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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MoNuouTIi, MARCH 27.
(Nisi Prius Court.—Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)

DAVIE 3 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 tanner and licensed horse-dealer, and defendant a
wealthy farmer, who, in August last, had a mare stolen
iron a field in his occupation. About that time plaintiff
left his horns 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 Blaina 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
went 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 in
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 case
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 c!ainred damage'.
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. He
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-
tralicted many of the statements made by the other side.
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 Cress well.)
ATTEMPP TO POISON.

iVnt. Smith was indicted for having administered
poison to Richard Tomking, in the parish of Dixton, on
the Bth of February last, with intent to kill, &c.
The prosecutor was a shepherd in the employ of Mr.
Wanklyn, of
.lladdock, 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-
lug, however, he found that it had a nasty taste, and he
calted 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 beim, deterasined to search him, he
a 'mated that he had " ;let more of it ' in his pocket.
Mr. Woollett, surgeon, of Monmouth, deposed that
on the Bth of February the prosecutor came to 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
the cidt r 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 CIRCIIIT.—LIVERPOOL, March 28.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
James Monaghan, aged 26, Terence At 'Loughlin, aged
13, Edward Dunn, aged 25, and Jetties Keefe, aged 4i),
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 from the evidence in chief and the erovs•
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 hie
eon. A son-in-law of his, named King, saw Lim make
his will behre he died, and that will was attested by the
prisoners Keefe and MdLeughlin. 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 10/. 165., and the wilt had been prepared the week
before his death, and purported to bequeath this sum of
101 16e. to King. It also appeared that Monaghan (i,he
prisoner) had insured his father's life in the Diadem In-
surance Company for 300/. 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 altsred it in pencil, and then got a men
named O'Neil to copy the will with the pencil alterations,
and with these alterations the copied will purported to
bequeath to the prisoner Monaghan the policy in the
Diadem Insurance-off-lois, effected on the lite of the testa-
tor by the prisoner Monahan, his son. This will was at-
tested by the prisoners McLoughlin and Keefe, and was
tempted 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 C smpatty by Monaglesa,
that company sot on foot inquiries into the matter
and into the circumstances attending the death of the
testat which resulted in the prisoners Monaghan,
Dunn, a person named Barry, and the surgeon
who had attended the testator, being taken into custody
on a charge of baying administered acetate of lead to the
deceased, and thereby caused his death. The body was
exhumed, an inq test was held upon it, and also an in•
quiry was set on foot before the magistrates, which ha,.l
ended in the charge being dismissed. It was shown that
the prisoner Monaghan, shortly before his father's death
bad borrowed 101. on the security of the policy on his
father's life in the Diadem Insurance Co.npany, and that
sum had been repaid ; and it was also shown that the
prisoners Dunn and Monaghan had been to a young
woman, named Margery Hudson, and had asked her to
g.' out to Australia with them, telling her that they were
going to get 3001. on a policy of insurance. They after-
tarcts tol t her they could not get it. The witness King,
the son-in-law of the deceased, had been paid 81. by the
Wellingten Insurance Company, part of the 101. 16s. in-
sured. The balance the insurance office had refused to
pay. This was the cese fur the praseetition.
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 that had failed ; and now the present
case was got up against the prisoners.
His Lordship, in surnaming 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/. 16s. That policy was
utterly void, and the insurance-office bad only chosen to
pay 81. 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 roan forged a name upon a bill in-
tending to pay it when it arrived at maturity, and to
defraud no one. That was a crime. In the present
.
case the first will was uo in one sense ; it was
merely a document to enabhs King to get the amount of
the policy on the testator's life, which King hail himself
effected. So the second will had been forged to enable
the prisoner Monaghan to obtain payment of the policy
for 3001. effected by him on the life of his fatherin the
Diadem Insurance Company. There was not the slight-
estground for supposing that he had any design csn his
father's life ; but, on the contrary, there was evidence
he had been a kind son. The policy for 3001. had been
probably effected 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 prisoner had forged the will. In the eye
of the law it was a fraudulent act ; 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 be no
deubt, therefore, that the prisoner Monaghan had forged
• this will, and the signature of the deceased. The worst
part of the case was his geetting Keefe to swear before
the surrogate that the will was a genuine one.
. The jury found Monaghan guilty, and acquitted the
other prisoners,
His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned
lor 6 calendar months.

TIM SUPERANNUATION BILL.—We understand that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to the reso-
lution to withdraw the age-limiting clause of the new
Saperanalation servo; Gazette.