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

THE' • SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY", iEVENING, AUGUST 1, 1860.

Z:f'.RIGHTFUL ACCIDENT ON TILE

BLACKWALL RAILWAY-.

An accident of a truly terrible character occurred
;esterday morning, near the Haydon-square junc-

tion of the Blackwall Railway, which produced

much excitement in the City, and occasioned the
greatest inconvenience, the whole of the traffic in
and out of the Fenchurch-street Terminus being

stopped most part of the day.
The train which met with the accident was one
from the North London line, due at Fenchurch-
street at 9.25. It was rather a long one, having
brought up from Kew several carriages required
for City excursion traffic, and was drawn by a
North London engine, No. 20. After leaving Step-
ney, the train proceeded towards Fenchurch-street
at the usual speed, and passed safely over the line
until it arrived in front of the semaphore signal at
the south side of the line, some few yards from the
Haydon-square junction, when, all of a sudden, the
engine left the metals and took a slanting course
towards a pods siding, and after traversing about
twenty yards turned sharply round over the up and
down lines and then rolled over on its side, Two
composite carriages which were next to the engine,
the break being in the third, instantly mounted the
prostrate locomotive, and the the remainder of
the carriages in the train, as we were informed,
were thrown off the line, stove, and crushed in
a confused state. There were between 300 and
400 passengers in the train, and the kind of
panic that followed on discovering the fearful
character of the accident added much to the alarm
and confusion which prevailed. As soon as they
had somewhat recovered from their fright, inquiries
were made after the fate of the engine-driver
and stoker. Happily, both these men were found
to have escaped. They had sprung off from the
engine as it swung round and fell over, and, beyond
some bruises, they were unhurt. The position of
the occupants of the two carriages which had
mounted on the top of the engine, which was send-
ing forth volumes of steam, excited the most serious
apprehensions. Miraculous to state, when extri-
cated, not one was found to have sustained any
injury with the exception of being bruised, and a
necessarily great shock to the system. While these
measures were being taken to release the passen-
gers, another accident was nigh occurring. As
before stated, the North London engine lay com-
pletely across the main lines, including that of the
Tilbury, North Woolwich, &c. The North London
train had passed an up Tilbury train about half a
mile down the line, and when the accident occurred
the Tilbury had approached within a short distance
of the spot, and, as the writer was informed, the
driver had the greatest difficulty in bringing his
train to a halt without Coming upon the prostrate
engine. It may also be noticed that a down excur-
sion train with nearly 1,000 passengers had scarcely
passed the spot a minute before the engine rolled on
the rails on which it was proceeding. Speedily
after the Tilbury train came others from the North
London, North Woolwich, Blackwall, and Wood-
ford lines, which were obliged to disgorge their
multitude of passengers on the line, which became
much crowded, and, as a consequence, considerable
excitement prevailed. Very shortly after the
accident occurred the officials of the Blackwall
Railway Company, Messrs. Wightman (the mana-
gers), Mr. Logan (the superintendent), and Mr.
Louth (the superintendent of the Tilbury line),
arrived with a large staff of the company's ser-
vants, and vigorous efforts were immediately made
to clear the obstruction. Other aid came from the
North London Company, with Mr. Adams, the lo-
comotive superintendent, and Mr. Chambers, of the
Bow works ; but with all their united exertions,
assisted by several engines, it was some hours ere
the lines could be cleared. During these hours the
scene at the Fenchurch-street Station was some-
what bewildering. It was besieged by thousands
of excursionists for Gravesend, Southend, Rams-
gate, Margate, and other Places, and as a train
could not leave the station, the inconvenience and
disappointment, as may be imagined, was most
trying. Almost a similar scene was witnessed at
the Bow Station, where the passengers by the
North London, for the same pleasure trains, were
detained, unable to proceed on their tour, and,
after waiting several hours, had to return to their
respective homes.
As regards the cause of the accident, the writer
experienced much difficulty in eliciting the facts,
owing in a great measure to the indifference of the
company's officers to furnish information ; indeed,
so anxious were they apparently to prevent any-
thing been known as to what had led to the acci-
dent, that Mr. Louth, one of the company's super-
intendents, directed an inspector to follow the re-
, porter and to warn the servants of the company
not, to furnish him with any information. From
another source we learn, however, that the Black-
wall Railway Company attribute the accident to
some default or action of the engine, which caused
it to leave the rails. On the other hand,
the North London Company allege that it arose
from the carelessness of one of the Black-
wall Railway Company's servants in leaving open
the switch points facing the Hay don-square junc-
tion ; and this is confirmed by the driver of the en-
gine, who represents, it is stated, that he saw that
the points were open just before he got to the spot,
and endeavoured to bring up the engine by shut-
ting off his steam and applying the break, but the
rate the train was travelling rendered it impossible.
It may be considered most providential that the en-
gine took the course it did in turning round over
on to the rails. Had it kept the track it took on
first leaving the metals, it must have gone over the
viaduct into the street below. As this is the second
instance of an engine leaving the Blackwall line
within the last few days, doubtless the Board of
Trade will institute a searching investigation:

THE COMMERCIAL TIZBA TE

Health and freedom are two blessings which it is
said no man thoroughly appreciates till he has lost
them. Will Mr. Gladstone forgive us If we make
an application of these homely maxims to the pre-
sent condition of English trade and finance ? About
six months ago we were in a financial condition
Which, if not everything which could be desired,
was yet in the main sound and satisfactory. We
had a large revenue, and we had the power of in-
creasing it at will by taxes as little odious as
taxes can well be. We were masters of our
own affairs, and no foreign nation or poten-
tate had a right to dictate our policy, or' con,

trol or interfere with our commerce. The doe.
trines of Free Trade we held in all their strict•
ness untouched and untampered with, just as
we had received them out of the searching
alembic of the Corn Law controversy, We had
succeeded to an extent which no nation had ever
reached before in separating our Government
from all responsibility for the good or bad state of
trade, and had entirely disavowed the principle of
mixing up politics with finance, of raising our du-
ties to exclude rival producers, or of lowering them
to conciliate powerful neighbours. It is good for
us to look back upon this state of things if we would
estimate at its full value the effects of the change
we have since undergone. We are no longer what
we were ; we can no longer boast with truth that
we are masters in our own house, that we can regu-
late our own affairs as we will, that each English-
man holds his destiny in his own hards, absolutely
depending on his own skill and industry, and above
all things, entirely free from the control either of
his own or any foreign Government. These boasts
were true once, but they are true no longer. If we
have not returned to Protection, we have returned
at least to a good deal of the animus and spirit of
Protectionism. Our commerce, which once was
free, we have made the subject of huckstering ne-
gotiation, and of a negotiation in which we were
sure to get the worst. When two countries enter
into a Treaty of Comm,....ce the concessions which
the one makes are the eonsideraticn given for the
concessions made by the other. In proportion as
the eountry has much to give it will receive much;
in proportion as the country has little to give it
will receive little. This of itself is a conclusive
reason why a country which has long acted on the
liberal maxims of political economy should forbear
from entering into a Commercial Treaty with a
country which has always repudiated these max-
ims. Its very liberality has made it poor—poor in
the medium by which its exchange is carried on—
the abandonment of vexatious and unreasonable
duties on the imports of other nations. The maxim
"Prodigus et stultus donat quw spemit of odit"

applies very well to a nation which is surrendering
duties which it considers as evils in exchange for
duties which its antagonist considers as benefits.
If we were able to do without our very heavy
wine duties, we ought, for our own sakes, to
have abandoned them, whether France was dis-
posed to meet us in the same spirit or not. If
we required the money for the purposes of
revenue, we ought not to have sacrificed it, what-
ever concessions France was willing to make in
return. When we have already for our guidance
a set of well-ascertained principles, in themselves
perfectly adequate and sufficient to guide our con-
duct, we ought to direct ourselves by those prin-
ciples, and not make them the subjects of negotia-
tion. Negotiation is proper to things in tbeir own
nature indifferent; but the truths of science are no
more fitting subjects for international compact
than the dictates of morality. So our political
economists have taught us, and we have had
enough experience of the truth and profit of their
teaching to make us cautious of running counter
to the principles of a science which has approved
itself not less on abstract than on practical grounds.
But we have chosen to be wise after the wisdom
of Mr. Gladstone, which is wisdom of another
fashion from that of Adam Smith, Rioardo, and
Mill. We have fancied that it was possible for us
to gain a double advantage, and while relieving
our own consumers to do something in the way of
striking a good bargain for our own producers. The
French Treaty was made almost before it was an-
nounced to the public. Every warning that we
could utter—and we were prodigal of warnings—
was unheeded. It was to usher in an era of uni-
versal peace, which has been well illustrated by the
necessity under which we feel ourselves of spending
£12,000,000 more in order to protect ourselves
from the very country with regard to which this
Treaty was to replace the necessity of armaments.
We require money for the war in China, and we
are driven to the unsound expedient of borrowing
from the balance which stands to our credit for
tho coming year, because we have lowered the
taxes which would have made such an anticipation
of our resources unnecessary. We have reduced
indirect taxation to a point which threatens to
overthrow the balance of our financial system and
materially to crippleour resources by throwing any
future expenditure which we may require to make
upon the rich, and to put it in the power of the poor
to impose taxes which they do not pay. _ln
these critical times a tax that is paid without any
great difficulty is something more than a means of
collecting national wealth for the State ; it is
national wealth itself. These things are so well
understood now, and so critically analysed, that it
is very difficult to impose a tax which has not in
its favor long prescription and implicit submission.
In every indirect tax which we lose we part with
a weapon of defence which we cannot replace.
Nor is this all. We had hoped that by leaving
commerce free we had delivered our Government
from the complaints of men who are only too
ready to lay upon any one but themselves the blame
of their own improvident speculations or the results
of misfortune or accident. But any one who glances
over a Trade Report now will see that the tone with
which these matters are regarded has recently
undergone a change. Commercial Circulars are
full of complaints of the slackness of trade, which
are pointed generally at the French Treaty as the
cause of the disturbance of the markets. Oar mer-
chants have undergone the degradation of under-
taking journeys to Paris to petition for favourable
treatment at the hands of the Executive of a foreign
nation. These journeys have only too often been
made in vain. The French Government has taken
back in detail what it conceded in the gross. We
have given all that we could give, and they with-
hold all that they are able to withhold. Even now
an important branch of our manufacture is trembling
for its very existence, its raw material smitten by
France with an absolute prohibition, and the duty
which countervails this just exclusion on the very
point of being removed. But it is pretended that
Parliament cannot freely discuss this gross injustice
because it is precluded by the Treaty from apply-
ing any remedy, at least as far as France is con-
cerned. We believe that this construction of the
Treaty cannot be maintained for a moment ; but the
mere fact that such an argument should be adduced
shows how much freedom in dealing with purely
English interests we have surrendered. Surely,
when we consider these things, we are justified in
looking back with no little regret to the position
which we occupied some seven months ago, when
if we were excluded from the commerce of France

we, at any rate, thoroughly knew and appreciated
our own position, when we had no uncertainties or
ambiguities to perplex us, when we had at least
the confidence we were giving effect in our prac-
tice to the soundest principles of Free-trade, and
when, if we received little favour from France, we
had, at any rate, the comfort that we had asked for
nothing, when we were masters of our own finance,
and were freed from all those fetters and anxieties
in which we have since so unadvisedly entangled
ourselves ?-2imes.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—To the hectic, the consumptive, the
dyspeptic, the emaciated, and the debilitated, Du Barry's
delicious health restoring Revalenta Arabica Food restores
sound lungs, perfect digestion, refreshing sleep, and nerv-
ous and muscular energy, without any of the uncertainties,
purging, and ruinous expenses incurred by medicines, cod
liver oil, or visits to distant climates. Cure No. 39,618—
Dr. Wurtzer, of consumption. Cure No. 54,812—Miss
Virginia Zeguers, cured of consumption, after her medical
advisers had abandoned all hopes of recovery. Cure No.
3,9o6—Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and general de-
bility, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent food;
James Porter, Athol-street, Perth. Cure No. 46,270—Mr.
James Roberts, timber merchant, of thirty years' dis-
eased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, and
partial deafness. Cure No. 52.087—Field Marshal Duke 1
of . Pluskow, of a gastric inflammation of the stomach.
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment,
and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Fcod
which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 times its cost in
other remedies, removing effectually, without purging,
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew
MD., PALS., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorlaud, Dr.
Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu-
rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against
Allred 11-oper Nevill and his agents; and the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false.
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Da Barry
and Co-, 77, Rc,ent-stroet, in full, ontheseal and wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins lib.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s, Gd. ; 510. lie.; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re-
gent-street, London ; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abbis,
60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside; 63 and 150, Ox-
ford-street; 330 and 4.51 Strand ; 49 and GO, Bishopmgate-
street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co,
tea-dealers; Petty, 'Wood, and Co., Icing William-street,
City ; at 127, High nolborn; and all grocers.

ASSIZE INTELLIGEN

HOME CIRCUIT.--MAIDSTONE, July 31.
CROWN SIDE.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., has been trying prisoners
to-day in the Thira Court, and this will materially
expedite the business cf the assize. It is_expected
that the criminal business wilt be concluded to-day,
and Mr. Justice Blackburn will then take the com-
mon cases in their order.

(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
John Clark, 41, was charged with forging an
order for the delivery of goods and money, with
intend to defraud.

Mr. Russell prosecuted; Mr. Ribton was counse.
for the prisoner.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner
had been for many years in the army, and that he
was discharged with an exceedingly good character
and a pension of 2s. a day. I-le subsequently ob-
tained a situation as warder at the Chatham con-
vict prison, and the offence imputed to him was
committed while he was holding that office. It
seemed that among the prisoners was a man named
Jackson, who had been sentenced to penal servitude
for felony, and whose wife resided at Carmarthen,
and it was alleged that the prisoner, being acquainted
with this fact, had written a letter to the wife in
the name of her husband, requesting her to send him
two sovereigns and half a pound of cavendish tobacco
in a parcel addressed to some person at Chatham,
and the letter also stated that if the money was
sent it would enable him to obtain many comforts
in the prison which he would otherwise be deprived
of. The poor woman, it appeared, was unable to
raise the required amount, but she sent ss. The
matter, however, came to the knowledge of the
governor of the prison, and the prisoner was at
once discharged from his office of warder, and sub-
sequently committed for trial upon the present
charge.

Mr. Ribton made a very energetic address to the
jury on behalf of the prisoner, and especially urged
upon them his good character and long service in
the army as gitunds for disbelieving that he would
be guilty of such an offence as the one imputed to
him. He also contended that the probability was
the prisoner might have intended to serve the con-
vict Jackson, and that, although in doing so he liad
undoubtedly infringed the gaol regulations, he had
been sufficiently punished by the loss of his ap-
pointment.
The jury, after considerable deliberation, returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
(Before Mr. James, Q.C..)
Walter Dunn, 28, and George Barrett, 26, two
soldiers, were charged with stealing a watch and
chain, the property of Charles Saunders.
Mr. F. J. Smith conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that the prosecutor was a sergeant
in the 53d Regiment, stationed at Chatham, and
the prisoners are both privates in the same regi-
ment. On the 6th of July the sergeant went out to
attend parade, leaving a watch and chain in a knap-
sack in his room, and upon his return he found that
the watch and chain had been stolen. The prisoner
Barrett had access to the room, and it appeared that
on the same afternoon the watch was stolen the two
prisoners went to a publichouse called the Royal
Oak, at Chatham, and Barrett sold the watch to
Mr. Hughes, the landlord, for 10s., and when he
gave him the money the other prisoner (Dunn) said
to him, " Come, let's have none of your nonsense ;
let me have my share ;" and Barrett then gave
him ss.
Mr. James told the witness Hughes that he had
acted very improperly in purchasing such articles
of two soldiers. The facility of getting rid of stolen
property was very likely to encourage them to rob
their officers and other persons, and he advised him
to be cautious in future, or he would get into
trouble, and he said that on the present occasion h•
should certainly not allow him his expenses.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Smith informed the Court that there was a
second indictment against the prisoner Dunn for
another robbery, committed on the same day as the
former one. He was likewise charged with com-
mitting a most violent assault upon one of the
county constabulary, named Jobling, at the time
of his taking him into custody. He had also, it
appeared, very recently been sentenced to six
weeks' imprisonment for picking pockets.
Mr. James, in passing sentence, said that he had
tried eight or nine prisoners, and the greater por-
tion of them were soldiers in the Queen's service
and receiving her pay, and it was really disgrace-
ful to find men in this position guilty of such
offences, and it was absolutely necessary that they
should be punished with severity. He then ordered
Barrett to be kept to hard labour for 18 months,
and Dunn to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour
for three months upon the first indictment, and to
undergo penal servitude for three years upon the
other.
Mr. Smith said he was informed by Mr. Everest,
the superintendent of police stationed at Chatham,
that the constable, Jobling, was severely injured in
apprehending Dunn, who made a violent resistance,
and in the course of the struggle broke two of the
constable's fingers. He therefore applied to the
Court to exercise the power given by the statute of
o:idering the constable to receive a reward.
Mr. James said he thought it was a case in which
this should be done, and he directed that the con-
stable should receive a gratuity of £5.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-SHREWSBURY, July 3
CROWN COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
Andrew H. Corder, 27, labourer, was charged
with feloniously forging a receipt to a Post-office
money order for £2, with intent to defraud, on the
6th of February, 1860, at Bridgnorth.
Mr. W. H. Cooke prosecuted ; Mr. Cook Evans
defended the prisoner.
It appeared that on the 6th of February, 1860, a
money order for £2, signed " Joseph Chandler,"
was presented at the post-office, Bridgnorth ; and
as an advice had been received from Tunbridge for
the payment of such a sum to " Joseph Chandler,"
the money was paid, but the person who paid it
could not say to whom she paid it, whether man or
woman. A Mr. Rodgers, of Tunbridge, said he sent
the order in question, addressed to his brother-in-
law, Joseph Chandler, who lived at Bridgnorth, in
answer to a letter of the 31st January, which pur-
ported to come from his brother-in-law, and requested
that the money order might be sent to him at No.
15, Waterside, Bridgnorth. He received no acknow-
ledgment of the order, and wrote two other letters
to the same address, and then received a letter with-
out a date, in the same handwriting, and signed
" Joseph Chandler," acknowledging the receipt of
the money order and two letters, and promising to
repay the money. He also received another
letter, dated the 3d of March, to the same pur-
port. In order to connect the prisoner* with the
forgery, some evidence was given by a young lady,
of the Plough, at Ludlow, who said she thought
the letters were prisoner's handwriting, and
also that the letters " Jos" in the signature to
the receipt were very like his; and Joseph
Chandler gave similar evidence. Chandler also
stated that he lived at Whitbourne-place, Bridg-
north, and last Christmas he employed the prisoner
who worked for him and lived in his house, to write
a letter to his brother-in-law, Mr. Rogers, of Tun-
bridge, which letter Rogers swore he never received.
A man named Cookson, who worked with prisoner,
swore that in the early part of the year the pri-
soner told him that a letter Was coming for him,
addressed to " Joseph Chandler, No. 15, Water-
side, Bridgnorth," and that three letters did come
to him so addressed, and that he gave all three let-
ters to the prisoner. On March 25th the prisoner
had been employed by Chandler to write a letter to
Mr. Rogers to say he was coming to attend his
mother's funeral, and when Chandler came back
from that visit he found that the prisoner had left
his service without notice, and had come to Shrews-
bury, where he was taken into custody on the 31st
of March.

Mr. C. Evans addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and contended that there was no evidence of utter-
ing., and that the forgery was not proved, unless
the jury believed the evidence of Cookson, which
he Qontended was contradicted by a portion of
Chandler's evidence.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and a previ-
ous conviction for lwceny in 1853 was proved
against him.

Mr. Justice Hill said he had great doubt whether
he ought not to sentence the prisoner to penal ser-
vitude; but in the hope that he would take warn-
ing, his lordship sentenced him to one year's im-
prisonment with hard labour.
(Before Mr. Justice Ryles.)
Win. Brindley, enginedriver, surrendered to take
his trial upon a charge of manslaughter, in causing
the death of John Jones on May 2, 1860.
Mr. Boughey and Mr. H. James prosecuted, and
Mr. P. M'Mahon defended the prisoner.
The prisoner was an enginedriver in the em-
ploy of the London and North-Western Rail-
way Compatay, and the charge against him was
that he had caused the death of the deceased by
his gross negligence in not attending to a danger
signal and stopping the train which he was driving
on the morninir of the 2d of May last. It appeared I
that on the day in question the prisoner was the
driver of a passenger train, which left Shrewsbury
for Crewe rat 6 45 a.m., and ought to have arrived
at the Whitworth station, en the Crewe line, at
7 30. At 7 15 on that morning a goods train from
Crewe to Shrewsbury reached Whitworth, and, it
being a single line only, the dth.4. of the goods
train ought to have
eased from the main line on to
a siding, to allow the' passenger train to pass ; but,
instead of doing that, he remained on the line for
some minutes. The porter in charge of the siguals

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 1,700 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. M'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 ba in the
occupation of a Mr. Pitts.

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 liosenhill, 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. Justice 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.
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 Channel! and a Special Jury.)
COURTIER V. lIOPE.
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
1E454, 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 £4OOO.
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 man 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 imputation ? But what opinion would the jury
have of a man who could thus injure 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-
ber 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 no 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 bad 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 defend.,
be defendant's wit-
nesses were all perjured he would entitled to
their verdict, For the defendant it would be proved
by a witness who had lived with the plaintiff that
she, 3111 a again and again seen her intoxicated. She
had sickness and, headache, which imposed upon
the doctor, and induced him to believe that there
stimulants,w as )i l ary a derangement,
d whenh
o called the next day he
and he recommended
found her pulse so weak that he thought she had not
take
n Shewine hadorb a cupboard,
rndyenf h
gh Obivut this was only
reaction.which she kept the
key, and in that she kept spirits, to which unhap-
pily she bad ftequont 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, th e faet 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.