The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES' COURT, July 17.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
HOUSMAN V. RICHARDSON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 121. 10s.
for wages. The defendant suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. ASHLEY, the plaintiff's solicitor, stated the case. The
plaintiff had been engaged as secretary and clerk to a pro-
jected company, of which the defendant was a director,
called the Rock Steam Mining Company. The company was
formed in 1844, but only existed a few months. The plaintiff
claimed for one quarter's salary, at 501. per year. He would
call one of the other directors to prove the engagement and
terms.

Mr. John Fpm was called, and submitted that he was not
bound to give evidence, as he might involve himself in lia-
bilities.

The SECONDARY considered he was bound to be sworn,
but need not answer questions rendering himself liable. The
witness then distinctly proved the engagement of the plain-
tiff and his services. Defendant was one of the directors. He
declined to produce the minutes, and the Secondary did not
consider it necessary. Plaintiff was only engaged about an
hour or two one day a week; it was agreed that the salary
should be UL a year, to be increased if the concern prospered.
It was to raise tin from amongst the rocks.
Mr. WILKINSON, for the defendant, proceeded to cross •
examine the witness as to whether plaintiff had not been
paid since the action was brought, but
- The SECONDARY said that the defendant havidg suffered
judgment to go by default, he could not give evidence of
payment. He would gladly assist in such an inquiry- if he
could, as he had no doubt in many eases actions were going
on against five or six different parties.
Mr. ASHLEY said it was not so in this case ; the plaintiff
had received a bill which was dishonoured, and ample notice
was given to Mr. Richardson that the amount could not be
recovered from the other parties, and that the writ must be
executed unless the action was settled.
The jury, therefore, gave a verdict for the amount claimed. ,

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, July 16.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PARSE.)
Charles Pryor surrendered to take his trial upon an indict.
ment charging bim with feloniously forging and uttering a pro.
missory note for 2001., with intent to defraud Louisa Le.
gerton.

Mr. Ryland and Mr. Rndwell conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the prisoner.
Louisa Legerton, the prosecutrix, deposed that she lived
with her mother at Ugley Hall Farm, in the parish of Wal-
den, and she had the management of the farm. The pri-
soner had been employed in the caplcity of bailiff and confi-
dential servant for thirteen year.,, and he used to purchase
and sell stock. In 1843 he asked her to lend his brother
Joseph Pryor 1001., and be said ha would get her good secu-
rity for the principal and interest, and she gave the prisoner
that sum, but at the time no security was given to her. He
afterwards asked her to lend another sum of 1001., and upon
his undertaking to give her a promissory note for the whole
sum she had lent, she consented, and he shortly afterwards
gave her a promissory note, payable on demand, for 2001.,
which appeared to have the signature both of himself and
his brother. She said she remarked to the prisoner at the
time that the writing was very similar, and he accounted for
it by saying that he and his brother had both gone to the
same school, and were taught by the same master.
On being cross-examined the witness stated that the pri-
soner's wages were 301. a year, and he had the entire ma-
nagement of the farming business. He had offered to marry
her as many as a thousand times, but she always refused.
She said it was her own money that she advanced to him,
and her mother had nothing to do with the transaction. She
admitted there had been some other money transactions be-
tween the prisoner, herself, and other parties, and that she
was in possession of a bill for 3001., which, however; was not
produced.

Joseph Pryor, the brother of the prisoner, deposed that
the signature to the promissory noto purporting to be his was
not written by him, and he also stated that he never autho-
rised the prisoner to borrow money for him.

On c•oss-examination he admitted that about the time in
question he did receive two sums of 1004 each from his bro-
ther, and that he had not since repaid the amount.
IlAwxixs, on the part of the prisoner, addressed the
jury, and contended that the prosecution bad been got np
out of spite, and that there was no proof of any intention to
defraud, and the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal.
Mr. Baron PAInCE summed up, and the jury returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.

then
The prisoner was t arraigned upon another indictment,
charging him with feloniously embezzling the sums of 8/.
and 251., the moneys of Jane Legerton.
The prosecutrix in this case was the mother of the former
prosecutrix, and it appeared that in November, 1845, the
prisoner had sold some wheat for 81. 18s. 9d., and a horse for
25L in March, and it was alleged that he had not accounted
for either of these sums.

Louisa Legerton, the prosecutrix in the former indictment,
was again examined, and she deposed to the transactioes re-
ferred to having taken place, and that the prisoner had never
accounted to her for the money.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty upon this indictment,
and he was sentenced to be imprisoned four calendar months.
Attry Anne Mica, a little girl, who was stated in the ca-
lendar to be only twelve years old, pleaded guilty to a charge
of feloniously and maliciously setting fire to a barn, the
property of John Smith.
The prisoner was put back, in order that his Lordship
might have an opportunity of looking at the depositions and
inquiring into the circumstances of the case; and is the
coarse of the day she was again placed at the bar to receive
the judgment of the Court.
Mr. Baron PARKE addressed the prisoner, and said that she
had pleaded guilty to a very serious offence; and upon
looking over the depositions, the case appeared so clearly
made out by the evidence, that there was no doubt a jury
would have come to the same conclusion if she had taken a
different course, and therefore she had not at all placed her-
self in a worse position by confessing her guilt. The offence
appeared to be of a very aggravated description, and to have
been committed without any motive or cause whatever, and
under such circumstances he had no alternative but to pass
upon her a sentence of transportation. He at the same time,
however, would inform her, that if she conducted herself with
propriety, and there should be reason to believe that she
sincerely repented the act she had committed, it was probable
that the sentence would he mitigated very considerably, and
that after some lengthened imprisonment she might be again
restored to society. His Lordship then sentenced the prisoner
to be transported for fourteen ) ears.

WESTERN CIRCUIT— Winchester, July 16.
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT. )
TRIAL OF LIEUT. HAWKEY FOR THE WILFUL
MURDER OF LIEUT. SETON IN A DUEL.
Henry Charles Morehead Hawkey surrendered to take his
trial for the wilful murder of James Alexander Seton. The
court was most densely crowded, and the trial teemed to cause
the greatest interest. -
The indictment was read, and it charged the prisoner with
the wilful murder of James Alexander Seton, by shooting at
him with a pistol, loaded with a leaden bullet, and giving him
a mortal wound on the right side. He was also charged with
a like offence by the coroner's inquisition.
The prisoner, who is a fine, gentlemanly-looking young
man, of about 26 rears of age, pleaded Not Guilty in a firm
voice. He appeared to have suffered a good deal from anxiety,
and looked very pale and care-worn.
Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Montague Smith appeared for the
Crown. Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., and Mr. Sergeant Kinglake de-
fended the prisoner.
Mr. rtawrassox, in opening the case for the prosecution,
exhorted the jury to banish from their minds all reports
which they might have heard respecting the case, and to
give their verdict upon the evidence alone. The prisoner at
the bar stood charged with havieg killed Lieutenant Seton
in a duel, which took place on Brown Down, near Gosport.
The law, as the jury would doubtless hear it expounded by
the Learned Judge, was, that if a men went out deliberately
to seek the blood of his fellow-man in a private quarrel, and
killed him, he was guilty of the crime of murder. The
Learned C.mnsel then proceeded to give a short outline of the
facts of the case, which, as they have been already fully re-
ported more than once, it is unnecessary to repeat. We will
merely recal to the recollection of our readers that Lieutenant
Hawkey was stationed at Portsmouth, where he resided in I
lodgings with his wife. They became acquainted with Mr.
and Mrs. Seton, who lived at Southsea. On the 19th May,
last year, there was a ball at Southsea, and all the parties
were there, as well as Lieutenant Pym. During the ball
some altercation arose between the prisoner and Mr. Soon,
and they retired into a card-room, where they remained ten
minutes or a quarter of an hour. On the following morn-
ing, at eight o'clock, a gentleman called on the prisoner, and
left his card, and it would appear that that gentleman was
sent by Mr. Seton with a challenge to Mr. Hawkey. Lieute-
nants Hawkey and Pyin were then seen between ten and
eleven o'clock going into Portsmouth, and Mr. Hawkey
appeared to be speaking in a loud and excited tone.
At eleven o'clock, Lieutenant Hawkey called upon
Mr. Sherwood, a gunsmith, for the purpose of borrowing
pistols, but was referred to Mr. Fisk, a jeweller, of whom
he purchased a pair, and after inquiring for a shooting
gallery, ordered them to be sent to Sherwood's gallery,
where afterwards two or three shots were heard. Lieute•
nants Pym and Hawkey, attended by a servant, crossed in a
boat to Gosport about three or four in the afternoon, the ser-
vant carrying a square brown paper parcel. The two officers
proceeded to Brown Down, leaving the servant on the
shingle, where he could not see what passed on the down.
Within half an hour, first one shot was heard, and then
another. The servant was called in haste, and he found Mr.
Seton bleeding on the ground, and Lieutenants Hawkey and
PYin were not there. The Learned Counsel proceeded to say
that the question for the jury to decide was, whether the
prisoner at the bar was the person who fired the shot which
caused Mr. Seton's death. He should call witnesses to show
that after the shots were fired two gentlemenwere
seen r
along a lane leading from the spot where the crime was
committed ; that they arrived at the Fountain Inn, and left
behind them a parcel directed to Lieutenant Hawkey, to be
called for next day. Those gentlemen speedily left the inn,
and the evidence would show that at three o'clock two per-
sons, one being the prisoner, arrived at the house of Mr.
Ellis, the master of the Queen's yacht, who would relate
what took p!ace there. The Colonel or Adjutant of the re-
giment would prove that since these events the prisoner had
net been seen on duty. The evidence would show that Mr.
Seton was taken on board a yacht, and Mr, Jenkins, a sur-
geon, called to his assistance. From thence he was taken to
the Quebec Hotel, where he was attended by three or four
experienced medical men. For some time his case proceeded
favourably, but afterwards assumed a serious aspect, a
tumour was found, and it was determined to perform a sur-
ghiocpeal
oofepaevraintigon, .without which there would have been no
his life. That operation was performed, and
well performed, and late at night, or rather early in the
morning, the deceased made a certain statement to Dr.
Stewart, which that gentleman would detail to the jury, if
the Learned Judge thought proper to admit it as evidence.
Thepi lonuereshtalcidncfoomr mtliettejdurtYhetcorimdeetlearinaditnoehiwsa:h, a
rwghe e. t h
se
hr 0 tuhl
de
they be satisfied he had, it was their duty, in justice to the
public, and in discharge of their consciences, to tied
him
guilty.
The Learned J-uncia. ordered the prisoner to be accommo-
dated with a chair, as the inquiry was likely to last for some
time

The first witness called was Wm. Durmon. a private in the
Marines, who was servant to Lieutenant Hawkey in May,
1815. He deposed to the fact of a gentleman calling on tfie
morning of the 19th of May. By his card he ascertained
that it was Lieutenant Bowles, of the Royal Navy. He
saw Mr. Hawkey, and then left. Ile afterwards met his
master at Portsmouth, and, by his orders, returned to Lieu.
tenant Hawkey's lodgings. Lieutenant Hawkey never re-
turned there.

On cross-examination by Mr. COCKBURN, he stated that
Lieut. Hawkey was much from home, attending drill and
other military duties.
Wm. Marsh, also a private in the Marines, was then called,
and stated that in May, 1845, he was servant to Lieut. Pym.
That on the 20th of May he went with his master to "Point,"
in Portsmouth, and on getting to the Sally Port, they met
Mr. Hawkey, and got a boat and crossed to Gosport. Pre-
vious to this Mr. Pym had given him a brown paper parcel
with something hard in it. They all walked on to Brown
Down, where Mr. Pym directed him to go down to the shore
and wait. The shore was there so reeky that he could not
see the Down. He waited there until eallel by Mr. Pym,
about half au how. On coming up to the Down he Mr a ,