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

AUG UST 7 1851.
gr ;4, Era
N°.18,369.] LONDON, TI-lURSDAY ,41
r 4.4
.-
04. t
4 ; 7

think themselves justified in coming to filo conclusion
that the deceased had struck the prisoner first, and that
the blow with the knife was struck in the heat of the
moment in return, in that case they might find the pri-
soner guilty of manslaughter, and acquit him of the crime
of wilful murder.

nesses were examined to confirm the testimony of the
man 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 tho crime of which he had been convicted.

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 tender age.
The prisoner was immediately caned up for jndg-
men t, and

His LORDSHIP, addressing him, said that he had been
tried by a 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. Tile
sentence ho 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.

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. He therefore
telt 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 which 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 Fromo, in Somersetshire, the officer bad
searched certain premises where a valuable ring, part of
the produce of a burglary at Uckfield, was discovered,
and an action 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 CHIEF JUSTICE said it appeared a very extraor-
dinary judgment of the Country Court judge, in a case
where stolen 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 travelling expenses he had incurred, and also
order him a reward of 201. for the zeal he had displayed
in detecting the prisoners.
(Before 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/., with intent to defraud the
London and County Bank.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Attree were for the prosecu-
tion; Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr. Hawkins were for the
defence.
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 some 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 between 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 Mr. 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-
pearsd, taken 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 AnDEasoN, before the witnesses for the defence
had all been examined, expressed an opinion that the
case ought not to go any further. People, ho said, were
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.

August 6.

John Isaacs, 25, hawker, and Samuel Harwood, 25,
labourer, were indicted for burglariously breaking and
entering the dwelling-house of Harriet Stoner, 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. _ _

Mr. CLARKS3N said that, after this intimation from his
Lordship, he should withdraw at once from the prosecu-
tion, but he at the same time felt it right to state that the
London and County Bank, upon the evidence as it was
laid beforo them, thought that they wore only doing their
duty in instituting a prosecution.

Baron ALDERSON said there was no blame to be 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.