The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-21 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. THE ESTATE OF JOKES.

This was an inquiry on a writ diem clauset extremen,
directed to the Sheriffs of London, to ascertain whether the
said Henry Thomas Jones, of Sudbury, Suffolk, was alive
or dead, and if deal, when and where he died, and of what
property he was possessed at the time of his death,
within the Bail,,vick of the Sheriffs of London.
The Solicitor to the Excise said that this proceeding w,:s
similar to a writ of extant, at the suit of the Crown ; but
Jones, the debtor, who was dead., being in arrsar for malt-
duties to the a nount of 1,0331. 10s. 11d.

A witness was called, who proved that the deceased, H.
T. Jones, committed suicide in one of his own malthouses,
at Sudbury, on the 4th inst.
Mr. J. E. Whittle, one of the officers of the Sheriffs of
London, proved the seizure of 125 quarters of malt, at the
premises of Messrs. Randall and Co., corn-factors at Queen-
hithe, on the 7th inst.
Mr. Charles Randall, on being desired to value the malt
at a low price, valued it at 48s. per qr. for 121 qrs. of good ;
and 455. for 4 qrs. damages; he had a claim ot 141.115. Bd. for
freight and warehouse-room.
The jury gave a verdict for 300/.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT, Lewes, Marsh 17.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Justice DitiquAN.)
Thomas Denyer, gamekeeper, who had been admitted
to bail, surrendered to answer an indictment, charging
him with the manslaughter of Benjamin Remnant.
After hearing the evidence for the prosecution,
Mr. CLA.RIESON submitted that there was no evidence
to go to the jury in support of the charge of man-
slaughter. The evidence appeared to him to make out
a case of excusable homicide.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed an opinion that
the case ought to go to a jury.
The Learned Counsel having, accordingly, addressed
them, and the Lord Chief Justice having briefly summed
up, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Sarah Watlien, 28, single woman, was indicted for
the wilful murder of her female illegitimate child, by
cutting its throat, on the 16th of August last, at the
parish of Brighton.
It appeared that the prisoner, who is a very good
looking young woman, entered the service of a gentle-
man named Hammond, who resides in Brunswick-
square, Brighton, in April, 1843, as lady's maid, and
resided with the family in that capacity until the 10th
of August. For some time previous the prisoner had
complained of tooth-ache and other illness, but not the
slightest suspicion was entertained of her being
in the family way. On that day, however, she
complained to a fellow-servant, named Boreham,
that she was too ill to wait upon her mis-
tress at her toilet, and requested her to do so for
her, and she then returned to her own room, where
she was shortly afterwards heard to groan most pite•
ously, and this fact caused a suspicion of her condition.
The prisoner soon afterwards came down into the kit-
chen, and in consequence of what had transpired, a
search was made in her bed-room, where such appear-
ances presented themselves as left no doubt that she
bad recently been delivered of a child ; and, on the
bed being examined, the dead body of an infant was
found between the mattress and the sacking of the bed.
There were several alight cuts upon the body and arms
of the infant, but the mortal injury had been in
flicted upon the neck of the child, which was
nearly severed from the body, and merely hung to the
trunk by a few of the integuments, and the injury ap
peered to have been inflicted by a pen-knife which wes
found in the room, and the blade of which was covered
with blood. There was no distinct proof of the unhappy
infant being born alive, the testimony of the medical
gentlemen who were examined merely going to the ex-
tent of expressing an opinion, from tests which they ap-
plied to the lungs of the deceased child, that it had
breathed, but they could not take upon themselves to
state the necessary facts to show that in law the infant
was born alive.

The LORD Cm? JUSTICE, when the evidence had
been gone through, expiessed an opinion—that the ca-
pital charge could not be sustained, and the only pies.
tion that remained for the jury would be whether there
WAS a concealment of the birth.
Mr. CLARKSON said that upon this part of the case he
felt he could not expect to obtain a favourable verdict,
and he si ould therefore decline to occupy the time of
the Court by addressing the jury.
The prisoner was then found ;sulky of misdemeanour,
and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDIROON.)
RONINGTON V. WOOD.

This was an action of trespass of no interest but to
the parties, but the following incident deserves to be re-
corded : _ _ _

The first "witness who was called, a female named
Abden, refused to be sworn.
Baron Am:limos asked the witness on what grounds
she refused to take the oath P—She replied that she had
a conscientious scruple to take an oath under any cir-
cumstances.
Baron ALDERSON inquired whether she belonged to
the sect of Quakers, Moravians, &c., who are specially
exempted by Act of Parliament from taking oaths ?
The witness replied that she did not belong to either of
the sects specified, but she objected to taking an oath
because our Saviour had forbidden it.
Baron ALnaissox said she had offered no valid objec-
tions in law to her being sworn, and she was bound to
take the oath.
She still refused to do so.
Baron ALDERSON told her that by her refusal she not
only subjected herself to be committed for contempt of
Court, but also rendered herself liable for all damage
and loss that the plaintiff might sustain through the
loss of her testimony.
The witness said she was perfectly well aware of the
consequences of her refusal ; but she felt compelled to
persist in it.
The Learned Juncis then left the Court for the pur-
pose, as it was understood, of conferring with the
Lord Chief Justice upon the subject, and on his return,
he said that Lord Denman agreed with him, that only
one course remained open for the Court, which was to
commit the witness, upon the application of the counsel,
if she refused to be sworn and give her evidence.
The counsel engaged in the cause, however, having
consulted together, consented, in order to avoid such an
unpleasant proceedirg as the one alluded to, that the
matter in dispute should be referred to arbitration.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON remarked that as the legisla-
ture had released persons of particular religious pursua-
sions from 'eking an oath, where they objected to do so
conscientiously, he thought it would be a great adven
tege if the privilege were extended to all persons who
conscientiourly objected to take an oath, without any
reference to their religious belief.
Lewes, March 19.
Will am Freelove, 29, and John Purfitt, alias Perfect,
26, were indicted for feloniously removing 801bs. of
indigo, value 201., the property of Vander Vandermulen.
In other counts of the indictment it was stated that
the property in question had been cast ashore from a
wreck« d vessel, and that the prisoners unlawfully kept
possession of it, and neglected to deliver it up to the ser-