were made on the principle of both
latch and lock.

John Fairy said Chubb's patent was published in 1829,
and in principle it did not differ from the plaintiff's.
John Birch, a locksmith, near Birmingham, proved
the use of locks in that place, having a lock-bolt and a
latch within the same rim, during the last 16 years.
A number of workmen around Birmingham were called
to prove that the combined principle had been long known
and acted upon. It was proved that some had been made
for the American market, and sometimes used in this

country, but he failed to prove that the streets in Bir.
mingham exhibited any. They were all single latches.
Mr. KELLY replied at great length.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury without he-
sitation returned a verdict for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 2.
IN THE MATTER OF WM. FITZROY SCUDAMORE.
Mr. CooKE, on behalf of the assignee to the insolvent's
estate, moved that the Court would issue an order, di-
recting Captain Wish to pay over certain moneys to which
the insolvent had latterly become entitled. In 1834 the
insolvent, who was a person moving in an upper sphere of
life, married the sister of Captain Wish, with whom he
got a large fortune, and some time after became insol-
vent, and passed through this Court, owing a sum of
1,0101. A portion of his wife's property was appropriated
to pay his debts, and Mr. Loder, a coach maker in Ox-
ford-street, appointed assignee. Some time after he
and his lady parted, and he again passed through
the Court in the year 1839. Through the death of
Mrs. Fitzroy Scudamore's mother and sister, a further
sum of money was willed to her, and the. Learned Conn
sel now applied that the Court would direct Captain
Wish, wh• was appointed one of the executors to Mrs.
and Miss Wish's wills, to pay the same to Mr. Loden
In reply to the Commissioner, Mr. Cooke said it was the
wish of the assignee to act with as much kindness and
courtesy towards Mrs. Scudamore as possible, and also
that Captain Wish would at once pay over the money,
only he considered he was not justified in doing so with-
out an order from this Court.

Mr. Commissioner LAW said he could only grant a
conditional order.

IN RE BENJAMIN AR6IIER.

The insolvent was opposed by Mr. iVoodruffe, and
supported by Mr. Cooke. The names of upwards of 6
creditors appeared in his schedule.

The Learned COMMISSIONER, after hearing lengthened
evidence, said the insolvent had contracted debts without
any intention of paying them, and he had also accepted
accommodation bills when in a state of insolvency. He
should, therefore, be remanded for eight months, from
the date of his vesting order.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

CUARGE or• MUIiDER.—Job John Ward, aged 28, was
indicted for the wilful murder of Timothy Lasted, by
striking him on the head with a hammer. The prisoner
pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. CURWOOD conducted the prosecution, and called
Mrs. lasted—l am a widow, residing at Regent-street,
Regent's-park. I had a child aged one year and nine
mouths. I lived with the prisoner. He was not the
father of the child. I left it on the night of the occurrence
safe in bed; there Was nothing the matter with it. Prisoner
asked me to go and fetch some beer. I refused at first,
but at last consented, and said to him "Don't hit the
baby while I am gone." Re had before that ill-treated
it. I returned in three minutes, The baby was groan-
ing dreadfully. I said, what have you done to the poor
baby. He made no reply. I went to the child
and took it up. It appeared to be dying. I
ran up to Mrs. Rowe, and in consequence of
her advice took the child to Mr. Burfoot the surgeon.
I brought the child back, and saw prisoner, and said to
him," You have murdered my pootbaby." He made no
reply. The child was taken to the hospital, and died in
two hours. Prisoner was home the next morning. He
was taken into custody. lie said nothing to me about
how it happened.
Cross-examined by Mr. PAYNE.—I had lived with
prisoner three months. We had once separated, and
afterwards came together again. He was frying some
meat when I came back from fetching the beer. We
were to have been married. The banns were out-asked.
There were other lodgers in the house.
The sergeant of policeiwho took the charge at the sta-
tion-house was present when the prisoner was ex •
amined before the Magistrate. Knows the Magistrate's
handwriting. The statement produced is signed by him,
The statement of the prisoner before the Magistrate
was then put in and read, in which he stated, that on
going to the cupboard to kteh some onions, he had fallen
on the child.

Airs. Easted recalled—The bed is a good (Zistance from
the cupboard. There is no probability that any one
fetching any thing from it could fall on the child. A
clothes-horse was standing between the bed and the cup-
board. - That was undisturbed when I returned. I had
left a hammer in a basket by the side of the cupboard.
It was not probable that the clothes-horse could have
fallen on the child and injured it.
Cross-examined—l cannot be very accurate as to the
space between the bedstead and the cupboard. Prisoner
had been drinkincr' that night, bat he knew what he was
about. We had been living in the place six weeks.
(Two plans of the kitchen were then put in and proved.)
Elizabeth Rowe—l lived in the saute boast: with
Mrs. Easted at the time of this occurrence, on the 20th
of November. She brought the child to my door. It
was dying. I accompanied it to the hospital. It groaned
dreadfully.

John Rowe, son to the last witness—l know the pri-
soner ; he came home on the night of the ?oth of \O-
- about half-past Dine 4) r ten o'clock. On the next
morning I saw the prisoner going out. I followed him,
intending to fetch a policeman. Prisoner asked me
why I was following hint, and said he would not have it.
lle went further down, and ran. I ran after him, and
caught hold of him, and a policeman came up and asked
what it was about. I told the policeman that a child
lead been brutally ill-used the night before by him. The
policeman asked him how he came to do ;t, and he said
he tell upon the child—that he did not beat the child.
Mr. Barfoot—l ton a surgoon, residing in Regent-street,
Regent's Park. The child was brought to me on the
night in question. It had evidently received sonic ex-
ternal violence. There was a swelling on the right side
of the head, extending from behind the ear to the back
0: the head, arising from, effusion of blood between the
skin and the bone. On a post mortem examination it
appeared that the skull had been fractured. In my.
opinion a mere falling on the child in bed would
not produce such fracture. There were two fractures.
I should say there must have been two blows to produce
the fractures. Any blunt instrument would produce such
appearances ; an instrument like a hammer would pro-
duce them. The fractures might possibly have been
produced by one blow, but it is not probable. (The
hammer found at the lodging was produced.) The
wounds might be produced by such an instrument as the
hammer produced.
Cross-examination.—There was no separation of the
skin externally. It is not absolutely ia,possible for a
fall to have produced the injury, but exceedingly ha-
probable. A man must have fallen from some consider-
able height to have inflicted such a wound with his elbow.
Thomas Finder—l was the policeman who took the
prisoner into custody in the street. I asked why he was
given into custody, and was told it was for ill-using a
little child. The prisoner said " I did not ill-use the baby.
Ihawdaisugst aettsing into bed, and fell upon it."
Cross-examined—Rowe was close by at the time, and
as I hail. goot; an opportunity of hearing what he said

staltViu.nl‘•hko°llZ—Nti'haema apripsoolniecer was
constable, a was at
en t theo
brought
the hospital, and found the child was dead. I asked
Mrs. Risted what charge she made ; she said I charge
him with murdering the child. I said to the prisoneri
this is a very serious charge. He said, I never ill-useL st
the child. I camp home drunk last n;gltt, and getting
into bed I fell upon it.
Cross-examined—I was present when the prisoner was
searched. There were onions found in his pocket. What
passed was in the hearing of Mrs. }lasted.
• Mr. Robert Datly—l am a surgeon at University
College Hospital. I saw the child of Mrs. Tasted when
it was brought in there. It was insensible. I noticed a
small mark on the right ear, and another on the right
side of the head. It died in a few hours. By order of
the Coroner, I instituted a post mortem examination.
There was a large quantity of blood on the right side of

tire head, between the scalp and the skull. I found two
fractures of the skull. It might have been produced by
one blow, from an instrument having two points of con-
tact, at the same time. Such wounds might have keen
inflicted by an ordinary hammer. like the one produced.
I should say the face, and not the claw, could have in-
flicted those wounds. They might have been inflicted
by the side.
Cross-examined by Mr. PAYNE—The largest fracture
went across the whole of the parietal bone. There was
another fracture extending upwards, towards the top of
the head, in a slanting line. There was also another
fracture. I think it very improbable that one blow could
have produced all the fractures, or that a man falling on
the child could have produced the injury.
Lord PENMAN—CouId a drunken man falling on the
child, or getting into bed, and coining with his elbows
on the child, produce such a fracture ?
Witness—l do not think it possible. The witness. on
being shown the tools found in the prisoner's pocket,
said he did not think they could produce the fractures.
Mrs. Easted re-called, and examined by the COURT—
I told the prisoner not to ill-use the child, because he had
done so before. I have found marks on it when I re-
turned. On one occasion he said he had fallen down in
the street with it. On another occasion he said, " Take
the little b— out of bed." There were no marks on the
body, but on the face. He slapped it once when it was
in my arms. •
Mr. PAYNE addressed the Jury for the defence, and
contended that there was no proof whatever that the
prisoner bore any malice against the child. There were
no marks of ill-usage on its body, nor did the lodgers in
the house hear any screams or sounds of blows during
the absence of Mrs. Easted. He should prove, by
evidence, that the prisoner had always been fond
of children. The prisoner could have no mo-
tive for killing the child. He was not bound to
maintain it. He was not even bound to marry
the mother—what motive could he have had for
killing it ? Again, had he been conscious of guilt, he
would hare run away instead of remaining as he had
done. When taken into custody he had the hammer in
his pocket. Would he have kept it there had he used
it for such a purpose ? The Learned Gentleman then
commented severely on the conduct of the policeman
in questioning the prisoner. Could they convict a man
of an offence for which he might be executed on the
testimony of the medical men, who both admitted that
it was possible the wounds might have been inflicted by
'a person falling on the child? It was not impossible but
it might have happened as the prisoner stated, and there-
fore it would be much better to be on the safe side, and
to give the prisoner the benefit of the uncertainty.
Having concluded his address, the Learned Gentleman
called the following witnesses : _ _

William Wildnaan—Has known the prisoner sixteen
years ; he always considered him a humane man, and
particularly fond of children.

Several Other witnesses, who had known the prisoner
several years, gave similar testimony.
Lord DENMAN in summing up, said there could be no
doubt but that the prisoner had been the cause of the
'child's death, and it was for them to consider whether he
had done so wilfully or accidentally. They should watch
narrowly the conduct of the party charged, and it ap-
peared from the evidence of Mrs. Lasted that when
asked what he had done to the baby, he did
not say I have met with an unfortunate accident,
but he said " I have done nothing." When before the
Magistrate, he stated that in going to the cupboard to
fetch some onions he had fallen on the child. It was for
them to say, taking into consideration all the circum-
stances of the case, what credit they might feel inclined
to attach to that statement. The distance of the clip-
board from the bed appeared from the plan to be 'bur
feet nine and a half inches. With regard to the conduct
of the police, although he did not approve of policemen

putting questions to prisoners, yet he did not approve of
their preventing persons in custody from making state-
ments, because the first statement of an innocent was
very likely to be of service to him. In the present
instance it was very improbable that the policeman
thought the matter would ever come before a Court
of justice, and it differed altogether from those inquisi-
toilet proceedings on the part of the police, of which he
had sometimes had to complain, and which might be
really said to extort answers from prisoners. In the
present instance the question of the police had
elicited the. account of the transaction most favour-
able to the prisoner. With regard to the medi •
cal evidence, if they were of opinion that the wounds
had been inflicted by two successive blows, then
he was afraid that there could be little doubt on the sub-
ject. If they were of opinion that he killed the
child accidentally, then they would acquit him
of the murder, but it appeared extraordinary
that if such were the case, he had not men-
tioned it to the mother, and that he should have
given two different accounts of the transgaion. lle
could hardly imagine how they could acquit litm entirely,
because if he had through carelessness occasioned the
child's death ho was guilty of manslaughter. They
could not acquit him unless they were convinced that
the child's death had - been occasioned by the result of
the merest accident in the world. If they should
be of opinion that he had wilfully killed the child, it
would be their duty to convict him of murder.
The Jury then retired to consider their verdict, and
after an absence of half an hour returned a verdict of
Guilty. The prisoner was then removed from the bar,
And when brought up for judgment,
The Loan CniEv JUSTICE ' then proceeded to pass
upon the prisoner the awful sentence of the law, in th e
most impressive and feeling manner. ne said—John
Job Ward, you have been convicted by a careful and
considerate jury of your country, of the highest crime
known to the law—a crime, lam sorry to say, greatly
aggravated by its being committed on a helpless and un-
o&ndine. child, the offspring. of the woman with whom
you had been living,in connection. It is perfectly clear
this act was deliberately done, and that you have resorted
to the most gross falsehoods in order to defend it. You
was tempted by some evil spirit in the few moments she
left you in order to get something for your supper, to
take that opportunity of making away with her child.
It appears to me that there is no choice left for me but to
leave you to that fate which you have inflicted on
this unfortunate infant. The criminal law of this
country should extend its protection in a peculiar
manner to those who are unable to protect themselves,
and I hope the example you furnish will be duly con-
sidered by all who live under its protection. I can
make no supposition favourable to your case. It is
idle to suppose any provocation could be given by this
infant. It is clear to me that you intended to take away
the life of this child, and your conduct, after you had
committed the murder, wss such as it is almost impossi-
ble for the human heart to coaceive. After you had
committed the horrible act, and when the mother returned,
you sat quietly preparing your slipper, without utter-
ing a syllable. Let am beg of you to prepare
for the awful change that awaits you, and let me hope
that in the short time that remains to you, you will en-
deavour to secure, by repentance and prayer, that for-
giveness in another world which in this you can never
obtain. It now only remains for me to pass upon you
the awful sentence cf the law, which is, that for the fe-
lony mid murder of which you stand convicted, You lie
:.aken from hence to the place from whence you came,
from thence to a place of execution, and there you be
hung by the neck till you are dead, aud may the Lord
;od Almighty have mercy on yo;ir guilty soul. It is
:also necessary that I should add, that your body should
he buried in the precincts of this prison.
The prisoner seemed deeply affected, and left the bar
apparently in great agony, covering his face with his
hands.

EXCIIEQLTER BILL CASE.
Air. ADOLPHUs said, that ho hail been in corn

munieation with the Attorney and Solicitor-General,
and with Sir Thomas Wilde, on the subject of the pro-
in conscqit of timith, uece, applied to the
sCe:tcmttlittiotiol !t:tisdelo";; Saturday.
Lord DExmaN thought it would be extremely incon-
venient to take it on Saturday, as it might last two days.
Ile would, however, say that it should nut be taken to-
morrow, and the Learned Counsel could make applica-
tion to-morrow to the Judges who would preside here
on the subject.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
HATTON-GA R DEN.
Mrs. M'Carthll, keeper of a lodging-house, in Carrier-
street, St. Giles's, was placed at the bar, charged with
stealing one sovereign and ten shillings from Michael
w iney..
The prosecutor informed Mr. Combo that he was a raal
ould British subject, who tbught hard and tuk his own
part in every battle in the Peninsula. and that he ap-
peare,l there to be "compensated " for the robbery of 30s.
from :his coat-pocket that morning in Mrs. M‘Carthy's
dwelling-house while he was asleep there. " I saw this
lady," continued Mr. M‘Swiney, " come into my room
and make for my coat-pocket ; and, after examining it
when I got tip, 1 found my money gone"
COMB —HOW can you say she took it when you
were asleep ? Prosecutor—l pretended it, your
wurtehip, and kept my eyes half shut, taking the oppor-
tunity all the time to observe her movements. She also
tuk away two pounds of steak and a quarter of a pound
of tea on the previous evening.
Mr. COMBE—How came you there ? Prosecutor—
Why, your wurtchip, Mrs. INPSwiney and I were caught
in the rain on Tuesday evening, and being far away from
our own place resolved to put up at some respectable
lodging.
Mr. CO MBE—Were 'you drunk 7- Prosecutor—No,.
your wurtchip, we were sensibly sober.
We paid six-
pence for the bed, and went to that expense to ensure
somethingbeyond the lower order of lodgings ; but we
were sadly mistaken in the character of Mrs. 3PCarthy.
Call my witnesses, your wurtchip, and give an ancient
definder of his country fair play.
Mrs. O'Brien was ushered in on the part of the prose-
cution, and began her testimony by giving evidence of her
own moral worth and consequence. " "ris the first time,
my Lord," said Mrs. O'Brien, " that I was ever in a jus-
tice-room or before a Court, or brought to answer for
breaking the pace, except this day, ant' thanks to you for
that, Mrs. M`Carthy. [Here the witness and the de-
fendant exchanged curtsies.]
Mr. COMIIE—WeII what do you know about this
robbery ? Witness--I know that Mrs. M‘Carthy is an
infarnal hardened ould thafe, my lord.
Prisoner—Me,
Mrs. O'Brien ? Witness—Yon, Mrs.
M`Carthy, most certainly. You would stale an eye out
of a priest's head. you robbed that gentleman of his
money, and that's as true as the word of God—the Lord
between us and harm.
Mr. COM 1.1 E—You
were all very drunk, I suppose ?
Witness—Drunk, lay Lord. Mrs. M‘Carthy is always
drunk, but none of the others was past hearty. Mr.
M'Swiney and his lady were looking at some comrades
drinking, your Lordship, but nothing beyond strict pro-
priety went inside their lips.
Defendant—Pay me my
rent, Mrs. O'Brien.
Mr. CO3IIIE—Do you owe her rent ? Witness—l do,
my Lord ; and, if she gives me my {mildly, I'll give her
sevenpence valuation out of it. I have no change now,
your Lordship..—(ltenewed laughter.)

As there was no proof of the manner in which the
prosoentor 103 t his money, the defendant was dismissed,
the former exclaiming loudly that there was no justice
in that decision, and that a man who carved his Sove-
reign in many a battle should have fared otherwise.
MARYLEBONE. •

TORIES FOR EVER.—A young man with a wooden leg,
who gave his name Edward Fosbrook, was charged by a
police constable of the P division, who stated that on the
previous night he' found the prisoner in the New-road ;
a number of' persons had collected around him, and he
was shouting out " Tories for ever."
Mr. LONG—Is that all he did, merely crying " Tories
for ever ?" Witness—He continued to do so in a very
loud tone of voice, your Worship, so as to cause a great
annoyance; he was also otherwise very noisy and riotous.
Mr. LONG (to defendant)—Why do you call out " To-
ries for over" in so loud a key as to cause a crowd to as-
semble ? Defendant—l'm very sorry, your Worship, if
I've committed m) self, but I'd no intention of offending
or disturbing any one.
The constable further stated that the prisoner was
drunk.

The accused was discharged, with an intimation that
his predilection for any particular political party should
be made known in a much less boisterous manner in future.
QUEEN-SQUARE.
Mr. James White, the proprietor of the Turk's Head,
Motcomb-street, Belgrave-square, appeared on a sum-
mons charging him with having obstructed and assaulted
Edward Powel, an attendant on the Annoyance Jury.
Mr. Smedley, the High-bailiff, briefly explained the
nature of the charge against the defendant, and cited the
section of the Act of Parliament, which gave the An-
noyance .Tury the power to enter, at all reasonable hours
in the day time, into the houses of all persons using
weights and measures in the retail of their goods.
Edward Powel stated that he had for the last twenty-
seven years been employed as an inspector of weights
and measures, and attended on all occasions as conductOr
of the Leet and Annoyance Jury. On "Wednesday week
last he accompanied them to the house of defendant,
where four measures were found deficient by the stand-
ard. He was proceeding to break them up in the street
before the door, when defendant laid hold of him by the
collar, and in other respects obstructed him..
A number of the Jury gave similar evidence.
Mr. Duncombe, the solicitor, cross-examined these
witnesses at considerable length. They admitted that
a cross staff had been held by Powel in defendant's face,
and that the landlord had expostulated with them en the
impropriety of breaking up the measures outside the
house, observing at the same time that he had no ob-
jection to thoir being destroyed within.
After some further inquiry, the defendant Was fined
:20s. and costs.