The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY

LAW INTELLIGENCE,This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Justices
Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush.)

THE QUEEN V. WINSOR, THE WHOLESALE MURDERESS.
This case came on for argunient to-day before
their lordships. It will be recollected that the pri-
soner was put on her trial at the assize held at
Exeter charged with wilfully murdering the illegiti-
mate child of another woman. It was stated at the
trial that the offence with which the prisoner was
charged was not a solitary instance of her wicked-
ness, but that, on the contrary, other cases were
ready to be proved against her. The trial was con-
chided, and after the learned judge had summed up
the case, the jury retired to consider their verdict.
They remained locked up for a considerable- time,
as they were unable toagree, and, after vainly endea-
vouring to arrive at an unanimous opinion, returned
into court and stated thatit was impossible for them
to agree. They were told they must be of one mind
before they could be discharged, and accordingly
they were again locked up, and so remained until
12 o'clock at night. It being just on the verge of
Sunday morning the judge was informed there was
no likelihood of the jury agreeing, and he ordered
them into court and discharged them without giving a
verdict. She was again put upon her trial for the
same offence, and the mother of the child, who had
been in the former case indicted with her, was on
this occasion examined as a witness, and a verdict
of guilty was returned, and the prisoner sentenced
to death. •

The counsel for the prisoner, Mr. Folkard, con-
tended that it was against the law to place the
prisoner in peril twice for the same offence ; that
therefore the second trial was illegal, and that the
prisoner ought to be acquitted. The motion was
ordered to be argued before the judges at West-
minster, and this morning the learned counsel ap-
peared before their lordships to argue the case. He
went at great len,gth into the authorities bearing on
the case, and contended that the judge had no
power to dismiss a jury in a trial for murder with-
out returning a verdict, and that having been done,
the prisoner was entitled to her acquittal.
The Lord Chief Justice asked, supposing the
court-house was on fire, whether a judge would
then have power to dismiss a jury without a verdict,
or whether they were to be burnt to death rather
than be discharged ?
Mr. Folkard said he apprehended the sheriff
ought to take charge of them before such an even-
tuality arose.

The Lord Chief Justice asked where that officer
was to put them—where were they to go to?
Mr. Folkard thought the proper course would be
to adjourn the case, or else that the sheriff should
provide for them, as was the case at the Old Bailey.
Tho arguments in the case seem likely to extend
over the day.

The condemned woman Winsor was in ccurt
in custody of the wardress of the prison in which
she was confined, and sat in a corner of the court
with her eyes cast on the ground, from which she
never during the whole of the morning once raised
them. She appears to be a person of about 50 years
of age, with features of a very ordinary description.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Byles
and a Common Jury.)
FINCH V. AITKEN.

This was an action by the plaintiff, a miller and
discounter of bills, for a sum of £6O, the amount of
a bill of exchange accepted by a person named Con-
way, and drawn by the defendant, who is a
lodginghouse-keeper, living at No. 5, Park-street,
Grosvenor-square, and who pleaded that he had
received no notice that the bill was dishonoured.
Mr. J. O. Griffiths was counsel for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Quain for the defendant.

For the plaintiff it was deposed that when the
bill Caine to maturity on the 20th November last,
he wrote a notice of its being dishonoured, which
was addressed to the defendant, and posted by his
5011.

Mr. Aitken, in the course of his evidence, stated
that he bad been nine years a butler in the service
of Dr. Temple, headmaster of Rugby School, and
that Mr. Conway was a tailor and outfitter at Not-
ting-hill. It was arranged of the plaintiff's house
that the defendant should be the drawer of a bill
of exchange, and he swore most positively that
no letter from Fenil, dated the 20th November,
had been delivered at his house. This evidence
was corroborated by the groom of a lodger in the

nuse.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
ainages £6O.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
IN TIIE GOOD OF D. A. REED.—JUDGMENT.
His Lordship delivered judgment in this curious
case, which was tried last week, and presented a
point upon which no precedent existed.
It was an application for probate of a document exe-
cuted by David Alexander Reed, at atime when he was
domiciled in Scotland, and one day before his mar-
riage. The document was in the form of a marriage
settlement, but was intended by the testator to operate
as a will, which was perfectly legal according to
Scotch law, although contrary to the law of Eng-
land. Some years subsequent to the marriage he
removed with his wife to this country, where he
died, and the question was whether, having become
a domiciled Englishman, his will should not have
been made in conformity with English law.
His lordship said that, except for certain statutory
enactments, the will would be invalid ; but in his
opinion, according to Lord Kingsdown's Act, unless
there were some act revoking the will, the mere
change of domicile did not vitiate it. He must,
therefore, decree probate of the will.