The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-25 00:00:00

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE•

PLYMOIITII, APRIL 23.—Her Majesty's steam-frigate
Penelope, Captain Lyster, with her tender, the screw
gun vessel Tenzer, from Portsmouth, reached the Start
Point on Sunday evening, when, the weather being very
thick, they separated; the tender arrived in the Sound
at half-past seven, and the frigate at halt-past nine on
Monday morning. Both went up harbour same day to
coal, and last evening they sailed for the coast of Africa
to relieve the Centaur, Commodore Fanshawe.
Her Majesty's frigate Indefatigable, Captain Smart,
sailed on the 4th inst., from Lisbon, to relieve the Cale-
donia ,ordered home from the Mediterranean.
The steam-vessel Caradoc is ordered from Woolwich
to this port, when her crew are to be paid wages prior
to sailing for the Mediterranean.
Mr. A. Pike, storekeeper at the Royal William Vic-
tualling yard, died at Totnes on the 22d inst., aged 62,
after a service of 48 years under Government.
WOOLWICH, APRIL 24.—Captain the Right Hon.
Lord Adolphus Fitzclarence, G.C.H., commander of the
Royal Victoria and Albert steam-yacht, visited Wool-
wich Dockyard to-day, accompanied by Captain Spar-
shott, for the purpose of inspecting the progress
made with the 20-gun frigate preparing for being
rigged, and at present in the mast-house at this port.
This beautiful little craft is 38 feet long, and of 26 tons
burden, and will be fitted and rigged even to the minutest
details as one of the frigates in her Majesty's service. The
bottom of the vessel is sheathed with copper, and her
keel is of iron, weighing 23 cwt. She will be navigated
by twenty boys. Her bilge ways are already put on, and
she will be launched into the river on Saturday morning
next, and be towed up the river to the Tower on the
same day by a steamer. On the following day she will
be towed by boats past London-bridge, Southwark-hridge,
Blackfriars -bridge, Waterloo-bridge, flungerfcrd- bridge,
and Westminster-bridge, and at the height of the tide,
between twelve o'clock on Sunday night and one on
Monday morning, be taken on shore at Vauxhall-bridge,
and conveyed overland to the Serpentine, in Hyde-park,
where she will be launched at an early hoar on Monday
morning, before the traffic commences in the streets she
will have to pass along and to cross. The rigging is
now all ready, and will be put up on her masts when
afloat in the Serpentine.
. _

Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Napier, 1CC.8., with Cap-
tain Sparshutt, visited the Prince of Wales frigate yes-
terday.
From inquiries yesterday morning we learned that
Admiral Sir Edward Codrington was hopelessly linger-
ing. There wero reports in the afternoon that he was
dead.

Rear-Admiral Hornby, C.D., in the Asia, 84, Captain
Fanshawe, C. 8., having been relieved in the command
of the Pacific station, left Valparaiso Feb. 14 for
England.

Commodore Bruce, in the Penelope steam•frigate,
Captain Lyster, with her tender, the Teaser screw
gun-vessel, left lievonport for the coast of Africa on
Wednesday morning, at 5.30, after having filled up with
coals.

We have intelligence from her Majesty's screw-cor
vette Encounter, Captain Gordon, at Oporto, whither
she was dispatched by Commodore Martin. Everything
was quint at that place.

THE DREADFUL OCCURRENCE

AT WALTON.

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST THE
CLERGYMAN, AND SERIOUS RESULT.
The adjourned inquest upon the body of the unfortu-
nate victim in the recent fatal mistake at Walton, near
Brampton, was resumed on Tuesday morning, before
Mr. Carrick, the coroner, and the same jury, at the vil-
lage inn. The excitement created by this sad event is
intense; indeed, no event has happened of late years in
the east of Cumberland which has coated equal sensa-
tion, the position of the parties more immediately con-
cerned in it, and the circumstances under which it oc-
curred, both combining to invest the affair with the
deepest and most startling interest.
As some mix-statements connected with the affair have
appeared, it may be as well briefly to state the particu-
lars, ascertained by the most diligent inquiry and inves-
tigation. The deceased, who was 38 years of ago, and
has left a widow and two children, was more generally
known by the name of his paternal estate, " Sorbietrees,"
than by his name of Armstrong, and was the lineal de-
scendant and representative of the " Sorbietrees" spoken
of by Sir Walter Scott in " Guy Mannering."
The adjourned inquest was resumed on Tuesday
morning at ten o'clock. By this time the news of the
melancholy event had spread far and wide, and a great
number of persons thronged the village in the hope of
gaining access to the scene of so much melancholy in-
terest; the room was consequently crowded to an incon-
venient degree—oven to the very ceiling. There was
breathless silence whilst the several witnesses gave their
testimony.
After some lengthened evidence,
The CoRONEa then addressed the jury. He said—
You can have no doubt that the poor man died from a
pistol-shot wound in his side, the ball passing through
the trunk of the body, and you can have no doubt also
that Mr. Smith was the person who fired the shot.
Having then disposed of that question you have this im-
portant one to consider—under what circumstances did
he fire that shot; whether it was under circumstances
which either justify or excuse the act? If so, then Mr.
Smith is not criminally responsible, and he stands ac-
quitted before you and his country of any legal blame.
But if he was not so justified or excusable in the eye of
the law, then Mr. Smith has been guilty of one of two
crimes, either that of manslaughter or murder. Mr.
Smith's own statement affords the only direct and positive
evidence of this part of the case. There is other evidence
bearing upon it, and it is for you to consider and com-
pare the different statements together, and to say how
far they agree and are consistent aith themselves
and with each other. Having heard this evidence read
over, I am sure you will exercise that judgment which
will enable you to reconcile them, or to see how far they
were entitled to your full credence, and which appear
consistent or otherwise. Having ventured to submit
this question, I may go on further to state to you what
I believe to be the law applicable to this particular case.
First,then, I must state that under certain circumstances
a man is justified in killing another, in such as the fol-
lowing circumstances:—lf one attempt to rob or murder
another on the highway or in a house; or to attempt to
break into a dwelling-house by night; or to commit any
other forcible or atrocious crime, and the party making
the attack be killed, then the slayer is justified in
taking his life; but with this qualification, that the con-
duct of the party killed clearly manifested the intention
to commit a felony of a forcible and violent character,
and not a mere trespass, or even a felony unaccompanied
by force. If death was occasioned under these latter
circumstances it would not be justifiable, but man-
slaughter or murder. Therefore, gentlemen, it is for you
to apply this test to the evidence before you; it is for you
to say whether the conduct of the deceased was of such
a character as to bring Mr. Smith's case within this
rule. You have heard the evidence with respect to the
character and circumstances of the deceased. That
tends to prove that ho was not there with any felonious
intention—every circumstance disproves such an assump-
tion; he might be a trespasser, but not a felon. But
then comes the question whether the conduct of Arm-
strong that night was such as clearly to manifest an
intention on his part to commit some violence by break-
ing into the house, or doing some other forcible or
felonious act. He might not be intending to do it; but
his conduct might have been such as to lead a person
exercising a mind of ordinary capacity and firmness to
misconstrue his intentions, and for a moment believe
that he was really intending to break into the house.
In such a case it would be a stretching of the law to
make a man criminally responsible for that which the
circumstances, as they appeared at the moment, justi-
fied; although it afterwards turned out that his inten-
tions had been misconstrued. It is not, therefore, gen-
tlemen, whether the man was really intending to com-
mit a felony, but whether the conduct of the deceased,
so far as the .evidence shows, was of such a nature
as to manifestly lead a man of ordinary mind to put
such a construction upon it. Now, gentlemen, was
the conduct of Armstrong of such a character? The
Question, therefore, which I would put would be in
this form—Was the conduct of tho deceased, so far
as the evidence shows, such as to excite in
the mind of a reasonable man, exercising ordinary
judgment and thought, a well• founded suspicion that de-
ceased was attempting to commit a forcible and inten-
tional felony? and, believing so, did he exercise that
precaution which a prudent man would do before he re-
sorted to the desperate step of firing at him? If Mr.
Smith were convinced, if he had a right to be convinced,
and he did take precautions under that apprehension,
then he was justified or excusable in what he did. Some
allowance might be made for a man whose fears are
suddenly aroused at a late hour of night, alone, as it
were, in a house far from any other, where the alarm
would appear far beyond the reality. Yet, gentlemen, I
cannot subscribe to the doctrine—a very dangerous
doctrine, indeed—that a man should seek to be excused,
much less justified, for the taking of another's life, not
because there were any real or well-founded reasons for
believing an attack was to be made upon him, but merely
acting as he would do, and as appears by Mr. Smith's
own statement he did, under a nervously timid state of
mind, lost all self-possession, having become void of
all ordinary prudence, judgment, and discretion (I
think his words were). Mr. Smith's statement is
silent as to whether he saw deceased or not. He, how-
ever, leaves it to be inferred that he did not see him.
Mr. Smith also says that he fired at random. It is for
you to say whether you are satisfied or otherwise, that
Mr. Smith saw the man. If he did, in your opinion,
see the man at the time he fired, the remarks I have
just made perfectly apply to that part of the case; but if
you think Mr. Smith fired at random without seeing the
man at the time, then this question will arise—Had Mr.
Smith, when he fired, reasonable ground for supposing
that some one or more persons were in the immediate
vicinity, and within the range of the pistol discharged?
If he had reason to believe so, and fired in that direction,
and death ensued, be would (subject to the remarks I
have already made) be criminally responsible for the
consequences. Therefore, whether ho fired seeing the
party, or he fired having reason to believe—and it cer-
tainly is in his evidence that he had heard a person at
the window immediately before that—and that party had
withdrawn but only from the immediate vicinity; if,
therefore, he did believe that some person was in the
immediate neighbourhood, and he fired in such a three,
ticn as was likely or probable to strike the yarty, he dots
amlaeys s
also culpable p
roa
offer
he
htehe niws iotruehrde
remark, that
hfitahryeaedt ndirectot apapteathr
et to
party.m to
if he had intended merely to alarm
levelled his pistol in ouch a direction as to strike him,