The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 23, 1858.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, AUG. 21.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
PARR V. IiESKETII.—SEDUCTION.
Mr. Leeming opened the pleadings in this c:se, and
Mr. Monk, Q.C., laid the facts betore the jury. He said
that so far as regarded the conduct of the defendant it was
cne of the most serious ever submitted to a jury, abounding
as it did, not only in profligacy and libertinism, but adding
thereto a greater degree of breach of friendship, breach of
hospitality, and of hypocrisy, than such cases generally pre-
sented. The plaintiff was a farmer and provision dealer,
residing at Worsley, near Manchester, and the father of a
family of four children—three girls and a boy. The eldest
of these, a young lady of 16, and the subject of the pre'ent
action, had been educated at a respectable school distait
from her father's house. Her education had been quite
equal, if not superior, to the sphere in which her parents
moved. The defendant was a substantial farmer, residing
near the plaintiff, and the respective families had been inti-
mate for a considerable time. When the plaintiff's eldest
daughter (Miss Ellen Parr) came home from school she re-
mained in her father's as an assistant in the shop, and was
of very considerable use to him in that capacity. Some
months after she came home, the defendant (who was a mar-
ried man, and more than old enough to be her father) began
to show her considerable attentions. These attentions were
quiet and secret, to avoid observation. He described his
marriage as unhappy (his wife being considerably older than
himself), and gradually he succeeded in securing the affec-
tions of Miss Parr, and obtaining possession of her. He was
very cautious in his movement,, advised her to be cold and
distant in her demeanour towards him, and although induced
to correspond with him, tbeirletters beingplaced in the hollow
of an old tree in order to prevent the employment of a toes-en-
ger—he strictly enjoined her to destroy all theqe letters so
as to avoid risk or discovery. He believed that she faith-
fully followed his instructions, and that all the letters which
she received from him at that time were in point of fact de-
stroyed. After this he became dissatisfied with the kind of
intimacy be had with ber and be urged her very strongly to
leave her father's house. In the month of February last
there was to be a party at Bolton, at which the defendant
and his wife and the young lady's father were to be present.
The defendant recommended this as a favourable time for
leaving home. She did leave home. That night her father
returned from Bolton accompanied by the defendant, and
when the mother, who was naturally much alarmed, men-
tioned her daughter's absence, the defendant expressed him-
self in terms of the strongest sympathy. On the following
day he saw the parents again, when he renewed his sympa-
thetic expressions, and carried his hypocrisy to the extent
of going to Manchester with her father to look for her,
although he knew perfectly well where she was and under
what circumstances she had gone away, and that he himself
bad, in fact, induced her to leave home. There was one
circumstance, however, which he (the learned counsel) had
omitted to mention. The defendant had induced Miss Parr
to write a letter to a person named Openshaw, and to place
it where ber mother might find it, the object being to direct
suspicion towards Openshaw. Upon the finding of this
letter the father immediately went to Openshaw, who, of
course, at once and indignantly (and truly, as it now ap-
peared) denied all knowledge of the young lady's conduct
and movements. It was subsequently discovered that
when she left home Miss Parr went by the railway to
Manchester, and there met an elderly person, who as-
sisted her to obtain a lodging for the night ; that next day
she took a letter to a person to whom the defendant had
directed her, and that in the lodgings to which she
removed afterwards the defendant frequently visited her,
supplying her with money from time to time to enable her
to pay her expenses, the balance of which money she re-
turned to him when she ultimately returned home. When
she first arrived in Manchester the defendant desired her
not to go out by day, and only to take such walks as might
be absolutely necessary, fearing no doubt that she might be
recognised. For some time she obeyed him in this respect,
but at last that which the defendant had apprehended ac-
tually happened. She was met and recognised by a young
man named Bootb, who, partly by threatening to call in the
police, and partly by representing to her that her mother
was in deep distress, induced her to consent to return home.
And here he came to a part of the case which it was impos-
sible to contemplate without strong indignation. The de-
fendant, during the three weeks that Miss Parr remained
at Manchester, repeatedly represented to her that her father
and mother regarded her departure with indifference, while
in the course of his intercourse with the father and mother
themselves he only spoke of her with acrimony and anger,
counselling them altogether to forget her; telling them
" that as she had made her bed so she must lie," and doing
all he could to make a lasting breach between them. There
was something in this course of conduct so deceitful, hypo-
critical, and malignant that he could scarcely contemplate
it without feelings of the strongest indignation. After the
girl's return home a letter was found addressed to her whick
he would read to the jury by and by, but it was impossible
for some time to trace the person who had induced her to
leave home. At length, however, a watch was kept on her
movements, and when she was walking in the garden one
day, her father, who bad placed himself in a convenient po-
sition, observed his intimate friend, the defendant, drop
over the fence a small parcel, which the young lady picked
up. The father insisted upon seeing what this parcel con-
tained, and he received from his daughter the letters which
would now be read, and which no doubt the jury would say
fully confirmed the young woman in every particular. Mr.
Monk then proceeded to read and comment upon the let-
ters, observing, in aggravation of the defendant's conduct,
that when he dropped the letters over the wall he was ac-
tually on his way to his chapel, and that upon this very day,
ignorant, of course, that the father bad received the letters,
he bad the hypocrisy to invite the plaintiff to his home to
partake of his hospitality. Of course the complainant indig-
nantly refused. The defendant had often told the girl that
he was a man of wealth, that he had property at Southport,
that be was worth £lO,OOO, and that be did not care about
the expense of maintaining her. The passages In the letters
desiring her not to care about her clothes were consistent
with these representations. The learned counsel then read
,he following letters :

" Friday Afternoon.
" My loving Heart,-1 got your sweet and losing letter,
and you say that mine did not meet your mind altogether,
and when I found you had gone from home the other night,
I could not bear it. I was quite heartbroken, when I found
you wet e gone, and I could not see you. I will meet you,
from half-past six to seven to-night, and we shall be able to
meet in the beginning of the next week in the morning.
You don't know how I was thinking about you last night,
and would a hundred times sooner have been with you than
all others. My heart is constantly bleeding for you, particu-
larly wheu we get disappointed. I hope to have a running
kiss to-night with you, anti next week we will fetch up lost
time. It is too light this week in a morning, for we must be
careful not to let any one see us. I send you my love, and
at the same time I must confess that I thought I would see
what you would say to my last note, for, bless you, I know
you love me, and can't love another as you do me. I wish
I might be aware to-night, so that we can have a chance.
Go-d bye, dear, and I can't love you too much for your
loving and long letter, but will repay you when we have
time to be in each other's arms.—Adieu, sweet love."
[The first letter was found in January. The two follow-
ing were in the parcel thrown into the garden.]
"My dear Love,—l waited until near ten last night, but
you did not come. Your note put me about a deal,
when I see how you are troubled. You wanted my advice.
Well, it is this. Keep up your spirits, and endeavour to get
away every night or in a morning. You can't stay you say.
Don't mind clothes, as you cin have fresh, for you can go
when both of them is in the house, you can be a field off the
house before they knew you were gone. I will look at those
two big trees every night at nine o'clock. You could get
over the gate into Samuel Grundy's field, and go rtere:;s to
Boothall-bridge, then you would be from neighbours. If
you can get into my field to the two frees, between the house
and canal, I can help you away, but care nothing about your
clothes, they are not worth thrice ; but go you must for so
how you are, whether in the way you named or not ; neither
of us can live in this way, so take courage and go. I will
look in the field every night at nine. I would go when
some one is in the house. I should not care for company
being in, as they would not be so sharp after you, or if F.
is missing a while I would go. You must get away. lam
very miserable to thick you are so unhappy, for I will make
you happy if you can but get off, and I am care you may
get away. Get a shawl over your head, and leave your
bonnet, when you come to meet me in the field, and, if
you met any one, they would think it an Irishwoman; and,
if you get to me. I will help you away, depend on it; or
if you can slip off in a morning, when you are all gt,tting
t'p, you cookd get off on the canal ; but night is best. Do
love, do love, try to get off. We will be ell right, if
you can get away. I am afraid of them finding us out.
Don't be broken-hearted, but be determined at once,
for I know you can, and we b oh shall he unhappy until we
have mot. iiiess you, my heart aches to be with you. Oh
when, when must we meet ? I will go every night, at nine,
in my field to meet you, until you come. Go along the canal
bank, and then you c.:n turn into the field, and come to the
big tree; so, if any one saw you,,they would think you was
going along the bank, and it would deceive them. Be sure
you endeavour to get away. Oh, my sweet love, do, my
sweet love. I can die for you, I feel so much for you. I
send you a kiss until we meet. All is right at the far end."
"My dear Love,—l can't help adding hit after bit, not
knowing whether I can get the chance of giving it to you
or not. You must go, love, or it will kill me to he in this state.
Don't mind, hut try to get off. If you could get into nay
field I could hide you for the night in safety, so do, love. I
I will go every night into the field to see it you are there. I
will be as late P., half-past nine, but try, love. My feelings
overcome me. I can see a difference in your people. I hope
,yoga will get away without me being found out, fur I would
die the very day if I wes found out. I love you 33 that I
can freely die for you any moment. It would, perhaps, bl a
good way to run across the field and through the hedge into
Smith's field down towards the cried, and wait till all is
quiet, or if you could come down the lane a little, and get
into Samuel Grundy's fields, and across to Boothall-bridge,
no one would go after you that way. You could creep
through a hedge or two. Yon go when there is company in
the house. You could get two fields off before they would
ask for you. Five minutes would have you over the canal.
If it is so that they take you anywhere, set off either by day
or night to Mrs. Owen's, for she will ha glad to receive you,
and I will soon come. You are perhaps gone now, lor all
that I expect to hear is your Ming missing. Gcad bye at
present, my dear, dear life."
It might have been expected that after the discovery of the
nakt
hadtlt e
letters, the defendant would have felt some remorse, and
would have forborne from further solicitations of the girl,
but the jury would find that he had persevered.
At this stage of the learned counsel's opening, the efforts
outsetto com
wpwhetherwhethereer wttheerearseenwewasedto. b
el.
tried,he judge
and hasdlr asked. Mo
some difference es to terms, which it
it was suggested that
appeared there was
At last
replied that it was undoubtedly a most painful case, but it
was impossible to get over. d
but agreed to see the counsel
in declined this responsibility,
the judge should say what should be one.Mr.Baron Mar
in his private room, and after a very short conference it was
d t
the plaintiff—damages £4OO.
~
announced that the defendant bad consente o a verdict for

---
WESTERN CIRCIJIT.—BRISTOL, AUG. 21.
(Befure Mr. Baron Channell aad a Special Jury.)
CIVIL SIDE.
GARTON AND ANOTHER V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Edlin appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Barstow for the
defence.
The action was brought nominally to recover £lO 14s. 91.
alleged overcharges, and £2O, being the value of a crate of
goods which the company had detained and converted, but
in reality it related to a sum of upwards of £2,000, in which
the plaintiffs allege the railway company is indebted to them.
The first count of the declaration allezed that between the
let May, 1858, and the Ist July, 1858, the plaintiffdelivered
to the defendants divers goods to be carried from London to
Bristol, that the plaintiffs were always ready to pay a pro-
per sum for the carriage thereof, but that the defendants re-
fused to deliver the same until they were paid a larger sum
than by law they were allowed to charge. A second
forab.
be urged,
packageut.hrgeeuds,
countelnon
t:cumber,
mf
obre chargedrm:rna thats3e.sdh
atdh
everyea
ndefendants
possible
received
b had a
legal,
thed unlawfully
question
swi ifoul
defendantsl yt that
detained
et
tt
oa
couldi
an ne dd
eoptouipatrhionepgepriituayi of the plaintiffs; and there was a third
Instsiuffeg.thTehfeacptslads
denying
gh
twheerseunfuincieetneecny

of certain notices which were required to be given under
the act of Parliament, &c.
Mr. Collier, in:opening the case, said the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Garton and Stone, were the web-known public carriers, and
they had brought the present action against the Great
Western Railway Company, for a number of overcharge,
made by them in contravention of the act of Parliament
under the power of which they made their charge-. lie should
be able to show beyond que-lion that the chacire were ille-
gal, and more than that, that the company knew them to
be illegal, and that every one of the pleas which his learned
friend had read were false. The Great "Western Railway
Company had set itself systematically to work to ruin the
carriers, in order hat it might get all the carrying business
into its own bands. Messrs. Garton and Stone and other
carriers had often been driven to bring actions against them,
but they paid money into court, managed to get the ques-
tions driven over to a refereuee, and then wore out the
plaintiffs with costs upon the principle of letting the longest
purse prevail ; and the amount of illegal profit which the
company managed to exact from the carriers was actually
more than enough to recompense it all the costs of litiga-
tion. So far as the Great Western Railway Company, there-
fere, was concerned, the case was an exceedingly bad one,
while as it affected the pia:titan it was most wicked, for
although able and willing to devote all their energies to
their business, they were prevented from carrying it on un-
lesa at a loss, which, unless the law protected them, must
prove utterly ruinous to tkem. The railway company was
authorised to make its charges by an act of Parliament, the
10th and 11th Vic., c. 226, 5.49, which empowered them to
make certain charges, and it was by that act that the whole
case must be governed. This section fixed the maximum
rate fort he conveyance of goods, and the:plaintiff.; complained
that the company had gone greatly in excess of those charges,
By the section of the act in question, the company was em-
powered to make a reasonable charge for " loading, unload-
ing, covering, and other incidental expenses," and that was
the only charge which was not specifically fixed. For the
description of goods which the plaintiffs had sent over the
line, the company was only entitled to charge 22(1., or at
most 3d., per ton per mile, excepting for loading, unloading
&c., but had charged in excess of that sum considerably.
The learned counsel made a schedule of the goods in respect
of which the action had been brought, and explained the
legal charges, which he compared with those made in orde
to show the overcharge. The third item in the plaintiffs'
particulars was a package weighing over 5001b5., for which
Ll 3s. was demanded, the proper charge being 12s. The
amount demanded was refused and the goods were detained,
which constitute the detinue complained of. He (Mr. Col-
lier) would tell the jury why the company did all this. The
packed parcels and
differente known
consignees.as packed
Although the
packages
parcelsaddressed
tto
h
parcels might be numerous, they did not give the railway
company any additional trouble, and there was no reason
t
why any extra charge should be made in respect of them.
aw er
But it was only through being able to pack several parcels
in one crate that the carriers realised their profits, and it
was to do away with that profit of the carriers—in fact, to
ruin them—that the company charged so high. The courts
of law had, however, decided that the companies had no
right to charge for packed parcels when exceeding 5001bs.
in weight more than for any other parcels; so that there was
nothing to justify the overcharges. The company chose,
however, to go on charging till the November term, and the
amount they would by that time net would niece than
reimburse them for the present action. Mr. Col' er then
directed the attention of the court to the case of " Croud
v. The Great Northern Railway CoMpany," and went
on to say that in estimating the overcharges, the plain-
tiffs had allowed the company at the rate of 2s. per ton
for loading, unloading, covering, &c., although, in point
of fact, the company only paid sm. per ton for loading, and
Messrs. Garton and Stone collected and delivered their own
packages. He hoped that he should so establish the facts as
to justify a verdict for the plaintiffs, and also to ask his lord-
ship to grant, under the powers of a recent:very salutary act
of Parliament, an injunction to restrain the company from
continuing in its course of illegal exaction.
Mr. Baron Channel' did not apprehend that a judge on
circuit had power to issue an injunction.
Mr. M. Smith—Certainly not, my lord. There is no power
here.

The plaintiff, Mr. Win. Garton, was examined at consider-
able length in support of the opening, and was cross-exa-
mined rigidly
in order to show that certain notices were
served in Bristol at the Temple Meads station and not at
Paddington. The allowance for loading, &c., to the company
was made in some instances 2s. and in others 3s. per ton.
Mr. Hewitt, acarrier, Mr. John Wilkinson, a carrier (who
was also for some years manager of goods traffic to the Mid-
land Railway Company), and Mr. Henry Sircom, manager
for the extensive carrying firm of Danks, Venn, and Co.,
were called to prove 2s. per ton would be a reasonable allow-
ance for loading, unloading, covering, and incidentr' ex-
penses. Two of the witnesses, upon cross-examination, ad-
mitted that in making their estimate they had not taken
into account rent, station, or gas.
Mr. Wm. Hole deposed to having been employed to haul
for the railway companies. The charge far loading was 6J.
per ton, and that for unloading also 6d. per ton.
Mr. Richard Parker, formerly a carrier, deposed that a
reasonable charge for loading was per ton, for taking out
4d. per ton, and for covering id. per ton. Upon ones-exa-
mination, the witness admitted having been engaged in a
lengthened course of litigation with the ra!lway companie.e. I
t That being the plaintiffs' case,
Mr. M. Smith took a variety of legal objections to the
form and service of the notice, &c., upon which leave wes
given to move. 'With respect to the count in trover, no
notice bad been served, and he submitted that the plaintiffs
had no right to sue.
Mr. Smith then addressed the jury for the defendants.
He admitted that there hed been a severe streggle going on
between the railway companies and the carriers, but said it
appeared to him that a great deal of the hard language in
which his learned friend had indulged had been very much
misapplied, because, when the case came to be fully inquired
into it would be found that the defendants were really doing
nothing more than protecting their own interests, and that
they had a right to charge for the terminal expenses which
were incident to the carrying on of a large carrying trade.
There was some anomaly in the use which wr.'t being made
by the carriers of the railways. The companies themselves
had long carried fur the public, and the public had been
satisfied; hut the carriers wanted to have their goods carried
without afibrding to the company a fair remuneration. The
jury should bear in mind that the railway companies were
carriers themselves. They carried on a large trade for the
public, and it should not be lost sight of that the carriers
were competing with that trade, and that they wanted to
' grind down the railway in order that they might be able to
make a profit out of the rates which the company charged.
The learned counsel went on to argue that the packed par-
cel system imposed on the railway companies extra liabilities
and greatly augmented the risks of loss, and with reference
to the charges for the terminal expenses he said the wit-
nesses for the plaintiff had left out of their calculation the
heavy charges for providing station accommodation, such as
goods sheds, receiving and delivering offices, places of depo-
sit, watchmen, gas, &c., as also the liabilities which time com-
panies undertook in regard to the loss and damage of goods.
The rate of charges fixed by the Great Western Company,
and which included both ends, he would read to them. The
act of Parliament had divide) the goods to be carried into
live classes, and the company, after a great deal of experience
and a close investigation, had fixed the rate of caarges as
follows :—First class, 33. 6d.; second class, 4s. ; third class,
4s. 61. ; fourth class, 55.; fifth class, ss. 6d. per ton. That
was the lowest estimate which experience justified, and it
was not fair to test it by the rough estimate of carriers who
did nothing more than pile goods under a shed, and who
made no allowance for the charges which a large and care-
fully conducted trade entailed. With respect to the crate
which bad been detained lie did not deny that an error had
been committed, and said if the plaintiffs were entitled to
sue without notice, he did not deny that they must recover,
as he had no defence to offer to it. He should submit, how-
ever, that there bad been no notice. and that in such a cese
iLte) e6eetitin,3:vv.nd in another 2s. Bd.
notice wry most material.
Mr. James Grier son, ;raffle manager ef the Great Western
3e., and 2s al. per ton. The
Railway, was called to prove that the actual cost to the
Bristol terminus had been in
company for terininah!c charges,. as tested by the four last
per ton. The
witness went into lengthened details to justify his calcula-
tions. chargesna le finstance ye a rins lc'oa
211
lions. He said that the overcharges made were gencrz lly
an error by the clerk., who had power to correct them by
the scale issued ; it. wns not a rule to charge extra for packed
parcels when over ()Nibs:
At the close of this witne s a evidence the cause, which
seemed to excite much interest among the trading commu-
nity, was adjourned HI Monday (this day).

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-Aug. 21.

-~ --

OLD COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)

who was convicted on
Honda}
o AlexanderfbigCmh s
bigamy,
ve.,asßtoiri
this
0 morningmc o ,
again
placed at the
bar by the direction of the learned judge.
It will be remembered that when the prisoner was brought
up to be tried he made a very pressing request that his trial
might be postponed to give him an opportunity of producing
certain witnesses from Pails, who, he said, could prove that
he was in that city when the marriage between him and
Miss Sadler was alleged to have taken place in 1842. It
was believed at the time, however, that it was merely an
attempt to obtain delay and cause annoyance to the pro-
sscutors, and the application was consequently refused, and
it turns out that this view of the matter was correct.
The Common Sergeant, addressing the prisoner, said that
he had sent for him to inform him of the result of an appli-
cation he had made to the Prefecture of Police of Paris
rc-pecting certain parties whose evidence he eesired to
obtain. A communication had just been received from
Paris, the effect of which was that no trace of such persons
as the prisoner had mentioned could be discovered, and they
did not seem to have ever been in existence. There did not,
therefore, appear to be the slightest ground for doubting the
propriety of the verdict of the jury, and the sentence of
four years' penal servitude, to commence from the month of
June, 1859, would therefore be carried out.
When the prisoner was tried be was fashionably dressed,
and wore a long black beard and moustache, and during the
trial he conducted himself in a most impudent manner.
Since his conviction, however, be has been attired in the
colvict garb, and his beard and moustache have been shaved
or, pursuant to the prison regulations,
anditie now pr
a most crest-fallen and dejected appearance. He madnted e no
reply to the statement of the learned Common Sergeant,
and when he had concluded he walked hastily from the bar,
ue
apparently glad to escape from the public gaze.
John Hoare, 50, was charged upon the coroner's inqui-
sition with the manslaughter of his wife, Mary Hoare.
Mr. Poland conducted the prosecution.
The prisoner, it appeared, was a labourer in the docks,
and he and his wife, and a stepdaughter about 16 years of
age, lived in Sarah-court, Brick-lane. They had been
married 15 years, and it was admitted on behalf of the pro-
secution that the prisoner, when sober, behaved in a kind
and affectionate manner to the deceased. The prisoner
returned home from his work about four o'clock in the after-
noon of the 29th of May, a good deal the worse fer liquor,
and at thi, time the deceased and the stepdaughter were in
the room, and the firmer wished to go out to do a job
she had been engaged for, namely, to clean some offices.
Tito prisoner, fur some reason or other, said that she should
not go out, and she replied that she would, and this led to a
quarrel, and the prisoner struck the deceased on the arm
with his fist. A scuffle then ensued between them, during
which the table that was in the room was knocked down,
and the deceased seized one of the legs that had been broken
off, and struck the prisoner a violent blow on the head
with it, which cut his head open, and knocked him
down, and the stepdaughter also laid hold of the poker
for the purpoi.e, as she said, of protecting her mother.
The prisoner snatched the poker from the daughter,but shortly afterwt eels threw it down,
and his stepdaughter
then ran out to fetch a policeman, but before she got to the
street door she heard her mother call out " murder," and
upon her returning to the room she found the prisoner with
the poker in his hand. Her mother had both her hands
to le tr side, and she said that the prisoner had struck her
there with the poker, and he made no reply. A policeman
arrived soon Lfierwards, bat no charge was given ; and it
appeared that at this time it was not supposed that any
serious injury had been inflicted upon the deceased. A
d ty or two afterwards, however, she became very
ill, and was reamed to the London Hospital, where

it was discovered that her ribs had been injured, and
bandages were placed upon her, and she remained
in the hospital until the 12th of June, when, finding herself
very ill, and anticipating that She should not recover, she
insis'ed upo'i being removed to her own home, where a
medical gendeman of the neighbourhood attended upon her;
but it appeared that all she complained of to him was con-
stipation of the bowels, and she did not say a word about her
ribs having been injured, her cbject for this, in all proba-
bility, being to screen the prisoner. She died a day or two
after she had been brought home, and a certificate was given
that the death was occasioned by inflammation of the
bowels, and she was buried under that certificate,
and the whole matter was supposed to be at an
end. On the 22d of June following, however, the
prisoner was found at Norwood by a police-constable of the
P division, in a very excited state, kneeling upon the ground
and praying to God to forgive him his sins. The constable
asked him what he had been doing, and whether he had
been robbing any one; to which he replied, " Worse than
that—l have murdered my wife." The constable at first
did not believe the statement of the prisoner; but upon
his taking him to the police station the prisoner repeated
it to the sergeant on duty, and gave a narrative of all
that took place between him and his wife and step-
daughter on the day in question. In consequence of
this the body of the deceased was exhumed, and upon
its being examined it was discovered that three of the
ribs of the unhappy woman were broken, and that they bad
penetrated the lungs and thus occasioned death. When
the prisoner was before the magistrate be repeated the state-
ment he had made at the police-station as to the manner in
which he had inflicted the injury upon the deceased by
striking her on the side with the poker, hut he at the same
time said that he should not have done it if his wife had not
knocked him down with the leg of the table, and had he
not believed that she and his stepdaughter were both
going to attack him, and what he did was partly, as he
considered, in self-defence.
The prisoner, who appeared to be in great distress of mind
at what had occurred, repeated this story to the jury in
his defence.
The Common Sergeant having summed up, the jury,
after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty, but at
the same time strongly recommended him to mercy.
Mr. Weatherhead, the governor of Newgate, informed the
Court that the prisoner had already been two months in
custody upon the present charge.
Tne Common Sergeant said that taking this fact into con-
sideration, the sentence he should pass upon the prisoner
would be that he be further imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for the space of one calendar month.
James LUsley, 20, and Joseph Houghton, 18, were
indicted for a robbery upon Edwin Breme, and the ;indict-
ment further alleged that they made use of personal violence
to the prosecutor at the time of the commission of the said
robbery.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Prendergast prosecuted; Mr. Met-
calfe was counsel for the prisoners.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor that be
was a sine-worker, living at Stoke Newington, and about
11 o'clock at night on the 28th of July he was in Shoreditch
on his way home, when the prisoners and two other men sur-
rounded him suddenly, and they all seized hold of him, lifted
him off his feet, and then dragged him about 20 yards up a
court. The prisoner Houghton then seized his legs, and Hisley
got his neckerchief twisted in his hand with his knuckles,
pressing en his throat so that he was not able to open
his mouth, or to cry out. He struggled as well as:he could
to get away from them, but was unable to do so, and His'ey
called out to the others, " Gon7,e the —." One of the
men then took his watch out of his pocket, and also his
guard-chain, and also 7s. in silver ; and when this had been
done Hisley let go his bold of his throat, giving him a
violent blow on the side of his head, and he fell upon
the pavement, and all the men then ran away. He
said that he was unable to follow them, on account
of his being lame from a broken knee-cap ; but he
gave information to the policeman, who went after
the men, and shortly afterwards the prisoners were
brought back, and he recognised them immediaeely as being
two of the gang who had made the attack upon him.
The prosecutor was cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe,
with a view to show that he was mistaken as to their
identity, but he persisted in stating positively that they
were two of the party.
George Smith, a police-constable, deposed that he went
in pursuit of the men in consequence of what the prosecutor
told him, and he saw the two prisoners running together
down the Kingsland-road. He overtook them, and laid
hold of both the prisoners, and said that he wanted them
for an assault they bad just been committing. Tney
made no answer, but kicked him off his feet, but he kept
hold of them and got up again, and he knocked Hisley
down, but was obliged to let Houghton go. He fell upon
Hisley to keep him down, and sprung his rattle, and an-
other constable went in pursuit of Houghton and brought
him back. The prosecutor identified them directly he saw
them. He was quite sober, and there were marks on his
throat, and his trousers pocket was torn down about six
inches.
Job Lewis, another constable, proved that he ran after
Houghton and caught him, and he resisted violently and
threw himself down, and it was with great difficulty that he
succeeded in securing him.
The Common Sergeant summed up, and the jury imme•
diately returned a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
A previous conviction for felony was then proved against
Hisley, and it was also stated that he was the constant
associate of thieves and bad characters.
The Common Sergeant sentenced Hisley to six and
Houghton to four years' penal servitude.
George Allen, 18, was charged with feloniously cutting
and wounding George Baguess, with intent to d, him
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Austin conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that the prisoner was an apprentice on board
a vessel called the Albion, and the prosecutor was mate of
the same vessel. On July 17 the prosecutor was left in
charge by the captain, and he gave the prisoner directions
to perform some duty to which he objected, and he was
subsequently very insolent to the prosecutor, who at length
struck him with his fist. The prisoner returned the
blow, and wished to have what he called a " stand
up" fight with the prosecutor, who refused, and he
held the prisoner down upon the deck until his
passion appeared to have somewhat cooled. When
he was at length allowed to rise he still appeared to
be in a great rage, and he threatened to destroy the prose-
cutor's clothes, and went down into the forecastle for that
purpose. The prosecutor followed in order to prevent him,
upon which the prisoner exclaimed, " -- your eyes, I'll
kill you," and rushed at him and stabbed him in the breast
with a knife, the blow evidently being aimed in the direc-
tion of the heart.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wound-
ing.
The Common Sergeant said that the jury had taken a very
merciful view of the prisoner's conduct, and he might con-
sider himself very fortunate that he was not upon bis trial
for a capital offence. He had been convicted of a mis-
demeanour only ; but, under the circumstances, he felt it
his duty to pass the full sentence of the law for a crime of
this description, which was that of imprisonment and hard
labour for two years.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)

John Girnsn, 3G, soldier, was indicted for assaulting
Jane Macdonald, with intent to commit a rape.
Mr. Lilley prosecuted, and Mr. Doyle defended.
The prisoner is a corporal in the Military Train ; and the
prosecutrix, a girl under 13 years of age, is the daughter of
an artisan in the Woolwich dockyard. The prisoner, who
is a married man, used to visit Macdonald's family, and
on the day upon which the outrage wascommitted was there
with his wife upon a visit. In the evening the prisoner's
wife sent the prosecutrix to fetch the prisoner from some
house in the neighbourhood, to which he and the father of
the prosecutrix had gone, and upon their return he laid hold
of her, di agged her into a brick-field, and would in all pro-
bability have effected his purpose, but that the childis father
cause up at the dine.
The prisoner, who conducted himself with much impu-
dence during the trial, kept handing to his counsel slips of
paper, upon which were written questions of a most infamous
description, to be put to the chid in cross-examination. This
Mr. Doyle refused to do, merely cross-examining her upon
the facts which she had deposed to, with a view to ascertain
whether she was a witness of truth, and the childish sitnpli-
cPy ef her answers fully proved that she was.
The jury found him guilty.
The Commissioner, in strong terms, commented upon the
prisoner's unmanly and di,grneful conduct, and sentenced
him to two years' imprisonment.
With two other cases of an unimportant character the
business was brought to an end, and the next session coin-
tneaces on Monday, September 20.