The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-08 00:00:00

WILLIAMS V. MIKE.

The plaintiff in this action is a wine-merchant at
Edmonton. The defendant is a carman at Whitechapel.
The action was on a bill of exchange for 13/.105., and
interest 21. 10s., the bill hating been drawn so long ago
as November, 1842.

The defendant pleaded that he did not accept the bill.
A witness was sailed, who deposed to the defendant's
hand-writing.
He was cross-examined, and said that he had known
the defendant since May, 1842. The last time he saw
defendant write was in August of that year, when he
accepted a bill for witness, which he produced.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. JusticePoLLocii, and Mr. Justice EARLE,
THE ALLEGED MURDERS ON BOARD THE
TORY.

As soon as the Learned Judges took their seats this
morning on the bench,
Mr. BODKIN said, that a person of the name of John-
stone, who was charged with a series of murders on the
high seas, was in the calendar to be tried the present
sessions. His Learned Friend, Mr. Jervis, had been re-
tained on behalf of the prisoner; but he (Mr. Bodkin)
had been informed by that Learned Gentleman, that the
case for the defence had not yet been fully prepared,
and, considering the serious and important nature of the
charges preferred—some of them of a very complicated
nature—it was the desire of the prisoner that the trial
should be postponed until the next session. To this
arrangement, the Attorney-General whom he (Mr. Bod-
kin) had consulted had no objection.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Does any
one appear for
the prisoner?
Mr. BODKIN replied, that Mr. Jervis was retained for
the prisoner, but he (Mr. Bodkin) had received a letter
from the Learned Gentleman, saying that he could not
be present to-day.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he understood Mr.
Jervis's absence was only confined to that day, and that
the application for a postponement of the trial had
nothing whatever to do with it.
Mr. BODKIN observed that such was the fact.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that that should clearly
appear, as it was important. Mr. Jervis, but for his
absence, would have made the application himself.
Mr. BODKIN remarked that he would have done so.
The application had been sanctioned by the Attorney-
General.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—The application is made
on the ground that the prisoner is not ready with his
defence.
Mr. BODKIN—That is the only ground.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—As the Attorney-General
has considered fit to sanction this application, I will,
therefore, remand the prisoner until the next sessions,
to be kept in custody until then. The recognizances of
the witnesses to be also respited till that time.
THREATENING LETTERB.--Henry Joseph KiNerley,
youth, aged 15, was placed at the bar on various indict-
ments, charged with sending threatening letters to
several persons in Southwark, threatening to murder
Them and set fire to their houses. The letters in ques-
tion created great alarm at the time, the particulars of
which appeared in the daily papers. Great exertions
were made by the parish authorities to discover the
offender, and they succeeded in tracing the prisoner to
be the party.
Mr. Bodkin with Mr. Clarke appeared for the prosecu-
tion.
The first case taken was that indicting the prisoner
for sending a threatening letter to Mr. Humble, hop-
factor, 82, High-street, Borough, threatening him, that
unless he (the prosecutor) took back into his service
John Kitterley, a brother of the prisoner, he should be
murdered, and have his premises burned.
Mr. Humble was examined, and deposed as to receiv-
ing, the letter in question, which at the time he received
it, put into the letter-box for preservation. Witness
had a person in his employment in May last, named
John Kitterley, whom he discharged.
Edward John Tyler, printer, Finch-lane, deposed that
the prisoner was an apprentice with himself and sons.
He knew the hand-writing of the prisoner. The letter
produced, he had no doubt, was written by the prisoner.
This was all the evidence offered in support of this
case, on which the Lord Chief Baron remarked, that
a charge so important ought not to be disposed of on
such slender evidence. More might have been expected,
or certainly he should require more to satisfy his mind.
His Lordship then addressed the jury to the effect,
that such a grave offence, proceeding either from a de-
sire to extort certain conditions from the prosecutor, or
from a wanton wickedness, ought to have been better
supported; such a charge, involving such consequences,
ought to have been proved in a satisfactory manner.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
The prisoner was then remanded until next sessions
on the other charges.

CHARGE OF ARSON.-George John Ford, 35, printer,
was indicted for feloniously setting fire to certain pre-
mises in his occupation, with intent to defraud the Impe-
rial Insurance Company.
In another count the intent was laid to be. to defraud
Charlotte Owen, the landlady, of the property.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin conducted the prosecu-
tion; Mr. Ballantine appeared for the prisoner.
The Learned Counsel for the prosecution having
detailed at some length the circumstances under which
the charge was made against the prisoner, the following
evidence was adduced:—
Mr. John Green deposed that he was agent to the
Imperial Insurance Company, and also acted as agent for
Mrs. Owen, the landlady of the premises in question,
which were situated in Breem's-buildings, Beech-street,
Criulogate. The prisoner, upon becoming the tenant,
was bound to insure the building in 150/., and he did so
in the first instance, and eventually, in November last,
lie increased the amount of his insurance to 410/. for
stock in trade, household goods, watches, and trinkets,
books, Scc., and he also insured for a twelvemonth's rent in
that amount. The prisoner at different periods paid the
sum of 3i. Os. 6d. for the premium, but the policy was
not formally made out. The fire took place on the 7th
December, and on the 9th the prisoner came to him and
said it was a very bad job, and he wished to know how
he was to proceed in making his claim on the office.
The prisoner said he had not brought in all the property
for which he had insured, and witness then told him to
make out as correct an inventory as he could, and he
said he would lay it before the directors. At this inter-
view the prisoner told him he had been on the premises
late on the night of the fire, and the reason was, that he
had forgotton the keys of his drawers where his razors
were kept, and he wanted to shave, as he was going out
early in the morning.
Cross-examined—The directors do not give any me-
morandums, and sometimes five or six weeks elapse be-
f 're they send the policy to the party. He made inq ii-
riea about the prisoner, and found that he bore an excel-
lent character. The premises had formerly been merely
a carpenter's shop, and was in a very dilapidated con-
dition ; and he knew that the prisoner had been in the
habit of using tar on the roof to keep out the rain.
There were remains of furniture in the ruins after the fire.
By Mr. Justice EnLE—The prisoner did not give me
any estimate as to the amount of his claim upon the office.
Mary Tyrrell deposed that she lived with her hus-
band close to the house that was destroyed. About
twenty minutes before twelve at night, on the 7th De-
cember, they were alarmed by the cry of fire, and on
their rushing out she saw flames coming from the pre-
mises, and apparently from the windows over the gate-
way. Part of the premises were occupied by a person
named Allen as a school. (The witness. then pointed
out, in a model that was shown to her, the situation of
the prisoner's house and the other premises.) During
the previous nine months the prisoner did not appear to
be carrying on any business, and she believed, from
messages that were sent, that he wished to let part of
the premises. About three weeks before the fire the
prisoner told her that she need not send any more
messages to him, as he was going on a " travelling
systern," and after this he would come more frequently
to the premises. On the night before the fire took place
s
she had observed a very great light in the prisoner's
room,
a g
tro whichn
was completely illuminated, and there was
also
smell of pitch and tar.
Cross-examined—She did not see anything of the
prisoner after she had observed the light. She had ob-
served the same smell about twelve months before, and
on her mentioning the circumstance to the prisoner, he
told her not to be afraid, for he used tar in his business.
Mrs. John Allen deposed that she was a schoolmistress,
and resided in Beech-street, near the prisoner. She
remembered the fire breaking out at the time referred
to by the last witness. On, the 17th November she saw
the prisoner in her nephews school-room, and they had
some conversation on the subject of an insurance, and
the prisoner remarked that if a fire were to take place
on the buildings it would be confined to these walls.
'Witness remarked that wherever fire once began it was
difficult to say where it would stop, and as the buildings
were very narrow she feared they would all come down.
The prisoner repeated that it would be confined to these
walls ; and witness then asked him whether he intended
to set the place on fire, and he replied, " I hope not,"
and witness said that if ho did it would be a dangerous
experiment. She believed the conversation was began
by the prisoner asking her if her nephew was insured,
anal she replied that he was not, but that he was on the
eve ofeffectino• an insurance, to which the prisoner an-
swered that he wished he had, or that it was a pity he
had not.

roaCarosinexinagmituherdotTgThherhad been some talk of a rail-
scribed as being likely. effectingt
not aware thatan insurance was de-
scribed this property, but she was
Mr. Alfred Victor Allen
pery.increase the value of the pro-
hp:Cid. that for about six
school-room. occupied part of the
we previous to the fire,
8 Feciatr_school-room about
extin-
guished, of the prisoner as a
Saturday before the fire he left On the
two o'clock in the afternoon, anpedrfechtryfisraerewas
and everything left
been on the prisoner's premises about a fortnightilt had
the fire, and he then saw a number of articles tis:dr
the printing business, and several cases for type placed
one upon the other, but he did not see whether they
contained any type. The prisoner did not appear to be
carrying on any business on the premises. The prisoner
generally left the key with witness, and he got it from
him on the Wednesday before the fire, saying at the
time that he wanted to bring iq some furni-
ture from Highbury, where he resided. On

the morning after the fire he heard the prisoner
say that he went to his workshop to get the keys to ob-
tain his razors; and on its being remarked that he did not
appear to have been shaved that morning, he said that
he had used cold water, but, in witness's opinion, it was
evident that he had not been shaved at all. The prisoner
then appeared anxious to know whether he, witness, was
insured, and on his telling him he was not insured for a
farthing, the prisoner said he did not think his own in-
surance would cover his loss ; and he added that he had
furniture on the premises. Witness replied that he did
not know of any furniture being there, and the prisoner
said he had brought it there himself on the Saturday,
and that it came from a person in Tabernacle-walk.
The prisoner was then asked what the furniture consisted
of, and he said four mahogany chairs, without the
cushions. The prisoner next said that he had been at
the premises on the Saturday night before the fire with
a light, and that in coming out he had stumbled, bat
that he did not let the candle fall. The prisoner had,
several times before the fire, talked to him upon the
subject of his own insurance, and had likewise advised
witness to insure his own property, and he told him that
he intended to do so. The witness then corroborated
the evidence of the former witness, Mrs. Allen, as to the
statements made by the prisoner regarding the fire being
confined to the walls of the buildings.
Cross-examined—After the fire he observed a con-
siderable quantity of the remains of printing type, and
there were also portions of chairs and other furniture.
He did not tell the magistrate that the prisoner repre-
sented to him that he did not think his insurance would
be sufficient to cover his loss. The prisoner expressed a
doubt whether his policy was completed, and witness
then asked whether he had paid the demands of the
office respecting it, and he replied that he hae; upon
which witness told him that if that was the case he was
perfectly safe. The prisoner did not mention any other
furniture than the four mahogany chairs, of which he
spoke as having brought them in on the Saturday before
the fire. _ _ _ _ _

Andrew Mallett, one of the fire-brigade, deposed that,
on the Wednesday after the fire, he examined the pre-
mises, and found some remains of books saturated with
turpentine under the rubbish, which had apparently
sheltered them from the water, and they were completely
soaked with turpentine. (The witness produced the
books, which were handed to the jury to inspect.)
Under the books there was a layer of shavings, which
I appeared to be covered with coal-tar. There appeared
to Le about a sack full in quantity of the shavings. In
his opinion, the turpentine could not have come acci-
dentally upon the books, but they must have been com-
pletely steeped in it. On the following day witness
discovered another sack of shavings, the sack being par-
tially burnt; and, according to his belief, it was near this
spot that the fire commenced.
Cross•examined—He ha I heard that a good deal of
turpentine was used by printers for the purpose of
cleaning the types.
Mr. Matthews, a surveyor, deposed that he valued
the salvage from the fire, and he considered the type and
stock-in-trade was not worth more than 90/, and that
the furniture could not have been worth more than seven
or eight pounds.

.
In answer to a question by Mr. BALLA NTINE, the witncss
said he considered, that if the prisoner had wished to
replace his printing materials that were destroyed, they
would have cost him much more than the amount for
which he was insured.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. BALLANTINE then made a very powerful speech
to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, commenting par-
ticularly upon the latter portion of the evidence, and
arguing that so far from it appearing that the prisoner
could have had any motive of gain in the destruction of
the property, that on the contrary he could not have re-
placed the articles that were destroyed unless he had
expended a much larger amount than he would have
been entitled to receive from the insurance office.

Several respectable witnesses were called, all of whom
gave the prisoner an excellent character.

fir. Justice ERLE having summed up, the jury, after
deliberating about half an hour, returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
The prisoner was then arraigned upon another in-
dictment, charging him with setting fire to the premises
of Mr. Allen, the witness in the former case.

Mr. CL/LRKSON said that after the full inquiry that
had just been concluded, he should not, as the facts
would be precisely the same, occupy the time of the
Court by offerieg any evidence. The Company for
whom he and his Learned Friend had the honour to ap-
pear, felt it to be their duty to institute the present in-
quiry, but after the deliberate decision come to by the
jury, they considered they ought not to proceed any
furthQr.

A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly returned.

NEW COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
Philip Wetzner, a German, aged 33, was indicted for
stealing an oil painting and frame, value 31., the pro-
perty of J. Annis, a pawnbroker residing in the City.
An interpreter was employed to explain the evidence
to the prisoner.
The shopman of the prosecutor stated that in the early
part of November last, the prisoner came into his mas-
ter's shop to pledge something. The picture was quite
safe before he entered, but atter he had left a short time
it was missed.

A pawnbroker, residing at No. 105, High-street,
Whitechapel, proved that the prisoner had pledged the
picture for 10s. He afterwards came and offered to sell
the ticket, but in consequence of some information that
had been received he was given into custody.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
It was then proved that on the Bth of April 1844, the
prisoner had been tried and convicted for a burglary,
and sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour
for eighteen calendar months.
The RECORDER, in passing sentence, said that the
prisoner had on the former occasion been sentenced to
imprisonment instead of transportation—as he was a
foreigner. IL appeared that the leniency then shown
had been misplaced, and that he had returned to his
old courses as soon as he came out of prison.. The sen-
tence of the Court now was, that he be transported be-
yond the seas for the term of ten years.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before the ASSISTANT-JUDGE and a Bench of Magis-
trates.)
The January Quarter-Sessions of the Peace for the
county of Middlesex commenced on Tuesday morn-
ing, at Hicks's Hall, Clerkenwell-green, before Mr.
Sergeant Adams and a full bench of county magistrates.
The calendar contains the names of 115 prisoners for
trial, of whom 110 hare been indicted, charged with
felony, and five with misdemeanors ; there are also a
considerable number of prisoners for trial whose names
do not appear upon the calendar.

The A;SISTAtiT-JUDGE, in his address to the grand
jury, adverted to the subject of abolishing grand juries
in this Court, and said that if they made a presentment
to him, expressing their opinion of the inutility of that
body, he would be most happy to forward it to the proper
authorities.

Charles Lewis. convicted at this Court during the last
session, for stealing a funnel, was brought up this morn-
ing for judgment, and having received an excellent
character, the Judge directed him to be discharged
within one hour from that time, as he had already been
confined nearly a month.

Thomas Miller (8) and henry Rowley (15) were in-
dicted, charged with stealing a till and the sum of 11 Hs.
6+l, and two canvass bags, the property of Andrew
Glass.

The evidence of the prosecutor clearly proved the
charge.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Learned ASSISTANT-JUDGE, in passing sentence,
said that the prisoners at the bar were proper objects for
admission into Parkhurst Prison, but Sir James Graham
had, in his recent correspondence with him (the Judge),
expressly directed that that class of prisoners should not
in future bo sent to Parkhurst. The boy, Miller,
although but eight years old, had been twice previously
convicted ; Rowley, had also been previously con-
victed, once in that Court and once summarily. He had
inquired respecting the condition of these boys, and
found that their parents had been written to twice since
their commitment, but they had not taken the slightest
notice, nor had they even .supplied them with a change
of linen while in prison. It was a case which he did
not know how to treat, lest by doing right he might do
wrong. He wished something could be done for youth-
ful criminals. These poor boys, when they had served
their term of imprisonment, would be again turned out
upon the public,iind cast upon the town to recommence
their old practices. It was quite clear that this system
would in a short time inundate the whole metropolis
with thieves. The prison at Parkhurst, he considered
was first founded for the purpose of remedying the evil,
at least so he had learned from communications be
had received from the Home Secretary, soon after the
prison had been established. These poor children were
such as would be benefited by the discipline and instruc-
tion exereisei there, and moreover placed in a position
to earn an honest livelihood, and become respectable
members of society. By the existing orders both these
boys were unfit for reception within its walls—one was
too young, and the offence of whichthey had been con-
victed did not warrant transportation, without which he
could not recommend them to Parkhurst; however, in
the present instance, whether right or wrong, and not-
withstanding their age, he would sentence-them to trans-
epxorertactiisoenthfoerirseovewnn dy
iesac rrse, t
onnd tihne ns
etnhdei
nGgo vt eh renmm
teon tr
amustri
Park-
hurst or elsewhere. There was no other course left for
that Court to adopt. He did sincerely trust that some
provision would be made for this class of prisoners.: if
not, the whole metropolis would be overrun with crime.
The present order with respect to Parkhurst prison
would leave it a dead letter as far as the metropolitan
district was concerned. Since his appointment to the
office of Judge of that Court he had tried upwards of
270 boys, varying from eight to fourteen years of age,
yet there was no place of protection, or asylum provided
by Government for their reception ; he, however, hoped
that the Legislature would adopt some means for stem-
ming the torrent of juvenile crime, by pointing out
punishments suiting the ages of children, and the cir-
cumstances under which they came Lefore that Court.
The sentence was, that each be transported for the term
of seven years.