The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-08 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 6.

WESTERN CICCUIT.—SALISBMIY. •
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)
J. Brewer was indicted for forging and uttering a re-
ceipt for 291. 10s. 4d. at Devizes.
Mr. W. Slade was counsel for the prosecutor, and Mr.
Arney defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was pay-sergeant in the
Royal Wilts Militia. In June the prisoner was asked by
the commanding officer for the bills of the month of May,
he bad been asked several times for them. On the 16th
of Jane the prisoner gave his officer a receipt purporting
to be signed by a man named Medland. The officer told
him he did not think it was Medland's signature, but
the prisoner said it was. He said he paid 271., the bill
was for 291.105. 4d., and he supposed that as the bill
was receipted Medland intended to give him the 21.
10s. 4d. The receipt was not in the handwriting of Med-
land, bat was believed by three of the officers of the
Militia to be in the handwriting of the prisoner. Med-
, land had not been paid the bill. Medland said h e fre-
quently mad gratuities to the sergeants, as some required
it.

Mr. Justice Coleridge told Medland this was an ex-
ceedingly bad practice, as, of course, he must charge a
higher price for his goods.
The prisoner had been in the service 23 years, and was
discharged with a pension of 23. a-day and a certificate
of good character, and he had served 7 years in the
Wilts constabulary, whence he had come also with a
good character.
.Mr. Arney, for the prisoner, said his answer to the
charge was that he had sent edland 27/. by post, and
had received the receipt by post. The officers scarcely
knew anything of the handwriting of the prisoner, and
only expressed their opinion that the receipt in question
was written by the prisoner.
The learned Judge having summed up the case,
The jury returaed a verdict of guilty of uttering, with
a strong recommendation to mercy.
' Sentence--Two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
THE CONDEMNED CONVICTS AT WINCHESTER.
We can hardly imagine anything more dreadful than
the position of these wretched men. We must take it
that there is no doubt as to their guilt, at the same time
there are some matters which strike the mind. They are
foreigners, not understanding or speaking English. They
are brought to this country in custody and placed in gaol.
They have no friends—no kindly hand to assist them—
no one comes forward to defend or advise them. The
learned judge, with characteristic humanity, when he
arrived at Winchester, and finding that these men
were not defended, at once spoke to a gentleman at
the bar and requested him to take the case into his
hands, and to defend these men ; but this gentleman
did not see the prisoners to know what their story
was or what line of defence they would wish taken,
nor bad he 'any instructions from an attorney. The
men are placed at the bar—everything is done for
them by the learned advocate that he could do, con-
sidering that he had no instructions. When the pri-
soners are convicted the first question is put to them.
They are asked what they have to say why judgment
to die according to the law should not be passed upon
them. They then want to make their statement And
tell their story, but they are theft told, and correctly
told, according to the ordinary rules of our criminal
trials, that the question asked them only applies to
matters of law, and not of fact, and that if they wish
to make any statement they must make it to the pro-
per quarter (the Secretary of State). They are then
condemned to die, and are taken back to the prison.
The time has then arrived for them to make their
statement, if their miserable state of mind enables
them to recollect that part of the judges's observa-
tions. But how are they to do this ? They are, of
course, placed in separate cells, but they have the as-
sistance of an excellent man, a Catholic priest, whose
chief aim, of course, is to lead their minds from
earthly to heavenly things, and perhaps all the obser-
vations of the judge are lost sight of. They have no one
to communicate with them—there is no one in the pri-
son who can speak their language, ne one who can assist
them with advice or consolation or friendly converse in
the absence of the priest—they can only meditate upon
their dreadful fate, and remember that the day which is
to deprive them of life and remove them to another world
is fast approaching. In the course of this fortnight of
silent musing and horrible suTense the idea in their
mind is that they have not had a fair chance beoauee
their statement has not been heard. In all probability
that statement would not change their position, but, in
mercy to them, should they not be afforded the means of
making it ?—for, be it recollected that the judge invited
them to make it to the proper quarter.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—STAFFORD.
(Before Mr. Baran Watson.)
William Freeman, Thomas Bloor, Charles Wright,
and William Shaw, charged with night poaching at
Wolseley on the 12th of July last, and with assaulting
Lord Lichfield's keepers on that occasion, yesterday
pleaded guilty to assaulting Henry Martin, and occasion-
ing actual bodily harm.
It appeared that the prisoners, with three other per-
sons, one of whom had turned approver, left the neigh-
bourhood of Uttoxeter on the night in question with
nets and dogs, and proceeded to Wolseley, a distance of
several miles, and there laid their nets on the side of the
public road leading from Wolseley to Stafford, and drove
rabbits into them. The adjoining laud was the property
of Sir Charles M. Wolseley, but, by an arrangement be-
tween him and the Earl of Lichfield, the latter exercised
the right of shooting over that part of the Wolseley
estates, and on the night of the 12th July a keeper of
his lorip's, assisted by keepers of Sir C. Wolseley and
the Marquis of Anglesey, being on the watch for poachers,
caught the prisoner Bloor in the act of taking a rabbit
out of the net, and handcuffed him. A. deadly cen-
t'. ct ensued between the keepers and the rest of the
poachers, and Henry Martin, the Marquis of Angle-
sey's keeper, received severe injuries from stones
thrown at him, his teeth being knocked out, and his
jaw fractured. The poachers escaped and carried Bloor
with them, knocking off his handcuffs on the road home.
They were subsequently captured by police constables.
His Lordship, having taken time to consider what
sentence to pass on the prisoners, now ordered them to
be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three years,
expressing a hope that it would have the effect of 'oreak-
ing up the large gang of which it was evident the pre.
Boners formed a part.

GLOUCESTER.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
Mary Yarnell, aged 30, was charged with the wilful
murder of Diana Yarnell, her infant child, aged four
months, at Tewkesbury, on the 15th of September.
Mr. Powell appeared for the prosecution; Mr Skinner,
at the request of the learned judge, undertook to watch
the case for the prisoner.
This case appeared to be a very peculiar one. The
prisoner, as soon as she came into the dock, began
talking
incessantly, and the burden of her tongue was
complaints of her neighbours, who had preferred against
her a charge of neglect, which had resulted in the death
of one child by starvation and filth, and of another, a
stepchild aged seven years, by neglect and a kick on the
back. The prisoner continued her complaints through
out the trial, abusing-
mi the witnesses as they appeared
in the box, and calling them by opprobrious names.
Mr. Powell having stated the facts of the came, called
the following witnesses :
F. J. Prior said,—l am surgeon to the Ten vkesbury
Union. I attended the prisoner a fe v hours
after the birth of the child Diaua. It was a healay
child. The mother had milk, plenty of milk. The
child began to fall off in between a week and a fortnight.
I was called to her house, arid I went. I asks id her why
she did not suckle her child ? I told her she must
suckle it, or she would get into trouble. Sb e said she
did suckle it. It was ways filthily dirty and. neglected.
I told her it ought to be kept clean. I saw her every
now and then. I al Kaye remonstrated with her, but
could not get the child properly suckled or properly
cleaned. 1 thought it would lead to the d, 'ath of the
child, and I took the coroner, Mr. Thomas„ to it. He
said, in her presence, it was very horrible.. We both
remonstrated. The child lost its eyes froze t ophthalma.
The sight was lost ;by neglect. The cl oild was not
brought to the infirmary, and I could not ,ee it when I
called. Ophthalmia is increased by net ;led. When
brought to the workhouse it was in a west ed state, and
very dirty, both the olothes and the I ,ody. It was
properly nursed, but died in about nine days after. I
attribute the death to the mother's neglec G. I have seen
food in the house.'
Cross-exavoiaed—lf a child is not sack' ,td by its mother
it. will generally die of marasmus, or st srvation. There
was no post mortem examination. I .. did not think it

necessary. Ido not believe the child bad any disease of
the heart or lungs. A large proportion of children die
under one year of age, and occasionally of marasmus.
Ophthaliisia will sometimes cause the loss of sight, even
where there is medical care. Occasionally the mother's
milk will not agree with the child. Sometimes, but not

frequently, wecntirses are recommended on that account.
Ido not in general approve Of wetnurses. When milk
exists at all, I believe that is the proper food.
Re-examined—l have been in practice since 1840.
Milk-and-water is a good substitute for mother's milk.
By the Judge—lf I had opened the body I should
not have found anything to alter my opinion, I believe.
I should not have found any evidence of inarasmus which
I did not see on the exterior. The symptom of mum- '
mus in this case was emaciation. The child sank gra-
dually. A child might have life enough to live for nine
days, and yet not be brought round by good treatment.
I don't believe the mesenteric Wands were affected, be-
cause the belly was not swollen. That disease causes
emaciation, and is constitutional in some children. The
ophthalmia of maw is is not constitutional. Toe prison-
er's state of intellect is peculiar. The state of her mind
is not such as to warrant sending her to an asylum, but
she is not fit to have the care of her family.
Patience Witts said—l live in the North Quay-road at
Tewkesbury. I have known the prisoner two years. I
knew her when she lived in Wilks's-alley, before the child
Diana was born. I saw the child six weeks after it was
born. Her husband is a chairmaker. The child was in a
very filthy state when I saw it. It was very low. I
washed some things for her, and told her to wash the
child. She said she would. The next week I saw the
child ;it seemed lower. She said she had no milk. I
told her she was serving that as she had served the other.
She said "No, she would do better by it." I washed
some more clothes and took them home. She was feeding
the child. I saw the child's eyes bad. She said she
washed the child's eyes with some lotion she had been
begging. The child was getting lower. I said I should
telt Mr. Prior she was using that baby the same as she
did the other. She said she did not care if I told 20 Mr.
Priors. I did not see then whether she had any milk.
I saw the child when she removed to Nelson's-alley.
It was very filthy. The child's person was in holes from
filth and neglect. I considered the prisoner was not so
right at some points as she should be. She had a simple
way of talking and doing things. She did not know how
to manage a child. She did not know how to dress it,
or to wash it, and was afraid to put pins for fear of hurt-
ing it. She once said she wished them both dead, for
she could not bear the sight of them.
Cross-examined— Her temper was very impatient.
She ran aground all her neighbours, as she has done me
for doing good to her child.

Charlotte Hampton said I live in Nelson-alley,
Tewkesbury. I first saw the prisoner when the baby
was crying. I put the baby to her breast. When I
went away the child began to cry. I went back and
said " If you won't suckle it why don't yon feed it l"
She said she had no victuals. I gave her a can of victuals,
but I saw it again in the same state. She began to
wash the child, and rubbed it so hard that I took ii
and washed it. It was in such a dirty state it was
not fit to touch. She said she was washing it,
because the neighbours had made a stir about it. I
sometimes could not make out what she said. I should
not think she was able to take care of a child ; she
rubbed it as she would a floor.

Mr. Prior recalled—The prisoner has had two chil-
dren. She has acted as a married woman in the ma.
nagement of her household. She has conversed ration.

ally with me. When I have told her what to do she
would do it. I foresaw this, and therefore I advised
that an inquest should be held.
Cross-examined—She had no power to bring up a
family. It is not imbecility, but weakness of mind. She
would be deficient in arrangement and foresight. She
had no tenacity of purpose.
By the Judge—ln signing a certificate you must
assign some delusions.
Thomas Hicks said—l am the surgeon at the Glou-
cester Gaol. I have seen the prisoner every day since
her committal. I always considered that she knew
right from wrong.
Mr. Baron Bramwell here observed that the govern-
ment of lunatic asylums wai founded on the patients to
some extent knowing right from wrong.
Witness continued—She appeared to have a certain
degree of intellect. She is of weak intellect and obsti-
nate temper, a person you could neither lead nor drive.
She was capable of knowing that the deprivation of food
would kill a child, and was wrong. She made inquiries
after her child, and seemed to feel an interest in it for
some reason; I don't know for what reason.

During the progress of this case the learned judge ex-
pressed his opinion that the evidence would not support
the charge of murder. The only question would be,
whether the prisoner had been guilty of manslaughter.
His lordship thought there was great difficulty in the
case, arising from the prisoner's peculiar state of mind.
Mr. Skinner, in addressing the jury, contended, first,
that the child might have died of natural disease ; and,
secondly, that there was no wrongful neglect in the
prisoner, as she was manifestly incapable of taking care
of a child.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up the evidence,
said the case was one of some difficulty. His lordship
told the jury that if they were of opinion the child died
from the prisoner's neglect, they must then consider whe-
ther or not she knew that that neglect was wrong, and,
further, whether the prisoner knew the nature and con-
sequences of her omission.
The jury found that the child died by the prisoner's
neglect, but they said they could not agree as to whether
she knew that that neglect was wrong.
Mr. Baron Bramwell told the jury they must make up
their minds on that point. If the prisoner knew that
the neglect was wrong she was guilty of manslaughter ;
but, though she knew it was wrong, yet, if she did not
know the nature and consequences of the neglect, the
jury should acquit her, on the ground of insanity.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty, on the ground
of insanity.
Mr. Skinner, for the prisoner, olaimed her acquittal on
another indictment, which charged her with the man-
slaughter of her stepson, George Yarnell, a child seven
years of age, by kicking it on the back.
Mr. Powell said be could not consent to that course ;
he was willing that the indictment should not be tried.
Mr. Baron Bramwell said, perhaps the case had better
be tried.
It was then proved by the witness Patience Witts that
in the beginning of September last she saw the prisoner
kick the child on the loins, saying it was naughty. The
child was taken to the workhouse on the 6th of Sept.,
aflicted with curvature of the spine, and died on the 3d
of October. On a post-mortem examinaticn it was found
that one of the ribs was broken, and turned in upon the
lungs, which were much inflamed. The surgeon said the
child died of inflammation of the lungs, but he could not
say positively whether the disease was caused by the
kick or by natural causes.
The jury ultimately acquitted the prisoner.
Mr. Baron Bramwell ordered the prisoner to be de-
tained in custody during her Majesty's pleasure.
This case concluded the business of the assizes for
this county at a quarter to 2 p.m.
SONBFIEAOT TO MURDER THE GOVERNOR OF THE BRISTOL
GAOL.

theSoßmriestsoelnpsvaiteioonnerwe,asto createdr
tdhuergi nogv
etrhneos
re, assizes
erbdy.
the discovery of a conspiracy, formed among some of
ner, on his return with them from Gloucester to Bristol.
It appeared that previous to leaving the gaol at Bristol
the prisoners had all been strictly searched, to see that
they had nothing about them. On their arrival at Glou-
cester, and while the prisoners were awaiting their trial,
one of them, whose name we purposely omit, sent for
Mr. Gardner and said• he should not like to see him in-
jured, and then disclosed the plan which had been formed
by some of the prisoners (three of whom were ticket-of-
leave men) to murder him. He said that Thos. Vowles
(a ticket-of-leave man) had a stone about his person,
with which he intended to kill the governor on the return
(Vowles) should be con-
jvoi
co
trende.y toH Be rsiasitdo lt,
biant cvwle es
a h
he would be able to obtain possession of the keys of the
thought that by so doing
handcuffs, and so let the prisoners go, and that two
others of the prisoners were in the plot. Vowles was
then searched, and a large stone was found upon him,
which he must have managed. to secure while passing
through the court-yard of the gaol at Bristol, where
some building was going on. It may be as well to state
that the ultimate design of the prisoners would have
been frustrated, as, though Mr. Gardner always accom-
panies his prisoners in the carriage, he makes it a rule
never to carry the keys.
Vowles (who was a ticket-of.leave man) pleaded •lt gut y
to a charge of burglary committed in conjunction with
his father, _

Mr. Baron Bramwell, before passing sentence, exa-
mined Mr. Gardner upon the facts above stated, and
then sentenced the prisoner to be transported for life.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.— Duraws, DEc. 4.

ainlogne in a
to her
John Brown was indicted for rape.
The Hon. A. Liddell prosecuted ; Mr. Price appeared
for the prisoner.
The prosecutrix, who gave her evidence in a very clear
and modest inanner, is a married woman, but at the time
thhosopfitaSl,epwtaegmblievri,nogw
roadside cottage about five miles from Darlington, on
husbandof this obffeeinncge,
the Staindrop road, known as the Killerby-tollbar. She
went to bed about 10 o'clock with her children, and
about an hour afterwards the prisoner broke into the
house by prizing open the door with a rail, and com-
mitted the offence with which he was charged.
Mr. Price having subjected the prosecutrix to a very
severe cress-examination, but failed to shake her testi-
itniletble7
inooy in the slightest degree, declined to address the
jury ; Who at once found the prisoner guilty; and
He was sentenced to he transported for life.

FACTS ABOUT THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTS,—Four of
the first seven were from Virginia. Two of the same
name were from Massachusetts, and the seventh was
from Tennessee. All but one were 66 years old on
leaving offiee, having served two terms • and one of
them, who had served but one term, would have been
66 years ohl at the end of mmtner. Three of the seven
died on 4th July, and two of them on the same day and
year. Two of them were on the sub-committee of three
that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and these
two died on the same day and year, and on the anniversary
of the Declaration of Independence, and just half-a-century
from the day of declaration. The maws of three of the
seven ended in son, yet neither of thuss transmitted his
name to a son. In respect to the names of all, it may
be said, in conclusion, the initials of two of the seven
were the same ; and of two others. that they were the
same ; and the initials of still two others, that they were
the same The remaining one, who stands alone in this
particular, stands alone also in the love and admiration
of his countrymen and the civilised world—Washington.
Of the first five only one had a son, and that son was I
also president.