The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-21 00:00:00

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, March 19.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
William Hills, Joseph Hills, and Alfred Burr
surrendered to take their trial upon a charge of
stealing 12 gallons of stout, the property of Messrs.
Truman, Hanbury, and Co., the brewers.
The prisoners were all found guilty, and Wil-
liam Hills was sentenced to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for eight months, and the other
two prisoners for six months each.
Mr. George Philip Richardson, who has for
several years filled the office of surveyor of the
highways for the Sevenoaks district, surrendered
to take his trial on an indictment which charged
him with having obtained a large quantity of
broken stones and gravel, the property of the late
Dowager Countess of Amherst, by false pretences.
There was also a second indictment against the
prisoner charging him with larcency in stealing
materials of the same description, the property of
the trustees.
Mr. G. Denman and Mr. Digby conducted the
prosecution on behalf of the trustees of the roads;
Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Poland were counsel
for the prisoner.
The first indictment that was proceededwith was
the charge of obtaining a quantity of stones and
gravel by means of false pretences, and it appeared
from the opening statement of the learned counsel
for the prosecution that the prisoner had unlimited
authority to order any quantity of materials that he
considered necessary for the repair of the roads, and
that he was in the habit of obtaining them from a
quarry called the White Quarry, and also from one
called the High Cross Quarry. The custom ap
peared to be for the prisoner to send an order for a
certain quantity of stone or gravel, and the account
was sent in at regular periods to the trustees, and.
the allegation against the prisoner was that he had
ordered larger quantities of the materials than were
required for the purposes of the roads, and that he
sold the excess to other parties on his private ac-
count and retained the money, the trustees having
to pay, of course, for the whole amount that has
been supplied.
Sergeant Ballantine, upon these facts, submitted
that the charge of false pretences clearly could not
be made out, as the prisoner had full authority to
order any quantity of materials that he pleased,
and no false pretence whatever was made use of by
him to obtain possession of the property.
Mr. Justice Wightman, after hearing Mr. Den-
man in support of the indictment, expressed his
opinion that, upon the facts stated, a charge of ob-
taining the property by false pretences could not
be supported.
The jury therefore returned a verdict of not
guilty.
The prisoner was then arraigned upon the second
indictment, which charged him with larceny in
stealing a quantity of gravel and broken stone, the
property of the trustees.
The same learned counsel were engaged for the
prosecution and the defence.
The circumstances under which the charge was
preferred were pretty similar to those relating to
the former case, and the allegations on the part of
the prosecution appeared to be, that from the year
1856 down to the year 1858 the prisoner had been
in the habit of obtaining larger quantities of mate-
rials from the White Quarry than were required
for the purposes of the roads, and that he applied
the excess to his private use. A gentleman named
Sperling, a magistrate for the county, and also one
of the trustees of the roads of which prisoner was
the surveyor, proved that in the beginning of the
year 1857 he employed the prisoner to purchase a
quantity of broken stones and gravel for him,
and he did so, and sent in a bill in his own name
for the amount, which he paid him, and it ap-
peared that the trustees afterwards paid for them
in their account. It transpired in the course of
the case that the prisoner's father had filled
the.same office as himself for more than 30 years,
and that the prisoner bore a high character, and it
was also admitted that in many of the instances the
excess of the materials had been charged to the pri-
soner as being for his private use. It also appeared
that Mr. Carnell, the solicitor and clerk to the
trustees, had some conversation with the prisoner
in reference to the transactions complained of, when
he admitted that all the stone he had ordered had
not been used for the roads, and that the amount of
such stone and other materials was about £l5O, and
he considered he was indebted to the trustees for
that sum ; he paid £53 17s. on account of the sup-
posed deficiency, and Mr. Carnell gave him a receipt
for the money on account. It likewise appeared
that these charges had been investigated by the
magistrates of the district, and that they were dis-
L missed by them.
Sergeant Ballantine made a most earnest and
eloquent appeal to the jury on behalf of the prisoner,
who, he said, had borne a high and unblemished
character down to the period of these transactions.
He then proceeded to argue that the evidence had
altogether failed in establishing anything like a
felonious intention on the part of the prisoner, and
that the utmost that had been proved was that
stones and gravel which ought to have been paid
for by the prisoner had, by mistake, been charged
to the trustees ; and he put it to the jury whether
Mr. Carnell, who was a solicitor, and of course well
acquainted with the law, would have treated the
matter as a debt if he thought that the transaction
contained any of the ingredients of a felony.
Mr. Justice Wightman having summed up, the
jury immediately returned a verdict finding the
prisoner not guilty, and his lordship ordered him
to be immediately discharged.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—EXETER, March 19.
MK PERTS COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Crowder and a Special Jury.)
GILLHAM V. NEWTON.
Mr. Montague Smith and Mr. Coleridge were for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Collier, Mr. Kingdon, and
Mr. Turner for the defendant.
This was an issue directed by the Court of Chan-
cery to try whether a will purporting to have been
made by Mrs. Elizabeth Newton on the 7th of
January, 1857, was the last will and testament of
Mrs Newton. The plaintiff was the nephew of
Mrs. Newton, and the defendant, John Newton,
was her husband. It appeared that Mrs. Newton
married the defendant in 1829. She had some
property which was settled on her, but she reserved
to herself the power of disposing of it by will, and.
she immediately afterwards made her will, dated
in August, 1829, by which she devised the whole
of her property to her husband, the defendant. It
seemed, however, that the marriage was an un-
happy one. They raised a sum of money on mort-
gage and built an inn, which they kept, and the
husband took to drinking and profligate company,
and this led to misery and ruin, and the husband.
was obliged to take the benefit of the Insolvent
Act. According to the plaintiff's case the wife
determined to make another will, declaring that
her husband should not spend all her money, but
that her own family should have it. A Mr. Par-
rott, of Totness had been Mrs. Newton's solicitor,
and in the month of January, 1857, her husband
having gone to Exeter for two or three days to at-
tend on a jury, Mrs. Newton sent for Mr. Parrott
and told him she wished to make a new will and
gave him instructions to prepare one, desiring him
to bring it the next day, so that she might execute
it before her husband's return from Exeter. Mr.
Parrott having taken the instructions went home
and prepared the will, and the next day he took it
to Mrs. Newton. There then arose a question
about witnesses to the will, as she did not wish any
one in the house to know anything about it, as she
feared her husband. She suggested that Mrs. Par-
rott should be a witness, but as she was ill her sis-
ter, Miss Rowland, was brought for that purpose.
Mrs. Newton was an illiterate woman and could not I
write her name, Mr. Parrott told her to make a
cross, but she said she had crosses enough through
life and she would not make one, but would make a
mark like her mother did, and she accordingly put
the letter A, and the witnesses put their names to
the attestation. By the will she gave a small part
of the property to her husband, the defendant,
but the greater part to her nephew, the plaintiff,
and to her niece and. other relatives. After the
execution of the will she desired Mr. Parrot to take
the will home with him, saying that if she had it in
her house her husband would destroy it. Mr. Par-
rott accordingly took it home. Mrs. Newton wars
soon afterwards taken ill. She told her husband
not to have her will read till after the funeral, as if
he did he would kick her coffin out of doors, She
died on the 20th of March, 1857. The funeral. took
place on the 25th of March, and after that Mr.
Parrott told Newton of tb e will. Newton. became
much excited, and at last he pulled off hips coat, put
himself in a fighting attitude, and dror, e Mr. Par-
rott out of the house. Subsequently to this a will
was produc'A by the defendant, by v:hich the whole
of the p.l.operty was given to the defendant. This
Win was dated two days before the death of Mrs.
Newton. The question was, waich of these wills
was a genuine one, the defendant's case being that
this last was genuine.
Many witnesses were examined on both sides,
the defendant and the witnesses to the last will
swearing most positively as to its execution. On
the plaintiff's side the witnesses swore that the, de-
fendant was always drunk, and lived on bad term;
with his wife, while many persons were called by
the defendant, and swore that he never got drunk,
and that the husband and wife lived most happilyl
together.
After hearing the defendant's evidence,
The jury said they were prepared. to give their