The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

N
APRIL 7, 1846.

Miss Caines was elected. She came at Chti;;Mas,lBsrptde4dourvslubt,atliiiiaekceenfeset:d
lived at the union house. I have known the defendant three
or four years. In 1842 he was butler to Sir Henry Digby,
of Minterne House, and afterwards of his son, Mr. Digby.
He visited my house, and saw Miss Caines there before 1843.
In that year he visited her regularly. Miss Caines' parents
live at Queen Camel, hi Somersetshire. I received a letter
from Mary Caines, and in consequence I communicated to
went again
early went
na bluoi
theaguo
ttut
Caines.
stsbr
leoewrndinhieci
eefnrenygcocnhdi monthslaeag added
in.):tdneftt leavingihe t
irtei
tsiu ns_ht OceoileaNnfildvoi
iiiburuse
s.otr htDdckhae
aft
gtllkharyeei
ye occasionsns,
kitchen
afterwards
night.
Smith that Mr. and Mrs. Caines were in great distress. He
replied that he was very sorry, and if her friends would
advance some money, he would add 10/. to it in their aid. He
e
afterwards expressed a desire to go to Queen Camel, to ask
the parents' consent to keep company with her. She ob-
tained leave of absence to go, and they went together. She
I had some miversation with him, and he said he intended
tlt:oo
latter
htmeti refpra occasiona
r te a
aornifsdAs
house, and could manage to raise 1,0001. I saw him in the
s
leave of her. When he came out he had a handkerchief up
the union-house in November, 1844, because she was preg-
nant. I always considered him as her future husband.
Cross. examined by Mr.
were to see that the children were 'washed and properly
dr lea Her salary was 121. a year, with rations.
Re-examined—l never heard of defendant's having courted
any person but Miss Carnes until after his marriage.
aohn Foot—l am a farmer living at Glanville Wotton,
nearn Come. Mr. and Mrs. Caines have lately been living
at Queen Camel. Formerly they had a large farm. They
have seven children alive, some elder and one younger than
Mary Caines. I was a guardian of the Cerne *union, and
considered the situation of schoolmistress a desirable one for
her. I knew "the defendant Smith: I heard of an intimacy
between him and Miss Caines. I afterwards met Smith, and
had some conversation with him. I said• her friends were
very poor, but she was very well satisfied with her place, and
I hoped he would not make her dissatisfied with it, and then
act dishonourablybv her. •He replied that it was his inten-
' don to act honourably by her. I know she has had a child,
but I do not remember when it was.
fr-'Cross-examined—The child is rather mere than a year-old.
I think it was born in March, 1845.
At this stage of the case the Court adjourned, and the case
was resumed on Saturday morning.'
Mr. Cocan URN then stated that it had been agreed between
the parties to take a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1001.
A verdict was then taken nccordingly.
CROWN CO RT.--(Before Mr. Baron Rourn.)
BURGLARY.---Benjamin Ashford, 38, and William urledge,
18, were charged with burglariously breaking the dwelling-
house of Richard Leir, Esq., and stealing 12 silver spoons,
22 silver forks, and other property, at Lidchett.
- Mr. Stone conducted the prosecution.
Thomas George Perry stated that he was a servant of the
prosecutor. On the 30th of January his master's house was
properly secured at night. That he got up about six o'clock
do usesouhl
could
had
obte egne
tb eits, aisi
eanh
open.next m
vcro r neinntgt,
oa nhdi fsmo ueentde
etsh arto tnhi
two chairs were placed against the door. On getting in he
saw a hole in the wall, near the window, large enough to let
a person in. There was a candle burning on the table. The
window was thrown up. He then missed his master's
cellaret, a sugar canister, and many other things were also
gone. He afterwards went into a field, about 100 yards from
the house, and found his master's cellaret.'
R. L. Leir, Esq., stated, that on the night in question he
lost some plate.
Henry Edglow—Knows the prisoner Orledge. Saw him
at Shepton. Prisoner Orledge asked him if he wanted to buy
anything. He said he could put a pound or two in witness's
pocket. He offered him some plate, for which he asked 255.
Witness bought it for 11. Sent word to a policeman of what
he had done. Afterwards saw both the prisoners together
at Shepton-market. Orledge asked him to buy some more
plate. Agreed to purchase. He then told witness that
Ashford had some plate to sell. Ashford showed him some
silver forks and spoons, and a watch. Gave him ls., and
promised to pay the remainder in a few days. Gave him the
spoons, &c., to Summers, a policeman. The prisoners were
taken into custody.
Abraham Buck, a policeman, of Wells, stated that from
information he had received he went to Shepton Mallet with
Summers. Went to the Ship Inn, where he saw Orledge and
the last witness together. He took Orledge into custody,
and on searching him found four tea-spoons on him, and near
where he had been sitting witness found eight silver forks.
Then took Edglow, the last witness, into custody, and found
a watch on.iiis person. He then went to Dichet, and at the
Bell Inn saw Ashford. Took him into custody, and made an
attempt to search him. Found inside the lining of his smell
clothes some forks and spoons.
Mr. Leir was then called, and identified the property which
had been found on the prisoners.

Mr. Baron ROLFE haing summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
A former conviction having been proved against each of
them, Ashford was sentenced to be transported for fourteen
years, and Orledge for ten.

'April 4.
(Before Mr. Baron Roux.)

CTIAIGE or INFANTICIDE.—Anne Coles, a rather interest

ing young woman, was arraigned for the wilful murder oi
her male child, by inflicting a mortal bruise upon its head
with some hard substance.

Mr. T. W. Saunders appeared for the prosecution. Mr.
Prideaux defended the prisoner.
The main facts of this case, which were of a somewhat ex-
traordinary character, appeared from the evidence to be as
follows :—The prisoner, who went out into service by day,
and earned her bread as a general servant, lodged with an
uncle and aunt of the name of Francis, who occupied two
rooms, a front-parlour and a back parlour, in a house, No.
10, Wellington-place, Rath, the different apartments of
which were let out to different lodgers. The back parlour
was occupied by the prisoner, whilst Mr. and Mrs. Francis
and a young child, their daughter, slept in the front par-
lour. On Saturday morning, the 2d of August, about
four o'clock, a man of the name of Bowles, who also occu-
pied apartments in this house, discovered in the privy a
new-born baby alive, his attention being attracted to the
child by a whining noise which it was making. He lost no
time in alarming Mr. and Mrs. Francis and the other
inmates of the house, and in rescuing the child from its
perilous situation. A doctor was sent for, but the child
shortly afterwards died. The prisoner, when interrogated, at
first denied that it was her child; but she afterwards ad-
mitted it, and said, " I did not cry out here ; when I threw
it down the privy I thought it was dead." The extraordi-
nary part of the case was, that she could not have got to the
privy without passing through the room in which Francis
and his wife were, and unlocking the door of their room,
which was kept locked, and which she must have locked
again on her return, without disturbing Mr. or Mrs. Francis.
With regard to the cause of death, Mr. }lefties; a highly in-
telligent surgeon, swore to his belief that it was Caused by
extravasation of blood upon the brain, and that this was
produced by a serious wound which had been inflicted upon
the head. On his cross-examination he denied that such a
wound could have been produced by the pressure of the head
against the pelvis during labour, but admitted that it might
have been produced by a fall, or some accidental violence un-
consciously inflicted by the mother'daring her suffering. He
also stated that a frequent result of extravasation of blood
unon the brain was to produce a suspension of animal power,
which might afterwards be followed by a temporary revival.
The case for the prosecution having been concluded,
Mr. PRIDEAUX, in a forcible address to the jury, com-
meitted upon the improbability of the girl having taken
down the child herself without awakening either of the
Francises; and further contended that even if they were
satisfied that she bad done this, she ought to be acquitted,
as the fair presumption was that the injury had been pro-
duced accidentally, and that the extravasation of blood had
caused a temporary suspension of the animal power, which
had led the poor girl to believe that the body was really dead.
Mr. Baron ROLFE then summed up the case to the jury,
and told them that they must not trifle with their con-
sciences, but that if they thought all the circumstances of
the case fairly 'consistent with innocence, they ought to ac-
quit the prisoner of the murder. He was then proceeding
to tell the jury that they might, nevertheless, if they
thought-proper, convict her of concealing the birth of. the
child, when •

•
Mr. PRIDICAITX reminded the Learned Judge that the sta-
tute which authorised this applied only to the concealment
of the dead body of an infant.
Mr. Baron ROIXE then said,. that that was certainly so,
and told the jury that as the body in this case was "found
alive, they must convict her of the murder, or 'acquit her
altogetli

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of Not
ASSAULT FROM JEALOUSY.—CaIeb Emery was, indicted for
maliciously wounding John Townsend West,' with intent to
murder him. There was also a count charging an intent to
maim, and a third count charging an intent to do.grievons
bodily harm. . ,
Mr. Stone and Mr. Edwards conducted the prosecution ;
Mr: Prideaux appeared for the defence. . _

It appeared from the evidence, that on the night of the
10th of'rebinary last- a mOst- outrageous assault had been
committed by the.risoner ,on the prosecutor, a surgeon, re-
siding in Shept6n faired. He had been knocked doWn and
most violently beaten about the' head, where he had received
rive severe wounds of a very 4,eriotts character. The prisoner
had subsequently stated that he had given the little doctor
such a pill that he would not want anothm in a hurry ; but
that be should not have done it if it had not been for Sal
Fownell. This Sal Fownell had pointed out the doctor to
him upon their meeting him accidentally, when they were
walking together, and it was shortly after this that the as-•
sault was committed. There was evidence to show that the
prisoner suspected the prosecutor of having been too intimate
with his wife.

Mr. PRIDEAVX addressed the jury for the prisoners, and
contended that the evidence showed that the attack could
not have been premeditated; and that they ought; therefore,
to find the prisonei guilty of a common assault only.
The jury, however, returned a verdict upon the third count
of Guilty of an intent to do grievous bodily harm.
There are two other indictments against the prisoner for
felonious assaults upon his wife—the ono with intent to
murder her, and the other with intent to do her grievous
bodily harm ; but as these have not been inquired into, the
Learned Judge deferred passing sentence on the present
conviction.

11' OR THE RN CIE? C CII T.—Liverpool, April 3.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PArrssom.)
Citaantz OF MURDER.—Surah Swift, aged 19, was indicted
for the wilful murder of Elizabeth M'Gill, at Liverpool.
Mr. Driukwater appeared as counsel for the prosecution,
and Mr. James defended the prisoner.
Harriet Robinson said, she is a single woman, lived in
Shaw's-alley, and knew the deceased, who is a girl of ill
fame. The prisoner is also one of that character. Recol-
lects being in Barber's public-house, where the deceased, the
priioner, and several other girls were. There were sailors in
the dancing-room. Elizabeth M'Gill asked, " What do you
want there; why don't you go to your own house?" When
prisoner replied, "That so she could," and left the house
with Ann Kelly. Witness went out, and when she returned
the beer-house was closed, about eleven o'clock. Met
Elizabeth M'Gill near Sparling-street. She was crying, but
not drunk. Elizabeth M'Gill struck Sarah Swift, who said
we had better go home before we got into cote-hole. The
prisoner, Who had a knife, ran at her. Sarah Swift said to
Nancy Allen, who was present, that she would serve witness
in the same way. Gave prisoner in charge to a POlicemati,
who brought the prisoner and Nancy Allen to tne house.
Knew the knife, and pointed out the place where the knife
was thrown away after the perpetration of the act. The knife
was open, and covered with blood.

Cross-examinedls about 22 years of age, and leading her
present life 'about six months. had lived in Liverpool six
ycari7 bat ilot with 1/CT father for the last ig4 Watt&

PRICE SD.

Sarah Munro—Witness refused to kiss the book, but the
Judge threatened to send her .to prison direct. She then
complied, and was then admonished by his Lordship to tell
the truth. She spoke to some of the facts on the ease,
and then fainted, and it was deemed necessary to remove
her.

Ann Power—Lives iu Shaw's-alley, and remembers the
19th of December. She heard the prisoner say she " would
serve out deceased in some dark corner." It was about ten
minutes past twelve when she met deceased in Mason-
street. There were two foreigners with her, and shortly
after she heard the deceased cry out " murder." She (wit-
ness) ran up, and the foreigners' who held up deceased,
went away. At this moment she did not perceive anything
WAS the matter, with her. At the time deceased was
wounded there were several men and women near besides
the policeman.
In answer to a question by the jury, the witness stated
that the conversation at Barber's was carried on in the spirit
of anger.

Other witnesses were called, but their testimony was a
mere repetition of that already detailed.
John Bold Hyams—is a surgeon, and was called in on the
morning of the 20th of December to see deceased. He had
mad© a post mortem examination, and the depth of the
wound was about threir inches. It extended to the thorax,
and the knife which was submitted to his inspection would
cause such 'a
wound. The wound was about one inch and a
half wide, and deceased might have•cried out
_" murder,"
but it was imp?lsible, in his opinion, that she could hare
lived more than half`an hour.
After the summing up of the Learned Judge, the jury re-
tired for a short time, and on their return found a verdict
of Guilty. of. man slaugb ter.
Sentence, to be transported for life.
CIVIL SIDE.--(Aeforc Mr. Justice COLERIDO E.)
HUTCHINSON V. Tat LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
The Attorney-General (Mr. Knowles), Mr.Crompton, and
Mr. Aspland, were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Baines,
Mr. Martin, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. John Henderson, for the
defendants.

This was an action brought by Mr. Mitchinson, a gent/e,
man residing near Liverpool, but formerly living at Bury,
and arose'but of an action tried at the last summer assizes, in
which the same partia were plaints and defendants. On
that occasion a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and
that verdict had been confirmed by the Court above. The
grounds of that action were the following :—The East Lan-
cashire, late the Manchester, Bury, and,Rossendale Railway
requiring a piece of land belonging to the plaintiff, had an
inquisition to assess the value of the property, and without
requiring the plaintiff to explain his title, paid the money,
about 4,000/., into the hands of the Accountant-General of
the Court of Chancery, without giving any notice thereof.
After this the Company took possession of his land, notwith-
standing that they had notice to the contrary, and the plain-
tiff threatened them with a prosecution for penalties in case
they did. Mr. Hutchinson then brought his action of eject-
ment, which was tried at the last summer assizes, for the
amount of money which had been awarded to him, he •not
choosing to apply to the Accountant-General. In this action
he was successful; and the- Company taking the case before
the Court above, the ending of the Liverpool jury was con-
firmed. A writ of possession was then issued, and Mr.
Hutchinson again took possession of his land. The Company
then paid him the money awarded to him; and after he had
been in possession ten days the Company took possession of
the land. By two sections of the Bury and Rossendale Rail-
way Act, a penalty of 25/. per day is imposed during such
time as they were wilfully and wrongfully in possession of
the land. These penalties amounted to 6,600/. •
Witnesses were called, who proved the principal part of the
statements of the Learned Counsel ; and the other portions"
were made out by documentury evidence.
Mr. Waxes submitted that there was no question for the
consideration of the jury. According to the true construc-
tion of the Act of Parliament there must have been a wilful
taking possession.
His LORDSHIP said, that as the case at present stood, there
was nothing to explain their acts.
Mr. lisowtxs—lf they entered into possession bond fide,
I would submit that they are liable.

Mr. liaNnit molt, for, the defendants, said he would stibm

_ . .
that, under the 159th section of the Act, the paynient-of the
deposit relieved the company from the penalty.
Mr. &taxes then addressed the jury, contending that the
company throughout all their proceedings had been actuated
by the most honourable feeling towards the plaintiff, who,

on the contrary, had taken every means in his power to
throw every obstacle in th 6 way of the railway company
taking possession of the land for the purpose of constructing
the railway, refusing to give any explanation of his title or
any matter at issue, and the company then did, with perfect
good faith, pay the money into the Court of Chancery, there
to await his making good his title, and when he had done
that, the company would have to pay the expense of
getting the money out of the hands of the Accountant-
General. When the Court above confirmed the decision of
the jury at the former assizes, Mr. Grundy, the solicitor to
the company, went to Liverpool, and there offered Mr.
Richardson and Mr. Miller, his' solicitor, the 3,0801., which

they very quietly pocketed, mid Mr. Grundy made them
a tender of four per cent. interest from the February pre-
vious. They, however, declined to accept tho latter amount,
and now they sought o make the railway company pay the
sum of 6,6001. in the shape of penalties, for retaining pos-
session of the land from the day when they entered upon it up
to the day when the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench
was formally pronounced.
Mr. John Grundy, solicitor to the Company, was examined
at considerable length, and said that the course taken by the

company was adopted by the advice of counsel. ✓
Upon this, his LORDSHIP asked the Attorney-General whe-
ther he could change the appearance of the fact ? and upon
the Learned Gentleman replying in the negative, his Lord-
ship ruled in favour of the defendants, leave being given to
the pitapat(' to wove the Court ahvvc.
April 4.
The criminal business having been all concluded yesterday,
both the Leared Judges sat this day to try cases.
CIVIL SlDE.—(l3etbre Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
rILKINOTON AND OTHERS V. SCOTT AND OTHER&

This was an action on the case, brought by Messrs. iichard
Pilkington and William Pilkington, of St. Helen's, glass
manufacturers, against Messrs. Scott, Holmes, Briggs, and
Brown, also glass manufacturers, of South Shields, to recover
damages of the latter for having, as the declaration of
the plaintiffs' alleged, unlawfully harboured, detained, and
kept in their employ certain persons, namely, Joseph Lee,
William M'Connell, and Henry Dodds, servants of the
plaintiffs, who had previously unlawfully left the service of
the plaintiffs.
Mr. Crompton was counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. John
Henderson and Mr. Row for the defendants.
It appeared from the evidence, that at the latter end of

last year the three men mentioned as the servants of the
plaintiffs had thought proper to leave their employ, and that
they did se under the impression or pretext that, although
they had entered into a contract binding themselves to
serve the plaintiffs, the contract was invalid, and that there-
fore they had a right to quit the service. The servants were
called as witnesses for the defendants, and they stated, as a
main ground for their leaving' the employ of the plaintiffs,
that the latter had paid them less than they were entitled to,
and had thus violated or failed in the performance of their
part of the contract. The three servants on quitting the
works of the plaintiffs, offered their services to the defend-
ants, by whom they were "bound "to the plaintiffs. They
said that they were not.so; but without explaining that they
had, in fact, contracted with the plaintiffs, and that they
nevertheleis considered themselves free for particular reasons.
At that time, in consequence of tile reduction of the duty on
glass, the demand for hands had become more brisk. A
correspondence ensued between the plaintiffs and the defend-
ants upon the subject of these men, and then . the claim
of the former to the services of the men was made known

to the latter. The man Dodds was engaged after this
correspondence began, and continued in the service
of the defendants afterwards ; the others, Lee and
M'Connell, having been engaged at an earlier date.
Mr. Richard Shortridge, formerly, in the same way of busi-
ness, and now a magistrate for the county of Durham, was
one of the witnesses called. He stated that he had been re-
ferred to as a common friend of both parties, and spoken to
by both of them respecting the matter in dispute. He was
of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the services of
the three men. But it appeared that the men had insisted
that the defendants were bound to continue them in .their
employ, and some attorney, called "the miner's attorney,"
was mentioned as one wh ) would protect the men against
the claim of their former employers. The men demanded
from the defendants the observance of the subsequent con-
tract between them ; and further, as it appeared, a respect-
able attorney had advised the defendants that it was incum-
bent on the.plaintiffs.to take some proceedings, against the
men, or that, in default of such proceeding,, they (the de-
fendant;) would be justified in keepirkg 'the three men in
their employ, notwithstanding the intimation of the former
contract Which they and the defendants had received from
the plaintitTh.
Mr. Cnean-rox, in reply to the case of the defendants, said,
he was quite willing to leave it to the jury to decide the only
question that could be entertained—namely, the amount
damages to which the pjaintiffs might be entitled.
The Learned' Junta, in directing the jury, oly:erVed, that
it appeared that the defendants, whose respectability was
not in doubt, had in fact been deceived by the representations
of the men whom they had engaged. They rightly said to
the plaintiffs, U
" Show us how it is that the men areund to
you." ' And then the contract was shown to Mr. Stu
and that gentleman decided in Iltvour of the plaintiffs. But
the defendants,' it further appeared, were still not altogether
content, because they also had entered into a contract with
these men, which contract would have been binding if the
men had not told a falsehood. The defendants, however, had
rightly discharged the men ; and then, as it was stated, there
was an attorney who had said that he would pick a hole in
the agreement between the men and the plaintiffs. The men
claimed to have their subsequent Contract with the defen-
dants performed to the letter. This placed the defendants in
what was called " a cleft stick"—that was, that they must
be prepared .either to defend proceedings against these
men, or to be prepared for proceedings' taken by the
Messrs. Pilkington, and they had 'elected to encounter
the latter difficulty. • The course adopted, and said to have
been recommended, by a respectable attorney to the
fendints was, to say to the plaintiff's, " if you do not take
some steps against your men, we will take them back again."
This was certainly most absurd advice. Time men.
might have been prosecuted and punished, it was true,
before the magistrates, for leaving their employ, although
such proceedings_ are accompanied with risk, from the do..
culty there was of making a conviction which should be free
from objections. But the plaintiffs were not bound to pro-
secute their servants. The defendants having been pressed
on on& side, and on the other, chose, as it appeared, to side
with the men, although not obliged to do so. The plaintiff
would be entitled to some damages at the hands of the
jury—not, of course, excessive damages, for while the men
had acted dishonestly in saying they were not bound, the
defendants had been deceived by their misrepresentation
upon that point.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 51. • •

CHESTER CI R C Ul T.—Chester, April 3.
CROWN COURT—(Before Mr. Justice W
IGHTMAN. )
ATTEMPT TO Mu aDER.--Mai y Evans, aged 22, was
charged with administering two drachms of red oxide of
mercury, commonly known as red precipitate, to her infant
male child, with intent to murder it on the 3d of December
last, at Birkenhead. The prisoner had also been indicted for
or
the wilful murder of another of her children by poison
Bibington, near Birkenhead; but, as the testimony in that
case rested principally upon the chemical analysis of the re-
mains of the child, which had been buried six months before
the circumstances that led to the apprehension of the ac-
cused transpired, the grand jury had ignored the bill.
in, the case now under trial the Attorney-General for the
palatuote, Du. iULA (with 14119/11 Alrt Wywaci,),

stated that Child was illegi in Septimate, and warouTu
tember last. It was eTtkuste43 to the-care of Mary ChtZtham
to be nursed. The prisoner made occasional visits to see Os
infant. On the 3d of December she took it to the house
where she resided. The nurse accompanied her, and saw her
give something to it . which she supposed was milk, as the
prisoner had said she would give itlome, and Cheetham had
cautioned her not to let the child have cold milk. Cheethaln
took it back to her own house, but en the way, it became ill
•and vomited. She carried it to a druggist, who perceived
that the child had been poisoned. A constable was sent for,
and Cheetham returned with him to the house whert the
prisoner lived; a physician having been fetched in the
meantime to prescribe for the apparently dying infant.
On seeing the :policeman, the prisoner asked if the child
was dead, and attempted to conceal a cup, which the
officer seized. The vomit and the contents of the cup were
aftervrards examined, and proved to contain red oxide of
mercury. The woman begged not to be taken into custody,
as she acid nobody knew about it. The woman Cheatham*

who nursed the child, the police-officer who arrested
the prisoner, the druggist to whose shop the infant
was taken after swallowing the poison, another druggist,
who sold the red precipitate to the prisoner, Dr. Vaughan.
of Birkenhead, who was called in to attend the child, sail
under whose care it ultimately recovered, and Dr. Brett,
lecturer on chemistry at Liverpool, who analysed the vomit
and the contents of the cup, which the constable took from
the prisoner when he apprehended her—having been seve-
rally examined in support of the charge,
Mr. BEVAN addressed the jury for the prisoner, arguing
that the poison might have been given ignorantly or irt
mistake.

The Learned JUDGE then summed up the evidence with
great care and perspicuity ; after which, a verdict of Guilty
was returned, and his Lordship, in a most impressive ad-
dress, ordered sentence of death to be recorded against the
prisoner.
She is a single woman, and has given birth to five Mogi-
timatechildren, only one of whom is living—the infant
which 'she has been convicted of attempting to murder.
TitE ROCK Fanny MEEDER.—ltfichael Burns, aged 33,
was charged with a highway robbery upon the person of the
late Thomas Peacop, in the township of Bebington.
The'AttOrney General (Mr. Hill), Mr. Townsend, and Mr.
Davison, appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was un-
defended.
The Arrormer-GENEnsi, stated the case, to the effect
that the prisoner was charged with highway robbery On the
person of Mr. Thomas Peacop, on the 31st day of December,
1844. "The grand jury had thrown out the bill for murder
against three of the prisoner's companions, and he had de-
terminei dpon proceeding against the prisoner for the high- •
way robbery only, with violence. It would be remembered
that Mr. Peacop was murdered at Bebington, and that .
--a number of persons were concerned in it. The question for
them would be, whether he was one of the party consenting
to Mr. Peacop's robbery—the murder, as he before stated,
not 'using charged. When the robbery was committed, Mr.
Iteloop had some-sovereigns and some silver tinti_ him., the.
hilVer only being taken. For a long time afterwards no in-
formation was obtained as to the of enders, but at length the
prisoner bent over to Dublin. Information was then ob-
tained respecting his connexion with the robbery, and a
constable went to the city of Dublin and apprehended him.
The prisoner then made a statement implicating himself,
and upon that statement, corroborated as it would be by
other evidence, he thought they would have no doubt he had
been a party in the highway robbery.
Evidence as to the facts of a murder and highway robbery
having been adduced, the statement made by the prisoner
then
eputht in the magistrates at Birkenhead in September last was
The prisoner, on being called upon by the Learned Judge
for his defence, said, " I have said all I had to say before;
it was L
p aoißdpns
mo attentionhav ing
summed
p
to, and
up,
now no more to s‘v
His
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after some
deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty.
Sentence of transportation for life was then passed.
Burns seemed stupefied and amazed at the result of the
trial, and there is no doubt that when he impeached, as his
accomplices, the men Lynch, Newton, and Talent, against
whom the grand jury ignored the bill, he expected to be ad-
mitted evidence for the Crown, and to obtain a reward of
3004 which had been offered.'
LIBEL on A CLERGTMAI4.—An indictment for libel on
the. prosecution of the Rev. J. Armitstead, Vicar of Sand-
bach, against Samuel Slater, of Holmes' Chapel, was tried
before 31fr. Justice Wightman. The libel was published in the
Macclesfield Chronicle, in the form of a letter to the editor,
of which the defendant, by his own admission, was the
writer. It arose out of an agitation promoted by a party of
Dissenters against church-rates, andi imputed dishonesty to
the vicar, with other slanderous insinuations. The Rev.
opiniondift
el
fit
eaunt
adtnahldiet.l:lberT.l
eoaswpnr principal Gentleman bad merely brought the matter into Court to
vindicate his character, the Learned Judge giving it as his
ensiudpca;h a nature as could not be
passed over• without notice. The prosecution was conducted
by 5t
re' andt
witness
Twraasffotrhde
appearedfur edito editor o
f
the paper, who had Slater's written declaration that he was
the author of the, letter which was the subject of the in-
dictment.
The defendant was found Guilty, and sentenced to pay a
fine of 101. to the Queen.

The trials of prisoners were also taken in the Nisi Prius
Court, and at half-past eight o'clock in the evening the busi-
ness of the assizes terminated.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
NEW COURT.
• (Before the RECORDER.)
Anne Sykes and Mary Turner were placed at the bar,
charged with committing a robbery on the persons of Mrs.
Wilberry, Mrs. Williams, and a servant, on the night of the
31st ult.

It appeared from the evidence, that upon the night in
question the three prosecutrixes were returning from the
Pavilion Theatre, when the two prisoners came up to them,
and feigning to fir,ht with each other, jostled the prosecu-
trixes and separated them, and with the assistance of two
men, who came up at the time, robbed them of a veil, a purse,
and some other articles.

The Cow itT told the jury that the question they had to dis-
pose of was this, whether they had premeditated this robbery
and had adopted this plan for carrying it into execution; or
whether they had really quarrelled, and had accidentally
come in contact with the three prosecutrixes, and that they
in consequence had lost those articles. If the jury believed
a.° Uttar to ha the fact they should acquit the prisoners.
The jury found a verdict of Guilty.
The COURT, in passing sentence upon the prisoners, said
that the statute under which they stood indicted gave the
Court no discretion as to the period of time for which they
should be transported, if they were to be sent out of the
country, and he should say he did not think it would be
safe to pass a less severe sentence. The statute in question
provided that if the sentence was to be imprisonment it
should be for a period of time not longer than three years,
but if the sentence were to be transportation, then it should
be for a period not less than 15 years. He was, however,
aware that there was now a Bill before Parliament for the
purpose of limiting the duration of that period and in the
mean time if a petition should be sent to the Secretary of
State praying for a mitigation of the sentence, the Court
might be inclined to recommend the petition to a favourable
consideration—but the senteace of the Court now was that
the prisoners be severally transported for 15 years.
The Learned RECORDER, when the prisoners were removed,
called upon the Clerk of the Arraigns to make a minute of the
observations he had just made. He said, the reason he did
so was, that he had often had occasion to observe, when peti-
tions were sent to the Secretary of State for mitigation of
the period for which parties were sentenced to transportation,
that the observations set forth in those petitions as having
been made by the Court were extremely perverted, and many
expressions were put into his mouth that he had never used.
He, therefore, thought it right to say this publicly, and to call
upon the officer of the Court to make a minute of what he
really did say.
Francis Wall stood indicted for an assault upon police-
constable Knight, of the It division of police, stationed at
Deptford, on the 15th February.
It appeared from the evidence, that upon the day in ques-
tion, a mob had collected, and were assaulting another police-
man, who has since died, when the prisoner struck him with
a broom-stick-:over the eye, and exclaimed, "You
knight, you are reckoned up; look out."
the jury found the prisoner Guilty, and the Court sen-
tenced him to three years' imprisonment, with hard labour in
the House of Correction.
Ellen:Marks, aged 20, an exceedingly smart, pretty looking
young girl, was placed at the bar, charged with stealing a
gold pin, a spoon, a work box, boots, &c., from Edward
El tiles

It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor that he
met the prisoner in the capacity of servant in a house where
be worked as foreman, and induced her to go and live with
him, which she did, as his wife, for about a fortnight, when
he missed the articles in 'question; he had previously.given
her notice that she should leave him ; he had discovered
that she tad become intimate'with another man.
When the prisoner, was first irlaced at the bar she assumed
an air or indiffereuce ; but the moment the prosecutor
entered the witness-boa she burst into tear?, and continued
ter some time to sob convulsively.
Several witnesses were called, who gave the prisoner an
excellent character, two of whom deposed that the prosecutor
toll
jurytltetit liaecignutietttieddedutioe marry her.
There was a second in-
r.
dictment, which was not sustained.

When the prosecutor was called to depose to the second
indictment, he complained that attempts had been made by
Witnesses to give him a bad character.
The COURT said it would be difficult for the witnesses to
give him a worse character than he had given himself.