The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-07 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRLIIINAL COURT—Tan. 6.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron 'Martin.)
Francis Higginson, 59,. described as a seaman
was indicted for misdemeanour.
Mr. Giffard and Mr. Talfourd Salter' conducted
the prosecution.
Mr. Giffard, in opening the case, said that the
defendant was a lieutenant in her Majesty's navy,
and the complainant was Mr. Alderman Salomons,
one of the magistrates of the City of London. The
charge against the defendant was that of having,
committed an assault upon Mr. Salomons, and the
facts connected with the actual offence lay in a very
small compass, but in justice to that gentleman, and
in consequence of the course that had been taken
by the defendant, it was necessary that. he should.
state some circumstances that had taken place be-
fore the assault was committed. Upon one occas
sion when Mr. Salomons was discharging his duty
as a magistrate in the City of London, the defendant
appeared before him, and made an application for
a summons against the Atlantic Telegraph Com-
pany to recover penalties for what he alleged to be
an infringement of the provisions of the Joint
Stock Compdnies Registration Act. His applicas
tion was listened to, but it turned out that there
was ne ground whatever for it, and the defendant
was informed so, and upon this he conducted him=
pelf in such an intemperate manner that Mr. Salo:
wens found it necessary to direct that he should be
removed from the court. The defendant at first
complained of having lost a considerable sum of
money by the company, and it was supposed that
he had been a shareholder, and that he was a loser
by the failure of the scheme; but it turned
out that he had nothing whatever to do with the
company, and that the only ground he had for the
allegation—that he was a loser in connexion, with
it—was that he had made some offers of services to
the company that had not been accepted, and he
had in consequence lost the amount he should have
received if they had been, and which he appeared
to have estimated at the sum of £l,OOO. There
was a great deal of absurdity in the proceedings of
the defendant, and many persons entertained an
opinion that he was under some delusion ; but,
according to his instructions, Mr. Salomons treated
him with the utmost courtesy and kindness, and
every means were taken to satisfy him that there
was no ground for the application he had made";
but he was told, at the same time, that if he could
satisfy the, clerk, who was the legal adviser of the
magistrates, that he was entitled to a summons;
there was no objection to his having one. Nothing
more was heard of the defendant after this until
the 22d of December, when, as Mr. Solomons was
walking close to Bartholomew-lane, the defendant
rushed upon him, and committed the assault that
was the subject of the present indictment. The
facts of the case were very short, but in consequence
of the course that had been taken by the defendant
on former occasions, he felt it only due to Mr.
Alderman Salomons to say that he had no unkind
feeling against him; that all he desired was to be
protected from personal violence ; and that the
evidence would make out that he had acted through:-
out the whole matter, as every one who knew him
would expect him to do, as a gentleman and an
upright magistrate.
Mr. Abraham Cohen, brother-in-law to Alder.-
man Salomons, deposed that on the 22d of Decem-
ber he was coming out of the London and West-
minster Bank, Lothbury, in the direction of St.
Bartholomew's-lane, about half-past 3 o'clock in
the afternoon, when the defendant came up tO
him and asked if he was Mr. Alderman Salomons.
Witness told him ho was not, but that the
Alderman was in the London and Westminster
Bank. About half an hour after this witness
returned to the bank, and met Mr. Salomons coming
out, and they walked together in the direction of
the Bank of England. When they got to the cor-
ner of the street the defendant came up to Mr.
Salomons, and said something to him in an excited
tone, but he could not hear what he said. Shortly
afterwards he heard the defendant say, " What do
you mean by delusions?" and at the same instant
he raised a stick and was in the act of striking Mr.
Salomons with it, when witness seized him by the
arms and prevented him from doing further harm.
He was eventually given into custody and taken to
the police-station.
The defendant cross-examined this witness for
considerably more than an hour upon matters of all
kinds that had apparently nothing to do with the
question before the court, He appeared to wish
to show that, after he had been taken to the station
Alderman Salomons had acted as judge and accuser,
and etirected the inspector to allow him to go at
large upon his entering into his own recognisance
to appear on the following morning, and that by
this means he had acted unjustly and illegally to-
wards him, and this, and the refusal of the sum-
mons, appeared to be among the principal griev,
ances he thncied he had sustained at the hands of
Mr. Salomons.
Mr. J. Mills confirmed the evidence as to the as-
sault, and stated that he saw defendant make a sort
of snatch at Alderman Salomon's face, and when he
drew back he attempted to strike him with a stick.
After defendant was secured he heard him say that
he had intentionally assaulted the alderman, in or-
der to bring his case before the public.
This witness was also examined at great length
upon the same topics as the former.
Alderman Salomons was then examined—He
deposed that on the day in question he and Mr.
Cohen were walking together from the London and
WeStminster Bank, when the defendant walked
quickly up to him, and asked if he was Alderman
Salomons.' He told hint he was; and he then said;
" Don't You know me ? " Witness replied, "Non'
are," or, "Are you Lieut. Higginson .?" He then said;
" Yon say that I am a madman ? Witness res
plied that he had not said he was a madman, but
that he was under delusions. Defendant said;
" What do you mean by being under delusions ? ".
Witness told him he must put his own construction'
upon that, and the mgment he said this defendant
drew his hand acrosshis face and touched his nose,
and witness at the same moment raised his own arm
and struck up his hand. The defendant was then
about to strike him with his stick when Mr. Cohen,'
his brother-in-law, laid hold of him, and a polices',
man was sent for, and he was given in charge..
He did not make use of the slightest violence
towards the defendant, and merely endeavoured to
protect himself, and he did not give the defendant 1
--the, least provocation for his conduct. JJ
The alderman was cross-examined by defendant i
for nearly two hours. He admitted that lie had
told the inspector to allow the defendant to be dis-
charged upon his entering into a recognisance to
appear the next day, but he said that in doing. so
he was solely actuated by a feeling of kindness
towards the defendant and a belief that he was
acting under some false impression. The defendant
put a number of questions to show that, in his con-
nexion as shareholder with the Atlantic Telegraph
Company, he had prevented him from obtaining
the compensation to which he was entitled from
that company, and that he had been the means of
suppressing a pamphlet he had 'written-to show
that the Atlantic cable must be a failure, but the ,
alderman positively 'denied that there was any
foundation for the suggestions that were made
with regard to these matters.
Baron Martin interposed in the course of the
cross-examination, and said that three hours and a
half had been occupied in a case that really ought
not to have occupied a quarter of an hour to dispose
of, and he must request the defendant to put clues.
tions that had some reference to the matter before
the court, end not continue to inquire into subjects
that were entirely irrelevant.
The defendant, notwithstanding the remark of.
the learned judge, continued for a considerable
time longer to cross-examine Alderman Salomons,
but without eliciting a single fact that in any, way-
altered the complexion of the case.
The defendant then read a long and very well
written statement to the jury in his defence, the
effect of which was that he had patented several
important inventions, and that in 1851 he had in-
vented an electric cable to pass between the Land's-
end and New York, and the Atlantic Telegraph
Company had made use of his invention without
giving him any remuneration. It then went on to
assert that he was persecuted by the alderman on
behalf of the company, because, he had made it
publicly, known_ that the pretended telegraph in
communication between this country. and America
was a swindle, and that no message had ever been
sent through it. The defendant asserted that
he had no intention to commit any assault on
the day in question, but merely, desired to speak
to Alderman Salomons, and that he pushed him
rudely aside, and this, of course, aggravated him.
With regard to any fear of future violence, he
said it was not likely an old man like him, who
had had his leg (which he exhibited to the jury)
three times broken in the service of his country,
could be any subject of alarm to a person like Mr.
Alderman Salomons and his brother-in-laW, both
of whom were athletic men.
Baron Martin addressed a very few observations
to the jury in summing up. Ile said the only ques-
tion they had to consider was whether an assault
had been committed, and if they believed the wit-
nesses he did not see how they could return any
other verdict than the defendant was guilty of the
offence with which he was charged.
The jury, after deliberating a short time, returned
a-verdict of guilty, but strongly recommended the
defendant to mercy.
Baron Martin said the defendant had clearly

committed an assault, and the only questicon was
how to protect Alderman SalOmons from such a
proceeding in future. It was a very gross outrage
to assault a gentleman and a magistrate in such a