The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-30 00:00:00

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)

Daniel Steer, 28, was indicted under the statute,' for
having feloniously threatened to charge Percy Burrell
with having committed a felonious assault, with the in-
tent thereby to extort money from him.
Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Johnson con-
ducted the prosecution. 'The prisoner had no counsel.
Mr. CLARKSON stated the case for the prosecution,
and the circumstances appeared to- be of rather an ex-
traordinary character. The prosecutor is the eldest son
of Sir C: Burrell, M.P., and is also related to the family
of Colonel Wyndham. The defendant the son of one
of the lodge-keepers to Colonel Wyndham, and the
transac ion which led to the present prosecution was re-
presented to have taken place in Paris three or four
years ago. It appeared that Mr. Percy Burrell had
been travelling on the Continent, and while at Paris met
the prisoner, who introduced himself to him as having
formerly been connected with the establishment of Col.
Wyndham ; and, upon his representing himself to be in
distress, Mr. Burrell gave him a small sum of money to
help him home, and soon after this a person named
Bowyer, who acted as an attorney at Petworth, made a
communication to the solicitor of Sir C. Burrell, as from
the prisoner, to the effect of charging Mr. Percy Burrell
with the offence in question, and it appeared that upon the
prisoner being subsequently confined in gaol upon
another cause, he confessed to the chaplain that the
charge against Mr. Percy Burrell was without founda-
tion, and that he had been instigated to make it by Mr.
Bowyer for the purpose of extorting money from Sir C.
Burrell. Mr. Clarkson, in the course of his address, said
that of course all along the family had scorned any idea
of compromise, and the moment they obtained the neces-
sary evidence, they instituted proceedings against the
defendant, and alto against Mr. Bowyer, but he at the
same time told the jury that there was reason to doubt
the truth of the story told by the prisoner as to Mr.
Bowyer hav:ng been the original instigator of the of-
fence; and as the share taken by that person i i tLe
transaction would no doubt have to be investigated by
another
.im y, who would form their own opinion upon
the evidence that would be adduced, he should refrain
from saying anything that might prejudice that inquiry,
and would merely observe that doubt was entertained
whether the prisoner told the truth when he stated that
Mr. Bowyer was the person who incited him to make the
charge. The Learned Counsel having concluded his ad-
dress, the following evidence was adduced.—
The Rev. Mr. Langshawe deposed that he was chap-
lain at the Petworth gaol. He remembered the prisoner
being brought there to undergo a sentence of six months'
imprisonment. Shortly after the prisoner came into the
gaol he made a communication to him in reference to
the charges he had made against Mr. Percy Burrell, and
ultimately, after having been cautioned with regard to
the serious effect of the admissions he had made, he per-
sisted in them, and witness took his statement down in
writing, and the prisoner signed it, and the same paper
he now produced.
The statement was then put in and read. It was of
great length, and commenced by a solemn declaration
that the charge he had made against Mr. Percy Burrell
was utterly false, and a most wicked fabrication. He
then went on to give a detailed statement of the share
Mr. Bowyer had in the transaction, and asserted that he
had first instigated him to make the charge. assuring him
that it would be the means of getting a large sum of
money from the Burrell family, and sufficient to make
them both" gentlemen." He also declared in the state-
ment that Mr. Bowyer had written letters for him to
copy as from Mr. Percy Burrell, in the feigned name of
John Smith, and that, in fact, all he had done was by his
advice and instigation. The prisoner likewise admitted
that nothing more took place at Paris between him and
Mr. Burrell, except that he received 15 francs from him,
upon his representing to him that he was in great dis-
tress, to assist him to return to England.

Mr. C. Coppard deposed that he was a solicitor at
Horsham, and acted as the local agent and attorney for
Sir C. Burrell. In the month of January, 1845, he
was at Petworth, when Mr. Bowyer made a communi-
cation to him, and afterwards handed to him two letters
which he now produced.
Mr. CLAIIKSON called upon Mr. Bowyer to produce
the letters in question, and he did so; and they were
handed to Mr. Straight and read as evidence.
The first letter was dated Paris, December 23, 1844;
and the second, December 29, in the same year, and the
latter distinctly made the charge against Mr. Burrell
referred to in the indictment.

Mr. Coppard's examination was then proceeded with
—He said that Mr. Bowyer also produced a third letter,
signed " John Smith," which he represented to be the
name assumed by Mr. Percy Burrell in his communica-
tion with the prisoner. He also asked witness it he was
sufficiently acquainted with Colonel Wyndham to get
an interview with him, and he told him he was not. Mr.
Bowyer then asked him if he knew Mr. Percy Burrell,
and he replied that he did, but not intimately. Witness
communicated what had taken place to Mr. Walter
Burrell, the brother of Mr. Percy, and subsequently had
an interview with Sir C. Burrell.

Mr. JOHNSON asked the witness whether at this inter-
view anything was said by Mr. Bowyer about the :3urn
of 1,000/. ?

Mr. Coppard said he did not recollect that any par-
ticular sum was mentioned, but Mr. Bowyer said that
the matter was one of very great importance, and the
sooner something was done to hush it up the better. He
also suggested the propriety of his being scut to Paris
to see Mr. Percy Burrell, and he said that he thought
Sir Charles had better entrust him with some money,
and he believed the sum mentioned was 1,0001. He also
said that if when he saw Mr. Burrell at Paris he was
not provided with sufficient money of his own, he (Mr.
Bowyer) would propose to advance the money out of his
own pocket, and would take his note Of hand or pro.
missory note for the amount, which he would endorse to
Sir C. Burrell upon his return to England, f )r him to
hold as security against his son. Witness mentioned the
proposition to Sir C. Burrell, omitting that portion of it
respecting the advance of the money, which he was
quite sure would not be agreed to, or even listened to,
and Sir Charles repudiated it altogether, and said he
did not believe the charge, and he would not give the
tenth part of a farthing to hush it up, and the whole
matter should, on the contrary, be fully investigated if
any charge was made. The witness then stated that
Mr. Bowyer distinctly represented that the letter signed
John Smith was written by Mr. Percy Burrell.
Mr. Baron PARKE here interposed, and expressed an
opinion that upon the evidence as it stood at present,
Bowyer made out to be the principal in the trans-
action, and the only share the prisoner appeared to have
taken was that of accessory before the fact.
Mr. BODKIN said that the case for the prosecution
was, that the prisoner': statements with regard (3hig
being instigated by Bowyer, were all false, and that he
had merely acted as his agent.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that did not alter the facts.
The charge was made by Bowyer by the production of
the letters, and he also suggested the advancelpf money
to enable him to go to Paris, as be said, to hush up the
business ; and if the evidence amounted to anything it
made him a principal.
Mr. CLARKSON explained that a difficulty hail been
in the way of the prosecution by the letters being
withheld by Mr. Bowyer until that moment. As it. $V
uncertain, therefore, as to the course that might be taken,
wll
he begged to apply to the Court to order the letters and
all the other documents that had been produced, to be
impounded.
Mr. Baron said certainly ; he should order

them to be impounded in order that they might be pro-
duced on any future occasion if they were required.
James Brooker, the constable of West Grinstead, was
then eal!ed, and he deposed that in April, 1845, the
prisoner, whom he had previously known, came to his
house, and after some conversation had taken plice
between them, he made a charge of a certain descrip-
tion against Mr. Percy Burrell, and at the same time
said he would make him pay dearly for what he had
done,
Mr. Baron -PARKE said that this evidence did not
carry the case any further. The statute, in his opinion,
only applied where the charge was made directly to the
person accused of the offence, and that it would not do
where it was made to a third party. He wuuld, how-
ever, take the opinion of Mr. Justice Coltman upon the

point.
His Lordship accordingly retired to We 'other court
to confer with his learned brother, and upon his return
he said that Mr. Justice Coltman concurred wit him in
the opinion that the present indictment against the
prisoner, as principal, could not be supported, and that
the course that ought to have been adopted was to indict
Bowyer as the principal and the defendant as an ac
cessory before the fact. The prisoner must therefore be
acquitted on the present indictment ; but he should
order him to be detained, so that another indictment,
charging him as an accessory before the f. ct, might be
prat rred against him at the next assizes.
Mr. Wishaw inquired whether the Court w iuld give
any directions with regard to Bowyer.
Mr. Baron PARKE said he should make no o:•eer w;th
regard to. him. The parties would proceed in the ordi-
nary way before the Magistrates.
Mr. Bodkin said that the grand jury had returnel a
bill against Bowyer and the prisoner Steer, for cor-
s2iracy, and he now applied to the Court to fix the
amount of bail to be entered into by the defendant
Bowyer.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that the amount must be larger
than in an ordinary case, and the defendant Bowyer
must enter into his own recognisance in 2001., and find
two sureties in 1001. each, and give 48 hours' notice to
the prosecutor's attorney, in order that the sufficiency of
the tail might be inquired into.
Boyer, who had been in Court during the trial of the
other defendant, was then called upon to plead, and,
having pleaded not guilty, he was ordered into custody.

NORTHERN URCUl7'.—Durham, July 27.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
Jelin Bell, aged 26, was indicted for having feloniously,
and against her will, committed a rape upon Jane. Ste-
venson. his own servant, a girl of 17 years of age.
Mr. Otter appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bliss
and Mr. Matthews were counsel for the prosecutor, who
is a married man, carrying on the business of master
coachmaker, in the town of Barnard Castle. .

The prosecutrix, upon being examined, said that ele
came into the prisoner's service on the 23d of last May,
and that on Sunday, the 28th of June, her sister, who
lives at Staindrop, bad been over to Barnard Castle,
when, in the afternoon, at about four o'clock, the sister
being on her return home, she, the witness, went about
two miles with her on the way. Having left her to come
back to Barnard Castle, she met the prisoner, who had
followed them, and he, after some persuasion, represent-
ing that there was a nearer road across some fields,
caused her to accompany him that way. She
soon found when they, had got some hundreds
of yards from the road that he was leading her
where there was to public path. He said, how
ever that they should come to one a little way on, and
that induced her to accompany him into some fields,
where, taking anvan'age of the loneliness of the place,
he began to, take liberties with her, and finally by
violence accomplished his purpose. She said that she
had a long struggle, with him, which was perceptible
from the state of the ground in a grass field where this
happened, and in which the grass was beaten down for
about five yards. Ile afterwards forcibly detained her
there for upwards of half an hour, But in the mean-
time she had once made her escape for a distance, having
ran into a corn-field, and there trodden down a good deal
of the corn in her endeavours to get away.

The girl, who was a person or most respectable ap-
pearance for her station, then said that she had men-
tioned the matter immediately on getting to the town,
towards which the prisoner accompanied her. She had
not told it to the first female she saw, but did to a Mrs.
Raines, with whom she was better acquainted. That
she Lad done so was proved by Mrs. Raines and others.
A surgeon was called in to see her the same night,
and an officer, sent to look at the spot, confirmed her
as to the condition of the grass-field and the corn-field.
In her mss-examination the prosecutrix admitted
that she had stolen 25., about two years ago, from a Mrs.
Railton, having, as she proceeded to say, obtained the
money by breaking into the window of the house. She
had also been charged with stealing 2s. in the same way
from another person. She now admitted that she had
committed that theft also, and in the same way, by get-
ting in at the window. _ _ _

Mrs. Railton, one of the witnesses for the defence,
swore that she would rot believe the girl upon her oath.
It had been asserted by the witnesses for the prosecu-
tion that the girl was much disturbed and distressed, and
and that her bonnet and dress bore evident marks of
violence, when she came home on the Sunday. Other
witnesses, for the defence, denied both these, and several
of the prisoner's witnesses, stated that they had pre-
viously seen the prosecutrix and the prisoner upon such
,terms of familiarity as to occasion jealousy betwecn the
husband and his wife.

Afker his Lord.hip's summing up, the jury were
about an hour in deliberating upn their verdict, when
they came in, returning a verdict of Not Guilty, adding,
that they entertained a doubt, and gave the prisoner the
benefit of it.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—Derby, July 28.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
DAMAGING A STOCKING FRAME.
Samuel Scottern, aged 42. was charged with having,
on the 93d of June last, damaged, at Stretton, a stocking
machine, the property of Messrs. Ward, at Alfreton.
Thp jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Nothing. of importance had transpired on the Nisi
Prins side up to the time of sending off our dispatch.

HUSH ASSIZES.
COUNTY OF DONEGAL.—Lifford, July 24.
Judge Torrens entered the Court shortly at'v r nine
o'clock, A.M. As the important libel cases against Mr.
Houghton, agent for the property of the late Mr. Mirr-
or ar
OW'd wereed. appointed for trial, the Court was greatly

LIBEL--HA:MILTON V. HOUGHTON.
Mr. Nortmart opened the pleadings. In this case
Alexander Hamilton was the plaintiff, and John Hough-
ton the defendant. it was an action of libel. The li-
belous matter was a letter published in the Times paper,
on the 6th of April, 1846. The defendant pleaded the
general issue, a general justification, and also a special
justification. The damages were laid at 2,000!.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who was brought down
special, stated the plaintiff's case. He said he was coun-
sel on behalf cf Mr. Alexander Hamilton. Mr. Hamil-
ton was born in this county. He acts occasionally as
chairman at the sessions in the barony of Banagh. He
has been several times a grand juror of the county, and
he derives a livelihood by acting as agent for several
properties. He is agent to Mr. Brooke. He is agent,
also, to one of the most extensive landed proprietors in
the county—to Colonel Conolly, M.P. He believed
that none appreciated the service of Mr. Hamilton more
highly than Colonel Conolly ; but, high as he stands in
his estimation, if he is guilty of the foul deeds laid to his
charge in the 1-bel, he would be compelled to scout from
his service, with ignominy and disgrace, the individual so
acting. Mr. flcu,e•iiton was also known to them. He is
an Englishman. He resides in-England, but, having an
agency in this county, he Occasionally and periodically
visits _Donegal ; and, according to the statement in the
libel, he is himself one of the largest occupiers of land in
the United Kineelorn. On the 6th of April last there
appeared in the Times, in England, the publication which
his client complained of as a libel. It was headed "Irish
Jobbing," and it was addressed to the editor of the
Times. [The Learned Attorney-General then read the
letter.] The imputation appears to be distinctly this,
that Mr. Hamilton has, as a magistrate, in conjunction
with his principal, Mr. Brooke, drawn 651. a year of the
public money for six years, for roads that were never in
existence. Mr. Houghton also states that Mr. Hamilton
and Mr. Brooke were unworthy of the commission of the
peace. Mr. Hamilton was of course astounded when
this appeared in the newspapers, and he thought it was
the duty of a gentleman promptly to take notice of it.
He, of course, immediately determined to take proceed-
ings. But lie first endeavoured to ascertain if it was
written by Mr. Houghton. Mr. Hamilton immediately
consulted his law agent ; and, on the 11th of April, five
days after the libel appeared, Mr. Wallace, the respect-
able solicitor, wrote to Mr. Houghton, to know if he
avowed the authorship. There being no reply from Mr.
Houghton, on the 27th of April Mr. Wallace wrote to
Mr. Murdock, defendant's solicitor, desiring to be in.
formed whether Mr. Houghton was the author of the
letter or not ; but there was no reply to that letter from
that day to this, and though they were prepared to prove
the fact, yet they were put to the enormous expense of
bringing over from _London persons connected with the
Times office, to prove a fact which ought to have been
admitted if Mr. Houghton's mo:ive was an honest one.
Up to the present hcur, nothing has been done by the
defendant to indicate regret fur his conduct. On the
contrary, he has taken the course of perpetuating on the
record the charge he has made. This is an additional
aggravation of Houghton's guilt. His attention was
called to the matter. He was threatened with two ac-
tions, and he puts on the record that he has said nothing
but what is true. _

Several witnesses were then examined on the part of
the plaintiff, amongst whom were Mr. A. Dobie, solicitor
to the Times, and. Col. C.)nolly, M.P.
Mr. BaooKE then stated the cise of the defendant at
considerabie length. The Learned Counsel canvassed
the merits of the case very minutely, and denied that
there was any imputation cast on Mr. Hamilton, except
preferring, Mr. Brooke's interests to the public good.
He likewise read two or three petitions and memorials to
Mr. Houghton, complaining of the manner in which the
county cess was expended in the barony of ilinagh, and
of the very defective state of the roads.
After the exa:nination of witnesses for the &fence,
Judge Torrens charged the jury.
The jury then retired, and after remaining in delibe-
ration for about twenty-five minute;, returned into
court with a verdict for the plaintiff of 500/. damages,
and Gd. costs.

ROBBERY OP AN INSURANCg COMPANY.—The City
and Metropolitan police have been for the last two or three
days busily engaged in endeavouring to apprehend a clerk.
belonging to the Imperial Fire and Life Insurance Company,
who has embezzled a very cotisiderableitmonnt of properly
from the Company.. -Up to the time of this discovery the
accused had borne a most respectable character, and his
absence from the office was the sole cause of the Company
ascertaining their (yet unknown) loss.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE. •

Yesterday a great deal of interest was excited by the
examination of a young man, named John Plyce Hum-
phrey, who was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged
with having uttered a forged acceptance, purporting to
be the acceptance of Hugh Stamford, Esq., for 181. 18s.,
there being no such person as lugh Stamford, Esq., in
existence.

Mr. Vyner, solicitor, of Ironmonger Hall, attended for
the prosecution, and a solicitor, appeared for the prhoner.
Mr. R. Knight, clerk to Mr. D. Birkett, jun., of Bill-
court, Mincing-lane, wine-merchant, stated that, on the
11th of March be received from the prisoner the bill of
exchange produced, dated 7th of March. drawn by him
and purporting to be accepted by Hugh Stamford, Esq.,
Ivy-cottage, Hampton Wick, and made payable two
months after date, at 78, Park-street, Grosvenor-square.
The prisoner endorsed the bill in presence of witness,
who received it on behalf of his employer, in part pay-
ment for goods sold, either wine or guano. When the
bill became due, witness sent a letter directed to Hugh
Stamford, Esq., Ivy-cottage Hampton Wick, Middlesex,
but the letter was returned. endorsed "no such perscn
of that name at Ivy-cottage."
Upon his cross-examination the witness said he could
not swear that he received the identical bill from the
prisoner, for he had received a great many bills on that
very day, but he believed that such was the case. * It
was certainly paid into the house.

The prisoner's solicitor—Tnere is no question as to
its being paid into the house.

Mr. Vyner, solicitor to Mr. Birkett, jun., then gave
evidence—He had, in consequence of instructions from
Mr. Birkett, applied to the alleged acceptor for payment,
and upon the return of the letter unopened, he went to
Ivy Cottage, but could get no information about
Hugh Stamford, Esq., either there or from the postmen
or some old inhabitants of the place. 'I he prisoner, he
learned, was known in the neighbourhood, having dealt
in guano and other articles there.
'The prisoner's solicitor said he could prove that the
acceptance was no forgery; that it was in the hand-
writing of Me. Hugh Stamford.
Mr. Arthur Burke, clerk to a solicitor, proved that he
knew a gentleman of the name of Hugh Stamford, and
swore the,: the acceptance was in the handwriting of
Mr. Stamford, who was what was formerly called
a sharebroker, but what was now called a stag.—
(Laughter.) Witness knew the prisoner, but had never
done bnsiness with him. Mr. Hugh Stamford went by
the name of Thorn in London, and Stamford in the
country. Witness took persons to him who wanted to
sell scrip letters, and get a commission upon the
business. " I never," said he, " work without being
paid for it." I have an impression that his name
was Thorn. Before this business, my impression
was that his bond fide name was Stamford, but
now my impression is that his name is Thorn. When I
introduced parties to him for the sale of letters, the
name of Thorn was on the counting-house door. I al-
ways treated Mr. Stamford as the principal. There was
a grey-headed man there whom I considered to be his
clerk.

The LORD MAYOR said the witness just examined
had proved the ca•o for the prosecution. Mr. Thorn
was the acceptor of the bill.
The prisoner's solicitor submitted that it was clearly
shown that his client had committed no offence. Mr.
Hugh Stamford, as the prisoner knew the gentleman, was
the acknowledged acceptor of the bill.
The Loan MAYOR—Produce your other witness.
Mr. Herbert Wall, of No. 4, Cross Keys-square,
Little Britain, was then called for the prisoner. He said,
lam now out of business. I was in the wine trade some
years ago. I know a Mr. Hugh Stamford. I knew him
when he resided at Chapel-place, Poultry, and after-
wards at No. 21, Nelson-street, City-road. He is a dealer
in shares. I have seen him write many times. This
acceptance is his. I have known him by the names of
Stamford and Thorn promiscuously.
Cross-examined by Mr. Vyner—l have seen him
write in the name of Thorn. I have seen him both ac-
-cept and indorse bills in that name. He is now at Good-
wood races. lie is a sporting man, and has been very
fortunate this year on the Derby. Ido not know that
he had any christian name, for he was never baptised.
The prisoner's solicitor said the evidence of Mr. Wall
confirmed the fact of his client's innocence. If it pleased
Mr. Stanford, he might have gone in the name of Thomas
Williams, or John Thomas, but he accepted the bill in
the name by which he is known to Mr. Humphrey.
There was no pretence for ssying that the prisoner had
uttered a forgery.

Mr. Wall's cross examination was continued—Mr.
Hugh Stamford first came up to London in the name of
Thorn. I was not aware that he then used another
name, but he came to my office as a clerk in the name of
James Thorn. I was then a wine-merchant in Hart-
street, Mark-lane. It was seven or eight years ago.
He was with rue seven or eight years ago about a couple
of years. I have known him in the share market both
as Hugh Stamford and Thorn. He took a manor in
Kent last year, and I always addressed letters to him
there as Hugh Stamford. I called upon him in Chapel-
place. He went by the name of Thorn in London, and
by that of Stamford in the eountry. I have addressed
letters to him et Lurbiton and Hampton Wick in the lat-
ter name. They were letters which I re-addressed or
put in an envelope, which had been sent to his country
house .in the name of Thorns or Thorne Brothers.
Never received any letters from him from Hampton
Wick. The landlord took possession of the premises I
believe, for rent, either in December 1844 or 1845.
The body of the bill is one in my handwriting. I drew
it at 78, Park-street, Grosvenor-square.
The LORD MAYOR—Knowing that he went by two
names, did you not ask in which he intended to accept ?
Witness—The prisoner asked me to draw the bill, and
I did so by his dictation. I put the address, Ivy Cot-
tae,e, Hampton Wick, by the prisoner's direction. and I
saw Mr. Stamford sign the bill in the prisoner's pre-
sence. I did not see any money pass at the time.
The LORD MAYOR—And you knew at the time that
bill was accepted in the name of Stamford, that it was
accepted by your old clerk Thorn ? Witness—l did. I
knew him in both names. I heard him say that he was
not baptised, and that he might take any name he
pleased.—(A laugh.)
The prisoner's solicitor said it was quite impossible
that after what had been stated his client could be sup-
posed to be guilty of having uttered a forged acceptance.
The LORD MAYOR said he should remand the case till
Saturday, and refused to take bail for the appearance of
the prisoner. His Lordship directed that Mr. Wall and
Mr. Burke, the witnesses, should attend upon the next
examination. .