The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-15 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CROYDON, Aug 13.
The business of these assizes proceeds very slowly,
and nearly as many causes are referred or disposed of
out of court as are tried. But for this, the cause list
could not have been got through in less than three
weeks or a month.

(Before Mr. Justice Crowder and a Special Jury.)

BAKER v. GARRATT.

This was an action brought by plaintiff to recover
damages for an assault and false imprisonment.
Mr. Lush. Q.C., and Mr. Garth were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr.
Raymond appeared for the defendant.
.. .

This cause was commenced on Friday afternoon,
and was adjourned until to-day, and occupied the
Court for several hours, but the facts were in a
small compass. The action arose out of the acci-
dental burning of the Eastern 'Monarch troop-ship
at Spithead in June last, on which occasion that
vessel was almost destroyed. The defendant, who
is the agent to Lloyd's, and alsa acted on behalf of
Messrs. Soames and Co., the owners, took measures
to preserve what property remained on board the
wreck after the fire had been extinguished, and he
employed the plaintiff, who is a waterman, belong-
ing to Portsmouth, and several other men, to re-
move different articlesfrom the ship and put them in
a place of safety, and they were so engaged for a day
or two, when, in consequence of information received
that some persons were stealing copper and other
property from the ship, orders were given that the
vessel should be cleared of all persons who were
about her. The plaintiff and his companions refused
to leave, and the police authorities of Portsmouth
were applied to ; they at first declined to interfere,
and a lieutenant of marines, with some of his men,
went on board the Eastern Monarch, and, according
to the case for the plaintiff, the defendant ordered
him and his companions to be taken into custody,
and they were removed to the flag-ship, the
Victory, and were subsequently taken be-
fore a magistrate, when they were at once dismissed,
no charge of any kind being preferred against them.
This was the false imprisonment for which the
plaintiff claimed compensation ; but the defendant,
on being examined, swore that the only orders he
gave were that the men should be removed from
the vessel, and that he never intended to give them
into custody, and that they were taken to the Vic-
tory without his sanction. It also appeared from
the evidence of Mr. Chase, the superintendent of
police at Portsmouth, a very useful and intelligent
officer, that, upon hearing that plaintiff and his
companions were on board the Victory, he sent a
sergeant to bring them ashore, and they were
merely formally taken before a magistrate to be
discharged.

Mr. Justice Crowder having summed up the
whole of the evidence, the jury, af;er a short deli-
beration, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, £lO.
BURNETT V. GARRATT, MAINE V. GARRATT, AND

CIIILNESS V. GARRATT.
These were all similar actions, arising out of the
same trans•iction, and it was arranged that the same
verdict should be taken in each case.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, AUG. 13.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
THE DURSLEY MURDER.
Ellen Rutter was charged with felonionsly, wil-
fully, and of her malice aforethought, killing and
murdering Thomas Rutter, her husband, at Dursley,
on the 7th of August, in this year.
The prisoner, who displayed no emotion, is a
short and slightly-made woman, apparently about
26 years of age. She pleaded " Not Guilty," in a
hold tone.

Mr. Cripps and Mr. Sawyer for the prosecution ;
Mr. W. H. Cooke defended the prisoner at the re-
quest of the judge.
Mr. Cripps having stated the case, the following
witnesses were called :

Thos. Rutter—l am 13 years old. I was sleeping
at my grandfather's house last Saturday night, but
before I went my father gave me some money to
fetch some meat. My step-mother, the prisoner,
met me and took the money from me, and blowed
up my father, and asked him why she could not be
trusted with the money. When I went away for the
night, I shut the door of my father's house, but did
not lock it.. The key was in the lock inside. They
were in the habit of quarrelling, and on one occa-
sion prisoner broke a pane of glass in the kitchen
window, operv.2d it, and got into the house by that
means. The razor shown me before the coroner
was one my father was in the habit of using.
Cross-examined—Father used to beat her very
badly. My bedroom was over theirs, and she has
several times come up to sleep with me when they
had been quarrelling. The day before this happened
she came up ; on the Friday night. My father came
up and dragged her out of my bed, cursed her, and
made her go down stairs. He used to turn her out
at night in her petticoat, but not lately. He came
home late at night, generally tipsy. Have heard him

v ,*1
tntrdaten to cut her throat. On the Friday night
he said; is she did not go out of doors, and take her
things, he would burn them. Father had been
drinking all day on Saturday.
By the Judge—l never heard him say he would
blow her 'Grains out. [Before the coroner the boy
said he had heard his father use such an expres-
sion.] lam sure I did not say so. He kept no
sort of fire-arms in the house.

Thomas Wood—On Saturday night last I saw
deceased ttn. prisoner quarrelling about some
money, and he struck and kicked her several times.
They often quarrelled.
Cross-examined—l had seen him beat her fre-
quently. Deceased used to quarrel with his first
wife, but never beat her.

Samuel Greenwood, engine-driver—Saw the de-
ceased at the Star Inn, Dursley, on Saturday last.
Saw the prisoner in the tap-room at nine o'clock.
She gave a pipe-light to a strange man, and her
husband pushed her by the neck into a seat, and.
said," Thee bea'nt a going to be servant to ,every-
body. If you want beer, I've got plenty, and you
need not drink with other people." She would not
drink with her husband. I advised her to be
quiet, and gave her some of my beer.
Cross-examined—I was not asked until yester-
day to be a witness. Rutter drank cider, and the
woman said she would not drink it.
Maria Wood—l live at Dursley, and was at the
Star at half-past nine on Saturday night. Rutter
struck prisoner, and told her to drink with nobody
but himself. I advised her net to make a disturb-
ance, but she squeezed my hand very tightly, and
said, " You don't know how he has been kicking
of me."

John Bowyer, landlord of the Star, heard pri-
soner threaten her husband for beating her.
Cross•examined—She said, " You are always
striking me slily, but never openly. She said she
could not drink cider, because it made her bowels
ache. That was when her husband offered her some
to drink.

Sydney Wood—When they were quarrelling I
tried to soothe the woman. She said, " I will cut
his throat. It is no use for you nor 20 people to
talk to me. You do not know what I have got on
my mind." I told her not to talk such nonsense,
but make it up like I and my wife did. Rutter
left the house about 11 o'clock. Before then pri-
soner drank with a man named Cox, and deceased
talked about it. He said " Cox, I'll give thee half
a crown to take her altogether." He pulled a
half•crown from his pocket. Cox said, " I'll be
if I don't give thee half a crown for her, but
we must be churched first." Prisoner left the
house about half-past 11 o'clock. I walked with
her as far as my house, and told my wife to go on
home with her.

John Handcock—l am a labourer, living in Bol-
ton-lane, about 100 yards from deceased's house.
He had been married to his present wife about seven
years. On Sunday morning, about half-past one,
the prisoner came to my house. My wife and son
George was there. Prisoner said" Charlotte, come
up to our house. I think Tom will bleed himself
to death." She held up her left hand and said,
" See how he has served me." She then went
away, and I noticed that there was blood on her
left arm. My wife lighted a candle and we all
went to Rutter's house. Prisoner asked us to go
up stairs where she was. My son and I went up,
and I saw a great quantity of blood on the floor.
Rutter was lying on the left side of the bed, and
the bed-clothes were smooth over him up to the
throat. Prisoner was lying on the bed, with her
feet hanging over the left side. Rutter's hands
were outside the bed-clothes, down by his sides.
There was no blood on his hands. I said to pri-
soner, " Ellen, however in the world did this come
about ?" She said, " I did it, John." A surgeon
was sent for. I saw a razor under the pillow, just
visble, seven or eight inches from the head.
George Handcock, son of last witness, gave simi-
lar evidence. The body was lying on the left side
of the bed. Rutter was not dead when we went
in, but he never moved hand nor foot. Prisoner
was sitting on the side of the bed, close against the
door, leaning over his face, with her face nearly
close to his. She said, "My poor Tom is dying."
My father said, " Lord, Ellen, how did this come
about ?" She said, " I done it, John." Saw my
father take a razor from under the pillow, on the
side farthest from the door. The razor was shut up.
Elizabeth Hanks—l live about 60 yards from
deceased's house. Half an hour after midnight on
Saturday night, I heard Rutter kicking at his door.
He was quarrelling. In about an hour afterwards
I heard the prisoner say, "He is dying, for every
drop of blood is running from his body." I and
my husband went up to the room. Prisoner was
lying over her husband's body, holding a pillow to
his bleeding throat. I said, " Oh, Ellen, who has
been and done this ?" She answered, " Why, I did
it." She moved the pillow, and said, " Look here,"
and I saw a gash in his throat. There was no blood
on his hands.

Cross-examined—The deceased was lying partly
on his left side and partly on his back. I do not
know whether there was a pillow under his head
besides the one she was holding to his neck.
George Leonard, a surgeon, practising at Durs-
ley, described the nature of the wound, and said
deceased could not have inflicted it himself.
Some additional evidence was given to show that
the prisoner had admitted having committed the
deed.

This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Cooke, for the defence, pleaded that the pri-
soner was urged to the commission of the act by
a renewal of the brutal conduct of the deceased,
and that the homicide was done under circum-
stances of great provocation, and without premedi-
tation, she being at the time in fear and danger of
her life.

The Judge summed up with great minuteness,
but unfavourably to the prisoner.

The jury retired to deliberate, and after a quar-
ter of an hour's absence, found a verdict of guilty
of wilful murder.

The Judge put on the black cap, and addressed
the prisoner as follows :—" Ellen Rutter, after a
Patient investigation, the jury have convicted you
of the crime of wilful murder—of murder in its
most aggravated form. I cannot doubt upon this
evidence, that you stole to your husband's bed-
side in the,,dead of the night, and cut his throat
with that razor. It was a murder which our ancient
law was not content with calling a murder, but
called it treason. I will not prolong the agony of
an unhappy woman, exposed to the gaze of this
court, I only implore you to pay attention to those
re.igious instructions which you will receive, and
which alone will enable you to meet your impend-
ing fate with any degree of resignation." His lord-
ship then passed sentence of death in the usual
form.

The prisoner showed no sign of emotion, but pre-
served the same ealM demeanour she had main-
tained from the beginning of the trial.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-Aug. 12.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Mr. Wm. Ray, owner of
the ship Justin, was summoned for refusing to pay
to Mr. Charles Oppenheim the sum of £44 7s. Bd.,
claimed by him for wages due as master of the said
ship.
Mr. nobler appeared for the complainant; Mr.
Sleigh for the defendant.
The ease was one to which the Lord Mayor de-
voted a considerable amount of time and attention;
the proceedings, which were now finally brought
to a close, having twice previously occupied the
Court. •

On the 31st of March last the complainant was en-
gaged by the defendant as master of the Justin for a
voyage from London to Newport, where the vessel
was to take in coals
on Government account, and
thence to Hong Kong and back to England—the
agreement, however, being merely verbal—at £l4
per month. The vessel sailed from Gravesend, in
April, for Newport, but was compelled to put into
Fahnouth by stress of weather, and owing to the
state of the ship during the voyage complainant
came to the conclusion that it would be dangerous
to attempt to reach Newport unless he had more
ballast. In this opinion he was confirmed by the
plot as well as by a surveyor whom he called in to
inspect the ship, and he therefore telegraphed to
the defendant that he must send money or credit
for ballast, or otherwise the ship must be detained
until the weather was moderate and the wind quite
fair. In reply to this he received a telegram stating
that no more ballast would be allowed, and that he
must proceed to NeNN port forthwith. A second
telegram which he sent met with the same response,
and then he sent a third, peremptorily demanding
more ballast, and concluding, " if dissatisfied, send
another captain." Defendant, taking him at his
word, did send another captain, but upon his
arrival at Falmouth complaina:.t refused to give up
the ship, and, as the wind then became quite fair,
took the ship round to Newport, leaving the new
captain behind. At Newport the owner himself
went on board the vessel, made several payments to
complainant upon behalf of the vessel, and finally
installed the new captain on the Ist of June, when
complainant quietly gave up possession and re-
turned to London without, according to his own
account, having received one farthing as wages, or
anything like a regular discharge. The amount
of his claim he made up by charging wages for
about 10 weeks, board wages for a period during
which the vessel was lyinc, in dock without having
provisions on board, and. some smaller items of a
similar description.
In bar to his claim, Mr. Sleigh first argued that
as be had entered upon a contract to take the ship
to Hong Kong and bring her back, and had broken

that contract by discharging himself at Falmouth,
he could not, according to the ordinary law of con-
tract, recover any portion of his demand, but
The Lord Mayor objected to this as being essen-
tially unjust in such a case, and
Mr. Oke (acting as chief clerk in the absence of
Mr. Goodman) put before the court a recent case, in
which it was decided that the captain of a merchant
vessel engaged at monthly wages was entitled to
recover month by month ; and that no after breach
of contract on his part could invalidate his claim
for months already expired. With this authority
before him his lordship overruled Mr. Sleigh's ob-
jection, and that gentleman theu endeavoured to
show that complainant could only claim to have
been captain up to the date of his telegram from
Falmouth, "If dissatisfied, send another captain,"
and the immediate arrival of a captain to supersede
him. The Lord Mayor, however, decided that
complainant was, both de facto and de jure, captain
until the moment when his successor was installed
and he gave up his possession of the ship at New-
port ; and Mr. Sleigh then endeavoured to oust the
jurisdiction of the Court by pleading that com-
plainant, on the general account of the ship, had
received a larger sum from defendant than his
claim for wages amounted to, and therefore he
(Mr. Sleigh) was entitled to make the whe.e case a
mere question of account, into which the Court had
no power to enter, as the power to sue before a
magistrate given by the act was restricted to wages
only.

Both parties were prepared with statements of
account, but the Lord Mayor declined to go into
matters which did not touch the question of wages ;
and as Mr. Sleigh was not in a position to prove
by positive evidence that complainant, either speci-
fically or generally, had received an amount to
cover his claim for wages as well as his disburse-
ments for ship's charges, his lordship ordered im-
mediate payment to complainant of £2B 9s. 4d. for
wages (being two months and a day) and £3 ss.
costs, leaving the claim for board wages and
other items to be settled by arbitration, or in an-
other court, as the parties might decide.
Mr. Philip Carsting, poulterer and dealer in
game, Leadenhall-market, was summoned, upon the
information of Mark Loome, for having, on the 4th
of August, unlawfully in his possession six live
pheasants and six live partridges after the expira-
tion of ten days from the Ist of February.
Mr. Orridge, in opening the case, said he ap-
peared on behalf of the Association for the Preven-
tion of the Sale of Game out of Season, as it had
been established for the purpose of putting an end
to the offence with which the defendant was charged,
and for which under the Ist and 2d William IV.,
chap. 32, he was liable to a penalty of £1 for each
bird found in his possession. The learned gentle-
man then read the 3d and 4th sections of the Act,
which recite that any person who shall knowingly
have in his possession or contract any game out of
season, except in a mews or breeding place, should
be liable to the penalty; and he then called Mark
Loome, a superannuated detective, who deposed
that he was now in the employment of the society,
and that on the 4th inst. he went into the de-
fendant's shop on pretence of looking at some fowls,
and saw there a basket containing six live phea-
sants and six live partridges, the basket being then
addressed to the defendant. Afterwards he saw
the basket covered with calico and conveyed by a
porter to the South-Eastern Railway station, where
he again inspected it, and found that it still con-
tained the pheasants and partridges. The original
address had then been removed, and a new one put
upon it, " Gurney, Esq., Nutfield, Redhill."
Mr. Butt, for the defence, contended that his
client, being a licensed dealer in game, was entitled
to sell live birds, which had been kept for that pur-
pose, and that there was no difference, legally, be-
tween a " basket" such as that in which the birds
were seen by the witnesses, and a " mews" as ex-
cepted by the Act. At the same time the case was
the first of the kind which had been brought for-
ward in the city, and it was important that the
question should be decided as a point of law, as a
guide to tradesmen who had for years been in the
habit of selling live game.
The Lord Mayor said he had no doubt the de-
fendant had rendered himself liable to the p?nalties
of the Act, and ordered him to pay 125., being ls.
for each bird, and 2s. for the summons.