The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-01 00:00:00

at Whitworth station put up the danger signal, in
pursuance of which the prisoner should have stopped
his train, but he seems to have taken no notice of

an auxiliary signal which was about 700 yards
from the station. The result was that the passen-
ger train ran into the goods train and killed the
deceased, who was guard of the passenger train.
Mr. MCI' Mahon addressed the jury for the prisoner,
but the jury found him guilty, with a strong re-
commendation to mercy on account of his good
character.

Mr. Justice Byles sentenced the prisoner to one
year's imprisonment.
Robt. Harrison, 22, puddler, and Henry Williams,
22, puddler, surrendered to take their trial upon a
charge that they, with another unknown, on the
night of the 16th of June, 1860, armed with offen-

sive weapons (to wit, stones), entered certain lands
belonging to Lord Forester, in the borough of
Wenlock, for the purpose of taking game there.
In a second count the land was alleged to bo in the
occupation of a Mr. Pitts. _

Mr. Boughey conducted the prosecution ; Mr.W,
J. Neale defended the prisoners.
It appeared that on the night in question two
keepers were out watching game in the extra-paro-
chial place called Rosenhill, in the borough of
Wenlock, and saw three men in a field called the
Hare Lesowe, and attempted to take them into
custody. The men resisted and threw stones at
the keepers. The keepers shot two dogs which the
poachers had with them, and ultimately secured
two of the men—the two prisoners. On the ground
there were several nets found, of which two were
set in the hedge, and there was also a bag with a
hare in it. One of the keepers picked up a stone,
which he said had been thrown at him ; and, after
the prisoners were given into custody they returned
to the ground and picked !up several more stones,
which they said were the stones which the prisoners
had thrown at them. They added that the land
had just been rolled, and there were no such stones
on the land. Both the keepers now swore most dis-
tinctly that the prisoners took the stones from their
pocket ; and on cross-examination they adhered to
the statement, and swore that they had given the
same evidence before the magistrates. The deposi-
tions were then read, from which it appeared that
no such evidence was taken down by the clerk.
Mr. Jußtiee Byles said that in his charge to the
grand jury he had pointed out a defect which ap-
peared in the case—viz., that it did not appear that
the prisoners were armed with the stones when they
entered upon the land, and now both the witnesses
made up for the defect.. w
Both the witnesses were strictly examined on
this point, and the solicitor for the prosecution, a
gentleman of great respectability, said he had not
had any communication with the witnesses on the
subject.
Mr. Neale, in his address to the jury, strongly
relied upon this discrepancy, and urged the jury to
say that the full offence, as charged, was not proved.
Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up, said that if
the jury believed that the prisoners entered the
land armed with stones, they ought to find them
guilty, but, if they thought, upon the evidence, that
they merely picked up the stones from the land to
use in their own defence, they ought to acquit
them.

The jury found the prisoners not guilty.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—EXETER, July 30.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell and a Special Jury,

COURTIER V. HOPE.

Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Karslake were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Collier and Mr. Kingdon
for the defendant. •

This was an action to recover compensation for a
breach of promise of marriage. The defendant
pleaded that he had entered into the engagement
believing the plaintiff to be a person of sober habits,
but he had discovered that she was an habitual
drunkard.

From the opening of Mr. Smith, it appeared that
this engagment had been entered into in the year
1854, and had continued for several years. The
parties were both of the same age—about 42 years
of age—and they were in the same position of life ;
and it was clear that a strong attachment existed
between them. The plaintiff, Miss Courtier, lived
at a cottage near Chagford, adjoining Dartmoor ; a
sister and their father lived with the plaintiff, and
they obtained a livelihood by letting lodgings, as
Dartmoor was the resort of a great number of visi-
tors. The defendant was a draper and teadealer,
liv-
ing at South Zeal. He travelled throughout the coun-
try taking orders. He was a thrifty man, well to do,
and had realised a considerable sum of money. He
lent money on mortgages and was worth about XOOO.
He was a widower, and had one daughter. The
engagement having proceeded for some years, the
marriage was fixed to take place in 1858, but was
postponed in consequence of the illness of the
plaintiff's father, which resulted in his death, and
shortly after that the correspondence had ceased.
The letters were generally of a very warm charac-
ter, abounding in the terms" dearest,"" sweetest,"
" love," and " affection." The defendant at length
had chosen to break off the engagement, but in
doing so he had cast an imputation on the plain-
tiff's character, which was calculated to be her
utter ruin, for to say of a woman that she was an
habitual drunkard was at once to remove her from
all society, and to render her an object of scorn
and disgust. Intemperance was the only plea
which the defendant had put upon the record. He
(the learned counsel) might content himself with
merely proving the promise of marriage and the
breach of that promise, but he would in the outset
meet the defendant's plea by calling the clergy-
man of the parish, the medical fan who attended
her, and all those persons who had an oppor-
tunity of seeing her, and they would
all state that there was not the slightest ground for
the iniputation P But what opinion would the jury
have of a man who could thus injnre one for whom
he had professed the greatest attachment and affec-
tion. He thought they would consider that it was
a great aggravation of the injury, and would show
their opinion by the amount of damages which they
would give:the plaintiff.

The -medical man who attended the plaintiff, and
had recommended her to take stimulants, a gentle-
man who had lodged at her house in 1855 and
1856, and who, being an invalid, was constantly
attended by the plaintiff, persons who frequently
'visited her, the women who had lived as servants
with her, the rector of the parish, and a vast num-
b& of other persons were called, and they all stated
that they never saw the least symptom of the plain-
tiff having taken liquor, nor, from what they ob-
served, did they believe she ever took any. Parts
of the correspondence were put in, expressing hopes
that they should live together: in the greatest hap-
piness.
Mr. Collier addressed the jury for the defendant.
He knew well that the sympathy of the jury would
naturally be in favour of the lady, but he thought
he should be able to place before them such a case
as would show that the defendant was perfectly
justified in the course he had pursued. There was
no evidence here to show that the defendant had
begun with the new love before he had got rid of
the old, for it was not even hinted that the defend-
ant had become attached to any other person. The
defendant had been much attached to the plaintiff,
and he had not broken off the engagement without
good grounds. Assuming that the defendant had
heard rumours in the neighbourhood, and had then
discovered that the plaintiff had been addicted to
drinking, he would have been justified in breaking
off the engagement. The defendant had been desir-
ous that the plaintiff's character should be spared
from public exposure, and he had offered to refer the
whole matter to a private tribunal, but that the plain-
tiff's advisers had refused. The defendant was
therefore compelled to bring his cast before the jury.
He could not marry the plaintiff, and therefore he
was obliged to resist the action. It had been said
that drunkenness was the prevailing sin of English-
men, but it was never supposed to be the case
with English women. Men drank In public.
When women drank they did so in private, and it
was exceedingly difficult to prove it. It was not
to be supposed that the plaintiff would get drunk
in the presence of the clergyman or before respect.
able lodgers, and the proof already given for the
plaintiff was that in one had ever seen her intoxi-
cated. The plaintiff had made a most careful and
cunning selection of witnesses. She had called
several young witnesses, but she had not called
their mothers. It was evident why she had not
done so. Those persons who must have known the
plaintiff's habits best were those who lived with
her. The two servants who had been called said the
plaintiff sometimes was sick and had a headache,
and then she had a cup of tea or coffee ; and those
servants never saw her take anything stronger, nor
was it likely they would. The plaintiff would
take care they should not. There was not a
case of any woman who indulged in drink
in which a number of witnesses might not be called
to show that she had never taken any liquor; but
_
the plaintiff's was negative evidence. The defen-
dant's would be positive, and one positive was worth
a dozen negatives, and unless the defendant's "wit-
nesses were all perjured he would be entitled to
seen her intoxicated. She
their verdict. For the dleifveenddtwmitthittwheoupildai bn et pf
fr Proved
t
by a witness who had
lead
hadsie
kaigwasisn a annddagain i
headache, which imposed upon
the doctor, and induced him to believe that there
was binary derangement, and he recommended
stimulants, and when he caned the next day he
found her pulse so weak that he thought she had not
or brandy enough; but this was only
She had a cupboard, of which she kept the
reaction.
nilinsc
key, and in that she kept spirits, to which unhap-
pily she had frequent recourse, and it sometimes be-
came necessary to put her to bed in the daytime,
and it would be clearly shown by many witnesses

that when the doctor thought she had taken to
little, the fad was she had taken too much. The jury
would hear the witnesses, and would have to say
whether their evidence had not proved that it
would be their duty to find a verdict for the de-
fendant.

Several persons who had been servants to the
plaintiff, and others who lived in the neighbour-
hood, swore that the plaintiff had very frequently
been intoxicated, but no one ever saw her drink
anything.

Mr, Collier summed up his evidence, contending
that unless all the witnesses he had called were
perjured, the defendant's plea was made out.
Mr. Smith replied upon the whole case, urging
that if the plaintiff had been intoxicated in the
manner described by the witnesses called by the
defendant, the person who had lodged in her house,
the clergyman of the parish, and her medical man,
must have known it.
The learned Judge having summed up,
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £BO.

DESTRUCTIVE FIRE AT SHADTVELL.

An extensive fire broke out yesterday afternoon
in the premises belonging to Messrs. Reed and Co.,
rope makers, &e., to the Government, in Love-lane,
Shadwell. The premises covered some acres, and
comprised a covered rope-walk, about a quarter of
a mile long, with a spinning factory two stories
high, and sundry other buildings.
The fire was discovered in one part of the rope-
ground, and intelligence was sent for the engines,
and in a short time the land engines from the diffe-
rent stations of the London brigade attended, as
well as one belonging to the parish and the power-
ful steam float from Rotherhithe. The flames by
that period had seized upon a portion of the rope
factory, and they attacked five or six houses on the
opposite side of the street, occupied by numerous
poor families, who commenced removing their
• humble furniture to a more distant place for pro-
tection.

From the rope factory the flames seized upon the
spinning factory, which was, with the contents"
entirely destroyed. The land engines being sup-
plied by a copious body of water, and the float
worked from the River Thames through 850 feet
of hose, some thousand tons weight of water were
discharged for hours upon the flames ; but in spite
of that the work of devastation continued, and the
flames quickly encircled the engine-house and the
rigging-lofts. It could not be said to be wholly
extinguished at nearly midnight. The damage
done by this disastrous event is very serious.
Messrs. Reed and Co. were insured in the
Plicenix fire-office. The dwelling-houses belong-
ing to the same firm have their side windows burnt
out and the roof destroyed. Numbers 1,2, 3,4,
and 5, let out to private families have also their
windows burned out and the furniture damaged by
fire and water, and hasty removal. Number 6
(opposite), and several others have their fronts
scorched, and the windows broken.

SUICIDE BY THE MANAGER OF TBS

ROYAL BANK OF LIVERPOOL.

LIVERPOOL, TUESDAY:

The mercantile and banking circles here vras
thrown into a state of great consternation to-day,
on learning that Mr. Chaffers, who for many years
has held the office of manager of the Royal Bank of
Liverpool, had committed suicide last night at his
residence in Breck-road, by hanging himself. Mr.
Chaffers is advanced in years, being upwards of 60,
and up to the present time has had the entire con-
fidence of the directors and shareholders in the
bank. He was very lame, and suffered from muck
bodily infirmity, the result of a paralytic stroke
some years since, but regularly came down to the
bank in his carriage daily.
At the time I write the detailed particulars of the
sad occurrence are only imperfectly known, but it
appears that for some months past the deceased he!
been in an unusually bad state of health, and much
depressed, in consequence of the death of a brother'
In addition to this, we learn that a short time air
a proprietor of the bank expressed dissatisfactioll
at the manner in which Mr. Chaffers performed
duties, and gave notice of a motion for his dismissal'
This proceeding is said to have been suggested by
political motives, and was exceedingly hurtful t°
the deceased, ho was heard to say that it Wei
more titan he could bear.
It seems to be generally believed that ill health'
death of his brother, and his threatened di a;
missal preyed heavily on his mind, and may bay
led to the melancholy act we now record.
We learn that, as far as the business of
.rthe
bank is concerned, there will be no difficulty. N1.„1.'
Chaffers having left everything in such a state 7
would almost lead to the conclusion that he
prepared for his permanent absence.