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

THE SU N, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECP.4II!. BER 8, 1841

the other in her bosom. She sometimes us ed to sit ,
upon his knee. His mother used frequently to
come for him and he used to hide ft om her.
I have known defendant remain till eleven .or twelve
at night, when Mr. Orfeur was away. I have known
him throw things at the window at night, and she used
to open the window. On one occasion she came down
stairs, and let him in. She had been in bed, and had a
shawl on over her night dress. I went in one morning,
at nine, to Mrs. Orfeur's bed-room, to fetch the youngest
child away, and William was in her bed-room. Y heard
him, last summer, ask Mrs. Orfeur when she meant to
be up, and she said she did not know. He said, " I hope
you will, before Old Harry (the plaintiff) comes home."
They did not think I was near them at the time, and
were confused when they saw me. I have seen him fre-
quently come to supper, and they always supped by
themselves in the best parlour.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—My house is
very close to Mr. Orfeur's. I have been lately living on
some property of my mother's. I have known William
since we were children together. lam twenty-one, and
I think he is about two years older. It is about three
years since I saw him first at Mrs. Orfeur's. I never saw
any familiarities till Capt. Orfeur went his last voyage.
There was a female servant in the house the time I saw
them lying on the sofa. I said nothing when I came into
the room on that occasion. I should say I have seen them
kissing and sitting on his knee 15 or 20 times. I once
said to Mrs. Orfeur, that if Captain Orfeur came home
he would not like it. There was a glass door to the
room where the sofa is, and anybody looking in could
see what was going on. I saw something thrown up
at the windows from my own door. It was then eleven
at night. I was at the time living at No. 25. When
I spoke to Mrs. Orfeur she said it was no business of
Captain Orfeur's, or mine either. When I saw them
on the sofa it was after Christmas, and. about seven in
the evening. There was no candle in the room, but a
fire. He never told me that the steam-tugs were his
father's, but he made them over to him lately. I was
told so. I knew William Morgan. I have met him at
Mrs. Orfeur's twice. I saw John Baker there at two
parties. Mrs. Orfeur's mother was married again to a
Mr. Batchelor, about two years ago.
Susan Matthews—l was servant in the house of de-
fendant's father. I went oa the 20th of May, 1840, and
remained a year. The defendant lived with his father
during that time. I have frequently seen Mrs. Orfeur
at Mr. Watkins's house. I saw them together on one
occasion when the family were gone out. She asked
for the defendant, and walked into the back parlour,
where he was. She sat on his knee by the fire,, his arm
round her waist, and her arm round his neck. At
another time I saw her sitting on Mr. William's knee.
Her clothes were above her knees and his hand was under
her clothes. That was in the back parlour. On a Sun-
,:lay afternoon they were in the back parlour together for
s'
son time, and the door shut.
Bet
Pearse—l am 16 years old. I was servant to
Mrs. ortor for seven or eight months. I went there
on the 13th of December last. Captain Orfeur was then
away. Mr. wil;l2iam Watkins was there almost every
evening. He stopr an hour or an hou and a halt
Saw them at one time, d 11._rs. Orfeur sitting on his knee,
and his arm round her waist.
Mark Davy—l am a carman. I lived in the Rope-
ground behind Mr. Orfeur's house. I have seen Mrs.
Orfeur and the defendant in the rope-ground at eleven,
half-past eleven, and at all hours. He sometimes bad
his arm round her waist, and sometimes round her neck.
Hannah Everett—l live inWater-lane, Dockhead, I lived
as servant with Mrs. Orfeur for four months before
Betsy Pearce. I saw William Watkins there almost
every day. I saw them walking together in the rope-
ground late at night. I saw them together in
the back parlour, Mrs. Orfeur sitting on his
knee. I went into Mrs. Orfeur's bed-room,
one morning, about a fortnight before I left. I saw William
Watkins lying in the bed with Mrs. Orfeur. His back
was towards me, but I knew him very well. Mrs. Or-
feur told me never to answer the bell at night. It used
to be rung two or three times a week. Ido not know
who answered it.
Elizabeth Orfeur—l am the wife of Captain John
Orfeur, the plaintiff's brother. I live at Yarmouth. I
supplied Mrs. Orfeur with about 100/. during my bro-
ther's last voyage. I have been often at plaintiff's house,
and have seen the defendant there.
George Reed—l am a pilot. I took the brie.'. Leda
from St. Katherine's Docks to the Downs on the 22d of
November, 1840. Captain Orfeur then came on board,
and went on his voyage to Constantinople and Syria.
The defendant came as far as Limehouse-reach. He is
a waterman, and assisted with a boat and kedge-anchor.
Robertßullem—Deposed that he went the voyage with
Captain Orfeur, and returned in August, 1841.
Mr. Lock, the Registrar of Shipping, said the steam-
tugs Monarch and Fiddler, were entered as the property
of William Watkins. A new Registry was made in Oc-
tober, 1841.
Mr. THESIGER then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. He said it was no part of his duty or his in-
clination to treat the plaintiff's claim with levity. The
principal witness in the case was Miss Ellis, who ap-
peared to treat the matter with much unconcern, but he
did not mean to say that the injury of which the plain-
tiff complained was not a very serious one indeed. He
could feel for his sufferings and privations, and for
his situation, in being deprived of a protectress for his
children ; but he called upon the Jury to weigh the
whole circumstances of the case, which gave it a charac-
ter he never recollected before to have witnessed. He
trusted he would satisfy the Jury that whatever the in-
jury might be that the plaintiff had sustained personally,
what he had lost was of a very trifling and valueless na-
ture. The parties had been married for 16 years, and
had a family of seven or eight children, and the de-
fendant was, at the time these transactions were said to
have taken place, not more than 22 years of age. These
were circumstances of a very peculiar character, and de-
served their serious consideration. Another point to which
he would refer the Jury was that there had been no
evidence given as to the station in life or property of the
defendant. If the wife had been a virtuous character it
was impossible, from, her age and character, that the de-
fendant would have taken the liberties that were alleged.
On the contrary, the most indecent familiarities were
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 diminisking.
The Jury could not doubt that the overtures must have
come from Mrs. Orfeur 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 woman 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 for 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, lint 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 .4 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, 201.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,Dec. 1.
CARPENTER V. SMITH.

This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to
recover damages for the infringement of a patent, for
making what is called the "Rim Lock."
After Mr. KELLY had opened the plaintiff's case,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the plaintiff's
specification. He admitted that his client had made a
lock containing the common bolt and a spring lever bolt
within the same rim. _

_ ......
Mr. KELLY admitted that they had not connected
them together as in the plaintiff's lock, but contended
that the placing them in the same rim was an infringe-
ment of the patent.
Upon these admissions the case was likely to go off for
consideration of the Court above, but as the Attorney-
General refused to admit that the combination was new,
Mr. KELLY called Mr.Cartmail, Mr. Cowper, of King's
College, Mr. Bramah, Mr. Coxe, a lockmaker of twenty-
five years' standing, Mr. James Coley, a dealer in locks
upwards of thirty years, all of whom had never seen
the combination, or any lock upon the same principle,
before the date of the plaintiff's patent, 1830. The lock
was a most useful one. The sale was proved to be be-
tween five and six thousand dozen a year.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury upon
this evidence. He said it had surprised him, for the
model, which Mr. Cartmail had so frankly admitted to
be on the same principle as that of the plaintiff, was the
very model upon which upwards of 80 locks were made
in 1809 for Martello Towers, which were raised for the
public service. He would prove that fact, and there would
be an end of the novelty of the plaintiff's lock, for if the
patent were to stand, the very man who invented and
made upward,: of 80 upon the same principle upwards of
30 years ago, would be prevented from ever making
another or using Izis own invention. He would
also prove that a who street in Birmingham was
furnished with locks made from the same model, and
these were put up in 1825, but he had been using them
ever since the time that Napoleon Bonaparte was mar-
ried
samert' ad
eordate:l)
tsoillriaotawetlo
to Maria Louisa of Austria—(Laughter)
he seemed to remember particularly. He also prodpapeulrabciiaeonddi:
tiff's alleged inventionyor combination was only
claimedma
tmtho
hen
principle et ohtet
pgl ea ornutsi
ffe
d. in
nd -t gfhaaeetmett .waetac
sh , t
imitation of that of Mr. Chubb. If he proved all these
whichp Thomas,r, vhe ed the
fomr
otiri
eyl eoafrtshae
Ar
facsts,:as there not an end of the case ? He then called
-pwahuihdeeol.
he
a wasm,
which a
'They
ewme
raed emuapdwe a rodns ot
thee ighty, gh y
principle, for wohfi c
both
holti
locksmithartello T ineßrilromcki n,
go-f
latch
said Chubb's patent was published in 1829,
John a naliorcyk .
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.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 1.
IN NE THEOPHILUS GAMAUFF.

This day being appointed for the adjourned examina-
tion of the bankrupt, who carried on business in Fetter-
lane, Fleet-street, as a furrier, and had very large trans-
actions with several German houses, the Court was
crowded to excess.

Mr. Alderman T. Wood said that some goods had
been sent to Ireland, concerning which he and the assig-
nees wished for information. Me should therefore hope
the Court would consent to an adjournment for a short
time.

Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—Have the assignees
any reason to suppose that there is property in the
bankrupts hands, which has not yet become available to
the creditors?

Mr. Alderman Wood—Yes, it is supposed so.
The Learned COMMISSIONER. then ordered the case to
be adjourned to the 16th inst.

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 Coun
sel now applied that the Court would direct Captain
Wish, who was appointed one of the executors to Mrs.
and Miss Wish's wills, to pay the same to Mr. Loder.
In reply to the Commissioner, Mr. Cooke said it was the
wish of the assignee to act with as much kindness and
courtesy towards Air. 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 ARCHER.

The insolvent was opposed by Mr. Woodruffe, and
supported by Mr. Cooke. The names of upwards of 60
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.

POST-OFFICE ROBBERY.— William Henry Mence, a
messenger in the employ of the Post-office, was charged
with stealing a letter containing one penny piece, the
property of the Postmaster-General.
The prisoner expressed a desire to plead guilty to the
minor charge of stealing a penny, but Mr. Adolphus
who (with Mr. Bodkin) appeared for the prosecution,
said that it was so necessary that every irregularity on
the part of those employed in the Post-office, should be
thoroughly investigated, that he could not consent to the
adoption of such a course, but should proceed with the case.
It appeared that a letter, with a penny pinned in it to
pay the postage, was put into one of the receiving houses
in Drury-lane, and was in that state forwarded, in the
regular manner, to the General Post-office, St. Martin's-
le-Grand, where the prisoner was employed as a letter-
stamper. Another, letter-stamper, who was employed at
the same table, observed something odd in the conduct
of the prisoner with regard to some of the letters. Tyr-
rell, the officer, was sent for, and the letter was found in
the prisoner's hand firmly clenched. He resisted very
much, and it was with great difficulty that the letter was
taken from him.

➢Zr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the prisoner,
who received an excellent character from several wit•
nesses, one of whom had come up from Tamworth for
the purpose.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury found the
prisoner guilty of the major offence.
Sentence was deferred. _ _

CUTTING AND MAIMING. -- Michael Conlan was
charged with cutting and wounding Mary Mahony, with
intent to murder her. There was a second count in the
indictment, charging him with the commission of an
assault.

Mr. CLARKSON having stated the case for the prose-
cution,:called the following witnesses :
Mary Bridget Mahoney—l am living in service in
Upper Stamford-street. On the 30th September I had
permission to go to my father's, in John-street, Com-
mercial-road. I met my sister and a young man named
Larkin, and just before we came to John-street we met
the prisoner, who lives next door to my father. lie was
walking with his wife and a man on the other side of
the way. Ile called after us, making use of abusive
language. I said he had better go about his busi-
ness, and that there was another way to make
him pay for what he had said. Larking went
up to him and said, " Are you aware that you
are taking those young women's characters away." I
told Larkin to come away, and went to fetch him away,
when the prisoner struck me on the head with his fist,
tore my hair, and tore my dress completely off. My
mother came up, and he commenced beating her. I
went borne to put on another dress, and after doing so,
came out at the street door. I saw a crowd outside, and
as I was goinc, out of the gate of the court he threw a
stone at me, and said, " Take that." I fell senseless,
and know nothing more. Before that I saw some gar-
den-pots thrown down from prisoner's house. I never
offered him the least provocation. I was in the hospital
a month.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—I did nothing to
the prisoner or his wife. Larkin, I believe, has been living
with his mother. He has not lived at my mother's since
this transaction. I did not see yriioner's windows smashed.

George Larkin—l am a barge-builder, living at 28,
John-street, Commercial-road. I remember being in
company with last witness and her sister Margaret on
the occasion referred to. I saw the prisoner standinc,
at the head of Bond-street with two females. He called
after the last witness. He called her a b—y w—e. l re-
monstrated with him. Prisoner said he did not want to
have any quarrel with me. This witness then corroborated
the evidence of the last witness as to the first assault.
After the last witness had changed her dress, and had
come to the front door, I saw the prisoner throwing down
flower-pots out of his up-stairs window into the front
yard of the house where the prosecutrix's father resided.
When proSecutrix came outside the door prisoner came
out of his own house with a brick in his hand. He flung
it at the pro:•ecutrix, making use of the same words he did
before. It struck her forehead. She fell senseless, and was
taken to Mr. Menzies. He afterwards threw a pint pot
at the prosecutrix's father. Ile flung nothing else.
Cross-examined—l have never said that he flung a
flint stone at her. I have mentioned the pint pot before
this morning. I went before the Magistrates. Prisoner
.was suffered to go at large on his own recognizances. I
have not been very intimate at the Mahoneys' since this
business. I did not see prisoner's windows broken. No
violence was offered to prisoner's wife in my presence.
Margaret Mahoney, sister to the prosecutrix, corrobo-
rated her testimony. She also saw the prisoner fling a
flint-stone.

John Thoms—l live near the parties. On the evening
in question I heard the cry of murder, and went out. The
witness then detailed the assault as described by the
former witnesses. _

Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—Did you ever say
you saw him throw a large flint-stone. Witness—Never.
Dir. C. PHILLIPS—I must put in the depositions.
On inquiry it appeared that no depositions had been
taken.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS--We are not, then, in the situation in
which we ought to be. The attorney for the prosecu-
tion kindly gave us a copy of his depositions, and from
them it appears that the witness said distinctly he saw
the prisoner fling a flint stone.
The attorney fur the prosecution said that witness had
stetted
so. On inquiry it appeared that the prisoner had
been committed on a Judge's warrant.
The policeman who took the prisoner into custody,
produced a flint stone and a brick, which he had received
from Margaret Mahoney, who swore that they were
thrown by the prisoner.
The medical man who attended the prosecutrix, stated
the nature of the wound.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, for the defence, complained bitterly
that no depositions had been returned. Be should prove
by his witnesses, that so far from this being the unpro-
voked assault it had been represented to be, the prisoner
had received the greatest provocation. He then called
Anthony Bennett—l was in company with the pri-
soner, his wife, and a young woman, on the night in
question. George Larkin came over and said to pri-
soner, " What have you said to these two women, my
friends." Prisoner had said nothing then. According
to this witness's version of the story, the Mahoney party
had begun the abuse and the assault, and had beat the
prisoner and his wife before any thing was done by
prisoner.
George Jones, a master baker, had seen the transac-
tion'; and, according to his account, Larkin had begun the
row by addressing the prisoner, and the two Mahoneys
had bent the prisoner's wife, while Larkin beat and kicked
the prisoner.
William Choine passed the house of the Mahoneys at
the time, and saw the girls stripped to fight, and waiting
for Conlon; when he passed, the Mahoneys and Larkin
seized him and beat him. The prisoner then went into
his house, and the Mahoneys came out hooting at him.
One of them had a brick-bat in her hand, and threatened
nortest
testified
btrihcek -Abiaath tetinre;:sn
to throw it at the prisoner's house. Prisoners windows
were smashed.
Cross-examined by Mr. DOA NE.—Never saw any
Several other witnesses wet;
,;:i row, and had
flower-pots ist:,rown ; never saw any flint stone thrown,
xarnined ; all of whom
smashed the prisoner's windows; and one of them, nri.:.'ed
Parker, stated that the prosecutrix had received the
notes
Magistrate,
wound from falling on the step of her own door.
sattatoterdn,e)wrhfoern
htehfeerdeeftehneceifagiT
Mr. Cutchlore, the attorney for the prosecution, took
thhee nh
ad distinctly
s eena
begun had
whatan
dthe n r
nmiisthneeds sae se
copy
yd
of
said i dt
hmeshee when beforeetes te theth e
shter awt ,t witness
st
flint stone thrown before the brick was thrown.
Lord DENMAN re-called the surgeon, who stated that
a very heavy tall might of possibility produce a wound

such as that the prosecutrix had on her forehead, but
that if the prosecutrix had fallen, her face would in all
probability have been injured, which was not the case.
Mr. I)oANE replied.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury found the
prisoner Not Guilty.
CHARGE OF MURDER.—Job John Ward, aged 28, WAS
indicted for the wilful murder of Timothy Easted, by
striking him on the head with a hammer. The prisoner
p:eatied Not Guilty.
Mr. CURWOOD conducted the prosecution, and called
Mrs. Easted—l am a widow, residing at Regent-street,
Regent's-park. I had a child aged one year and nine
months. 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 lam gone." Ile 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 !nought the child back, and saw prisoner, and said to
hint, " You have murdered my poor:baby." 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. He 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 poricejwho took the charge at the sta-
tion-house was present when the prisoner was rx-
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 fetch some onions, he had fallen
on the child.

Mrs. Easted recalled—The bed is a good distance 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 drinkinc, that night, but 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 same house 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 20th of No-
vember, about half-past nine or 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 him, and said he would not have it.
He 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
had been brutally ill-used the night before by him. The
policeman asked him how he came to do it, and he said
he fell upon the child—that he did not beat the child.
Mr. Barfoot—l am a surgeon, residing in Regent-street,
Regent's Park. The child was brought to me on the
night in question. It had evidently received some ex-
ternal violence. There was a swelling on the right side
of the head, extending from behind the ear to the back
of 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 impossible for a
fall to have produced the injury, but exceedingly im-
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.
I was getting into bed, and fell upon it."
Cross-examined—Rowe was close by at the time, and
had just as good an opportunity of hearing what he said
as I had.

W. Moody—l am a police constable, and was at the
station-house when prisoner was brought in. I sent to
the hospital, and found the child was dead. I asked
Mrs. Easted what charge she made ; she said I charge
him with murdering the child. 1 said to the prisoner
this is a very serious charge. He said, I never ill-used
the child. I came home drunk last nigkt, and getting
into bed I fell upon it.
Cross-examined—l was present when the prisoner was
searched. There were onions found in his pocket. What
passed was in the hearing of Mrs. Easted.
Mr. Robert Daudy—l am a surgeon at University
College Hospital. I saw the child of Mrs. Easted 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
the 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 been
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 DENMAN—CouId a drunken man falling on the
child, or gettinc, into bed, and coming 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 have 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 Wildman—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. Easted 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 cup-
board from the bed appeared from the plan to be four
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-
torial 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-
- -ned it to the mother, and that he should have
different accounts of the transaction. He
given two
could hardly imp,: how they could acquit him entirely,
because if he had through Carelessness occasioned the
child's death ho was guilty of manslaughter. They
could not acquit him unless OK
were
_convinced that
the child's death had been oecasinnefi by the result of
the merest accident in the world. If they shetlld
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 LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then proceeded to pass
upon the prisoner the awful sentence of the law, in the
most impressive and feeling manner. He 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-
offending 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 tome 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, was such as it is almost impossi-
ble for the human heart to conceive. After you had
committed the horrible act, andiwhen the mother returned,
you sat quietly preparing your supper, without utter-
ing a syllable. Let me 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 of the law which is, that for the fe-
lony and murder of which you stand convicted, you be
taken 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, and may the Lord
God Almighty have mercy on your guilty soul. It is
also necessary that I should add, that your body should
be 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.