The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

T E SU_ LONDON

gorse, with intent to murder her. There were
other counts in the indictment varying the charge.
Mr. Bowen conducted the prosecution, and at
the request of the court Mr. Allen watched the
case on behalf of the prisoner.
The circumstances of this case were attended
with great atrocity. On the 9th of January last
(Saturday night) after the prosecutrix had gone to
bed with her children, her husband being absent
at work in an adjoining county, a man, whom she
recognised as the prisoner (who bad married her
sister) came into her room and dragged her out of
bed, beating her head with a stone until she became
insensible, and the party then left her apparently
dead. The prosecutrix had several of her ribs
broken, thirty or forty bruises on her head, and
received other injuries. Her skull was fractured.
The prosecutrix was assisted into court, and
placed in a chair in the witness box. She had her
head bandaged, and was evidently suffering se-
verely. She deposed that on the night in question
she went to bed between eleven and twelve o'clock,
and some time after a man came to her bedside and
dragged her on to the floor. He then laid hold of
her by the hair, and beat her head against the floor.
He also twisted her handkerchief round her neck,
and placed his hand "as an accoucheur would do."
She succeeded in getting on her feet, but he got
her down again and beat her head with a stone.
Witness begged for her life, and laid
hold of him by the left eye. After beating
her with a stone he turned her neck round,
" setting her face backwards." He then beat
her again with the stone, and she lay quiet, unable
to move. He then left her, after feeling her feet
and hands and dragging her into another room.
There was no light in the room, but it was rather a
light night. (Reference to the almanack showed
that the moon did not rise until two o'clock on the
Sunday morning.) The witness, when asked to
look at the prisoner in the dock, immediately
identified him, became much agitated, and burst
into tears.
On cross-examination the prosecutrix said she
did not tell the policeman who was the man that
had attacked her, but told him she had marked
him by the eye. She did not call the prisoner by
his name when she appealed to him to spare her
life, because she thought he would be more cruel it
she did. The prisoner did not attempt to take
any further indecent liberties with her than she
had described.
Margaret Davies spoke to the deplorable condi-
tion in which she found Mrs. Jones on the next
morning (Sunday). She was covered with blood,
as also was the bed on which she was lying. The
bed was in the kitchen, and there was a pool of
blood in the kitchen, and blood also along the pas-
sage and on the table and window board. There
was a stone on the table in the kitchen.
The deposition of Mr. Thomas, the surgeon, who
attended the prosecutrix on the morning after the
outrage, was then read, the deponent having died
two days ago. It stated that he found the prosecu-
trix bleeding from wounds on the scalp and upper
lip. She had received between 30 and 40 contused
wounds on the head, one of which was four inches
in length. Her eyes were closed from effusion of
blood, and her face was much swollen and bruised.
Her skull was fractured, and at least three of her
ribs were broken, but she was in such an exhausted
state, her life being in imminent danger, that he
could not make a minute examination. All the
wounds on the head with one exception might have
been inflicted with a stone ; there were bruises on
1 the lower part of her body.
Policeman Jeremy on the morning after the out-
rage traced marks of a person having crossed the
prosecutrix's garden in his stockings. From the
garden hedge he traced marks of a person in shoes
across the fields up to the prisoner's house. The
left footmark showed a hole in a plate on the heel.
He found the prisoner at home on the Sunday after-
noon, and in his house in a drawer were a pair of
stockings, with the feet covered with mud. There
was a pair of shoes, with a plate on the heel of the
right shoe, but none on the left shoe. It appeared
as though a plate had recently been removed. On
examining the prisoner he found a scratch under
one of his eyes, and blood marks on his collar, his
waistcoat, his shirt, and his trousers. There was
also blood dried under his nails. There were also
some hairs on the front part of his shirt. (Hair
produced : it appeared to belong to a woman.)
The deposition of David Jones, labourer, who
was ill, was read. It proved that before Jeremy
came to the prisoner's house on the Sunday morn-
ing he saw the prisoner's left shoe. The heel-plate
was not then removed, and he told the prisoner
about the footmarks having been seen at Rhydy-
gorse.
Margaret Richards deposed that the prisoner
came to her house (situate between the prisoner's
and the prosecutrix's) about 9 o'clock on the night
of the 9th, and left at 10, saying he was to go to
Rhydygorse that night, but he thought he should
Inot, as he thought Margaret Jones had gone to bed.
' Ann Jones, sister of Margaret Jones, proved
that the prisoner was at her house the same night,
and said he had just left Margaret Richards. He
had no marks of scratches on his face, and no blood
on his hands.
For the prisoner, Mr. Allen carefully analysed
the evidence, and submitted that it was entirely
circumstantial, and not all conclusive as against
the prisoner. He particularly dwelt on the absence
of motive for the deed.
His Lordship pointed out the distinction in the
character of the offences charged—wounding with
intent to murder, with intent to disable, or intent
to do grievions bodily harm. As to the absence of
motive, which had been urged by .Mr. Allen, his
lordship remarked that among the infinity of mo-
tives that actuate man it would be presumptuous
in any one to say that there was no motive for an
act because he could not detect it.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a
verdict of guilty, with intent to murder.
Being called upon to say why sentence of death
should not be passed, the prisoner said-he had no-
thing to say, except that he was not near the wo-
man at all.
His Lordship then, amidst deep silence, passed
sentence of death upon the prisoner. He told him
his case would be represented in the proper quarter,
but he could not hold out to him any hopes of
mercy.

valet attended there for me. I sent no one to re-
present me there in June, 1856. I paid defendant
187 g. 10s. for the shares. I gave a cheque for a
larger amount, but that sum of 187/. 10s. was in-
cluded in it. The remainder was for other transac-
tions. I afterwards paid a call of 23. 6d on those
shares. It was on account. I have had transactions
in other mines with the defendant to the amount of
some thousands of pounds. The following receipt
' which you show me, is in my handwriting :
" London, August 6, 1357.

" Mr. R. Tredinnick,
"Sir,-I acknowledge all accounts betwixt us up to
this date settled, and that any and all 1.0.U.'s and
agreements up to this date are discharged as null and
void on your part, the same having been embraced in
the general settlement of the passing of your acceptance
to me for 5001. this day at six months' date.
" ARTHUR R. OLIVER."
The account now put in is signed by me, and shows
a balance of 5001. as due to me, but that was not a
final settlement of accounts between us. I cannot
certify that I read the account befote I signed it. I
do not think I did. Until I consulted my solicitor
I was not aware that the receipt went to the extent
it did. I have an 1.0. U. of the defendant. He was
to have it returned after I signed that receipt. The
defendant is a bankrupt. My claim against his
estate was for 5001., and I proved for that sum only
under the bankruptcy. After I had proved Mr.
Lawrence, the solicitor, tendered me 5001. in set-
tlement of my claim if I would sign a receipt. It
was upon an acceptance for that sum given in
settlement of this account, and which was not then
due. I knew there was a petition to annul the
bankruptcy. I offered to receive the 5001. to
hand over to the official assignee. I refused to take
it in my private capacity as a creditor. I cannot
say whether the petition to annul the bankruptcy
was signed by all the creditors who had proved. I
did not sign the petition. I believe the defendant
owes me a great deal more than 5001. I proved for
that sum because I had committed myself by sign-
ing the receipt. I refused to take the 500/. partly
to prevent the bankruptcy being annulled, and I
believed that if in my position of assignee I took
the money the interests of other creditors might
, have been sacrificed.
Mr. F. R. Bell, accountant at 32, Bucklersbury,
said-I have examined the Carnewas Mine books.
The account produced and spoken to by the last
witness contains an item, " December, 1856, 671.
12s. 3d.," from the cost-book of the mine. The
sum of 35/. 9e. Oid. forms part of the 67/. ]2s. 3d.,
and is entered as Mr. Tuomas Martin, timber bill,
35/. Os. Oid." It does not appear in the entry to
be paid. There is nothing in the account to show
that it is paid. There is an entry in the book, "Jan.,
1857, 401. ls. 7d.," which includes a sum of 101. to
William Martin. The entry, by the heading of
the account, appears to be " cost for Dec., 1856."
There is an account in the book of the 17th of
November, which is a copy of the account in evi-
dence, which states that there is cash in the hands
of the manager, 551. 17s. ld. There is an account
entered subsequently to the account of November,
and before an entry of Jan., 1858. In that account
are the items 101. and 35/. 9s. There are entries of
merchants' accounts charged, but not paid, and an
entry of calls received of 134/. Bs. The entry
.of 10/. has the name of " W. Martin" to it, and the
351. 9s. has the name of "T. Martin" to it "by
balance due by R. Tredinnick 103/. 135.," which
includes the three sums of 101., 35/. 9s. and also
credit fur 134/. Bs. The !account of the 17th of
November purports to be an account of monies
paid and received up to September, and if the 10/.
and 351. 9s. had not been paid those sums should
have been added to the balance of 55/. 17s. ld., as
cash in hand.

The Rev. Thomas Martyn—l hold 240 shares in
- -

the Carnewas Mine. An account was sent to me
of the meeting of the 17th cf November, 1857. I
received a letter from Mr. Tuomas Martin, of
Wadebridge, for payment of 36/. 12s. 7d. (being
35/. 93. and interest), as due to him from me as a
shareholder of the company. I was afterwards
served with a copy of a writ for the amount, and I
paid 36/. 12s. 7d., and 21., the solicitor's costs. I
have some accounts with the defendant, and the
311. ss. I am debited with in accounts between him
and me. The defendant was my shareholder.
Cross-examined—l owe 37/. 10s. to the company,
and that was the reason I believe I was allowed to
be sued. I paid the defendant several sums, and
there is an account between us. There is a claim
made by him upon me of 1557. 12s. and 11d.,
which I do not admit. That inclu,!es the 317. ss.
for calls. I do not admit the balance. I have
paid the 31/. 55., because there are sums to my
credit.
Mr. Poland said that was all the evidence he
intended to offer this day, and asked for an adjourn-
ment. _

The Lord Mayor—This is the first case of a
prosecution under the Fradulent Trustees Act,
and. it i 4 a most important one, not only to the
public, but to the parties interested. I shall re-
mand it.
The case was ti.en remanded fora week, and the
defendant was permitted to go ou his promise to
attend on the day of adjournment.

GIIILDHALL.—Mr. William Henry Parker, a
wholesale mantle manufacturer and outfitter, of
36, Monkwell-street, Cripplegate, was charged with
wilfully and feloniously setting fire to his house on
the 10th of this month, with intent to defraud the
Westminster Fire Insurance Company.

Evidence having been given in support of the
charge, the prisoner was remanded.
Alderman Hale refused to accept bail.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Win. Wright, an awk-
ward young countryman in the full-dress uniform
of the Royal Artillery, in whi,:h he presented a most
uncouth and grotesque appearance, was charged
with the following strange offence :
James Murphy, one of the Artillery bombadiers,
said he was on duty at the Mint at six o'clock that
morning, when the prisoner was brought up in the
custody of a corporal of the Guards, who told him
that he had shortly before met the prisoner wan-
dering about Whitechapel in a state of seeming be-
wilderment, and wearing the uniform he now had
on, and that on stopping and questioning him he
gave such an unsatisfactory ace .iunt of himself that
he felt it his duty to arrest him as a deserter. Wit-
ness whereupon also questioned the prisoner, and
it then became obvious, from his odd look and ge-
neral bearing, that if he had been in the army at all
it could only have been for so short a time as not
to admit of being properly drilled, and as the ex-
planation he gave about himself and his uniform
was almost incredible, witness determined to give
him into custody, not for being a deserter himself,
which he scarcely believed, but for artfully exchang-
ing his own clothing for that of a man in the wit-
ness's corn, and so facilitating the escape of the
latter.

The account of the affair given by the prisoner'
who was in evident excitement and alarm for his
own safety, and delivered himself with a genuine
provincial peculiarity, was, that he was in the sere
vice of a farmer at Hilton, in Cianbridgeshire, and,
having a sister in London, whom he wished to visit
and never having been in town before, he got leave
of absence, and travelled up all the way on foot.
He was thoroughly worn out with fatigue, and was
about to enter a publichouse for a lodging, when a
well-dressed woman stopped and question,d him,
and on finding ho came from Cambridgeshire, ex-
pressed great sympailly for him, sail that was her
county, and offered to procure him a lodging. She
then took him to a house in ono of the by-streets,
where he was shown into a first-floor room, but
had scarcely entered it when the door was suddenly
thrown open by two soldiers, one of whom seize
him by the neck and firmly grasped him, while the
other, with threats, stripped off the whole of his
clothe?. The soldier who held him then relin-
quished his grasp, and, rapidly throwing off his
uniform and putting on his (the prisoner's) clothing
ran out of the room, leaving the uniform upon the
floor, and followed by the second soldier and the
woman, who caught up his watch, worth 31., as
wished him good night.
Elie rag, and jeeringly
He raised an outcry, but no notice was taken of
it, and he therefore put on the uniform and
hurried out after the thieves ; but he had only got
a short distance when he fell into the hands of the
corporal, and was seized as a deserter, which he
asseverated earnestly Le was not, as he had never
been a soldier in his life, and did not want to be.
This improbable stAtement was proved by other
evidence to be perfectly correct., and as there could
be little doubt that a scheme had been prearranged
between the soldiers and woman to facilitate the
desertion of ono of the men, and the prisoner had
unfortunately turned up as a convenient victim for
the purpose, the countryman, to his great grat'fi-
cation, was ordered to be discharged.

SOUTIIWARK.—James Lawler, of 5, Elmo-
place, Lee-road, Blackheath, was summoned for un
ltwfully lelving a thir,l-class carriage on the Nortla.
Kent Railway while the train was in motion. The
fact having been proved, .
Mr. Combo slid, it was a very dangerous prac-
tice for persons to open the door of a railway-car-
riage and jump out while it was in motion, and he
thought the railway company did perfeay right in
bringing such cases to a police c'_.urt. As a caution
to others he should fine the defendant 55., and 2s.
costs, and, in default of payment, he must be com-
mitted to prison for seven days.
The prisoner, who said he could not pay the
money, was sent to Wandsworth House of Cor-
reotlon
•

ro
nu:a gi 3
xi tmap'ixwa
ehdo 'tgoa 17
iev the
he
-,
LAMBETH.—A well-dressed, active-looking
irTdedorfe Henryl,