The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-07 00:00:00

I
~/
~= . • .
i.." _""•••=e,,,---- ,
~,, zi\,.._____11,4414011,,,„. ri,
Ti,,,,",..
/,,, 44,,„
. -
was in a slate of pregnancy. The defendant said " Go=n4
. _....\
',.t..4:7,
~.0 ,
~,- - i''' „....
i God ! what shall Ido ?" She said "I don't know." He
IR_ 10, ,
.„. ;,...-,,:i. '-'
*IL '''''vrtig -'fc - c3:u r 'ztr 4'. . 0 1‘
-I / 1
ii 1 I ' ''."- 4el,"Tn 1,,` -S- 4.4 ',--.l;e pc.- . , . ' ..,..r.
N' -'‘
c 1-=--;* ;,,,,,v4l**.t • '`..... - . ;:,: ,iil 44 said " I can't marry you" ►She said " Can't you!" He
_44,'4. *,'„''',,,f ~ , s Y._ ' 0 4--,,,' .. 11, • ---4,,- - - -
,\," ,-, ,„), ‘,, 44. 1, v=, . - • ‘• • , -== N=
said" Will you take something ?" She said 'Yes, if
• ~, 1 -
,Z--.' ' ----, "' -; „•-_, - ,-% ,-,„ • - .===. t . '‘‘!-... 62; ,- , ..„,,,==xlf4t,„.'.---- == t..; ! ..,- if. t"'
you will give it me." The parties still went on in the
.5,4 1 1 .f
4) ~ ''
• c ___.,_,..-=k , „
A, , '''', +
' •,..,,,...., ~., - -4. ,: ' , ,:', 4,, , • 4,,,,t_ A. k - U
'I4"V. ' tr- 44-Y." , ...4 ',
'r-------le °,,, • 4+' jri 1:," ' 4.1111 k, ^ ''SCii: /
' came manner until the 9th of November, 1849, alio Walk
\ fr.
-. , ~t / -6=4,„e ' •Rok , - ~• -.. .. 1, :/- 1 tO ,„ ~. 4,1 .. CS , lir
_
\ 4't..,1, 4 - "Wit.,,l• DIY, re,,,,, . if .6 ,i 1.,, \ ; J 1,
.0,-, , e-..-.. 0.- -r, 0I T ' ,-.4.. -
delivered of - child, - hich - still liv:
____- =Th. . '*''''''‘'.

a child, w_ was at. ...Lying. In her
cross-examination she denied having had any improper
intercourse with any other person. She also denied that
she had ever been seen in imipruper positions with dif-
ferent persons, or that she had been out with certain
gentlemen who hed been named.

[PRICE SD.

For the defence it was contended that, even if the
jury believed the woman, this was not the case of a
young and inexperienced persoa being deceived by the
artifices of a man who had promised her marriage ; but
there had been a walk, an improper intercourse, and
then a continued repetition of these improprieties. But
it was urged that when the jury should have heard the
evidenoe which would be produced for the defendant
they would at once dismiss the case and give a verdict in
his favour.

down the Hackney-road, and was pulled up near the
Roebuck public-house, kept by Mr. Gilling. The gen-
tleman got out, invited
me to take a glass of ale,
and I was served with it by one of Mr. Gilling's
nieces. While I was drinking it (he had nothing
to drink) the gentleman paid for it, and then mo-
tioned me to step back from the bsr, and asked me
if there was not a respectable house in that neighbour-
hood. He did this in au under tone of voice, stooping
towards me. At first I did not understand, and said,
"I do not know what you mean." He said. " A e
re-
spectableinew
w h
ahto
hu
es e wheremeant,
and
du s
aciadn
there take
wasa lady."one close I
thbn3,.
We went out and drove them to Weymouth-terrace,
Hackney-road, and there stopped, and pointed out the
door of the house, which is round the corner. The
person who kept the house wit,: Mrs. Jones. Had driven
people there before in the evening time. The gentleman
went and knocked at the door and went in, and came
back after some minutes. I opened the cab-door, he
handed the lady out, and they went into the house.
Then observed her shawl. Ile returned and paid me
2s. I asked him if we should wait, and ho turned round
and said " No." I got home about half-past twelve
o'clock, and mentioned it to my wife. 'afterwards men-
tioned
hh
sheee ml
lived
man
d,
tdahtroosuvgue
thtaoltncL.
could
nal
dcd
eon, no int
sbawue
kte
swear
re
Hackney.
to.
.uld not point-
edly swear it. Sol believe the person I saw in Boulogne
it to my master.
Re-examined—I believe the man I saw at Berkeley
foredo,mcoinugsintotoLotnhdeonplaiinntitffh,edEepaossteedr
week of 1848. Witness was at dinner with her sisters
She remem-
wwbtheaarasset
d MissMjrus G
Gaisfordais
at about half-past one o'clock on Friday, the 28th of
April, when Mrs. Gaisford arrived unexpectedly at their
house. Witness described her dress as very similar to
the description given by the witnesses who had been
examined before, viz., straw bonnet with white veil,
black velvet dress, light-coloured shawl, &c., and wore a
red ribbon round the throat, and a cameo brooch. She
had also white gloves. She dined with the witness and
I her sisters, and remained there until half-past seven in
the evening, when she departed in an omnibus. They
usually dined at one o'clock, or a quarter-past.
Rev. Thomas Murray Browne, vicar of Standish,
Gloucestershire, remembered an investigation before him-
self and other clergymen, to inquire into the truth of cer-
tain rumours which had got abroad as to the conduct of
Mr. Karr. The gentlemen engaged in that inquiry were
the Rev. G. Madon, rural dean; Rev. Mr. Perkins, Sir
G. Provost, Mr. Cornewall, and himself. The inquiry
was directed by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
Mr. Karr wished to know whether Mr. Gaisford was an
accuser, to which Mr. Gaisford replied he was not, and
that he was there against his will, upon which the com-
mission decided that parties should give what informa-
tion they thought fit, and that nothing should be used
against Mr. Karr which transpired at that inquiry in
any way. The commission bad no power to compel par-
ties to appear before them, their inquiry was not of a
judicial character. Mr. Karr was only to answer as
much as he thought fit, and then the matter was gone
into. A statement bad been taken down by Mr. Madon,
and it was read at Mr. Karr's desire, and in his presence.
(That statement, it appeared, was furnished chiefly by
Mr. Gaisford.] Mr. Karr occasionally made remarks
upon it, and witness took notes of those remarks.
Mr. WHATELY now proposed to put the statement of
Mr. Gaisford in as evidence, it having been read in Mr.
Karr's presence.
Mr. KEATING and Mr. GRAY contended that the do.
cument ought not to be received.
His LORDSHIP, however, said he could not reject

Mr. Phinn and Mr. Thring were counsel for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Edmonds defended Smith; the °attic
prisoner was undefended.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, observed,
that at nine o'clock both these old people had been seen
in perfect health, and at ten the old man was found
lying in his kitchen, mortally wounded, and he died a
short time afterwards. The old woman was also deep.
rately wounded. Footmarks were seen. They were
followed, and at length the prisoners, who had shortly
before the murder, been seen together in the neighbour.
hood, were discovered together. On one was found the
knife of the old woman, and on both money, which each
prisoner admitted was taken from the old woman. If
there was no other evidence, could there be a doubt upon
their minds?

The jury very shortly returned a verdict of Guilty
against both prisoners.
His LORDSHIP then, in the most affecting scanner,
passed sentence of death upon the prisoners.
The crowd was intense.

under the circumstances.
The stement was then read. It was in the shape of a
diary, and was headed, " Statement made by Mr. Gais-
ford, before the five clergymen appointed by the bishop
to inquire into the rumours concerning the Rev. J. S.
Karr and Mrs. Gaisford, at Dursley rectory, on the
10th of May, 1849, in the presence of the Rev. J. S.
Karr, and Mr. Karr's observations thereon." The diary
commenced from September, 1844, and was continued at
intervals down to June, 1848, when Mrs. Gaisford finally
left her husband's roof. It narrated the events which
Mr. Gaisford had considered suspicious, and which had
led to the bringing of this action. The notes of Mr.
Karr's observations were very brief.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. KEATING rose to reply on the case. The case was
one, as they must be well aware, which involved a very
serious charge against the defendant, Mr. Karr. It
would be a serious charge against any person who should
be placed in the same situation as the defendant, but to
a person occupying the position that Mr. Karr occupied,
the substantiation of this charge against him might be
summed up in one single little word, and that was
" ruin." The case undoubtedly presented many features
which were very peculiar, and differed in many of its es-
sential points, as fur as the evidence is concerned, from
any he had ever met with in his experience, or
recollected to have occurred. Mr. Karr went to Berke-

ley in 1839, and soon after employed the -plaintiff'
to collect his rents and the tithes of his living. Mrs.
Gaisford was then 31 years of age. Mr. Karr was an ac-
tive magistrate, and Mr. Gaisfor the magistrate's clerk,
and in consequence an acquaintance sprung up between
the former and the family of the latter ; and Mr. Kerr
was now called before them in consequence of that evi-
dence, and transactions put in evidence against him, not
of a month, or three months, or three years, but transac-
tions extending from 1844 almost to the present time.
Mr. Whateley, for the plaintiff, had divided his case into
two parts—of what took place at Berkeley and the
country, and what was alleged to have taken place in
London. He then referred to the advantages which Mr.
Gaisford had over Mr. Karr in this case, he being pos-
sessed of a knowledge of the law, and had therefore been
years preparing for the scene which was then acting at
the assizes. Mr. Gaisford had a great advantage in having
had the statement which had been read in court yester-
day previously read by Mr. Karr, which had had the
effect of making it evidence. He then adverted to the
first coming of Miss Amyas to live with the plaintiff
occasionally, from 1844, up to the 9th of June, 1848,
when Mrs. Gaisford left her husband. He com-
mented on the improbability of any improper intimacy
being exhibited by the parties at the archery meetings
in an open field, surrounded by the respectable families
of the locality, and, on one occasion, even in the presence
of Mr. Gaistord himself. After alluding to the facts of
the case, the Learned Counsel proceeded to comment on
Mrs. Gaisford's going to London in February, 1848,
having at that time had a serious illness. In the April
following Mr. Karr went to London for the purpose of
marrying his brother, and this latter matter was well
known in the locality of Berkeley. Before Mr. Karr
went to Loudon, Mrs. Gaisford had gone there to visit
her friends, and out of what then took place was now
manufactured—he used that word advisedly—charges
which were entirely false. It was well known that Mr.
Karr was in the habit of using Fladong's Hotel when in
London, and there, on this occasion, he was staying with
his aunt, who had also come to the wedding, when one
morning he was told that a lady was waiting to see
him. On going down stairs he saw the lady was Mrs.
Gaisford, and knowing perfectly well the inference that
would be put upon this visit, he at once, without waiting
to introduce Mrs. Gaisford to his aunt, insisted upon
her leaving the hotel. He let her out of the hotel, went
for a cab, and putting her into it, went with her to
Regent-circus, and getting oat of the cab there walked
down Regent-street, seeing her there for the last time;
and he did not believe he bad ever seen her since. She
continued on towards where she was going, and Mr.
Karr proceeded to the stores of Mr. Cunningham,with
whom he was in the habit of dealing, and also to a fish-
ing-tackle maker's, named Bernard. From thislatter
tradesman's, Mr. Karr returned to Mr. Cunningham's,h
which occupied the time the defendant was alleged to
have been with Mrs. Gaisford. The act of adultery
was alleged to have taken place in the public cab, in
onei
cof h
more than the commonest wanton who walks the streets
of the metropolis would have been guilty of. Il
Henjiae.mninethrn, the
aoca publicanhndd.t,lt n
rh 1 e thoroughfares
landlord
hießegent-street,
eg two
of
f barmaids, of
the London.
Rewbe
e called
for a verdict for the defendant, not only for his own
sake, but for that of Mrs. Gaisford, and Mr. Gaisford,
whose eyes he trusted the verdict would open to the true
state of the case.
uckT,hiisn wast
he
re called to
contradict the evidence of the cabman Salmon as to the
t. and
st,r e
with John
his elerkand
Cunningham,am
c
w
allegation that defendant had gone with him into the
Roebuck and treatedhimen;
John Bernard, fishing-tackle dealer,
of 12, hokrChurch-place,
Tilley,
-cu
place, proved that Mr. Karr was in the
neighbourhood of Regent-street at the time the cabman
Salmon represented he was four miles off, in the Hack-
ney-road.

Mr. VVREATLEY having replied,
Mr. Justice PATTESON summed up, and the jury re-
tired at a quarter to five o'olock.
At seven the jury sent to ask his Lordship to read
over the evidence relating to the time when the cab left
the hotel and reached the City, and when Mr. Karr was
at the wine-merchant's in Regent-street.
His Lordship complied, and as soon as he had read
the notes,
The Foreman said, Mr. Sheriff, can you let us have a
larger room for the night?
The Sheriff said he could accommodate them, and sent
them into the grand jury room.
At half-past ten his Lordship sent for them to his
lodgings; and, on their saying that there was no chant
of their agreeing if locked up for a month, discharged
them without agreeing to a verdict.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Taunton, April 3.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Baron MARTIN.)
SYLVESTER V. JEFFERY.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. 13ere were counsel for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Butt and Mr. Stone for the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover damages for
the seduction of the plaintiff' daughter. The plaintiff
was an elderly woman, the widow of a person who I! ad
been a churchwarden and member of the town council
of Chard. She had several children, most of whom
were married. The defendant was an innkeeper at
Chard. From the evidence of the plaintiff's daughter,
it appeared that she was thirty-four years of age. The
defendant had sometimes walked and talked with her,
and one evening in November, 184$, they took a walk
together. lie talked of the love ho had for her, and
then a familiarity took place between them, which was
afterwards frequently repeated, until in the May follow-
ing the WWl= .joll4latinie4ted to the defendant that she

Witnesses were then called who stated that they had
seen the plaintiff's daughter in improper positions with
different persons, and they particularly named a man of
the name of Harris. They had seen her several times
1
with a commercial traveller in the bar par!our of the
hotel at Chard. She had shown great levity of conduct.
They asserted that many circumstances had taken place
which she in her cross-examination had denied. Evi-
dence was also adduced to show that efforts had hem
made to subpoena the barmaid of the hotel, but without
success.
Witnesses were then called for the plaintiff in reply,
Rho swore that some of the witnesses called for the de-
feuciant had stated that they knew nothing of the mat-
ter; and it was proved that Harris, who had removed to
Ventnor, in the Isle of Wight, had been subpcsnaed, and
had promised to be here in time for the trial, but had not
arrived.
During the summing up of the Learned Judge,
Mr. CROWDER stated that Harris had just arrived,
and he proposed that he should be examined now,
although it was so late in the cause.
Mr. STONE, for the defendant, objected to this course.
Baron MARTIN said he did not think it should be
done now, but he would suggest that the record should
now be withdrawn, and that the cause should be tried
again at the next assizes, when Harris might be exes
mined.
Mr. CROWDER said he could not accede to this propo-
sition.
The Learned JUDGE then completed his summing up,
and the jury, after a short consultation, returned a veg.
diet for the plaintiff—Damages 601.
April 4.
MIIRDER.—John Wills was indicted for the wilful
murder of William Wilkins, by knocking him down
with a spade, and when on the ground beating him on
the head with an Italian iron, giving him divers mortal
wounds of which he died, at Nempnett, on the ath of
February; and John Smith was charged with Biding and
abetting him. The counts charged both prisoners with
the murder.