The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-16 00:00:00

the proper quarter, and he would advise the prisoner not
to place any reliance upon a favourable result, for he
considered it very possible that those whose province it
was to take such matters into consideration might con-
sider the offence was one of so dreadful a character,
that they would not feel themselves justified in advising
ner Majesty to interfere to prevent the law from taking
its course. He should, therefore, advise him to make
the best use of his time, with the assistance of the
chaplain of the gaol, to make all the atonement in his
power in this world, by a sincere repentance for the
dreadful crime he had committed, and to be prepared to
meet that sentence which the law required Dim to pass.
The sentence of death was then passed in the usual
form. The prisoner did not betray the slightest emo-
tion during any part of the proceedings, and when the
portion of the skull of his victim was produced by the
surgeon, he looked at it quite composedly, and seemed
to regard the ceremony of fitting it to the tool with a
good deal of curiosity. When the Learned Judge had
concluded his sentence, ho turned round and walked
away from the dock with the utmost composure, and
indeed he appeared almost the only unconcerned
spec-
tator of the proceedings.
Mr. RYLAND, with whom was Mr. Rodwell, made an
application to postpone the trial of David Meiklereid, for
manslaughter, to the next assizes.
The defendant, who was out on bail, was the captain
of the Royal Victoria Leith steamer, and he was charged
with having run down a schooner, called the Rose, while
lying at anchor in the river, and thereby occasioning
the death of two men named Thomas Emmett and Henry
Shillibeer, and was charged upon two inquisitions with
the offence of manslaughter.
Mr. RYLAND said that the witnesses, who were nearly
all seafaring men, had been bound over to attend, but
as no one had been instructed to conduct the prosecu-
tion, or get the witnesses together to go before the grand
jury, only two of them were now in attendance, and it
was therefore useless to go on with the trial at these
assizes. He therefore had to apply to the Court to post-
pone the trial to the next assizes.

Mr. CLARKSON, who appeared for the prisoner, ob-
jected to the trial being postponed. He said that from
the feeling entertained in Scotland with reference to a
person under such a charge, no person would employ
the defendant while it was hanging over him. He had
now been out of a situation for several months on that
account, and it would be very hard upon him that he
should be kept in the same position for eight months
longer, when is was the duty of the prosecutors to have
been prepared to go on with the trial at these assizes.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that under the Habeas Corpus
Act, if a prisoner surrendered on the first day of the
assizes, he had a right to demand, to be tried at these
assizes, unless the Crown gave some good grounds for a
postponement. In the present case he was of opinion
that there was not sufficient ground stated for post-
poning the trial. It was the duty of the prosecutors to.
have taken care that the witnesses were in attendance,
and he could not help expressing an opinion that the
criminal business of the county, either from economy
or some other cause, was not conducted as it ought to
be. On the first day of the assizes, in a most serious
case of poisoning, no counsel was retained to prosecute,
and he was obliged to hand the depositions to a Learned
Counsel in court just before the trial.
The defendant then surrendered, and he was given in
charge to the jury.
Mr. RYLAND said that, under the circumstances they
had heard alluded to, he must consent to their returning
a verdict of not guilty. He had no witnesses in at-
tendance to support the charge.
Mr. Baron PARE told the jury that they must find
the prisoner not guilty, because proper steps bad not
been taken on behalf of the prosecution to get the wit-
nesses to attend. There was a failure of justice no doubt
in consequence of this proceeding, but it was not the
fault of the prisoner, and he ought not to suffer in con-
sequence of the neglect of those who prosecuted him.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty upon
both inquisitions, and the defendant was ordered to be
immediately discharged.
July 15 _ _

At the sitting of the Court this morning,
Mr. Baron PARKE said that upon a further considera-
tion of the point of law raised by the Learned Counsel,
in the case of the two men Kimptou and Hickton, the
Dagenham policemen, he had resolved not to give effect
to it by postponing the judgment, but he should pass
sentence upon the conviction that had taken place, leav-
ing it to the prisoners to adopt the course of issuing a
writ of error if they thought proper to do so.
The prisoners Kimpton and Richton were then again
placed at the bar and arraigned upon another indict-
ment, charging them with conspiring together to defeat
the ends of justice by giving false testimony before the
coroner at the inquest upon their murdered comrade.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Clark appeared for the Crown,
and Mr. Hawkins defended Kimpton.
Mr. CLARKSON was about to open the case for the pro-
secution, when

Mr. Baron PARKE interposed, and said he did not see
what necessity there was to go into this indictment. If
a conviction took place he should not pass any sentence
except upon the first indictment, and if no writ of error
was brought, or, if brought, the first conviction should
be held good, it would be quite unnecessary to proceed
with this indictment. _

Some conversation then took place between the
Learned Counsel, and upon Mr. Clarkson undertaking
not proceed any further with the indictment for con-
spiracy in the event of the conviction for perjury not
being disturbed, the jury were discharged by consent
from giving any verdict upon this indictment.
At a later period of the day the prisoners were brought
up for judgment, and sentenced to pay a fine of l s., to be
imprisoned for a week, and then to be transported fur
seven years. •
This concluded the business of these assizes.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Northampton, July 15.
The cause list contained three cases—one being ;:n
action for debt, undefended; the second was for an illrgal
distress, verdict for the plaintiff with 61. damages; the
third was a tithe cause, between University College,
Oxford, and the vicar of Towcester; but it was settled
without the necessity of swearing a jury, so that the
civil business was over by twelve o'clock the first day.
In the Criminal Court, Ruth Wells, aged 31, was
charged with the wilful murder of her new. born male
child, at Abthorpe, in this county.
Mr. Flood conducted the prosecution.
It was known the prisoner, who is a single woman, was
pregnant, and the child, after its delivery, was seen on a
chair in the bedroom; she afterwards came down stairs
and put it in the privy.
.The evidence of the medical men went to show that
the child was born and died from suffocation ; but it
might have been caused by the bed clothes.
The prisoner was found guilty of secreting the birth.
Sentence deferred.
John C. Kromby, aged 38, was convicted of having
tittered a false acceptance for 491. 75., and sentenced to
ten years' transportation.
Mr. Macaulay prosecuted and Mr. Miller defended.
This case closed the business of the assizes.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Bedford, July 15. -
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERsoN.)
TEBBS V. BEVAN.

Mr. Sergeant Ryles and Mr. Worlledge were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Fitzpatrick ap-
peared for the defendant.
This was an action of trespass, for assault and bat-
tery, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty.
The plaintiff is the landlord of the George Inn, in this
town, while the defendant was the head waiter at the
Swan Hotel. The case arese from a broil when the de-
fendant was intoxicated.
The jury, after about fifteen minutes' deliberation,
found a verdict for the plaintiff, with one shilling da-
mages.
The Learned JUDGE, on being applied to, refused to
certify the right of the plaintiff to costs, so that each
party pays his own costs.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)

DELIBERATE ARSON.
William Ellts, aged 20, was indicted for setting fire
to a stack of stubble, at Humbershoe, the property of
Daniel Gutteridgo. _ _ _

Mr. Worlledg© conducted the case for the prosecution.
The prisoner is an unmarried agricultural labourer,
and the prosecutor is one of the guardians of the poor
for the Luton Union, in which capacity he would seem
to have been singled out by the prisoner lib the most
proper man on whose property he might commit an act
of incendiarism, and so promise to himself the benefits
of transportation, together with the trifling accompani-
ment of food. From the evidence of the witnesses called
for the prosecution it appeared that the prisoner had
been for some time out of work, and not many days
before the fire in question, which occurred on the night
of the 15th of May last, he said to a man named Wright
that he could not get any work, and they would not havele_
him at the union (where, however, he had nevernami
to
for relief), and that he must set some
, was confiied to the destruction of the stacerkmh
get himself transported. On the night of ptiha,:_efieOrwe,awhich
ination said
pre-
sent, as many others were, and
at
its
done the trick I
to his friend Wright, " Well, I_rheavt:
old G atteridge's
told you of last week ; I se n
else." It further appeared that
" he had no work,
stack, and if that 'ont do I'll seta!
and that he was
nor home,
nor mory, nor food,
on the railway, failing which
eustfirbeefotors sthurne mfireet
happened be told another man t
going to look for a job him a job some-
he few days after
should
On
lazily at full
hweh ere. ''
the fire, he was grass. Turning himself, and being•
length on the _
was doing there, said, " Nothing ; and
a 8 S°llMheSetilineffollin
found
occasion,l
y ginegt
to do. I have been trying a long time
alsolcoend
getwh ant he.ng
to get a jobo,tahni,d I can't; and I ain't got a bit of bread,to
said the interrogator, " why don't you
eat." " Wei],
'list, and go for a soldier?" " Oh," said he, " I've heel
the shilling offered to me many a day, but I 'ont go a
soldiering by no manner of means. I'd rather be trans-
ported, and so I've Set fire to Dan Glatteridge's etttek.",
When called on for his defence, the prisoner said he
had nothing to say to the jury, and, as might be ex,
pected, they-had nothing to say to him except that he
was Guilty.
Mr. Justice PAZTESON then proceeded to pass sentence
on the prisoner, for whose offence he thought that wait
of work did not afford an excuse, as he had been in •
formed that there was no lack of it at the time in ques-
tion in this county. Even if ho had been-out of wort.
the union was.. open -to him, biit he had not availed him-
self of the. relief provided for the poor and needy, con-
tent rather to do mischief to the property of his neigh-.
bour, under the vain delusion that his condition in a.pet
colony would be superior to that which be filled 3 in
own country. In this he would find he was greastyl-
home
taken, for the worst condition of an Englishman
was preferable to tho life of a convict penal settle-
meat.as his offence
nity of testing the fallacy of his hopes.. for,
law
was
~ ‘
The prisoner, however, would haveins an opportu-
nity
he should be transported for 15 years. ortu-
was a monstrous one, the sentence of the . • LIOLAt
With, tiit casts terwted the assizes,