The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-01 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLII

?E—May 31

GUILDHALL.—Mr. Wm. Howard and his son, 1
toymen, of Barbican, appeared by arrangement to
hear the decision in the case of the South-Eastern
Railway. Company.
It will be remembered that the South-Eastern 1
Company received a parcel directed to be conveyed
by a luggage train, and delivered at the defendants'
premises, the charge for which, according to the
cp published rates of fares, was ls. 7d. On
delivering
the parcel, however, a demand was made
f
that being the charge according to the
o o mr
2 sa. n y
4d' s. ,
passenger train rates, the company having, for their
own convenience, disobeyed the instructions-on the
parcel, directing . that it should be conveyed by
" luggage van train," and the consequence was that
defendant disputed the payment, and in the struggle
which ensued to obtain possesstnn a the parcel, the
railway porter, notwithstanding he had a receipt
for the delivery of the parcel in 114 delivery book,
wishing to take it back with him, had his hand cut
with the cord round the parcel, and it was for that
assault the defendants were summoned.
Mr. Reece attended for the company.
Mr. De Jersey, for the defendants, submitted that
the summons must eventually be dismissed, inas-
much as the assault complained of was not inten-
tional, being the result of an illegal act on the part
of the railway porter. As far as the defendants
were concerned, they acted under a colour of right,
and could not therefore be convicted of the assault.
With regard to the delivery of the parcel, it was
complete, as, by the published rules of the company
they repudiated all responsibility after delivery of
parcels at the door of the consignees.
Mr. Martin (the chief clerk) said that only re-
ferred to large bales of goods.
Mr. Dc Jersey said in this case the parcel was
taken over the threshold and delivered on the
counter, and by the company's own rules that was
a delivery in every sense of the term, but when it
was backed by the receipt in the 'carman's delivery
book nothing could be stronger to prove the delivery.
Mr. Reece said this was not the first dispute the
company had had with the defendant.
Mr. De Jersey said that on the occasion referred
to the defendant paid the excessive demand.
Defendant said that was the fact, and six months
passed before he was able to get the excess back
from the company.
Sir P. Laurie said he had considered the case,
which was somewhat involved. In his opinion
there was no complete delivery by the porter. He
swore that he did not release the parcel, but kept
hold of the cord with which it was secured ; but
even if he had not retained his hold he should not
have considered it a delivery, nor that the signing
of the delivery book by Howard, jun., altered the
case. The Court must look at the case by what
was the everyday practice in such matters. When
a porter brought a parcel and tendered his book, it
was on the presumption that his proper demand
for carriage would be paid, and the lien continued
until he gave up the parcel absolutely. On the
other hand the railway company had no right to
charge any other rate for carriage than that which
was due according to the train by which the con-
signor directed the parcel to be conveyed. In this
case the consigner directed the parcel to be sent by
a goods train. The company was bound to take
notice of that direction, and if they chose to send
a parcel by a more expensive mode they had no
right to claim payment beyond a goods train rate.
He thought the company might properly withdraw
the charge of assault on Mr. Howard paying the
goods train carriage of his parcel, but if they did
not adopt his suggestion he was bound to say that
an assault in law had been committed, and he
should fine each defendant ls. and costs.
Mr. Reece said, as the alternative involved an
admission from the company that they had made a
wrong charge, he must decline withdrawing the
complaint, and rest satisfied with the conviction of
the defendants for the assault.
The defendants at first said they should appeal,
but by the advice of Mr. De Jersey they paid the
fines.

THE ALLEGED POISONING AT

RICHMOND.

•
Yesterday Mr. W. Carter, the coroner for East
Surrey, and the jury previously empannelled to in-
quire into the cause of the death of a lady named
Isabella Bankes, who died, as was alleged, from the
effects of arsenic and antimony, administered to
her in small doses by Dr. Thomas Smethurst, who
stands committed by the magistrates of Richmond
on the charge of having wilfully murdered the said
lady, resumed their investigation at the Sessions
Court, Richmond.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine again attended on behalf
of the friends of the deceased lady.
Mr. W. Odlins, a physician, and Professor of
Practical Chymistry at Guy's Hospital, said, he
assisted Dr. Taylor on the 9th and 10th May, in his
analysis of portions of the viscera of a human person.
He had no doubt that antimony was in it. Anti-
mony was produced from it. He had examined the
fluid in the bottle marked " No. 21," which con-
tained chlorate of potash with arsenic. He had
heard the evidence given by Drs. Julius, Todd,
and Taylor. From his examination of the viscera
the appearances shown were such as would be pro-
duced by poison. If arsenic had been given con-
stantly in small quantities, it would have produced
the appearances he found. The tests applied by
Dr. Taylor to discover mineral poisons were the
most proper that could have been applied. They
were the safest. Reinsch's test consisted of boiling
copper in hydro•chlorie acid.
Mr. Richard Burwell, F.R.S., and assistant-
surgeon to Charing-cross Hospital, said he resided
at 22, Burlington-street. He made a post mortem
examination of the whole body of the deceased on
the 4th of May. Mr. Palmer assisted him in the
examination, and he had heard the statement of
that gentleman. He agreed with him that there
was no chronic disease of the heart, brain, or lungs.
The inflamed state of the stomach was not of itself
sufficient to account for death. He examined the
intestines and the viscera, in which he found ulcera-
tions. They were marked throughout the.whole
extent of the intestines, but it was more striking
in the large intestines and mucous membrane.
There was no perforation, and he should say that
it had existed not less than six days, and not more
than three weeks. The inflammation he could say
nothing about. The mucous membrane was much
softened, broken down, and infused with blood, and
that state of the mucous membrane he considered
to be the cause of death. In his opinion an irri-
tant poison given frequently and in small doses
would cause such an effect. The lower part of the
small intestine was also inflamed, but in a smaller
degree than the larger one.
Mrs. Mary Smith of 4, Rifle-terrace, Bayswater,
said she kept a boarding-house. Miss Isabella
Bankes came to board with her in September last.
A person named Dr. Smethurst and his wife
boarded with her also. Miss Bankes left on the
29th of November, and on the 12th of December
Dr. Smethurst left. He never returned again to
live there. Mrs. Smethurst remained, and was
about 74 years of age. She saw Dr. Smethurst
about a fortnight after the 12th of December. She
saw his wife on that occasion. She was at present
living with her as a boarder.
Mrs. Mary Ann Grabowska, of 37, Kildare-
terrace, Bayswater, said a young lady named
Isabella Bankes came to lodge with her on the 29th
of November. She knew her as a respectable lady.
Witnes never saw Dr. Smethurst at her house, and
never saw him until he was at the station. The
deceased left on tae 11th of December last, and she
never saw her alive after.
Mr. James Spice, parish clerk of St. Mary's
Church, Battersea, was present at the marriage of
two persons calling themselves Thomas Smethurst
and Isabella Bankes. That was on the 9th of
December last. He had seen Thomas Smethurst
in custody at the second examination before this
Court on the 13th of this month. They were
married, and lie signed the register in their pre-
sence. The reaisterproduced was the one he signed.
Mr. F. B. Senior, a solicitor, said a person 'giving
his name as Dr. Smethurst called on him on the
30th of April last, and asked him if he could go
up the hill to make a will for a lady. In the course
of the interview lie showed him the paper writing
marked " H," and said, " That is what the will
is to be." Smethurst said it had been sent down
to him by a friend in London, and the lady wished
to write it herself but he thought it better to have
a professional gentleman to do it. He said he would
come for witness on the following morning, which
was Sunday, if necessary. He called about nine
o'clock and asked him to go to 10, Alma-villas, and
not be there later than ten o'clock. Witness went
awb,
hoou tt 0
oh akl
hjanslt
itneton ot; ohe ic)
tki,.l and.
as an wd Ds
ar. idS, ma
letti
ouurgs
it;
the lady awl himself were living together as maa
and wife, they
on
were not married. They then went
upstairs, and
"
going into the room he saw a lady
in bed. He said,
dear, this is the gentleman
that has come to make your will." She handed
him the paper that Dr. Smethurst had shown him
the day before, and he asked her if that was right,
and whether he might read it to her. She con-
selltc he had read it she said she wished
to leave brooch to a friend. Ile copied the will,
making
paper
was then read over to ber in Dr. Smethurst
eindg '
ft, and after
the alteration regarding the brooch. That
and Susan Wheatley s presence, and Miss Bankes
then signed it, (The will was here read, which
gave the whole of her personal property to " her
'
dear and beloved friend Thomas Smethurst, Doctor
of Medicine," and made him her sole executor. It
also left a diamond brooch to a friend of hers re-
siding in Essex.)
Mr, Robert Graham Molntyre, inspector of police