The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-07 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN PELL 'GENOA

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, APRIL 6.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

Samuel Smith, clergyman, of Clifton, and Sarah
Smith, his wife, were charged with maliciously cut-
ting and wounding John Leech, with intent to
murder him, and also with intent to do him griev-
ous bodily harm, on Feb. 3, 1858, at Westerleigh.
Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Cripps appeared for
the prosecution ; Mr. Huddleston, Q 0., and Mr.
J. Symons, defended the female. The male pri-
soner was not defended by counsel.
Mr. Skinner, in opening the case, stated the facts
at great length ; but it will be sufficient here to state
that the charge against the prisoners was that they
bad conspired together to lure the prosecutor down
to a lonely common at Yate, on the Bristol and
Birmingham Railway, and there eudeavoured to
murder him. This conspiracy was carried out by
writing letters to the prosecutor, in which the fe-
male prisoner falsely pretended that her husband
was dead, that she was a widow, and willing, if the
prosecutor felt so disposed, to renew their former
acquaintance and to marry him.
The learned counsel then called the following
witnesses :
John Leech, examined by Mr. Grippe,
now live at Shirley, near Croydon, in Surrey. I
am a road contractor. In 1846 I was in the employ
of Messrs. Swan and Edgar as alight porter. Dur-
ing the time I was there the female prisoner came
into service there, and remained two years or two
years and a-half. I was there all that time, and
afterwards. Her name was Sarah Mills. When
she left she had a situation in Tottenhem-court-
read. While she was at Swan and Edgar's I had 1 see
on intimate terms with her; and continued my visits
to her in Tottenham-court-road. Remember going
to see her on Good Friday, 1849. On that oi casi..n I
saw apersonthere who I was told was Mr. Smith (the
prisoner). He was opposite the house where she
was living, walking backwards and forwards. On
that occasion I took Sarah Mills out for a walk, and
from the position where the male prisoner was he
could see me take her out. When I came back I
saw him.again. He was still walking in the same
place where I saw him before. He could have
seen me on that occasion also. I understood from
the female prisoner he was anxious to pay his ad-
dresses to her. I was aware of that before. I un-
derstood that his name was Samuel Smith, and
that he was at Cambridge traiversity. I believe I
WV her again in Tottenham-court-road in about a
month. Some time after that I ascertained that
she had gone away somewhere. I had not learnt
from her that she was going away. After she had
gone away I did not see her again for tome mouths.
From what I afterwards heard I wrote a note to
her at some place near Canterbury. I should think
that was about the latter part of August, 1850. I
received- an answer, which I have destroyed.
It gave me an invitation to go down and
meet her at Canterbury. I went to Canter-
bury, 'and met her and her sister-in-
law. We went together to Whitstable, to, I believe,
a relative's of the sister-in-law, a private house.
We all stayed at the house till the next morning.
On that occasion she told me she was married before
she left town to Mr. Samuel Smith, th It he stayed
with her about three days, and returned to Cam-
bridge, and had been writing to her representing
that they were not legally married. I also under-
stood he had offered her an amount of money not
to trouble him again before he left. She said she was
saying with her friends, who lived in that part of
the country. I afterwards had a letter from Mrs.
Smith, saying they had had advice. I have de-
stroyed all letters. 1 understood she had been to a
solicitor and a clergyman, to have advice as to the
legality of the marriage. I can't tell how she signed
herself in the letter from Canterbury and the other.
I believe I put both names on my first letter to her.
After the interview at Whitstable I saw her in
London ; I could not tell, but I should think it was I
in October. I saw her more than once about Ulu
time in London. I met her several times in the
street. I was still in my situation at Swan and
Edgar's. I as not positive that she came into the
house, but I believe she came to the house when we
were closing of an evening. I had also been to her
mother's and seen her there. It was in Cirencester-
place, or somewhere in Tottenharn-court-ro id. The
last time I saw her in London was in December,
1849, After that I received one or two letters from
her ; but I cannot tell the time. Ii was soon after.
It must have been in January or February, 1850.
The last letter could not have been many months
after Christmas, 1849. In 1851 I received a letter
from Bristol. I should think it was in April or I
May, or about that time. I believe it came from
Mr. Smith.

Crosi-examined by Mr. Huddleston—l never
RAW Mr. Smith write in my life.
Mr. Baron Chanuell—Do you appear for Mr.
Smith ?

Mr. Huddl,ston said he appeared for Mrs. Smith;
Mr. Smith wished to make his own etAtement ; but
his cross-examination would go to both.
Mr. B tron °batmen said he approved that course.
Examination continued—The letter had the
Bristol postmark. I have destroyed the letter. I
answered the letter, and put it in the post, but I
forget the address that was upon it. I afterwards
received an answer to that letter. I forget the
name to wh;ch I addressed my answer, and I can't
recollect whether it was the initials or a fill name.
I had known the fenzaleprisouer's handwriting. I
believed a part of the first latter, about eight lines,
to be in her handwriting ; the rest was in a man's
writing. The second letter was all in a man's hand.
The female prisoner once showed me a letter in
Tottenham-court-road as the letter of Mr. Sraili.
In the letter the female prisoner merely certified
to the truth of the statements made in the man's
handwriting.
Mr. Baron Channell held that the contents of the
letter were not admissible. It was only evidence
against the woman.

Examination continued—l received no letters
from the female prisoner from 1851. to 1858. I
learnt from the lett Ts I received in 1850 where she
was. I understood she was apprentice at a milliner's
shop; I believe in Park-street, Bristol. I was
married on the 7th July, 1852, to a young woman
named Ellee. I lost my wife in March, 1857. I
went to live at Shirley, near Croydon, at Michael-
m4s, 1853. My uncle, Mr. Leech, came to live
with me at the same time and has lived with me
ever since. I received this letter. dated Jan. 23,
1858. I believe it it to be in the hind of the female
prisoner. It was directed to Mr. John Leech, jun.,
Croydon, near Norwood, Surrey. The letter had
the Clifton postwark, and was as follows :—..

"Jan. 23, 1858.
"My dear Friend,—As I am now living in the coun-
try, near Bristol, a widow with three children, my hus-
band treated me more kindly towards the last, and has
left us 1,0001. if you have not forgotten your promise
made to me when we met and sp-nt a day and night to-
gether by the ermide in 1849, I shall be glad to see you
once more if you are not engaged, write to S. M., care
of Mr. Lasbury, bookseller, Park-street, Bristol, to say
if you can come, and I will write again to tell you where
to meet-me.—.l remain yours sincerely. "S. M."
Mr. Baron Channell observed that the words
"and night" were interlined, showing that it was
an afterthought.

Exatnination continued—l answered the letter,
and directed it as requested in the letter. (Notice
to produce was here proved by Mr. Burrup, the
under-sheriff) I posted th 3 I,tt3r myself. I stated
I would come down to Bristol, awl that I had been
married and had lost my wife. I mentioned her
same, Ellen. On the 29th of January I received an
answer, dated the 28th of January. It had the
Bristol .postmark, and I believe it to be in Mrs.
Smith's handwriting. It was directed to " Mr.
John Lech, jun., Shirley, near Croydon, Surrey,"
and was as follows :

" My ever dearest Friend.—Tlnvin /c January Nth.g come into Bristol
today with my friend Mrs. Isaacs, with whom T am DOW
living at a farmhouso in the country. I was pleased
to find a letter from you, as I feared not having heard
from you for such a long time that you might have gone
from your old home to some more distant part of the
country. It being market day I came in, as I often do,
to buy. a few things for my dear little children, and
I shall be coming into Bristol again on Sunday, the
alst, with my friend, and shall be returning again by
the 5 minutes .before 7 train by myself to Wanly,
where I live, and if you still care for me, as you say, I
shall be glad to meet you at the Bristol and Birming-
ham platforin at a cpuirttr to 7; and then you will see
with your own eyes that I am your own dear old friend
Sally, tihen you can come on with me and stop in the
village all niabt, and we can talk over matters together,
and if you still wish to be honourable to me I shall be
very grad to see you and to be yours for ever; but
mind there must be nothing improper. I was sorry to
Lear you say your poor mother was dead, and more so
Ellen. I suppose you married her. I think you might
have seen by the circumstance I mentioned in my last
ante that it could be no other than your old and sincere
friend sally ; therefore I shall subscribe myself as be-
fore, s,
" P.S. Same address. Please write directly on re-
ceipt c f this, and get it posted in London en Friday
night, If you can, as I shall call for the letters as I go
thr -.ugh on Sunday morning.
4. Good bye for the present. If this does not reach you
in time to write again, coins the following Sunday,
Feb. 7, or fix some other time, and I will endeavour to
meet yoq."
I again wrote an answer to that letter, and directed
it to the same address as before. I put it in the
post. I said it was not convenient to me to come
on the Sunday (Feb. 7). I then received this letter
(latel tram 30/. I believe on the Monday (Feb. 1).
I believe this letttr also to lie in Mrs. Smith
handwriting. It was directed in the same way as
the lac', and like both the precA3ing letters, was