The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-24 00:00:00

EVENING,
__JANUARY 24, 1848.

A WOMAN SHOT BY A SOLDIER

AT LEEDS.

TIIE INQUEST UPON THE BODY.
The inquest upon the body of the murdered woman
was held in the grand jury-room of the Court-house,
on Saturday morning, before John Blackburn, Esq.
Garratt, private in the 57th Foot, and
husband of the deceased, stated that he was present
when the prisoner murdered his wife, but that he
could assign no cause for it, no words having passed

between them.
William Keenan—l am a sergeant in the .57th
Regiment of Foot. The prisoner has been in the re-
giment about two years. I was in the room when
this murder happened. I had been there from five, or
a quarter past, till seven, N 1 hen it occurred. Mrs.
Garrett (the deceased) was there, and her husband,
and Stokes, the prisoner. I did not leave the room
until after this happened. During this time I neither
saw nor heard any conversation between the prisoner
and Mrs. Garrett, or the prisoner and her husband.
The prisoner, Michael Stokes, was in the room all
the time, lying most of the time upon a form near
the fire- place. He was seemingly asleep,:but I saw one
of his eyes open once or twice to look at me. I saw
him doing something to his musket about a quarter
before seven. His musket had been hanging up in
the armoury, in the same room. I did not see him
reach it down, but I Marc him with it in his hands,
seemingly in the act of cleaning it. About seven o'clock
I was within two yards of him, and saw him lift his
firelock to his side, and the lock clicked, from his
cocking it. I supposed he was cleaning it, as the
men are in the habit of clicking the lock when doing
so. Just at the moment I heard the musket cocked
he raised it towards his shoulder and fired. He had
not time to take deadly aim, but he pointed the
muzzle to the woman. It was certainly not an acci-
dent, it was done deliberately. He did not take the time
to aim that I would at firing at a target, but he aimed
at the woman. The musket was aimed at her body.
As soon as he had fired he threw the firelock at my
feet. He said, " There now, that will do, and I'm
satisfied." He then took his jacket off, but did not
speak. lat once seised him, and made a prisoner of
him. He made no resistance, but seemed willing
that I should make a prisoner of him. Mrs. Garrett
was four yards from him when he fired ; but I cannot
positively swear that she was standing with her face
towards him. When I looked at her after the shot
she was staggering, and her face was then towards
him. She had been standing near to her husband,
and she staggered sideways two or three yards, and
then felt down. lam not aware of any quarrel hav-
ing taken place between the deceased and the pri-
soner. They appeared to be upon good terms : but
he was a very distant man, and was not in the habit
of speaking to any of the rest.
By a juror— A man may clean his accoutrements
at any time in the day and take down his piece. The
woman was very much respected by all the men, I
believe ; at least she was by me. She was a pru-
dent, correct, industrious little woman.
Jeremiah Dooly corroborated the evidence of the
last witness. . .

The depositions of the witnesses who had been ex-
amined were here read over, and the prisoner was
asked if he wished to ask any questions of them. He
asked Keener, " Did any one see me raise my fire-
lock to present ?"
Keenan—No, you did not present it. You brought
it up near to the shoulder, and fired immediately.
Stokes—l had not full cocked it. I was just rais-
ing it when it went off.
William Mustard stated—l am a sergeant in
the sth Dragoon Guards, now lying at the Leeds
barracks. I have known Stokes for two or three
months. I was in the guard-room when the pri-
soner was brought in, after the shooting. He was
given into the custody of the sergeant of the guard
of the 57th Foot. They put a sentry over him. The
sentry stood close to his feet whilst he lay upon the
guard-house bed. About eleven o'clock he said he
wanted to go to the rear, and four of the guard, took
him out. When he came back he sat near
the fire, and a man named Jones asked him if he
was sorry for what he had done. He said
" No." He then asked Stokes if it was his intention
to shoot the woman. Stokes replied, yes, it was his
intention to shoot her two months ago, and he was
prevented, and took a second thought, and did not
do it. I asked him if he had a spite against the
sergeant. He said he liked the man as well as his
own brother. Jones asked Stokes if he had had any
falling out with the woman. He said no, but the
woman had said words to him which no one should
know but the priest. Jonee asked if he knew the
woman was dead. He said that •he thought he heard
them talking about it while he lay on the bed. Be
asked if she was dead. He was then told by Jones
that she died at half-past eight o'clock, and Stokes
then said, " If she had lived I could not have died
happy, but new she is dead I can die happy."—(Sen-
sation.) I asked him if he had animosity against any
body else. Ile said that there was a man on furlough
whom he would have shot if he had been there. I
asked him when he loaded the musket. He said he
had it in his mind at two o'clock, hut he could not get
a chance till fire o'clock, when he loaded his piece
with ball cartridge. Jones asked him if it was actually
loaded when he put it into the arm rack. He said " I
loaded her and put her into the rack." He said "he
did not get a chance till about seven o'clock, when he
ran over, took her out, and shot the woman." Jones
asked him, in a joking way, if he would tell the se-
cret, and he said, " No one on earth shall know it
but the pr lest." By " the secret" was meant his rea-
son for doing the act. This ended the conversation,
and the prisoner went to bed.
The prisoner declined cross-examining this witness.
Thomas Jones, a private in the 57th Foot, corro-
borated the evidence of Sergeant Mustard.
Patrick Odell, a sergeant in the 57th Regiment,
deposed that on examining the pouch of the prisoner
he found a package of ball cartridges broken, and a
round gone. It was contrary to the rules of the
army to have a musket loaded in the armoury.
James Jackson, assistant-surgeon of the 57th Re-
giment, stated that he had examined the wound of
deceased, and there was no doubt of her having died
of a gun-shot wound.
The CORONER, after cautioning the prisoner, asked
if he had anything to say ?
Stokes—No, Sir, I have nothing to say at all.
The COLONER then proceeded to sum up ; and
The jury, after a lapse of five or six minutes con-
sultation, returned a verdict of Wilful Murder against
Michael Stokes.
The inquisition was then signed by the jury, and
the Coroner issued his warrant for the prisoner's com-
mittal to York Castle for trial at the next assizes.

IMPORTANT JURY TRIAL, IN

SCOTLAND.

On Monday morning last the great Farrell case
was decided at Aberdeen, before Lord Ivory and a
jury, after a trial of fourteen days' duration. This
we believe to be unprecedented in the annals of trial
by jury in Scotland.
The issue for trial was whether the pursuers (Mrs.
Willox and Mrs. Pope and husbands), or the defender
(Mrs. Farrell) were the nearest heirs portioners of
the late Alexander Wood, of Woodburnden.
It appeared from the evidence that in 1749 a man
of the name of James Wood, a mason, settled in
Kirkton of Fetteresso, near Stonehaven, and in 1755
married Margaret Barclay, by whom he had a family
of five sons and two daughters, none of whom were
ever married. The youngest son, Alexander, emi-
grated to Canada in 1793, where he accumulated a
large fortune, and returned to this country in 1842,
taking up his residence in his mansion of Woodcut,
where he died in 1844. On his death it was found
he had left no settlement, and that consequently his
nearest heirs would inherit his property ; and after a
long search, Mrs. Farrell, a granddaughter of a sister
of James Wood, was discovered by the late Mr.
Smart, solicitor, of Stonehaven ; and although her
right was disputed by another party, such was the
evidence obtained by Mr. Smart, that no appearance
wat made by the party opposing on the day
of trial, and Mrs. Farrell iconsequently entered
into possession in September, 1846. The present
pursuers afterwards set up their claim on the ground
that the father and mother of James Wood, of Fette-
resso, were George Wood and Jane Young, in the
Brae of Kintore, so that, in fact, the issue to be de-
cided was, who was the father of James 'Wood and
the grandfather of Alexander Wood. A jury trial
took place in Edinburgh in October, 1846, before
Lord Robertson, when a verdict was given for the
defender, but after appealing first to the Court of
Session, and then to the House of Lords, the pursuers
obtained an order for a new trial on the ground that
the evidence of a witness had been illegally rejected.
The case consequently came on again for trial at
Aberdeen u mentioned above, and, after long and
able pleading on both sides, the jury found a verdict
for the defendant. Mr. Dees took an exception to
the finding, on the ground that evidence which had
been taken by commission for a former trial, in this
case ought not to have been used in the present trial.
The expense will be enormous, the jury alone receiv-
ing 1641. for their attendance. But who can calcu-
late the counsel's fees ? For the pursuers—Ceunsel,
lion. Stuart Wortley, London; the Lord Advocate ;
Messrs. Deas, Inglis, and Hunter, Edinburgh.
Agents, John Hunter, Parliament-street, London ;
John Hunter, W.S., Edinburgh. For the defender—
Counsel, Sir Fitsroy Kelly, Messrs. Robertson and
Anderson ; Messrs. Robertson, Macfarlane, and
Campbell, Edinburgh. Agents, Johnson, Farquhar,
and Leitch, London • James Asnot, W.S., Edinburgh.
—North British Mail.

RUSSIAN SLIIDOSS.—A vessel just arrived from the
Russian port of Cronstadt has brought two eases, con•
taining two sledges, with the harness and shafts apper-
taining to the ♦ehicles, consigned to order. They here
arrived at Liverpool.

LAM r INTELLIGENCE.
COURT 0 F QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 22.
(Sittings in Banco.)

TB! QUEEN V. 1 'RE 'SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY!-TUE
LAMIST-TH STARCH MANUFACTORY.

This case has .been some time before the Court,
and involves a qut !stion of considerable importance to
those possessing premises, a portion of which only
may be required by a railway company. In order to
enable the Stoat la-Western Company to earry the
extension of the ir line from Nine-elms to London-
bridge, a portion of the well-known starch manufac-
tory of Messrs— Coward, Chancellor, and Illidge,
situated in Pr incess and Fore-streets, Lambeth, was
required. 'lli ese gentlemen declared that if a portion
of their premises only were taken that their manufac-
tory would be come utterly valueless, and contended
that the coin! ?any, under these circumstances, ought
to take the w hole of them. The compasty refused to
do so, on the ground that there were no words in their
Act to justilii• f such an inference.
A short time ago, Mr. Martin obtained a rule
calling upon a the South-Western Company to show
cause why they should not take the whole of the
property in question. A mandamus was issued, and
in the itchy sn the company demurred to its construc-
tion. On Wednesday he addressed the Court in sup-
port of flys mandamus.
111 r. aim. to-day, on behalf of the company, en-
tered at great length into the whole of the question.
He cont !nded that to meet the wishes of the prose-
cutors a new Act would he necessary, as there was
not a single word in the Act as it stood to justify the
assumption that when the company required only a
portiot a of certain premises, and to pay a fair amount
of rem nuneration to the proprietors, that they were
to take and pay for the whole. If it was held
that they were to take all premises when they
onliy required a portion, they might be called upon to
purchase 1,000, or 10,000 acres when they only re-
quired one. If a farm-house only were required
for the purposes of a railway, with what pretence
eculd it be set up that the whole farm should also
be, taken ? It appeared to him, therefore, that the
return which was demurred to was decisive in favour
of the company : it stated that the premises in ques-
tion consisted of a dwelling and ceunting-house,l
stables, coach-house, two large gardens, a green-
house, piggeries, and slaughter-house, a large build-
ing in which the manufacture of starch had
been carried on, an engine-room, and ware-
houses, all of which, except the manufactory,
had not been used for a considerable time,
and the manufactory itself had not been used
since the 24th of May last, and the whole premises
were in fact in a deplorable state of dilapidation.
The wording of the mandamus, which called mere
edifices a " manufactory," was consequently bad,
and could not be maintained.. He, therefore, called
upon the Court to decide in favour of the demurrer,
and to discharge the mandamus.
Mr. MARTIN followed in support of the mandamus
as it stood, and contended that all the buildings and
out-houses, in general parlance, came under the defi-
nition of a " manufactory."
Lord DRNMAN—What does a greenhouse come
under the definition of?
Mr. MARTIN replied, that a greenhouse was a por-
tion of a dwelling-house, as in this case. If a com-
pany took a man's house, or his manufactory, and left
him his greenhouse, that would be utterly valueless
to him. In this case the taking of a portion of the
premises would render the remainder useless ; and
therefore the prosecutors 'were entitled, in hie opinion:,
to demand of the company to take the whole of the
property in question. The s'atutes framed by the
Legislature with respect to the subject, spoke of
these companies taking " manufactories and pre-
mises," meaning that all should be taken which VMS
incidental to the business or trade carried on.
Their LORDSHIPS deferred judgment.
The Court then rose.

ARCHE,s' COUR Jan. 22.
(Before Sir H. J. Fun%)
GRID; V. GEII.B.

Dr. ADDAMS resumed, and concluded his reply in
this extraordinary case to-day. - Ile had pleaded the
facts, and given Mr. Geils an opportunity of answer-
ing them on oath, hut it had been met by the
Learned Counsel opposed to him by interrogatories
addressed to the witnesses, without any counter plea,
so that Mrs. Geis was deprived of giving her
answers. It was to that he alluded when he said the
cause ought to have been conducted in the same
straightforward way that he carried on the cause of
Dysart v. Dysart. He adhered to his original state-
ment, that it was by a conspiracy that Mrs. Geils
was entrapped into this marriage. It had been said
that he hail dragged Colonel Gels from his grave,
but he contended, that letters written by the gallant
officer, and which were documents in the cause,
justified all the remarks that he had made respect-
ing him. The Learned Advocate then adverted
again to the various acts of cruelty charged against
Mr. Gels, and argued that if there had been no con-
donation they were of a character that would have en-
titled Mrs. 6eils to a separation. They had been
revived, however, by the subsequent acts of adultery.
There was no pretext for saying that Elizabeth
Campbell, who had given her deposition as a par-
ticeps criminis, was not sufficiently confirmed to en-
title Mrs. Geils to a s,.ntenee in her favour. The last
part of the case did not rest upon the testimony of
Mr. Hume alone. There was sufficient to substan-
tiate the charge without his evidence. But it had
been admitted that Mr. Hume was not guilty either
of perjury, or conspiracy ; an admission, therefore,
to which he had deposed was evidence on which the
Court was bound to rely. Various reasons might be
assigned for Mr. Hume taking a glass of wine with
Mr. Gels when he went to make the charge, and for
shaking hands with him at parting. He went there
to endeavour to effect an arrangement, and it would
not have done for him to have shown an hostile atti-
tude. It was a mission of great delicacy, and might
have subjected him to a challenge. He (Dr.
Addams) did not doubt the bravery of Mr. Hume;
but there was no reason why he should ex-
pose himself to so unpleasant an occurrence. The
Learned Counsel having prayed the Court to grant
Mrs. Geils a divorce, on the grounds of cruelty and
adultery, read, literatirn et verbatim, the terms in
which Mr. Hume deposed that Mr. Geils had made
the admission of his criminality. The language was
Of too gross a character to admit of publication. Dr.
Addams trusted that the Court would speedily de-
liver its sentence, in order that, if any one point were
decided adverse to Mr. Geils, the case might he taken
to the Privy Council. The Court should remember,
that there was another authority—the bar of public
opinion. Dr. Addams sat down under evident feel-
ings of excitement.
1)r. Curteis (on the same side) rose, but
The Learned JUDGX most emphatically said he
would not hear a word more that day. The mode
in which the case had been argued was a disgrace to
public feeling, to the Court, and to the profession.
After which, rising, to be assisted out of court,
Dr. Addams, with great warmth, protested against
the remarks of the Judge. I treat them with con-
tempt and disgust.—(Great sensation in the court,
Dr. Addams retiring, much excited.)
The conclusion of the reply stands over.