The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-07 00:00:00

CASES.

Lord DENMAN brought in a Bill, which he had
prepared last year, to alter the existing law, so far as
to give the courts of law power to mitigate extreme pe-
nalties in cases of felony.

Sir GEOR,GE CLERK did .not know of any impe-
diment which would be thrown in the way of Irish rail-
ways by compelling them to commence in the House of
Lords. On the contrary, he thought much benefit would
be the result. In the case of two competing companies,
one might commence in that House, and the other might
be brought forward in the House of Lords. The Com-
mittee of this House might sanction one of the
schemes, and the House of Lords would possibly
consider the other company as deserving of support;
the consequence would necessarily be, that instead
of facilities being afforded, the whole concern would
be brought to a stand still, and one House would say to
the other you must not pass this Bill until you have
sent it to us, in order to decide upon its merits Si to
the other competing line.
Mr. AGLIONBY—Suppose there should be no com-
peting line ?
Sir G. CLERK did not consider even in that
case that any substantial injustice would be
inflicted upon these Bills. There were standing orders
of both Houses which must be complied with prior to
obtaining their powers. He did not therefore consider
that any possible inconvenience could arise from the
adoption of the course suggested by the Select Committee.
He believed it was the intention of his Hon. Friend the
President of the Board of Trade, to introduce resolu-
tions which would have the effect of doing away with
any standing order that would be productive of inconve-
nience to the public business ; and this he believed
would have the effect of obviating the difficulties appre-
hended by the Honourable Members for Cockermouth
and Roscommon. Owing to the peculiar position of
Ireland, the Government were anxious that every facility
should be given to the passing of all Irish railway Bills,
with a view to giving the labouring population of that
country employment when it would be most wanted,
namely, in the months of June and July next ; and he
did believe that doing so would confer one of the greatest
benefits upon that country.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROSS said it would be well that all Bills not
having to encounter competition should be at once sent
to the House of Lords.
Mr. GREENE said that those Bills which should have
been declared to have complied with the standing orders
it was recommended should be sent at once to the House
of Lords, and that would greatly facilitate the business.
Mr. W. COLLETT said that he did not think that
the benefits supposed to follow the passing of the Irish
Bills would be realised, because such Bills as should not
have passed before June or July could not be
brought into operation for some months after.
He considered that the Government ought to take some
means for expediting the Bills which had once been
reported to have fulfilled the standing orders.
The SPEAKER having then read some extracts from
the report,
Mr. E. B. DENISON said that it would be
a very hard case should they rescind the order
of the 7th July last, and it was right that he
should call their attention to what that resolution was. It
provided that Bills which had passed the ordeal of that
House should be entitled to go into the House of Lords just
as they stood, meaning those Bills which had passed the
Standing Orders Committee. Now that was the case of
the Portsmouth group, and the London and York. Would it
not be very hard indeed if these companies, after having
gone to such enormous expense, should be
precluded now, and have to commence de novo.
With regard to the London and York line, there were
other lines to compete with it, and the House of Lords
would have to take these schemes into consideration.
There was the Direct Northern Railway, and also the
CAnabeidge line, which would decidedly take up a good
d, al of time in getting through. He considered that if
the Committee would act more impartially, it would be
benetieial to the interests of railways generally.
Mr. WA RD said that at the close of last session there
were great complaints with regard to the time occupied
in the discussion on railway Bills. There were several
parties who had been for eighty days before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons who were never heard,
and who were afterwards told that their place of refuge
was the House of Lords. That was a position in
which a Committee, although acting impartially, eould not
'avoid placing them. The question was not with regard
to the interests 'of a particular comp.any, but it was a
question as to what decision the Legislature Could come
to as to which line was the best, and it was fit, just and
proper, and wise, that the House of Lords should have
an opportunity of mature consideration on that subject.
Mr. E. DENISON said that the scheme referred to
by the preceding speaker was not a new one, and there-
fore the arguments made use of on the present occasion
against the measure did not apply.
Lord G. SOMERSET did not consider that the
House would be committing any injustice by adopting
the report. After a few further remarks from the Noble
Lord, which were inaudible in the gallery,
Sir H. W. BARRON said it was quite impossible
that any railroad, the Bill for which might be passed
during the present session, could give employment to
the Irish people for several months to come. He did
not say this from any opposition to the measure, but
merely for the purpose of undeceiving the House on
this subject. He hoped the House would not
depend too much upon the present project, as likely to
be of great advantage to the people of Ireland. Sup-
posing a Bill for a railway had passed both Houses, and
received the royal assent, he need not tell the House that
notices must be issued for calls, and those
calls must be made in the first place ; In the
next place, they must get possession of the line, which
all would know was a task of no ordinary difficulty.
After that it was necessary to advertise and enter into
contracts. All these things would occupy a great deal of
time, and the House would be very much deluded if
they thought that they would be giving early employment
to the Irish poor. He could assure the House that it
would be August or September next before any new
railroad could be commenced in Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. W. COLLETT and Mr.
FORSTZR, which were inaudible in the reporters' gallery,
The SPEAKER put the motion, which was agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
(Front the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
THURSDAY, FEB. 5.

The following Petitions for Railway Bills were referred to the
Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills
Sheftield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway (Barnsley
Branch).
Sheffield, Ashton under Lyne, and Manchester Railway (Whaley
Bridge and Hayfield Branches).
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway (Dukinfleld,
Worsborough, and Glossop Branches and Sheffield Station).
Manchester and Hyde Railway.
Richmond Railway (Kew Branch).
Wilts, Somerset, and Southampton Junction Railway.
Midland and Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to Weedon).
Derby, Gainsborough, and Great Grimsby Junction Railway.
Chester and Manchester Direct Railway.
Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction Railway Extension and
Deviations.
North Wales Mineral Railway Deviation and Branches.
Huddersfield and. Manchester Railway and Canal (Bradford Braneh).
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway (Ashton
Canal Purchase).
Manchester and Leeds Railway Extensions, tfc.e.
Dunblane, Donne, and Callender Railway.
East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction Railway.
Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction Railway.
Huddersfield and Manchester Railway and Canal (Oldham Branch).
Huddersfield and Manchester Railway and Canal (Huddersfield
Diversion and Cooper-bridge Branch).
Bristol and Exeter Railway (Crewkerne Branch).
Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton Railway Amendment.
Glasgow and Belfast Union Railway.
Derby and Crewe Junction Railway.
Maidon, Witham, and Braintree Railway. _

Lyin and Ely, and Ely and Huntingdon, and Lynn and Dual=
Railway Companies Amalgamation.
Thames Haven Dock ead Railway. _

Midland Railway (Burton-upon-Trent to :Nuneaton Branch and

Ashby Canal Purchase).
Midland Railway (Leicester and Swatutington Alteration and

Branches).
Loudon and Brighton and London & Croydon Railways Consolidation.
Eastern Counties Railway (Hertford to Huntingdon).
Midland Railway (New Cross to Newark).
Eastern Counties Railway (Tottenham to Barnet).
Midland Railway (Darfield to Elsecar and. other Branches).
Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway..
:Monmouth and Hereford Railway.!
West Londnn Railway Improvement and Extension.
Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding Junction Railway.
Launceston and South Devon Railway (No. 2).
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Carlisle Branch Railway.
North Gravesend Railway.
Norfolk Railway Extension., (Thetford and Reedham Branches).
Dundee and Arbroath Railway Extensions.
Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway and Tyne Dock.
Manchester, Midland, and Great Grimsby Junction Railway.
Glasgow, Barrhead, & Neilston Direct Railway (Branches to Paisley).
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Polloc and Govan Branch).
Scottish Midland Junction Railway Branches.
Glasgow, Strathaven, and Lesmahagow Direct Railway.
Scottish Midland Junction Railway (South Inch of Perth Branch).
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan Railway.
Bridgewater and Taunton Canal, Railway, and Harbour.
Birkenhead and Llangollen Railway.
Grand Trunk, or Stafford and Peterborough Union Railway.
Norfolk Railway Extensions, Yarmouth Extension.
Bedford and Cambridge Extension Railway.
Midland Railway. Nottingham and Mansfield Railway.
London and Blackwall Railway (Widening).
Cambridge and Lincoln Extensioa, and Lificoln.:York and Leeds
Junction Railway.
Taff Vale Railway.
..
Furness and Windermere Railway.
Birmingham, Lichfield, and Manchester Railway.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Edinburgh, and Direct Glasgow Junetion
Railway.
Edinbuagh and Perth Railway.
West Cornwall Railway, .
Manchester and Poole Railway (Luggershall. Salisbury, and Poole)..
Dundee and Perth Railway Amendment.'
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway (Extension. No. 1).
Worcester, Hereford, Roes,' and Gloucester Railway.
Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland Junction Railway.
London, Salisbury, and Yeovil Junction Railway.
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway Extension (No. 3).
Eastern Counties Railway (March and Lincoln Extension).
Midland, Barnsley, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Leeds, and Bradford Railway.
Chichester, Portsmouth, and Farnham Railway.
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway Extension (No. 2).
Eastern Counties Railway (Epping Extension).
Waterford and Tramore Railway.
South Yorkshire Railway and Canal.
Dublin and Kingstown Extension Railway.
Enfield and Edmonton Railway.
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Bridge of Weir Branch).
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Harbour Branch).
Glasgow Harbour.Grand Junction Railway Terminus.
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilaton Direct Railway (Branches to
Thornliebank, Househill, and Hurlet).
Oldham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Birkenhead Junction Railway.
Boston, Newark, and Sheffield, and Nottingham and Grantham
Junction Railway.
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway.
East Coast Railway.
➢ablin And Enniskillen Railway.
Goole and Doncaster Railway.
Dartmouth, Brixham, and Exeter Railway.
North of Norfolk Railway.
East Lancashire Railway Deviation and Branches.
Macclesfield and Lichfield Railway.
East Denham and Norwich Railway.
West Lancashire Railway.

NOTICBC (IVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL-OFFICE.

THUZIMIT, FEB. 5.
Glasgow Harbour Mineral Railway—Committee en Petition, Fri-
day, Feb. 13.
Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway—Committee en Petition,
Friday, Feb. 13.
—Bridgewater and Minehead Railway and Pier—Committee on
Petition, Friday, Feb. IS.
Chelmsford and Bury Railway—Committee on Petition, Friday,
Feb. 13.

Welsh Midland Railway—Committee en Petition, Friday. Feb. 13.
Lancashire and North Yorkshire Railway—Committee on Petition,
Friday, Feb. 13.
London and Croydon (Thames Junction Branch) Rallway—Com-
mittee oa Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Direct Northern Railway—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13
East Lothian Central and Tyne Talley Junctien Railway—Com•
mittee on Petition, Friday. Feb. 13.
York and Carlisle Railway—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Hull and Selby Railway Purchase—Committee on Petition, Fri.
day, Feb. 13.

Cornwall Railway—Committe• on Petition, Friday, Feb. 18.
Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway—Committee on Petition, Fri•
day, Feb. 18.

illiropshire Union Railway (Newton to Crewe, with Ilranches)—
Committee en Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Shropshire Union Railways and Canal (Chester and Wolverhamp-
ton line)—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Shropshire Union Railways and Canal (Shrewsbury and Stafford
Railway)—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
London, Warwick, Leamington, and Xiddermiastar Railway—
Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Harwich and Eastern Cetuitles Junction Railway and Pier—Com-
mittee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
South Staffordshire Junction Railway (lfe. 4—Willenhall and
Bleswich Branch) —Committee en Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Lincoln, Wainfteet Haven, and Boston Railway—Committee en
Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
South Staffordshire Junction Railway (No. 3—Showhill and Porto-
bello Branch)—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Isholme, Gainskorosgh, and Goole and York, and North Midlands
Junction Railway—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway (Peak
Forest and Macclesfield Canal Purchases)—Committee on Petition,
Friday, Feb. 13.
South Staffordshire Junction Railway with Branehea—Committee
en Petition, Friday, Feb.
_

South Staffordshire Junction Railway (Ne. 2—Biikon or Priest-
field Branch)—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Manchester and Lincoln Union Railway (Chesterdeld and GAIIIS-
- Canal)—Committee on Petition, Friday, Feb. 13.
Wilsontown, Morningside, and Colines., Railway (Caledonian
Junction)—Committee on Petition, Monday, Feb. 164
•Wilsontown, Morningside, and Coltnees Railway (Batbgate
Branch)—Oommittee on Petition, Monday, Feb. 16.
Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway—Committee on
Petition, Monday, Feb Is.

Monkiand and Kirkintillock Railway (Chapel Hale Branch)—
Committee on Petition, Monday, Feb. 16.
Ballochney Railway (Shotta Brancb)—C orninittee on Petition
Monday. Feb. 16.

Carniiath and West Lintoa Railway—Committee on Petition,
Monday, Feb. 16.

Limerick, Ennis, and Melee Railway—Committee on Petition
Monday, Feb. 16.

...
Mountmellic Junction Eallway—Committee on Petition, Monday,
Feb. 16.

Great Southern and Western Railway (Cork Extenalen)—Com.
wittee on Petition, Monday, Feb. 10.

Killarney Junction Railway—Committse on Petition, Monday,
Feb. 16.

Staines and Henley itailway —Committee on Totition, adjourned
till Monday, Feb. 9.

London and South Western (Salisbury Junction) Railway—Com-
mlttteo on Petition, adjourned till Thursday, Feb. 12.
London and South Western (Basingstoke and Salisbury Extension.
Railway—Comnitteo on Petition, adjourned till Thursday, 141. 12.)

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 6.

The llouae sat to-day at 10 o'clock to hear Scotch appeals.
Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell, were
the Peers in attendance.

, MACPHERSON V. CRAHME.
The further arguments in this ap peal occupied their Lord•
ships the whole morning.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 6.
(Sittiuge at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN and a
Common Jury.)
The Court was occupied the greater part of this day with
the investigation of a case similar to that of yesterday,
namely, personal injury from alleged negligent driving.
The case was of no interest except to the parties concerned.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 6.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius' before the LORD CHIEF BARON and
Special Juries.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 0. I'M AND OTHERS.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General
against the defendants, for the recovery of penaltie4 they
were alleged to have incurred. in an evasion of the Excise
laws in the article of paper.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Wilde appeared for the
Crown, and Mr. Valentine Lee for the defendants.
The SOLICITOR•GENENAL stated the facts of the case.
The defendants were paper manufacturers, and had a mill
for that purpose at Wickham. On the 4th day
of April, 1844, five quantities were sent out from the mill
which were not entered in the book' which is provided for
that purpose according to law, and did not pay the duty
legally chargeable thereon agreeably to the provisions of the
2d and 3d Vict. chap. 23. These quantities were carried to
London and delivered to Pym and Arnold, the fathers of the
defendants, in London. Another count charged defendants
with defacing the labels on the paper. Witnesses would
prove these facts, and he had no doubt but upon their careful
consideration the jury would consider the Crown entitled to
a verdict.

James Devereux, supervisor of Excise at Wickham, was
then examined, and deposed that he surveyed the paper-
mill called Ashmill for several years. Knew Thomas Pym,
Edward Pym, and Mr. Arnold, the proprietors of it. On the
4th April, 1844, he made the seizure of the paper (which was
produced in Court). What made him suspect that the de-
fendants were acting illegally was the number of hours tl..e
mill was at work, and the state of the engines. On the 4th
April he saw a waggon near the dwelling-house of defen-
dants (the Pyms), and saw Edward Pyre! and Francis Pym
bring paper from, the mill. He had made a survey that
morning, and found no uncharged stock; 34 small reams of
51bs. each was the stock then charged. Of the reams
put into the waggon there was nine of less
weight than 351bs. He followed the waggon a short dis•
tance. The reams in question were those now before him.
Previously to this time there were eleven reams charged of
the same weight, and there was none of that kind then in
stock. That was the 28d of March. The wrappers and
labels of the paper seized did not appear as fresh or with the
same appearance as if they had been just prepared. He
Witnessvn t themw a
s being
subjected
to
a remark to Edward Pym and asked him why the
labels were defaced. He replied that he had done it to
pre
arainlo.
eng cross-examination by Mr.
VALLMTINE Lax.

Thomas Burrell, a carrier of goods between London and
Wickham, proved the carriage of the paper from the mill to
London. About a month after he commenced carrying the
paper he was in the habit of taking the paper to the Rose
Inn, Farringdon-street, but was afterwards told by Mr.
Bedford Pym to take a load to Adam and Eve-court. near
Oxford street, where he saw Mr. Arnold. He was also in
the habit of taking it to different dealers in London. His
directions at the mill were always to take the paper to
Adam and Eve-court, from which he was afterwards
told to take it to different stationers in London.
He was in the habit of taking back different articles from
London. Among these was a box, which was always de-
livered to him by Mr. Arnold, at Adam and Eve-court. The
box was always lighter going down than it was coming up.
He asked Mr. Arnold one time what the box contained, who
replied that it was sample paper. He generally took the
twice.pape H
paper frome
bthroeudgwht up onceelling-housia6 cwt.,some near the mill,
of hi
except once
ncez
stamped with a black mark and some was not.
Backwell,another carrier, gave similar evidence to that
of thel last witness.

TILE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARI 7, 1846.

Mr. W. A. Howard, a paper cutter, employed by Mr. E.
pyre. Had worked in Ashmill before defendant had it—his
hours of work were longer under defendants than his previous
employers. There were nine reams taken away in a waggon
on the 11th March, without paying duty.
John Somerton, another paper maker, corroborated the
evidence of the last witness. On one occasion he recollected
that fifteen reams were taken away in a waggon, which were
not entered in the book.
This closed the case for the Crown.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in conformity with a suggestion
of the Court, consented to drop the case against Francis Pym,
on the ground of there being insufficient evidence to connect
him with any superintendence or management of the mill.
Mr. VALENTINE LEE, on the part of two of the Pyms,
addressed the jury for the defence, and contended that no case
whatever had been made out against his clients.• There was
not a scintilla of evidence to satisfy any jury that either
Francis or T. B. Pym were partners in the concern, and un-
less the evidence proved partnership in the mill and
consent on the part of all the defendants in the
charges alleged in the records, it would be impo,si-
ble to brie" in a verdict of guilty. 11 ith regard to the
obliteration df the stamps the evidence was equally deficient.
How could the two clients whom he represented be fixed
with acts which were committed in their absence? They were
in London at the time when the alleged offences were
said to be committed. Re concluded by calling on the
jury to reject all surmises and suspicions, and look strictly
to the evidence adduced, and not take any of the con-
structive or mystified evidence which had been given to
criminate the defendant. It was the duty of the Solicitor-
General to prove the case clearly. He contended that he
did not do so, and under these circumstances he called fur a
verdict of not guilty.
The SOLICITOR-OENERAL replied.
The LORD CHIEF BARON then summed up, and, after wing
over the principal points of the evidence, concluded by saying
that a verdict of "not guilty" must pass for Francis Pym ;
but-that, with regard to Edwin, the question would be
whether he had an Interest in the partnership, and if so, lie
iiattst be found guilty—if not, he would be entitled to an
acquittal. With regard to Thomas Pym and Arnold Bedford,
if they believed the evidence, the several cases were clearly
proved against them, and their duty would be to find them
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of
guilty of the five offences against Thomas Bedford Pym and
Arnold, and of not guilty against the two sons.
This was the only case tried during the day. The penal-
ides amounted to 2,700/.
The Court then adjourned.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Feb. 6.
There were only two causes set down for hearing this day,
being on bills of exchange, and undefended.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Feb. 6.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BuLLocK.)
BURRIDGE AND ANOTHER V. MULLETT.

The plaintiffs in this action are attorneys, and the de-
fendant was a farmer in Somersetshire. _ _

The action was to recover the sum of Zit. 73.7 d., the costs in
preparing the lease of a farm.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted. The
plaintiff had changed the venue from Somersetshire to Lon-
don, and had successfully resisted'an application to return it
to the Sheriff 's Court of that county.

The facts of the case are these ;—lri August, 1841, defendant
agreed to lease a farm from Mr. Wni. Gregory Gardiner, a
brother of one of the plaintiffs, on the same terms as it had
beelrpreviously held by a person named Besley, and defen-
dant was to pay one half the lease. The lease was
prepared, but two fields had been taken off from the
farm, and defendant refused to execute the lease,
and said he could not pay the rent ; he also said that
he did not think it fair to take the fields off the farm,
but he supposed he must take it. He took to the farm, but
did not keep up his rent, which would have been a forfeiture
of the lease, had it been executed. Mr. Gregory Gardiner
subsequently told defendant that he had not paid his moiety
of the expenses of preparing the lease, and defendant then
said thatlie knew it; he would pay.
Mr. EDWARDS, for the defendant, considered it very op-
pressive on the part of the plaintiff to drive efendant
and his witnesses upwards of 150 miles, when the matter
could have been tried at Taunton, and where the custom of
the country with regard to leases would have been
better known. He then contended that Mr. Berridge was
acting as the agent of the landlord, and that supposing
the contract to have been entered into, the plaintiffs were
bound to look to the landlord, who could recover against the
tenant. In the next place, if there had been a contract with
plaintiffs to prepare the lease, it had to be established that
the lease had been drawn in acordance with his instructions.
He called witnesses to show that defendant had always re-
pudiated the lease, and refused payment.—Verdict for the
defendant.

prisoner, yet it was one sparingly exercised, and he, after
listening with very great attention to the remarks of his
Learned Friend, was satisfied to leave the case in the hands
of their Lordships and the jury.
Mr. Justice WitaTaams, before entering with great minute-
ness into the evidence of the different witnesses, said that
the state of the law as regarded exemption from capital
punishment on the ground of insanity stood thus :—The law
exempted the mind where it was in that state that the per-
son committing the offence was not aware that the act he
was committing, namely, the taking the life of a fellow-crea-
ture was a praiseworthy, an indifferent, or a criminal act ; and
in reference to insanity produced by habitual or occasional
intoxication, he (Mr. Justice Williams) should certainly
have directed the jury to find against a prisoner under the
latter circumstances—but where insanity was induced by
habitual intoxication, where, in fact, the mind was com-
pletely destroyed by a continued indulgence in spirituous
liquors, the law did not hold that such a person was account-
able, and, therefore, not amenable to capital punishment.
The question for the jury was then to say whether the pri-
sonar at the bar was in a state of mind to be aware of what
he was doing off the Island of Ascension. Having premised
thus muck, he would now read the evidence, The Learned
Judge then commented upon the evidence of the different
witnesses. Having recapitulated all the facts, the Learned
Judge, in conclusion, said that it was not his intention to
trespass on their time by any general remarks, remarks
which, to the best of his ability, he had anticipated in the
opening of his charge. There was one point, however, to
which he would revert—that was the nature and quality of
the acts done by the party accused. Undoubtedly the
violence and extravagance of those acts constituted, in fact,
only a portion of the case, was but an ingredient, and
not the case itself, for if the atrocity of the acts were
to be taken as a proof of insanity, then persons might com-
mit the most extravagant and violent deeds in order to es-
cape the punishment which= the law awarded. The jury were
aware of the deep responsibility which attached to their
duties. If they entertained any doubt that the prisoner was
not in a condition to understand what he was doing, then
they would acquit him of the capital charge; but otherwise
they must find him guilty. He was not about to exhort
them as to those particular duties. They were, no doubt,
most fully aware of them ; but he knew of nothing that under
the circumstances could guide them better than a careful con•
sideration of the evidence which had been adduced before them.
The jury then retired.
On the re-entrance of the jury,
The Clerk of the Arraigns asked if they found the prisoner
Guilty, or Net Guilty?
Foreman of the jury—Guilty, being at the time in a state
of temporary insanity.
The Learned JUDGH explained that the jury must either
find him guilty of the capital charge, or acquit him on the
ground of insanity.

The jurymen, not comprehending this plain exposition,
were again requested to retire ; after a few minutes passed
in the most hopeless helplessness, and a vain endeavour, on
the part of the Judge, to make them understand this prin-
ciple of law, they eventually retired.
The jurymen re-entered a second time with the following
verdict :—" Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity when he
committed the act."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that they would not pto-
ceed on any of the other counts.
Thee-prisoner, therefore, remains at the disposal of the
Queen, which is literally imprisonment for life.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

CLERKENWELL.

John James, an advertisement canvasser, was brought
up for final examination, on a charge of endeavouring to
obtain money from several booksellers, publishers, and
other tradesmen, by representing himself as the agent of
publishers.
The case was partly entered into on Saturday, when
the prisoner was remanded until yesterday for further
investigation.
Mr. Jones, from the office of Mr. Bennett, solicitor,
attended for the prisoner.
Mr. Scott, bookseller and publisher in Charter-house-
square, gave the prisoner into custody for representing
himself as the agent of Messrs. Jackson and Co., pub-
lishers, St. Paul's Churchyard, and attempting to obtain
the amount of a bill for advertisements of Mr. Scott's
inserted in the British Quarterly Review, published by
Messrs. Jackson. Mr. Scott had previously paid the
bill, and the prisoner, when about to be apprehended,
begged for mercy, saying he would rather be killed
than charged with such an offence. Mr. Scott
added that the prisoner had, in the month of October,
attempted to obtain the amount of a bill for advertise-
ments of his inserted in the Edinburgh Review, by repre-
senting himself as the collector of Messrs. Longman,
Paternoster-row, publishers of that periodical.
Mr. Jackson, of the firm of Jackson and Co., of St.
Paul's Churchyard, and publishers of the British Quar-
terly, deposed that he never in any way authorised the
prisoner to eollec, money for the firm ; had seen the
prisoner somewhere, but he could not say when or where.
Mr. Francis Sykes, clerk to Messrs. Longman, Pater-
noster-row, swore the prisoner was in no way authorised
to collect advertisements for that house. He had seen
the prisoner in the establishment soliciting a situation,
and subsequently as a canvasser for advertisements.
Police-constable 13 G said, a great number of trades-
men, booksellers, and others, who had been cheated out
of money in the same manner, and by the same descrip-
tion of person, as in the case of Mr. Scott, had pro-
mised to attend, but they were not in court. Amongst
these was Mr. Paynter, of the Strand, Mr. Ede, of the
firm of Adams and Ede, robemakers, Chancery-lane;
Messrs. Hatchard, of Piccadilly, had likewise been de-
frauded in this way.
Mr. Thomas Bowell, clerk to Messrs. Hatchard, said
that he did not think the prisoner was the person who
had defrauded them. Had seen the prisoner before. He
represented himself as an advertisement collector, and
believed he then filled such a post on the Church Intelli-
gencer newspaper. _ _

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
ALLEGED MURDERS ON BOARD THE TORY.

(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS and Mr. Justice CRESSWELLO
George Johnstone, late captain of the ship Tory, was
again placed at the bar this morning, charged with the
wilful murder of Thomas Reason on the high seas.
Mr. JERVIS then rose to address the jury. He could as-
sure the jury that he rose on that day with undiminished
anxiety to address them on behalf of the prisoner at the bar.
At the same time that anxiety, he felt bound to say, did
not in any degree arise from any doubt of the efficiency of
the tribunal before which he pleaded. Ho trusted for their
indulgence, and he would require their indulgence the more
that it was a prerogative in that Court to allow his Learned
Friend. her Majesty's Attorney-General, to reply, but he
had yet the satisfaction of knowing that that prerogative
would be exercised in the fairest and most candid manner.
He besought the jury to dismiss from their minds any pre-
conceived opinions which might have been induced by the
circumstances as read in the public prints. The offence
charged was a most serious one, being that of wilful murder,
alleged to have been committed under the most painful cir-
cumstances. But that offence, by these very peculiar cir-
cumstances, might be mitigated to manslaughter. It was
not his purpose to enter into any lengthened inquiry as to
the mode in which the evidence of the witnesses was given,
but he might allude to the fact that discrepancies of the most
startling character existed, discrepancies which however he
would not bring prominently into the foreground, for he
agreed with his Learned Friend the Attorney-General that
allowances should be made for the excited feelings of
those who were actors in those transactions. What-
ever might be the nature of the offence committed,
the main, and indeed the sole question for the jury was,
whether, at the moment this offence was committed, the
prisoner was in the full possession of his senses—whether he
committed that offence with malice aforethought, or whether
it did not rather arise from the mania under which he
laboured. In either case the alternative was a dreadful one
for the unfortunate man himself ; for if the verdict of the
jury brought him in guilty of the first crime, his life was
forfeited; and if the milder verdict were returned, the
scarcely less painful punishment of imprisonment for life
was the consequence. He would now crave their patience
while he endeavoured to review the character of the crew,
and the evidence which they had advanced in that Court.
And, in the first place, he could not help remarking that the
conduct of the crew was most unaccountable. Here was a
man, a single man, arming himself, placing himself in anta-
gonism with all on board, cutting and wounding, and even
proceeding to inflict death en some, and this during a time
when, according to their own evidence, he was under the
influence of drink, and yet no effort is made to place him in
confinement. The Lerrned Attorney-General had indeed en-
deavoured to shadow forth an excuse for them, but an
excuse that in his (Mr. Jervis's) opinion was a most
unsatisfactory one. Surely the better solution of the mystery
would be, that the men were aware that they had been guilty
of the mutiny which had been one of the exciting causes of
the evils which followed. Let it be remembered by the jury
that the death of Rambert took place in September, and yet
it appeared that after that the ship was boarded by the
captain of an English vessel, who was allowed to depart
without any complaint being made against the prisoner.
Let it be remembered that when the ship was at Fayal no
complaint was made to the consul there or to the harbour
matter. Could any other reason be advanced for this silence
excepting that which he (Mr. Jervis) had assigned? The
defence which he intended to make was, that at the moment
the prisoner committed this offence he was in a state of mind
rendering him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.
Sundry causes might lead to this state of mind. He was
aware that some cadges could not be urged in mitigation, as
for instance an inordinate attachment to drink, which, al-
though causing madness to such a degree that the mind was
incapable of understanding what the hand was effecting, yet
that in the eye of the law was no mitigation of the instance.
Madness they knew was divisible into two classes, namely,
physical and moral madness, and here he could not do better
than read to them the opinion of a distinguished author on th is
subject. He referred to Ray's" Treatise on Medical Jurispru-
dence" the article insanity. The Learned Gentleman then quoted
the work in question, to show the marked difference between
madness brought on by physical causes, as idiotcy, &c., and
that caused by an exaltation of the mental faculties. He
also quoted the opinion of Dr. Connolly, and other eminent
authorities. These authoritieslappeared to point to the case
of this very prisoner, for they showed that fear would so
unhinge the mind as to produce madness. Unhappily, it
was that these diseases which were thegreatest scourges were
not always slow and progressive ; they came on suddenly,
and without warning. Each case had, however, its own pe-
culiar phases, and it was for the jury to use their own best
judgment in the matter ; or, in the words of the great Sir
Matthew Hale, " to see that they were not on the one hand
guilty of inhumanity to the prisoner, or on the other
that their judgment was not misled by any im-
ams desire to exhibit mercy towards him.' But
let them ever bear in mind that it was greatly better that
should many gsuuifflteyr.meHn
eshwoausld
neosctapper,ept haarendtthoathroinheginfnorwoceanrtd titan
evidence of persons learned in these causes, because he felt
that now that the exciting causes which had led to that ces-
sation of reason no longer existed in the prisoner's mind, it had
recovered its natural equability. He would now go over the
facts of the case as established by the evidence, with the view
o off
otestings the
wr he
he i r ct
hu
em
us tnahnscpe
ps which
y
nowh lsetdootdo
htheafotrseertisleie
bar of that Court. The Learned Counsel then recapitulated
the leading circumstances, and contended that as the prisoner
had shown in his conduct before the month of September
strict propriety of demeanour, and an almost total abstinence
from intoxicating liquors, his after conduct could only
be accounted for by the fact that in that month
reports had been brought to him of an intended mutiny and
murder. Then itwas that his personal danger, and the danger
to the great trust reposed in him, drove him to madness, and
he rushed upon the deck armed, pursued the men who had
offended him around the ship ; loaded some with irons, and
caused another to commit self-destruction byleaping overboard.
After that period calmness again returned, for the exciting
causes had ceased to exist, and thus it was until the ship
arrived at Fayal. Then voluntary communications of other
intended mutinies were made, and this again renewed former
remembrances, stirred up the feelings which had lain dor-
mant, and changed the whole man into a raging maniac.
Reason, who had, in his opinion, particularly aggrieved
him, was called down to the cabin and stabbed
with a bayonet, and when dead be called upon him to speak
again, to prove that lie had not killed him. And. as if to
prove his insanity beyond a doubt, he afterwards laughed
;loud in the presence of his victim, stabbed the body many
'times, and threatened to do to others as he had done to the
unfortunate man who lay before them. But reference had
been made to the false entries in the log-book. This he con-
ceived to be but another proof of the prisoner's mania. In-
stances were on record of extraordinary cunning exhibited
Almighty.
ryiumet insane,liigcehhotyrd. A was touched
he need only to refer to the case men-
tioned by the celebrated Erskine. A madman kad preferred
bills of indictment against certain persons, and his appear-
ance betokened every indication of sanity during the
earlier stages of the trial. He was afterwards subjected to
a long and rigid cross-examination, and it was only when the
Le a r Godhe
Learned
aesr
instancingto uched that
other heeaseasvinerrpeent
averred he
thewas
Counsel concluded by imploring the jury to give the pri-
soner the benefit of any doubt that might exist as to the
state of his mind at the time these melancholy and fatal
circumstances occurred.
The ArrouNET-GuNERIL said, that although the privi-
lege undoubtedly remained with him of replying to the ob-
servation., made by the Learned Counsel who defended the

- Joseph Langford, clerk to Messrs. Blackwood, pub-
lishers, Paternoster-row, deposed to having seen the pri-
soner before, but could not say where. Witness handed
in a bill for advertisements, inserted by Messrs. Black-
wood in other publications, and purporting to come from
the publisher of such. Could not, however, say the pri-
soner had left it. The bill had not been paid, as it was
discovered to be a fraud.

for a drain,

Mr. Fraser, from the house of Mr. Nickissen, pub-
lisher, 215, Regent-street, said the trade had been de-
frauded to a very large extent in the same manner as
Mr. Scott had narrated. He knew several of those par-
ties, and was surprised they had not attended. One
gentleman had identified the prisoner as having received
money from him. He went into the clerk's office, and he
could not say what became of him.
An ironmonger, in Wigmore-street, Cavendish- square,
whose name we could not catch, identified the prisoner
as having attempted to obtain the amount of a bill from
him for advertisements inserted in Fraser's Magazine,
representing himself as the publisher's agent.
Mr. J. Fraser said, the Gardener's Chronicle had been
defrauded, and he believed a person from that office
could identify the prisoner.
Another gentleman said, the publishers of the West-
minster Review had been falsely personated in numerous
instances, and money obtained for advertisements in-
serted in that publication.
Several gentlemen present, connected with the trade,
expressed a wish that the Magistrate would remand the
prisoner, hoping that by the publicity this examination
would attain, those tradesmen who had been defrauded
would come forward. They added their belief that the
prisoner was one of a gang who had been practising
these frauds for a considerable time in various parts of
the metropolis.—He was remanded accordingly.

premises no mention was made to him about digging

Amelia Richardson, aged 17, daughter of the pri-
soner Richardson, said that she remembered the grave
being dug on a Thursday.
The prisoner said it was not so, and cautioned her to
speak the truth.

- The witness replied that she did not know the day of
the month, but it was on a Thursday.
Joseph Edmund Kersey, apprentice to Mr. Riche3,
apothecary and chemist, London-street, Greenwich, de-
posed that he knew the male prisoner. He had made
up medicines for him many times. He remembers Mr.
Richardson coming to the shop five or six months since,
arid purchasing some arsenic. Witness did not serve it.
It was given to the prisoner by Mr. Riches himself.
Could not swear positively that it was Mr. Richardson,
but believes it was.

The prisoner here said that he had purcha.sed sulphur
and diluted sulphuric acid. Was the witness sure that
those were not the articles ? He (Richardson) had
never bought arsenic in his life.
Mr. Riches said he knew the prisoner well. He had
frequently been to his shop, and he (witness) entered
into conversation, knowing him to be a scientific man.
His decided impression was that he had served ti-
arsenic sworn to by his apprentice, but could not swear
to it. It was the turn of the year, after midsummer. It
was about three-pennyworth, he believed. Should not
have hesitated to serve the prisoner, had he (witness)
been alone in the shop.
Kersey was recalled, and said he perfectly remem-
bered, some nine or twelve months ago, the prisoner
Richardson talking to him about arsenic, on which occasion
Richardson said he had never seen it, and asked for some.
He showed him a bottle containing a quantity. He asked
what quantity would kill anybody. Witness said a very
small portion would cause death. Recollects the pri-
soner making these remarks very well. He did not say
what quantity, but a very small one. The latter would
have more effect than a large one.
Sergeant G. Wilson, is K, deposed that he appre-
hended the prisoner at Pocklington, Yorkshire, on Sun-
day, the 25th of January last. He told the prisoner that
he apprehended him under the warrant of the Magistrate
at the Greenwich Police-court. He afterwards asked
witness if there was anything more against him than
what was charged on the warrant.

The prisoners were now caned upon for an answer to
the charge.

The female declined to say anything'.
Mr. Richardson said that he should reserve his defence
until the fit al examination.

Mr. JMUDIY said the case assumed a strong suspicion
of murder.

Mr. GROVE told the prisoners that they stood re.
manded to Horsemonger-lane Gaol, until furth..x evi
dente could be obtained.

MARKET NE W S-( YESTERDAY.)

C ORN-EX.O RANG E.

The present week's arrivals of English Wheat for our
market having been somewhat on the .increase, the stands
here to-day were fairly filled with samples of both red and
white. Selected qualities moved off steadily, at full prices.
In all other kinds very little business was transacted.
Foreign Wheat was held firmly at very full currencies, and
the same may be said of all grain under lock. The supply
of Barley being very large, the Barley trade was heavy, and
prices had a downward tendency. We had rather an exten-
sive supply of Malt on offer ; yet, as the factors submitted to
a slight decline in value, a good clearance was effected. The
Oat trade was very dull, and, when sales were found, lower
terms were complied with. Beans, Peas and Flour as last
advised.

ARRIVALS.
West. I 'Barley.
4,120 qrs. ;10,741 qrs.

English • • • • • •
Irish
Foreign .. • •

7,190

530 I
Malt, 6,790 are.
SMITHFIELD

Oats ?limn
7,980 qrs. I 4,390 sks
3,300 I
15,670

The supply of Beasts on sale here being more extensive
than that exhibited on a Friday for some time past, there was
less activity in the demand for that description of stock;
nevertheless, Monday's prices were pretty generally sup-
ported. The numbers of Sheep were but moderate, while the
Mutton trade was tolerably firm, at the late advance in the
quotations. There were on offer 130 Beasts, 190 Sheep, and
5 Calves, from Holland. Calves were in moderate supply,
and steady inquiry, at unaltered figures. Pigs sold firmly, at
late rates. Mulch Cows were very dull, at from 161 to 18115 s
each.

Per Sibs. to sink the offal.

8. d. s.
s. d. to s. d.
Inferior Beasts 2lO 3 2 Second quality ditto 4 8 410
Second quality ditto. 3 4 3 8 Coarse-woolledditto 5 0 5 2
Prime large Oxen•- 310 4 0 Southdown Wethers i 4 5 6
Prime Scots
Large coarse Calves 4 8 5 4 Large Hogs • • ••3 10 4 r,
Prime small ditto - 4 a 5 2
Suckling Calves lB 0 32 0 Quarter old Pigs ..16 0 22 o
Inferior Sheep ..

SUPPLY AT MARKET.
Beasts. I Sheep. Calves. I Pigs,
892 3,680 124 805

7f3IIViTGATE AND ZNA.DENNALL.
Each kind of meat was in chort supply, and steady de.
mand, at full prices.

At per stone, by the Carcase.
s. d. to s. d. s. d. to s. d.
Beef, inferisr•• •• 2 6 2$ Mutton, inferior .. 3 6 4 0
- middling 210 3 middling.. 4 2 4
- prim* large .• 3 2 3 4 prints .... 4 8 410
-- prime small -. 3 4 3 $ pork, 1arge........ 3 >i 4 6
Veal •.•• •• 4 8 4 s --- small ..... 4 8 5 2
Lamb. Os Od to Os Od.
SIOROUGN 1107 P

Comparatively speaking, the supply of Hops on sale here
is scanty; yet, with one or two exceptions, the demand is
inactive. The best East Kent pockets and new Mid Kent
bags are in fair request, and prices are well supported. In
all other kinds of Hops very little is passing.