The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-07 00:00:00

He was remanded for further examination.

LAMBETH.—AIfred Feist, taskmaster of the
Newington Workhouse, was charged with having
unlawfully taken away the dead body of a certain
female, named Mary Whitehead, with intent to sell
au dispose of it for gain and profit.
Mr. Robinson, the barrister, instructed by Mr.
Chester, attended to prosEctrte ; Mr. Joyce, ad-
vised by Mr. iielsham, appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Robinson stated the case at considerable
length.
Mrs. Lltrisa Mixer was then called and sworn—
She said she was the wife of John Mixer, and
resided at No. 30, Pitt-street, St. George's-road,
Southwark. Oa the Gth Of °augur, 1855, she went
Stith her mother, Mary WhiteheA to the Newing-
ton Workhouse, where she remained up to the time
?1 her death which took place on the 30th January
last• She called at the workhouse on the day be
fore
her death
death, and saw her mother, and on the day
of death she also
saw her. She then asked the
defendant
Mr.
11 Fe!st,
if more than one person
could follow
her mother to the grave ; he replied
that they could
askedl4lE?n the payment of ls. 6d. each.
She also
but referred her
Saturday or Monday following,
when she would be buried, and
he replied on the
to Mr. Hogg, the pariah wider-

taker, and that person said the funeral would take
place on the Monday. On the Monday she (wit-
ness) p-ccompanied her sister to the workhouse, and
seeing Mr. Feist them, she told him she wantod to
sec the body of her mother, Mrs. Whitehead. She
proceeded with her sister to the dead-home, where
she found both Feist and Hogg. Mr. Feist took
the lid off one of the coffins there and told her not
to go too pear, but she went near enough to see
that it was their mother in the coffin. Mr. Feist
told them to withdraw to the waiting-room, and in
about half-an-hour told them to come and get into
the coach. They did so, and followed the hearse
to Mde-end, supposing at the time they were fol-
lowing the remains of their mother. At the burial-
place two coffins were taken from the hearse and
buried. and she was under the impression all the
time that one of those coffins contained the remains
of her mother. The witness was cross-examined at
some length by Mr. Joyce, but the learned gentle-
man elicited nothing material in favour of his
client.

Mr. Robinson here called the undertaker, Robt.
Hogg, its a witness, and on that person getting into
the witness-box, and when about to be sworn,
Mr. Lewis, of Ely-place, interposed, and said
that he had attended for that person when about
to be examined before the Poor-law Inspector re-
specting the disposal of these bodies, and was told
that uo ulterior proceeding should be adopted, and
it was under this promise that he was induced to
make the statement he had done. Yet in violation
of that promise he was now summoned to give
evidence in the present case.
Mr. Robinson said that Hogg was summoned to
give evidence in the present case, and whether he
did so or not mattered very little tc, him ; but if
ho refused to do so, he (Mr. Robinson) knew what
course he should adopt.
Mr. Elliott observed that the witness had been
properly summoned, but it would be his duty to
inform him that he was not bound to say anything
that would criminate himself.

The witness having been sworn, said he was an
undertaker, and lived at 89, St. George's-road,
Southwark, and had been employed as undertaker
for the parish of St. Mary's, Newington. The bill
produced was iu his handwriting, and was his
quarterly account in the beginning of the year for
the burials done by him for the palish of Newing-
ton. In that bill there was a charge for the burial
of Mary Whitehead, though he had removed the
body of that person from Newington Workhouse to
Guy's Hospital. He charged for the burial of
bodies taken to the hospital the same as if they had
really been interred, because ho never knew or had
been told that he was not to do so. The body of
Mary Whitehead was taken to the hospital on the
2d of February._

Mr. Eiliott—That is the day on which you
charge for the burial. Would you have male the
stria charge if the body had been buried or taken to
the hospital ?
Hogg—l: should.
Mr. Elliott—Do you invariably charge the same
under such circumstances ?

Witness—lnvariably. -
The witness proceeded to say that from instruc-
tions he received from the defendant, ho received
the necessary document from. the inspector under
the Anatomy Act for the removal of the body of
Mary Whitehead to the Guy's Hospital, having
just carried the necessary certificate from Mr. Feist
t~ the inspector. The papers produced were the
same as he had received.

Mr. Robinion—Now, seeing these documents,
and supposing it was a sham funeral, and after
taking the body to Guy's Hospital, cannot you tell
the court what was in the coffin ?

Hogg—l cannot. There might have been two
bodies in the house when there ought to have been
three. It was my duty to see the right number of
bodies come out of the dead-house.

Mr. Robinson—What do you mean by telling us
that there might have been three bodies to come out
when only two really came, and that the third was
left for anatomic d purposes ?
Witness—l never go to the cemetery with
parochial funerals. I leave it to my men, who get
the names of the out-door paupers from me ; those
of the in-door paupers from the master of the work-
house. When I have gone down of a morning and
found four or five to be buried, Mr. Foist has told
me to leave certain of them.

Mr. Robinson—Have you ever known an in-
stance when some body has been substituted
for another in the dead-house ?

Witness—l have ; but I cannot say in how many
instances.

Mr. Robinson—You mean the substitution of
bodies or parts of bodies for others ? How often?

Witness—Ten or fifteen times within the last
twelve months.
Mr. Robinson—On these occasions has Mr. Foist
been with you ?
Witness—Yes. It was done by direction of Mr.
Feist ; but these were bodies or parts of bodies
brought from the hospital for the purpose of iutor-
men,.

Mr. Robinson here remarked that it wai the duty
of the ho,pital to send the remains of holies dis-
sected direct the place of interment, and not to
the workhouse.

Mr. Elliott—Then I suppose the bodies or puts
of bodies taken from the hospital to tie workhouse
are substituted for other bodies there, and the
latter kept at the workhouse to be disposed of by
the master of the workhouse or the undertaker, or
both ?

The witness admitted that it was so. The wit-
ness also admitted that the coffins sent by him to
the hospital were precisely the same as these fur-
nished to the workhouse. When the bodies or
parts of bodies were put into the coffins at the lies-
pit tl, the former were nailed clown before ho took
them from there to the workhouse. Ile never knew
an instance to the contrary.
Mr. Robinson—Then there was a substitution of
a body, c)flin and all, at the workhouse instead of
a body only ?
tness—Yes.

Mr. Robinson—And instead of relations follow-
ing the body of a friend as they suppose, they fol-
low the remains of some other person ?

Wituess—Yes ; but Mr. Feist often told him that
the persons in attendance were no relatives of the
deceased, but merely came there for a ride.
Mr. Robinson—Have you ever received any
money from Mr. Feist
Wituesi—None whatever. _

In cross-examination by Mr. Joyce the witness
said that in removing bodies from the hospital he
d.d so under the warrant of the medical inspector.
Everything in that respect was done in accordance
with the provisions of the act. The sum he was
allowed by the parish for pauper burials was ss. 6d.
for adults and 3s. 6d. for children. He sent in a
tender to do it at those prices.
Mr. Gannon, a surgeon, proved his certificate of
Mary Whitehead's death, which had been filled up
on the 2d of February, and signed by him.
parish, was next called to prove the signature of tha
Mr. Herring, one of the relieving officers of the
defendant to the notice of removal to the inspector,
dated the Ist Feb.

Mr. Alfred Poland, one of the teachers of ana-
tomy at Guy's hospital, produced a return of the
reception of the bodies at the hospital, the time at
which it was received, and the warrant of its re-
moval obtained from Feist.

Mr. Mark Shaddock, an accountant at Guy's
Hospital, said that in the year 1856 he h3d paid
the defendant 19/. 10k, and in 1857 261. for his
trouble in making out the certificates and returns.
Mr. Robinsen—ls that iu relation to bodies ?
witness—No, I know nothing about bodies ?
that is not in my department. I paid him these
amounts for the reports that are made to me. I
cannot say how many bodies these amounts refer
to. The amount is made up of something under
10s. f,r each certificate. lam not prepared to say
it is 10s. for each body sent f,r. In cross-Exami
nation, the witness said he had made these pay-
ments to Feist as a gratuity in the same way as
Mr. Bit" deposed to Feist being a servant of the
parish, and having no authority whatever horn the
he had paid PreTious masters since 1849.
officers to dispose of bodies, after which Mr. Robin-
son applied for a remand, which Mr. Elliott ac-
ceded to, admitting the defendant to bail, himself
in 401., and two sureties in 201. each, to appear on
a future day.

--
Catherine Crawley, Catherine tionlaha.n, and Geo.
THAMES.—John
Simi, were again charged with the wilful murder
of Henry Morgan, the policeman, and further re-
manded for the production of Kallaher by writ of
Henessey, Patrick Murphy,
habeas corpus,
and the conclusion of the inquest.
Mr. Selfe inquiredtof Inspector Griffin as to the
condition of decessed's widow.
The Inspector replied that she was left with
three children, but lie did not know whether or
not she was destitute of the means of support. On
the death of every policeman a penny was subscribe i
by each member of the force, and this produced
about 211. The deceased would be buried at the
cxpense of the Commissioners of Police.
Mr. Selfe told
widow should be found to be in want.
the officer to apply to Lim if the

HAMMERSMITH.—SamueI Griffin, a driver in
the employ of the London General Omnibus Com-
r any, was charged with causing
omnibu ', to the amount of 205., by careless driving.
Mr. Sleigh conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
damage to a saloon
Lewis appeared for the defendant.
On the afternoon of Boxing-day the saloon omni-
bus, driven by a man named French, an occasional
driver, started on its journey from Putney-br.i d. ge,
1113 defendant
abiut half a minute. On reaching the coiner of
having preceded it with his omnibus

Bridge-street, leading to Church-street, the defen-
dant stopped, and the saloon omnibus passed him,
but at the corner of Church-street French stopped
his vehicle. After remaining there for a minute the
saloon started, and he was followed by the defen-
dant. On nearing the shop of Mr. Flicker, butcher,
outside of which stood the proprietor's cart, the
defendant sprang his horses to the side of the saloon,
and, the thoroughfare being very narrow, there was
not room for him to pass between the cart and the
saloon. The consequence was that the defendant's
wheal the off side wheel of the saloon, and
forced it upon the pavement. It then struck the
other wheel, and drove the pole of the saloon against
a house, and French was thrown off the box and
injured.
For the defence it was urged that the defendant's
omnibus was first in passing up Church-street, and
that before the colli-don the near wheel of the sa-
loon was upon the pavement, and French, in endea-
vouring to pass, caused the defendant to come in
contact with him, and that the occurrence was
purely accidental.
Mr. Ingham inquired if the defendant had been
punished before.
Defendant said he had driven for several years
and had never been summoned before. I

Mr. Ingham thought the case of careless driving,
proved, and said, as he had not been punished be-
fore, he would not inflict the full penalty. Ele fined
him 405., and also the 205., the amount of the
damage.
The money was immediately paid.

GREENWICH.—Thos. Goswell, a carman in
the employ of Messrs. Cockerell, coal merchants,
Blackfriars ; and Chas. Moss, ostler at the New
Cross Inn, Deptford, were charged, on remand,
before Mr. Seeker—the former with stealing, and
the latter with feloniously receiving a quantity of
horses' provender.
From the evidence of detective officers Crouch
and Brown, It division, it appeared that on Satur-
day afternoon they saw Goswell take a bag from his
coal van, when Moss called him into the stables
with it. Suspecting that it was the horses' food
which was being illegally disposed of, they listened,
and Brown heard Moss bargain to give Goswell 4d.
and a pot of beer ; shortly after which Goswell left
the stables with the sack he had taken in emptied.
On being informed that they were two constables
and had seen hin► dispose of the corn to Moss, the
ostler, he confessed to the fact, and said he was a
poor fellow from the country, and should not have
done so but for the persuasion of the ostler. On the
stables being searched, about a bushel and a half of
oats were found in a cement cask, and other pro-
vender in another part.
Mr. G. Rtissell Cockerel), jun., said that as it
was considered the ostler was the most to blame,
and me❑ of his Bass were in the habit of tempting
carmen to rob, it was not the wish that ho (Gos-
well) should be severely punished.
Mr. Seeker asked if auy one was present to speak
to the other corn found iu the stable ?

The officer Brown said he had taken samples of
it to Messrs. Simmons and Motton's, millers, West-
minster, whose vans stayed at the same house, and
it was the opinion it formed a portion served out
to their men. A person had promised to attend,
but was not then present.
Mr. Seeker remarked the offence with which the
prisoners were charged was of so aggravated a cha-
racter that he should have considered it his duty to
commit 0,5 prisoners for trial but fur the fact that
the prosecutors were of opinion Goswell had been
tempted by the ostler to commit the robbery. He
then ordered Moss to be imprisoned and kept to
hard labour for two months, and Goswell to pay a
fine of 31. or to be imprisoned one month.

THE ROBBERY ON £3,111 FROM THE
MAIN, WIESTER CORN EXCHANGE.

On Tuesday afternoon, at the Manchester City
Sessions, before Mr. R. B. Armstrong, Q.C.,
Recorder, Charles Browness, a foreigner, pleaded
not guilty to an indictment charging liAn with
having, at the Corn Exchange in Manchester, on
the 10th ult., stolen a pocket-book containing
3,1111. 18s , in notes, lolls, &0., the property of
William Thompson and another. The prosecutors
are Messrs. Wm. and Frederick Thompson, trad-
ing under the firm of Messrs. James Thompson and
Son, as corn millers, at Wakefield. Mr. Sowler
conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wheeler ap-
peared for the prisoner. Mr. Frederick Thomp-
son, from whose desk in the Corn Exchange the
money was stolen, was first examined, and he was
followed by Mr. Thomas Thorpe and Sergeant
Shandley. The facts of the case must be in
the remembrance of our readers, especially from
ti:e cleverness of the capture of the thief by
Shandley and Thoipe ; and the evidence given on
Tuesday was a:most verbally the same as that
which we published after the examination of the
prisoner before the magistrate. After the wit-
nesses named had given their evidence,
Mr. WheLdersakrhe had watched the case closely;
but it appeared to him that the evidence agaiLst
the pri,ion,,,r was, so to speak, so overflowing, that
it would be impwsible for him to contend against
i t.

Tho Recorder—l am quite of that opinion ; and
' the jury, I should think, must be so t Jo.
Mr. Wheeler—l propose, then, sir, that the pri-
soner shall wielelraw his plea, and submit to the
iudiettnent.
The Recorder—You had better submit to take a
veatLct at once.
This was assented to ; and a verdict of guilty was
retained.
Mr. Sowler said that, on behalf of the prosecu-
tor In was instructed to say, that that gentleman
had no wish whatever to press for a vindictive or
he tvys,nitence. The prosecutor had recovered all his
money ; he was, therefore, all the better satisfied
with the investigations so ably conducted by the
police; and beyoud that he had no wish to press
upon the court for anything like a severe punish-
ment.
Mr. Wheeler said that from the very moment
when the prisoner made the stateinen,t to Shand-
ley, and which had also been spoken to, in effect,
by Mr. Thompson, he had never disguised his guilt;
indeed, he Lad aced under advice in allowing the
case to proceed to this point, in order that the
Court might bo put in possession of facts which it
was his duty to urge in the prisoner's behalf. He
was assured that the prisoner was not only of ex-
ceedingly respectable, but, in truth and in fact, of
noble connections ; and that, in addition, he was
married and had five children. When he spoke to
the prisoner a few minutes previously, he at once
assented to the suggestion that lie should plead
guilty ; but he begged him to do what he could
with the Court in mit gation of sentence ; " not,"
to use his own language, "for my own sake, but
fcr that of my five children." Seeing these things
—considering that the prisoner might have yielded
to a sudden temptation on observing so much pro-
perty exposed—and remembering that the prosecu-
tor was good enough to say he desired the prisoner
should be mercifully dealt with—he trusted that
the Recorder would, as far as was consisteut with
his public duty, pass a lenient sentence upon the
prisoner.
The Recorder—l can understand that the prose-
cutor, having got back-his money, feels no malice
against the prisoner ; but I have nothing to do
with motives or feelings of that kind. You are a
man of gentlemanly appearance and good mermen%
You get access into this Corn Exchange without, so
far as appears, having any business there ; arid I
cannot doubt that you went for the purpose, and
no other, of picking up anything you could
pos-
sibly obtain. The large amount of the moneyyou
stole is, with me, no ingredient in my decision as
to your sentence. Ido not suppose that you knew
what you had got, but I do believe that you were
roady to take anything. I think, therefore, that I
ought not to, and that I cannot with propriety,
pass a lighter sentence upon you than that you be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the gaol of
this city for one year.

The sentence was rec3ived with applause by the
occupants of the gallery, but it was soon sup-
preoed.

The prisoner is a gentlemanly-looking man, with
the appearance of being oldi,r than he is described
in the calendar (28 years). He was plainly but re-
spectably dressed, with a light overcoat closely but-
toned round the neck. Dunng the evidence he
stood with his bands stiffly beside him, and his eyes
were cbmd, except at short intervals, when he
slightly opened them and looked towards the wit
ness-lrix. He seemed scarcely conscious; but after
his counsel had spoken with him on the subjoct of
pleading guilty, h,s face flushed, and he had more
than once to wipe away tears that started to his
eyes. He heard his sentence without further
emotion.

It will be remembered that immediately after the
robbery, Mr. Thompson offered a reward of 2001.
for its recovery and the conviction of the thief ;
and as the capture was effec. ed by oue of the City
pace, the amount when paid was at the disposal
of the watch committee. The division that has
bevn made ty the wtoch committee is as fellows :
To S:rcreant Shandley, 951. ; to Mr.. T. Thorpe,
who renZied very'valuabh,, services i_, the capture,
951. ; to the sta►tion-master at Orsdal-lane, who
Pointed out the carriage into which the prisoner
had just 5/. ; divided amongst several detective
Officers, who started on the search at the same time
as Shandley, but had no part in the capture, or any-
thing tint led to it, W.—Manchester Guardian.

Th 3 oe2reaso shown in the weekly traffic return of
the Or, at Northern fZ tilway Company is 2,687/ , and
irt that of tho L9adon and North Western, 5,8631.

PRICES OF SHARES.

From the Official List.
PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVENIN.I
LONDON, TUESDAY, JAN, 5,
CANALS

858.