The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-07 00:00:00

think themselves justified in coming to the conclusion

'that the deceased had struck the prisoner first, and that
the)hlow with the knife was struck in the heat of tha
moment iurn, in that case they might find the pri-
soner guilt manslaughter, and acquit him of the crime
of wilful murder.

The Jury, after deliberating a short time, found the
prisoner Guilty of manslaughter, at the same time re-
commending him to the merciful consideration of the
Court on account of his tendvr age.
The prisoner was immediately called uprtfor judg-
ment, and

His LORDSHIP, addressing him, said that he had been
tried bye most merciful jury, and they had, fortunately
for him, come to the conclusion that he was only guilty
of manslaughter. They had also recommended him to
mercy, and he felt that the sentence he was about to pass
was a most merciful one for him, taking into considera-
tion the information he had received with regard to his
previous habits and conduct. Any one not cognizant of
those circumstances might consider the sentence a severe
one to be passed upon a child of his tender age; but he
(the Learned Judge) felt that it was the only one that
would be calculated to break his obdurate temper and
violent habits, and give him a chance for the future. The
sentence he should pass upon him was that of transpor-
tation for ten years, and the effect of that sentence would
be that he would be removed to Parkhurst-prison, where
he would be placed in school and undergo severe train-
ing—a course which was the only one calculated to in-
duce him to change his habits and restrain his violent
passions.
It was stated in the court that the prisoner had on
several occasions exhibited a savage disposition by stab-
bing animals with his knife, and it was also said that it
was not the first time he had used, or endeavoured to
use, the same weapon to a human being.
August 6:
John Isaacs, 25, hawker, and Samuel Harwood, 25,
labourer, were indicted for burglarionsly bree.king and
entering_ the dwelling-horse 'of --/ILTiet-Szl/4'sner, and
stealing seven sovereigns, some silver money, and other
articles, her property.
Mr. Johnson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Lilly
defended Isaacs; and Mr. Woollett appeared for Har-
wood.

This case created a good deal of interest, from tho
feet of the prisoners being the remaining members of the
desperate gang of burglars who for so long a period in-
fested the counties of Surrey and Sussex. The prisoner
Samuel Harwood was tried with his brother Levi Har-
wood and a man named James Jones for the murder of
the Rev. Mr. Holiest at Frielloy, at the last assizes for
Surrey, and upon that occasion he was acquitted, his
two companions being convicted and executed.
Mr. JOHNSON, in opening the case, said he felt it
would be idle for him to suppose that the jury had not
heard the names of the men at the bar in connexion
with many desperate outrages that had taken place in
this and the adjoining county, but ho hoped they would
do all in their power to prevent what they had so heard
from affecting the present inquiry, and that the
decision they came to would be founded solely upon
the evidence he should lay before them in support of
the present charge. He then proceeded to describe
the particulars of tee offence, and said that he should
call as a witness a man who was one of the party of ma-
rauders, and although his evidence was of course open
to observation and suspicion, he should so confirm him
by the evidence of other persons, that he apprehended
the jury would entertain no doubt that he was telling
the truth, and that the charge was completely made out
against the prisoners.
James Hambleton, the accomplice, who was brought
from the gaol to give his evidence, was the first witness
examined. He said—l have known the prisoner Isaacs
for ten or twelve years. I have only known the other
prisoner some twelve months ago last spring. I re-
member the burglary being committed at Mrs. Stoner's
at Kirdford, on the 3d of June, 1850. About a month
before I was encamped in a tent on Farnham-common,
and Isaacs came there to me and planned the robbery,
and he told me he should go to Guildford to get two
other men to join in it, and I was to take his old clothes
and a dark lantern to a place called Hyden's-ball, where
we were all to meet. A man named John Holmes,
or Smith, accompanied Isaacs to Guildford. I went
to Hyden's-ball, as it had been arranged, and Isaacs
came there accompanied by the prisoner Samuel
Harwood, Levi Harwood, and Jones. (The two
latter were executed for the Frimley murder.)
Our party at this time consisted of six persons—my-
self, the two Harwoods, Holmes, Jones, and Isaacs.
The place where Mrs. Stoner lived was ten miles
from Hyden's-ball, and wo arranged to go these by twos,
and Samuel Harwood and I went together. We were
all to meet in a wood not far from Kirdford, and we did
so, and all six went to a lonely barn by the side of the
road, and about 50 yards from Mrs. Stoner's. Isaacs
and Holmes then went to look at the house, and see it
all was quiet, and when they returned we stripped and
disguised ourselves and put OA masks, and proceeded to
the house. I believe it was about twelve o'clock when
we got there. We found the house was secured, and we
went to the back part of it, and a hole was cue in the
shutter with a centre-bit, and the piece taken out, and
the shutter opened. A portion of the window-frame
was then removed, and either Samuel or Levi Harwood
got in, and went to open the front door, and we all went
in, except Jones, who was left outside to take care of
our clothes, and to give an alarm in case any ono should
I approach. We searched the shop and the lower part of
the house, but could not find anything of value, and we
then proceeded towards the upper rooms of the house. The
stairs foot-door was fastened, and when we got to it I heard
a woman's voice call out, " What are you after there?"
or some such expression, and we immediately burst the
door open and ran up stairs. The woman ran. out of her
bedroom into the passage, and I went into her room
and remained there. I saw Isaacs seize hold of Mrs.
Stoner, and drag her to her bedroom, and he at the same
time demanded money of her, with heavy threats. The
other men also got round her, and were searching about
for property. I and Isaacs and Holmes were armed
with a bludgeon, and the Guildford men, Levi Harwood,
Samuel Har wood, and Jones. each had a pistol. Soon
after this, I saw Isaacs take Mrs. Stoner's pocket, and
we then all came down stairs. By thi3 time it was
getting daylight. We found Jones outside, where we
had left him, and we all proceeded to a wood, where we
shared the money. Only 3s. 6d. was given to me at this
time. While we were in the wood Isaacs said that he
could not see the woman quite so well as he wished, and
that he had slipped off ,his mask ou purpose to do so.
After we had divided the money I want back to Farn-
ham-common. Isaacs at this time did not reside in any
particular place, and I understood that he used to go
about the country in a travelling wage,on.
This witness was cross-examined at some length by
both the counsel for the prisoners, but he persisted in
his story, and nothing whatever favourable to them was
elicited.

Mrs. Harriet Stoner said—l keep a shop at Kirdford,
in this county, and did so on the night of the 3d of June,
1850. On that night I secured the fastenings of the
house myself, and went to bed about half-past eleven
o'clock. Between one and two o'clock on the following
morning I was awoke by hearing a noise at the bottom
of the stairs, and I called out to know who was there,
and the moment I did so the stair doer was burst in,
and I heard the footsteps of several men ascending the
stairs. I went out of my room into the passage, and saw
two, men with masks on and each with a pistol in his
hand. They seized hold of me and threw me into a
corner, and at the same time exclaimed, " Deliver your
money, or we will blow your brains out." I then ob-
served another man. He also had a mask on, and a
chisel was in his hand. This man held me down on the
ground and flourished the chisel over my face and throat,
and he used very violent language to me. I tried to
struggle, and one of the men pressed my chest and also
put his hand over my mouth, and some one called out
" Stop her noise." All the men who were about me re-
peatedly demanded my money, and threatened to blow my
brains out if I did not tell them where it was kept. I
was kept in this position for several minutes, and I
then heard a man's voice from an adjoining room say
" Blow her brains out if she don't tell." Ono of the
men who had a pistol then put his finger on the trigger
and said, " I will blow your brains out if you don't tell
us directly where your money is." A man who had a
round frock on said, " Don't kill her." The mask of
this man fell off at that moment, and I had an opportu-
nity of seeing
his face distinctly. I am sure the pri-
soner Isaacs is that man. I have no doubt whatever of
it. After his mask was off he fell back to some distance
from me, and I exclaimed, " Spare my life! Lord have
mercy upon me!" One of the men who was holding me
said to the man who had fallen back, " Come on, you
fool!" Isaacs looked very pale at this time. Another
man then came up to me with a light, and he handed
me the keys. I saw five men in the house altogether.
When the keys were brought to me they told me to
go and get the money, and said they knew I had
money, and that they bad come for it, and were deter-
mined to have it, sad they would blow out my brains if
I did not give it to them. One of the party, after this
had been said. called out, " Blow her brains out, if
she don't tell." I then said that I had got a little
money, and they told me to find it, and again threa-
tened me with violence if I did not do so. One of the
men then seized me by the nose and dragged me
towards my bedroom, and the others pushed me behind,
and I saw the muzzles of two pistols close to my head.
When I got into my bedroom I took my pocket from
under the pillow, and two of the men made a snatch at
it, and one of them got it. I paid particular attention to
the voice of one of the men who stood over me, and
after the prisoner Harwood was in custody I had an op.
portunity of hearing his voice, and I recognised it imme-
diately as the same. It was a peculiar voice. It was not
rough, but very shrill, and I can speak positively to tha
prisoner's being the same. The size and general appear-
ance of the prisoner also correspond with those of one of
the man who stood over me with a pistol. There was
about 71. 10s. in gold and 3/. or 41. in silver in the
pocket. When the men had got possession of it they
all went down stairs, and I followed them, and as the
last of them went out at the back door he put a pistol
in my face and said, "Silence!" and I then saw them all
jump over the hedge into the lane. A man named En-
tickness was in my service, and at the time the men
were leaving the house I saw him at another part of the
premises.
Entickness, the person referred to, identified one of
the prisoners as being among the party whom he saw
leaving the home after the robbery, and several wit-

nesses were examined to confirm the testimony of the
mgn Hambleton, which they did in several material par-
ticulars.

The Learned Counsel for the prisoners then severally
addressed the jury, the principal point relied upon being,
of course, that the accomplice was unworthy of credit.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury al-
most immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoners were at once called up for judgment,
when Isaacs declared that his companion was perfectly
innocent of the crime of which he had been convicted.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he would pay no at-
tention to such an assertion as that which had been
made by the prisoner. They had both been declared
guilty by the jury, and their offence was one of the
most serious and aggravated character. lie therefore
felt himself compelled to inflict the full penalty of the
law, which was that they should severally be transported
for life..

Mr. JOHNSON then applied to his Lordship on behalf
of Mr. Morton, the superintendent of the Tunbridge
Wells police, through whose instrumentality the case had
mainly been made out, to order the payment of a sum of
money whkth he had been compelled to pay in con-
nexion with the proceedings. It appeared by an affidavit
that was put in, that upon the apprehension of the pri-
soner Isaacs at Frome, in Somersetshire, the officer had
searched certain premises where a valuable ring, part of
the produce of a burglary at Uckfield, was discovered,
and an actin for trespass had been brought against him
in the County Court for the district, and the judge had
awarded 101. damages against him, and the costs. He
had incurred great expense in tracing the prisoners, and
the Learned'. Counsel said he trusted that, under the cir-
cumstances, the Court would order him to be repaid the
amount.

The CIIIIFS JUSTICE said it appeared a very extraor-
dinary judgment of the Country Court judge, in a case
where stole n property appeared to have been actually
found, but he had no power to make an order for the re-
payment of the money. He should, however, allow the
officer the t ravelling expenses ho had incurred, and also
order him c, reward of 201. for the zeal he had displayed
in detecting the prisoners.
(Belem Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
Richard Mirfin, alias Dudley, 39, a person of respect-
able appearance, was indicted for feloniously forging and
uttering a cheque for 325 L, with intent to defraud the
London anti County Bank.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Attree were for the prosecu-
tion; Mr. t.; ergeant Shee and Mr. Hawkins were for the
deence.

The circumstances of this case appeared to be of rather
a peculiar character. From the evidence adduced for the
prosecution it would seem that the prisoner had been
staying for; lome time at Brighton, and that he had become
acquainted there with a gentleman named Tennent, who
kept an account with the Brighton branch of the London
and County Bank, and there had been money transac-
tions betwe en them. On the morning of the 15th of May
a person went to the Star Inn at Lewes, and he sent a
boy with the cheque in question, which purported to be
signed by Air. Tennent, by the train to Brighton, for the
purpose of getting it cashed. The cheque was not paid,
and some one connected with the bank returned with the
boy to Lewes, but the person who sent him had, it ap-
peared, tat.en the alarm and gone off. The prisoner was
afterwards taken into custody in London, and the boy
and the waiter both asserted that he was the person who
had sent the cheque.
The defence set up to this case was, that the witnesses
were mistaken as to the identity of the prisoner, and se-
veral respectable persons were called, who stated in the
most positive manner that the prisoner was in London
at the time he was supposed to have been at Lewes, and
to have sent the cheque in the way stated.
Baron ALDERSON, before the witnesses for the defence
had all been examined, expressed an opinion that the
case ought not to go any further. People, he said, wero
continually making mistakes upon the question of iden-
tity; and he did not think, if a single witness had not
been called for the prisoner, that there was by any means
sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction in the present
case.

Mr. CLARKSON said that, after this intimation from his
Lordship, he should withdraw at once from the prosecu-
tion, but be at the same time felt it right to state that the
London and County Bank, upon the evidence as it was
laid before them, thought that they were only doing their
duty in instituting a prosecution.
Baron ALDERSON said there was no blame to bo at-
tached to any person. It was a case of suspicion, and
that was all; but it was very proper to be inquired into.
A verdict of Not Guilty was then taken, and the pri-
soner was ordered to be immediately discharged.
The business of these assizes was shortly afterwards
brought to a termination.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Bodnan, Aug. 5.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLE•
RIDGE and a Special Jury.)
LANDERYON V. ALLEN.

Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. M. Smith were coun-
sel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Kerslake
for the defendant.

This was an action brought to recover compensation in
damages from the defendant for having bad criminal
coversation with the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff, in
1843, being then twenty-four years of age, married Miss
Harriet Ann Brown, the daughter of a farmer, she being
twenty years of age. He then took the King's Arms Inn
at Falmouth, and in course of time his wife had two chil-
dren. The defendant at that time was residing in Oporto,
and there he married. In 1844 he returned to Falmouth,
and sat up in business as a wine-merchant. He was then
twenty-nine years old. An intimacy soon sprang up be-
tween these parties in consequence of the defendant sup-
plying the plaintiff with wine. The plaintiff also had a
farm in the neighbourhood of Falmouth. In order to
carry on the business of the tavern the plaintiff's
wife used to retire to bed at an early hour, the
plaintiff himself remaining up until the house
was closed. The wife got up early in the morn-
ing, the plaintiff continuing in bed longer. As the
farm had to be looked after, the plaintiff was accus-
tomed, as soon as he had breakfasted, to leave his house
and go to his farm. Time passed on, and the plaintiff
and his wife appeared to live on the most affectionate
terms, the defendant continually looking in. In the
year 1849 the plaintiff took the Red Lion Hotel at
Truro, to which house he removed. The defendant
shortly afterwards took some wine and spirit stores in
Truro, and in order to attend to these stores he took a
sitting-room and bed-room in the Red Lion. The plain-
tiff and his wife still continued to live on the most affec-
tionate terms, but on the 14th of April the plaintiff had
left Truro for the purpose of going to a farm in the
n^ighbourhood. It was supposed that he would be ab-
sent for many hours, but from some cause or other he
shortly returned. He went into the Red Lion and
asked for his wife, and was told she was upstairs. He
therefore went up, and upon going to a sitting-room,
No. 9, which was occupied by the defendant, he found
the door was fastened. He asked to be admitted,
but could not obtain admission. He proceeded to
break open the door, and succeeded in seeing the de-
fendant with his dress disarranged and his wife in the
room; the appearances were such as to convince him
that his happiness was destroyed. He called his ser-
vants and accused his wife of infidelity. She said, "You
have not caught us," and the defendant said, " Listen
to reason." As soon as this discovery was made the
plaintiff was informed of different facts—that for years,
before ho was down in the morning and after he had
gone to his farm, the defendant, who was well ac-
quainted with his habits, was constantly visiting Mrs.
Landeryon; they used to go into a room together, draw
down the blinds, and remain together for a length of
time. She had been sitting on the defendant's knee and
be had been seen kissing her, and when the plaintiff was
from home at night the defendant had remained with
Mrs. Landeryon in a room in the dark for hours.
All the circumstances that now came to his knowledge
made it clear to the plaintiff that his wife and the de-
fendant had been carrying on an adulterous intercourse
for years.

A barmaid stated that there were two panes of glass
broken of the window of the room in which she was, and
she had often heard the defendant and Mrs. Landeryon
outside whispering and kissing. She thought it was the
sound as of kissing. She did not know anything of
kissing herself, but she thought it was kissing, though
she might have been mistaken. This was very frequent.
She had seen the defendant go into a room, and Mrs.
Landeryon soon followed him, and then the blind was
drawn down. She had seen this more than half a dozen
times. The defendant was there five or six times a-day
for two years. Her suspicions were aroused, and she
used to take notice of it. She thought there was no
good going on, and yet she did not tell the plaintiff al-
though he was her cousin. She did not like to wound
his feelings. She had once knocked at the door of the
room in which they were, but she was not admitted.
She had known another barmaid stand in the passage to
give signal, sometimes by a cough and sometimes by a
laugh. This was when Mr. Allen and Mrs. Landeryon
were in a room together. Upon one occasion the plain-
tiff came home when his w►fe and the defendant were
in the room together. She came out and went up stairs.
Her hair and collar were disarranged. She came down
in a few minutes with everything put in order.
The ostler said that as soon as the plaintiff went to the
farm the wife always went into a particular room and
pulled down the blind, and then the defendant came.
The defendant could see the plaintiff leave from his own
house.

A great number of witnesses were examined, who
spoke to small circumstances, all of which tended to
show that there had been great intimacy between the
parties.
For the defendant it was contended, in the firet place,
that when persons had been extremely intimate for many
years that which would have led to suspicion among
others was perfectly harmless and justifiable as regarded
such parties. It was then contended that the prying
curiosity of a number of individuals had magnified acts
which were in themselves innocent, into proof of guilt,
and that it was impossible if an improper intercourse had
been carried on for so many years, but the plaintiff must
have been apprised of it at a much earlier period. Upon
the whole the jury were urged to believe that the whole
was a mere phantom, and that there was no proof of
anything criminal having taken place.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury retired and at length returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—damages 350/.