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

manner- andhe would give the defendant until the
morning to consider the matter, and to make a
declaration .that would be satisfactory to Mr. Salo-
mons that he would not repeat such con iuct.
The defendant said he was ready to oso rmw.
He should never commit such an act again.
Alderman Salomons said he hadnev entertained
the least ill feeling towards the defe ant, and so
far as he was personally concerned he had no desire
that any punishment should be inflicted. The out-
rage that had been committed upon him had very
seriously affected him at the time, and he had on
one occasion nearly lost his life by falling out of a
railway carriage, so great was the shock to him.
The defendant was putback for a shorttime, and
he was subsequently brought up, and Mr. Baron
Martin, addressing him, said that there could be no
doubt that he had committed an assault under the
feeling that he had sustained some wrong from Mr.
Salomons, for which there did not appear to be the
slightest fOundation. That :gentleman, on the con-
trary, :appeared to have acted towards him with the
greatest possible kindness, and even since his con-
viction he had expressed a desire that he should not
be punished, and all he asked for was protection
for the future. It was: a Most gross outrage upon
the feelings of a gentleman to act as he had done,
and he hoped he would. avoid doing such a thing
again. He then ordered the defendant to enter
iirto his own reccognisance in. £lOO to keep the
peace,' and also to apPear and receive judgment
upon the present indictment, if called upon to do so,
and he said that if -he remained peaceable he
should hear no more of the- matter, but if he com-
mitted any act of violence towards Mr. Salomons
he would be brought up and punished.
:The: defendant at once entered into the required
recognisances, and was discharged from custody.
-George Lelievre, a gentlemanly looking young
Man, surrendered to fake his trial for the man-
slaughter of Charles John Williams.
Mr.- Sleigh and Mr; W. A: Holdsworth were
counsel for the prosecution ; Mr. Montagu Cham-
bers, Q.C.; was specially retained, with Mr. Met-
citlfe, for the defence. . .
• The learned counsel for the prosecution said that
the inquiry the jury was about to enter into was
one of a very painful and melancholy nature. The
prisoner was a young .man very respectably con-
nected, and there could be no doubt that by his act
the unfortunate deceased, who was also in a re-

spectable position, and in the prime of life, had been
deprived of existence. 'He then proceeded to give 'a
narrative of the facts :which :have appeared very
recently, and the following evidence was then
adduced:—

Frederick Carter deposed that on the evening .of
the 31st Dec. he was in the Mile-end-road, in com-
pany with a person named Harris, about 11 o'clock.
The prisoner and another person were there also, in
a state of intoxication, and the prisoner's friend
seemed to have been on the ground. When witness
came up the prisoner asked him to assist him with
his friend, and he laid hold of his arm and walked
a short distance, when'the prisoner accused him of
picking his friend's pocket, and made a blow at
him, and he jumped into the road. The
.prisoner
followed him a short distance, and his friend fell
down, and the prisoner. returned to him, and he
went after him, and saw the deceased and the pri-
soner standing together. The prisoner asked Mr.
Williams to assist his friend, and he refused to do
so. 'the prisoner •then challenged the deceased to
come out into the road and fight, and the deceased
replied that he had better sense than to fight. The
prisoner immediately struck the deceased with his
fist three or four times; and the; deceased struck at
him again, and they had a scuffle, and both fell
down.. They got up, and the deceased walked away
towards the road, and the prisoner pulled off two
coats •and • went after - Mr: Williams again, and
struck hini three or four times about the head, and
they again fell down, and the deceased could not
get up. He was picked.up, and some persons were
carrying him across the road,.when the prisoner
followed, and was in the act of striking at him
again; when witness's • companion, Harris, threw
somestones at him, and they hit him on the back
of the lead. The deceased was perfectly sober.
• Cross-examined—Witness was-first asked to assist
the prisoner's friend, and he did sd, and walked
with him about ten yards before, he was accused of
picking his pocket. Witness ran away, and the pri-
soner followed him a short distance and then returned
to his friend. At this time deceased came up and the
first thing he heard was the prisoner ask him to
assist him with. his friend, and when he refused, .a'
word or two passed bet3veert them, but he could not
tell what the words were, and immediately after-
wards.tho prisoner challenged the deceased to fight.
There .might have been. 20 persons present at this
time, and some hooting:andlaughing was going on
at:the prisoner and his .drunken. friend. The de-
ceased was a more powerful man than the prisoner
—he was a tall strong man: He did not- r...ee him
do anything to protect himself -when the prisoner
struck' him.
;Re-xarained—Deceased did not make any resist-
ance to the attack made upon him by the prisoner.
Wm.. Harris, the person who •was in company
with the last witness confirmed his evidence as to
the condition of the prisoner and the deceased. He
also said that he saw the deceased coive up, and the
prisoner asked him to assist his friend and lie re-
fused and they had a few words, and the prisoner
challenged the deceased to fight, and the deceased
replied that he had too much good sense to do that,
and the prisoner struck him immediately and they
both fell. He did not see the deceased endeavour
to return the violence in any manner, and he did
not say or do anything. offensive to the prisoner.
The deceaged was undermo3t when they fell, and
he was unable to get up, and some men assisted
him across the road, and he was conveyed to the
hospital.
Cross-examined.—A good many people were
standing about the nrisoner and his friend. When
Carter left hold of the prisoner's companion he fell
down.. He was so drunk that he could not stand
on his legs. The deceased and the prisoner scuffled
together, and fell off the. pavement into the road, .
Witness threw some stones at the prisoner as he
was following the deceased, apparently with the'
intention of striking him. •They were only small
stones that he threw at him.' •
41m. Roper, a police-Oonstable, deposed that he
was in, the Mile-end-road at the time in question,
and heard a cry of " Police,".and on going to the
spot he found the prisoner with. a drunken
man. He was told that he had assaulted a man who
wOi on:the opposite side;of the road, and he took
the. prisoner across, and .the deceased gave him in
charge for injuring his leg. He observed blood at
the• bottom of the trousers of the - deceased at this
time. •

Cross-examined—Witness told the prisoner after-
wards that the deceased's leg was broken, and it
might cost him his life, and he replied, " My Gad,
you don't say so. I hope not ;" and appeared very
much affected.
Mr. E. Simmons said that he .was present at the
coroner's inquest, but was not examined. He saw
the occurrence, and heard an altercation take place
between the prisoner and the deceased, and when
the former asked him to fight, he replied, " You are
a fool.", . . . .
Mr. Hill, house surgeon at the Londou Hospital,
• proved that the deceased had sustained a compound
-dislocation of the ankle joint, und the smaller bone
.of the leg was also fra4ured. A portion of the
:broken hone. was removed and the deceased was
.under his care until the 25th. of December, when
•he died • from mortification of the leg, resulting
•from the injury he had received. •
Mr. Montagu ChamberS made a very able specolia
.to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and said it
„appeared 'to him that the unfortunate occurrence
'-was-of that character described by ancient writers
-as chancumedley, and that it did nut amount to
manslaughter. He then- remarked upon the cir-
cumstances of the case, and said there could be no
doubt.that the prisoner was somewhat the worse
for liquor, although not so bad as his friend, and
that they were surrounded by a number of people,
who were acting in a manner that was very.likely
to have excited the prisoner still more. He shoUld
be very sorry to say a single word to the disparage-
ment of the unfortunate gentleman who had lest
his life, but he could not help saying that it would
only have been an act of kindness on his part if he
had :assisted the prisoner in the condition in which
he was placed with his friend„in such a helplessly
drunken/ state, but instead of doing that he had
no doubt irritated him still more by calling him
'u fool. •He then urged that there could be
no doubt that a scuffle took place
.between them,
and .that-the' melancholy.result was to a great ex-
tent. to be attributed to. accident. _ The learned

counsel concluded by stating that whatever might
be the result of the present inquiry, the melancholy
occurrence would be the source of dgep and bitter
regret to the prisoner for the remainder of his
existence. •
A great many most respectable witnesses were
then examined, who gave the prisoner the character
of a kind-hearted, humane young man. They also
stated that he was remarkably abstemious on ordi-
nary occasions, and was not at all addicted to
violent conduct

...
Mr. Baron Martin summed up, and the jury, after
a short deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty.
The learned judge, in passing sentence, said that
the jury had' found the prisoner guilty of causing
the death of Mr, Williams by an illegal act, and
they could not have come to any other conclusion
upon the evidence before them. There was no
doubt at: the same time, however, that he never
contemplated causing the death of he deceased, and
the thing would not have. occurred if he had been
sober. He could not pass over such an offence,
however, without punishment; and the sentence he