The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-28 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day.)

OLD COURT.
(Before tte Recorder.)
LIBEL.

Joseph. Lane, an elderly respectably dressed man, re-
siding at No. 20, Argyle-square, King's-cross, was
charged with a malicious, false, and scandalous libel on a
gentleman named Salter, a solicitor, of Chord.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Poland were counsel for the
prosecution; Mr. Robinson for the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence, that a gentleman of
fortune, named Hood, residing near Chord, died in 1814,
when the prosecutor was a clerk to a solicitor at Chord,
named Clarke. In consequence of a message, be went
to Mr. Hood's residence on the part of Mr. Clarke, and
was there handed, by Mr. Phelps, a sealed envelope
containing the last will and testament of Mr. Hood, who
was then dead. lie opened it in the presence of several
persons, and found that the executors were Mr. Holman,
and Sir S. Hood, and that the property was bequeathed
to Sir A. Hood. He retained the will until the follow.
ing day, when he gave it to Mr. Holman in the same
state in which lie received it, and it was afterwards
proved by Mr. Pratt, solicitor, of Glastonbury. Atter
the will was sent to Doctors' Commons and examined
several erasures were found o n it, and in consequence an
affidavit was made by the prosecutor, stating that the
will as proved was in the same state as when he re
ceivad it, and another by Mr. Phillips that the altera
tion on the erasures were in the handwriting of the
testator. Tho alterations did not alter the line or
disposition of the property. The prisoner and Sir A.
Hood were both distant relatives of the testator, but
neither sufficiently related to him to have claimed as
heir-at-law. Since the testator's death the defendant
had claimed the property, and had instituted proceed•
hogs to gain possession without effect, and amongst
other proceedings the defendant preferred a bill of in-
dictment against the prosecutor, SirA.Hood, and others
at the Old Bailey, for forging and uttering a will purporting
to be that of the testator's, but which the grand jury
ignored. In August last the .defendant published the
libel complained of, and which the prosecutor, who had
been three times Mayor of the borough of Chord, and
was the legal adviser of many noblemen and-gentlemen
in his immediate neighbourhood, felt bound to prose-
cute in justification of his character. On the Bth of
August the defendant had an interview with Mr.
Burnaby, editor of the Police Gazette, for the purpose
of inserting an advertisement in that paper, charging
the prosecutor with felony, and in consequence he
furnished thai gentleman with an information on oath
containing a description of the prosecutor's person,
that he was an itinerant attorney, and charging him
with having illegally taken possession of certain
money in the Bank of England, and various articles of
value the property of the testator, and also with
having cut down and sold a large quantity of
timber from the testator's estates in Somerset and Dor-
set, finishing with a reward of 501. for the prosecutor's
apprehension, and that all information was to be for-
warded to the defendant at his residence, Argyle-square,
King's-cross, who bad taken out administration to the
testator's effects, and had obtained final judgment in the
Court of Queen's Bench to the testator's effects. The
learned counsel said that a policeman, in consequence
of the appearance of the advertisement in the Police
Gazette, went to Chord for the purpose of apprehending
the prosecutor, but from inquiries be made there he
declined to take him into custody. With regard to the
final judgment referred to by the defendant, it appeared
that he took proceedings against the Bank of England
to obtain 30,000/. deposited there, and owing to
Messrs. Freshfield and Co. Considering the pro-
ceedings would not be carried out, they took
no notice of it, and the consequence was the de-
fendant obtained what was called a " snap judg-
ment." It was insinuated that in all probability the
defendant's conduct partook of insanity, and Mr. Ro-
binson, his counsel, in addressing the jury, said that
there could be no doubt the defendant was an eccentric
person. More than that he had no instructions to say,
and consequently he could not accede to the suggestion
made as to his insanity. The question the jury had to
consider, after reviewing the whole of the circum
_ .

stances of the case, the relationship of the parties, and
the doubt of the genuineness of the will, was, whether
the defendant had acted with malice, or from a firm
belief that he was taking a proper course to obtain what
he believed to be his just rights.
Evidence was then given to show that there was an

impression on the defendant's mind that the will was a

forgery, and it was particularly urged that Mr. Phelps,
whose name appeared as a witness to a codicil to the
will, had frequently informed the defendant that he• had
never attested the will.

The learned Recorder, in summing up, saki this was
a lamentable case. Fcr a great number of years the
prosecutor had been subject to annoyances from the

defendant. Whatever his disordered fancy may have
put into his mind there appearad to have been no real

cause for his disturbing parties in possession of this
property, or for making the charges he had against the
prosecutor. He (the learned Recorder) wished the cur.-

duct of the defendant could be attributed to aberration

of mind, which would relieve him of the charge, but
there was no evidence before tbeai to decide that ques-
tion, which must be a matter for future investigation.
The libel was admitted on all hands, and all they had
to decide was whether the defendant was actuated by
malice.

The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The Recorder asked what was the best course to pur-
sue with the prisoner, and asked if there was ground to
believe he was insane ?

Mr. Bodkin said ha thought so.
The Recorder said he should respite judgment to

allow prisoner's mind being examined. When he sen-
tenced him he should expect him to enter into sureties

for his good behaviour after the expiration of his im-

p risonment.
Sentence deferred.

THE MURDEROUS ATTACK IN
PARLIAMENT-STREET.

EXAMINATION OF THE PRISONER AT BOW-
STREET (THIS DAY).

This morning Robert Marley, alias Jenkins, was placed
at the bar before Mr. Jardine, on remand, charged with
violently assaulting Richd. Cope, an assistaut to Mr.
Berry, 52, Parliament-street.

The prisoner entered the court in a careless jaunty
manner, and appeared to treat the matter very lightly.
Inspector Bostock produced a warrant from the house
surgeon of Westminster Hospital, dated this morning,
which stated that Richard Cope was an inmate of the
hospital, suffering from fracture of the skull, and was
unable to attend.

The Magistrate said he thought it would be better, as
the injared man was not in attendance, to remand the
case until this day week. But it there was any fresh
evidence that it was material he should hear he was
ready to do so.

Inspector Bostock said he had a great number of fresh
witnesses present, and he wished that the evidence of
some of them should be taken, as it might be difficult
for him to keep them together. Some of the witnesses
resided in the country.

The Magistrate said he was ready to hear any of the
witnesses in attendance.

The first witness called was

Mr. James Tickling, a grocer residing near King's-
cross, who stated that last Monday evening week he was
walking up Parliament-street at 9.30, and his attention
was drawn to the shop of Mr. Berry in that street.
There were several persons round the door, which was
partly open. He saw a man inside the shop in the act
of striking a blow. In a short time after the man came
out with a cigar in his mouth and carrying a parcel.
He pulled the door to after him, but he bad not
proceeded far when the door flew open, from what
cause he could not say, and he (witness) then saw
a man lying on the floor bleeding from a wound
on the head. He (witness) then proceeded after the man
he bad seen walk away, and overtook him as he was
turning down Cannon-row. As Soon as the prisoner
saw he was pursued he began to run, and passed through
a court in Bridge-street into Palace•yard. He was not
more than 20 yards from him all the time. Oa getting
into Palace-yar 1 he was stopped by a. Waterman, and he
(witness) then came up, and, to the best, of his belief, the
prisoner at the bar was the man.
Henry Croft, residing at Wokingham,
said he bad
formerly been in the police force, but was at present out
of employ. Oa the evening of Monday week last he was
passing the shop of Mr. Berry, in Parliament-street, and
heard a faint cry, but could not say whether it proceeded
from a man or a woman. He stopped at the shop door,
and on looking through an aperture he saw the prisoner
striking at something. He seemed to be striking over
the counter. He could not see his arms. He saw him
strike three or four blows and heard the fall. While
this was going onl a man passed him outside the door,
and said it was only a man beating his wife, and then
walked quietly away.
Mr. Burnaby (the chief clerk)—Your were looking in
at the shop door ?

Witness—Yes.
Mr. Burnaby—Did you make any reply ?
Witness—No. The witness stated that after he had