The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-29 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MoNmouTH, MARCH 27.
(Nisi Prius Court.—Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
DAVIES V. PHILLIPS.

This was an action for false imprisonment ; Mr. Keat-
ing, Q.C., and Mr. Gray for the plaintiff ; Mr. Whateley,
Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore, Q.C., for the defendant.
Mr. Keating, in stating the case, said plaintiff was a
small farmer and licensed horse-dealer, and defendant a
wealthy farmer, who, in August last, had a mare stolen
from a field in his occupation. About that time plaintiff
left his home on business, but was recalled home by the
death of his father. He returned on the 3d Oct., and
was present at his father's funeral, and, whilst engaged
in the interment of his parent, the defendant, accompa-
nied by a constable and an old woman named Elspeth
Plumber, inquired for Edwin Davies, the plaintiff. The
old woman was called upon to point him out, and
first pointed out his brother, who has only one
eye ; and she subsequently pointed to two wrong parties,
plainly showing that she knew very little about the mat-
ter. The plaintiff was, however, then and there arrested
by the grave of his father, and dragged about from place
to place, and when at length he was taken before the
magistrates at Blaisa no one appeared against him, and
he was discharged. He instructed his attorney to pro-
ceed against defendant, and a writ was accordingly served
on the 9th of October. The next day defendant again
wont and made a declaration before the magistrates, one
of whom was his brother-in-law, and obtained a fresh
warrant against plaintiff. As plaintiff was in Pontypool
fair on the next day, pursuing his avocation of buying
cattle, he was_ again arrested. The constable persisted iu
handcuffing him in the midst of the fair, and a brother
of the defendant seized him by the threat, and in that way
he was dragged through the streets of the town. After
being again dragged across the country, he was at length
taken before some magistrates on the charge of stealing
the defendant's horse, because the old woman, Elspeth
Plumber, gave a description, and afterwards said he was
the man whom she had seen near the field from which
the horse was stolen. The magistrates dismissed the we
without calling upon plaintiff for a defence. He lost a
considerable amount of money by being kept from his
business, and also suffered great annoyance from being
pointed at as the thief of the defendant's mare. Upon
these two counts he claimed damages.
A number of witnesses were called to prove the above
facts. •

Mr. Whateley, for the defence, said that he should
submit that a mistake had arisen in consequence of the
information which defendant received, and upon which
he acted. He was instructed to say that the defendant
did not now impeach the character of the plaintiff, and
not only believed him to be entirely innocent of the theft,
but was extremely sorry for what had happened. Ile
should call witnesses to show that the defendant had
reasonable ground to proceed upon, and having done
that, the defendant would be entitled to their verdict.

The defendant was examined at great length, and con-
tradicted many of the statements made by the other sile.
After a consultation, Mr. Whateley offered 1001. da-
mages, and a fully apology, which was accepted by Mr.
Keating.
His Lordship expressed his concurrence in, and satis-
faction, at the verdict.
(Crown Court.— Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.)
ATTEMPT TO POISON.

Wm, Smith was indicted for having administered
poison to Richard Totithins, in the parish of Dixton, on
the Bth of February last, with intent to kill, &o.
The prosecutor was a shepherd in the employ of Mr.
Wanklyn, of Haddock, and during the lambing season
he resided in a cot near the farmyard. On the Bth of
February he had a bottle of cider in his cot, and when he
drank of it in the morning it tasted as usual. In the even-
ing, however, he found that it had a nasty taste, and he
caked other men to taste it. On emptying the cider out
of the bottle six pieces of blue stone, or sulphate of cop-
per, came out of it. He then taxed the prisoner, with
whom he had had a quarrel, with having put the poison
into the bottle. The prisoner denied the charge, but
upon the prosecutor being determined to search him, he
admitted that he had " a lot more of it ' in his pocket.
Mr. Wooilett, surgeon, of Monmouth, deposed that
on the Bth of February the prosecutor came t,) him, and
said he felt great pain in his bowels, and had vomited
three times on the road. Sulphate of copper or blue
stone is poisonous, and the quantity that came out 41
the cider bottle was sufficient to destroy human life. The
prosecutor was not in danger when witness saw him.
By the Judge—Sulphate of copper is used by farmers
to steep wheat in, and also for sheep. Ido not think
there is a general understanding of its deadly qualities.
Mr. Somerset addressed the jury for the prisoner ;
and the judge said that, if the jury were satisfied that
the prisoner had put the poison into the cider, it was a
question for them to decide whether he intended to poi-
son the prosecutor, or placed it there from any less
felonious motive.

The prisoner, who was only 18 years of age, received
a good character. _

The verdict was that he had no intention of destroying
life when he put the poison into the cider, which the
judge said was a verdict of not guilty.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, March 28.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
James Monaghan, aged 26, Terence M'Loughlin, aged
18, Edward Dunn, aged 25, and James Keefe; aged 4 ),
were indicted with having forged and uttered a will of one
John Monaghan, at Manchester, in August last.
Mr. Ovens prosecuted, and Mr. Fernley defended the
prisoners.
It appeared Irons the evidence in chief and the cross•
examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, that an
old man, named John Monaghan, died at Manchester in
August last, after having been for some time ill. He was
a varnisher by trade. The prisoner Monaghan was his
son. A son-in-law of his, named King, saw him make
his will before he died, and that will was attested by the"
prisoners Keefe and Mefsoughlin. The son-in-law King
had insured old Monaghan's life in the Wellington In-
surance-office, at Manchester, 14 months before he died,
for 101. 16is., and the will had been prepared the week
before his death, and purported to bequeath this sum of
101. 16s. to King. It also appeared that Monaghan (the
primmer) had-insured his father's life in the Dindein
In-
surance Company for 3001. about three months before his
death. About three weeks after old Monaghan's death
the will was on a table in King's house, when Monaghan
took it up and altered it in pencil, and then get a Mall
named O'Neil to copy the will with the peneil alterations;
and with these alterations the copied will purported to
bequeath to the prisoner Monaghan the policy in the
Diadem Insurance-office, effected on the lite of the testa-
tor by the prisoner Monaghan, his son. This will was at-
tested by the prisoners M`Loughlin and Keefe, and was
attempted to be proved before the surrogate by M`Lough-
lin and Monaghan, Keefe swearing to the truth of the
attestation. The surrogate was not satisfied, and an at-
tempt having been made to obtain payment of the po-
licy in the Diadem Insurance Company by 'Monaghan,
that company set on foot inquiries into the matter
and into the circumstances attending the death of the
testator, which resulted in the prisoners Menaghae,
Dunn, a person named Barry, and the surgeon
who had attended the testator, being taken into custody
on a charge of having administered acetate of lead to the
deceased, and thereby caused his death. The body wa,
exhumed, an inqs est, was held upon it, and also an in-
quiry was set on foot before the magistrates, which hael
ended in the charge being dismissed. It was shown that
the prisoner Monaghan, shortly before his father's death
had borrowed 101. on the security of the policy on his
father's life in the Diadem Insurance Company, and that
sum had been repaid ; and it was also shown that tee
prisoners Dunn and Monaghan had been to a young
woman, named Margery Hudson, arid had asked her to
go out to Australia with them, telling her that they were
going is get 300/. on a policy of insurance. They after
wards toll her they could not got it. The witness King,
the son-in-law of the deceased, had been paid 81. by the
Wellington Insurance Company, part of the 101. 16s. in-
sured. The balance the insurance office had refused to
pay. This was the case fur the prosecution.
His Lordship was of opinion that the evidence only
affected the prisoners Monaghan and M'Loughlin.
For the defence it was contended that there was no
intention to defraud by the prisoners. The insurance in
the Diadem Company had been effected by the prisoner
Monaghan, and the only object of the prisoners had been
to get paid that insurance which the prisoner Monaghan
had effected. The whole charge was said to have been
got up by the insurance company to avoid paying the
amount due on their policy. A part of their charge
against the prisoners had been that they had murdered
the old man, but tlat had failed ; and now the preseat
case wag got up against the prisoners.
His .Lordship, in summing up, said, the present pro-
secution was got up by the authorities at Manchester,
and very properly. It was a case from which much
might be learned. In the first place, people would learn
from it that insurances effected by persons on the lives
of others, in whose lives they had no interest, were
utterly void. Here they had the witness King
effecting an insurance on the life of the deceased
for so small a sum as 10/. 164. That policy was
utterly void, and the insurance-office had only chosen to.
ply 8/. on the policy. Another thing people would learn-
from this case was that uttering a forged document was
an offence, even if there was no intention to defraud in
so uttering it, as if a man forged a name upon a bill in-
tending to pay it when it arrived at meturity, and to
defraud no one. That was a crime. In lihe present
case the first will was no will in one sense ; it was
merely a document to enable King to get the amount of
the policy on Vie test.4eor ei life, which King had himself
effected. So the second will had been foreed to enable •
the prisoner Monaghan to obtain payment of the policy
for 3001. effected by him on the life of his father in the
Diadem Insurance Company. There was not the :slight-
est ground for supposing that he had any design on his
father's ; but, on the contrary, there was evidence
he had been a kind son. The policy for 3001. had been
probably effecteal in the name of the deceased, in order
not to be void on the face of it, and the only person who
could compel payment of it would be the legal represen-
tatives of the old man, and it was probably to effect
this object the prixoner had forged the will. In the eye
of the law it was a fraudulent set ; but it was not a frau-
dulent act in the sense that it was made with the intent
to defraud. The will had been proved to have been made
3 weeks after the old man's death, and there could he no i
doubt, therefore, that the prisoner Monaghan had forged
this will, and the signature of the deceased. The worst 1
part of the case was his geetling Keefe to swear before I
the surrogate that the will was a genuine one.
The jury found Monaghan guilty, and acquitted the
Other prisoners.
llis Lord-hip sentenced the prisoner to ba imprisoeed
for 6 calendar months.

THE .SUPERANNUATION BILL.—We u litlEntand that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has collie to Vie rei•o-
Dillon to withdraw the age-limiting clause of the new
Superannuation Bal.—Civil Service accetee.