The Sun.
London, England, 1870-07-15 00:00:00

1870.

THE STEPNEY MURDER.

William Redhead, a respectable looking lad, eighteen
years of age, was indicted for the wilful murder of Sarah
Redhead, on the 30th May.—Mr. Beasley and Mr.
Besley conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Ribton and Mr.
F. H. Lewis defended.—The facts of the case were very
few. The prisoner was a private in the Tower Ham-
lets Rifles, and lived with his step-mother, the de-
ceased woman, at No. 80, Sydney-street, Stepney.
On Monday, the 30th May, about a quarter to three
o'clock, the deceased was speaking to a lodger on the first
floor landing, and went downstairs to answer a knock at
the door. A report of firearms was then heard, and the
deceased was discovered lying at the foot of the stairs,
dead. At the same moment the prisoner was seen leaving
the house, carrying a rifle. He ran quickly away,
and 'going up to a police constable, named
Smith, in Alfred-street, said, " Now I have
done it." Smith asked what he had done, and he
said he had shot his stepmother, and that after he had
discharged his rifle had set fire to the house. Upon this
the constable took him into custody, and in his possession
were found five cartridges and six percussion caps. The
rifle had the appearance of having just been discharged,
and there was an exploded cap on the nipple. When the
charge was taken down in writing, thelnspector asked the
prisoner if he had anything to say, and he replied
." All I have got to say is that she was very unkind to me
and my sister." The deceased had been married about
twelve months to the prisoner's father, who is a ship's
steward. From the medical evidence it appeared that the
ball had entered the back and come out two inches from
the right nipple. It was found embedded about two
inches in the wall. - As it passed through the heart, death
must have been almost instantaneous. The prisoner, it was
stated, bore the character of a quiet, well-behayed young
man.

On the part of the defence, Mr. Ribton addressed the
jury at some length, and contended that the evidence was
not sufficient to support the capital charge. There was
no evidence that there had been any disagreements be-
tween the prisoner and the deceased, and the much more
probable hypothesis was ehat the gun was accidentally
discharged.
Witnesses were called who gave the prisoner the char-
acter of being a quiet, steady lad.
M. Justice Byles, in summing up, said the case was one
of the most painful in his experience.
The jury retired at three o'clock, and at eight had not
been able to agree. In a long conversation with his Lord-
ship they exhibited anxiety to come to some other verdict
than that of murder, but the learned Judge pointed out
that, if the prisoner's confession was true, they had no
alternative. After retiring for the second time they re-
turned almost immediately with a verdict of guilty, but
with a strong and unanimous xecomm-endation to mercy,
which his Lordship promised to forward to the proper
quarter.

THE IRRIGATION COMPANY OF FRANCE.

In the Court of Vice-Chancellor Sir R. Malins, yester-
day, a motion was made by M. Joseph Pelletier, of Paris,
and Mr. Gatliff, an Englishman, residing also at Paris,
for the purpose of having it declared that the transfer of
the business of the Trrigation Company of France to the
Compagnie Generale de Canaux et de Travaux Publics,
was beyond the powers of the directors,' unauthorised by
the articles of assurance, and not binding upon the
general , body of the shareholders. The motion
was made on behalf of the other shareholders of the
company ; the defendants being the Irrigation Company,
Mr. T. Cave, M.P., Mr, A. Young, and the Compagnie
Generale.
Mr. Glasse, Q.C., and Mr. Graham Hastings were
counsel for the movers ; Mr. Cole, Q.C., appearing on be-
half of the defendants.

Mr. Glasse said the question in the present case was the
same as that involved in the petition presented a short
time since by Mr. Fox, for the compulsory winding-up of
the Irrigation Company of France. He had been prepared
for a considerable time to bring forward the motion, but
had consented to allow it to stand over for the conveni-
ence of the defendants, who, however, had at the very last
moment, for the mere purpose of creating delay, made an
application in Chambers for the appointment of a special
examiner, not only to examine the plaintiff but other
parties in France who were to give evidence in the
matter. If this were acceded to, its effect would be to
throw the case over the long vacation, and thus place the
shareholders entirely at the mercy of defendants, who
in the meantime would be able to do with the assets
precisely what their motives dictated. His honour
had intimated his intention of delivering judgment in
the winding up petition on Tuesday next, and no active
steps could be taken until the following Thursday ; 'and
unless, therefore, the defendants gave an undertaking not
to interfere, he should be obliged to ask for an interim
order, to prevent them from touching the assets of the
company.
Mr. Cole positively declined to give any undertaking
of the kind. He was quite prepared to have the motion
dealt with on its merits.

.•
Mr. Glasse emphatically protested against the adoption
of such a mode of procedure, because, if the assets were
transferred to a guaranteed company under the French
Government, they would be irrecoverable ; and he de-
clined to allow the assets to be in the power of men like
Messrs. Cave and Young, who had evinced such care-
lessness and recklessness in protecting the interests of
the too confiding shareholders.
The Vice-Chancellor inquired what could possibly
be done with the assets within so short a period as two
days?
Mr. Glasse : Why, in the meantime they would get rid
of every shilling of the assets.
Mr. Cole : We can do that now.

Mr. Glasse : No you cannot, inasmuch as you have
deposited £7,000 in court under Mr. Fox's petition. But
hat deposit will not protect the movers in this case.
The Vice-Chancellor suggested that the £7,000 shouldbe
regarded as an indemnity in the present case also.
Mr. Cole refused to accede to the suggestion.
Mr. Glasse said the greater the opposition offered the
greater were his fears that the assets would be taken to
France.
The Vice-Chancellor said why two gentlemen one of
whom was French, and the other an English resident in
France, should desire the affairs of the company to be ad-
ministered under the French law surpassed his compre-
hension. But it had been completely and satisfactorily
proved that M. Gatliff had actually placed in his posses-
sion twenty shares of the very company whose constitu-
tion he now objected to. He asserted that they were
thrust into his possession ; but if it had been so
he ought to have returned the shares im
mediately, but on that ground alone Mr. Gatlitf's could
not now have any effect whatever. With regard to M.
Pelletier, there was the most positive statement—the
statement of Messrs. Cave and Young, whom he believed
—that during the whole spring of 1869 he actually urged
upon them to transfer the company, and that he con-
tinued to do so when the transfer was made, and until
December last. Acquiescence, therefore, in the transfor-
mation precluded him, under the district rules of the
court, from obtaining an interlocutory injunction. In
commercial transactions of every description where a
party was interested only to the extent of sixteen hundred
pounds out of a capital of several hundred thousand
pounds, the court ought to be slow to interfere in impeding
the operations of an overwhelming majority of the share-
holders. The plaintiff had acquiesced, and this applica-
tion was quite an after-thought, which the court was
bound to view with disfavour. The interlocutory injunc-
tion was therefore refused.