The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-11 00:00:00

SAMUELS V. DENNIS.

This was a special jury cause.
Mr. Hawkins was for the defendant, and Mr. Watkin
Williams for the plaintiff.
This was an action of slander brought by the plaintiff, an
extensive watch and clock maker, in Clerkenwell, against
the defendant, also a tradesman occupying a respectable
position in the same locality, in order to vindicate his cha-
racter from certain imputations that were alleged to have
been cast upon him by the defendant.
_ _

' Mr. Ilawkins, on behalf of the-defendant, said he was
instructed to state that whibt he enip`iwically denied ever
having intentionally or at all made use of the alleged ex-
pressions, he at once freely admitted that whether he said
them or not, there was no foundation in fact fur any such
imputations upon the plaintiff's character or conduct.
Mr. NVatkin Williams said, on behalf of the plaintiff, that
the explanation and apology of the defendant were all be
had Bier desired, and he was willing that the case should be
amicably settled, each party PaYille his own costs.
A juryman was titan withdrawn by consent.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WELLS, Aun. 10.
CROWN COURT. .
(Before Mr. Balm Watson.)
THE CRUCII ST. MICHAEL MURDERS.
The case for the prosecution lasted the whole of yesterday,
and was sought to be established by the evidence of nearly
50 witnesses, who deposed to the various facts stated by Mr.
Coleridge in his opening address to the jury.
Mr. ICingdon addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.
It was his duty to address them for the prisoner charged
with this fearful crime, and he besought their anxious atten-
tion to the remarks he should have to offer to them. The
enormity of the crime had led public opinion to the conclu-
sion of the prisoner's guilt; it had been discussed through
the leng►h and breadth of the land ; but he would ask the
jury to exclude from the it minds all they had heard or read
upon the subject. Responsible as was his duty, still more so
was their task responsible. Let them b. jealous of any un-
due bias that might exist in their minds. He would ask
them to go through fact by fact, and to weigh each fact ac-
cording to English law—not to convict upon conviction alone,
and if any doubt existed the prisoner should have the benefit
of it. The prisoner was a young mall who had lived nearly
all his life with his !vrandfat her, and the charge against him
now was in reality that he had murdered his grandfather and
grandmother ; and let them first inquire what could be his
object or motive in taking from the world those who were
most dear to him in life. The prosecution suggested two
motives. Let them examine them one by one. The first
motive ww, that he had incurred some debt for drink, and
bad stayed away longer than he ought ; and they were
crime.uature Let them judge by
asked to believe that this imprudent act had induced him to
grandfa.ther,
kill his grandfather and his grandmother. Could they
imagine that such a single act should have led to such a
after-
noon on the best of BTuhteyi if :tined
ii motiveim
sp
spending
haddi
gh e st
it7ree tpr
previous
vagainst thethe common feelings of human
otfhteerremsany.tiill-feelino• against his grand-
mother. The second motive was
he had heard his grandfather the old man, and arranging
to accompany him the next morning to Bridgewater.
stairs, and the suggestion was
that,h on the previous even-
ing say that lie bad Do up-
act. But the witness called to that this motive had led to the
raorvde this
Ellen
j ees wouldanti
not swear that the prisoner hie