The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON FRIDAY EVE

of rifle volunteers at Bradford. A third company is
in course of tirmation, and the expectation is held
out that there will soon be a fourth company, when
the corps will be entitled tb receive a major and
adjutant frOm the authorities of the War Depart-
ment.

BURLINGTON.
The movement for the forraation of a corps of
v6luntcer artillery, to be called the East York Artil-
lery, goes on well' here. Upwards of 80, the fUll
complement for a company, have given in their
names.

CAMELFORD.
A meeting has been held at. Camelford at which
it was agreed to form a rifle corps within the hun-
dred of Lesnewth.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENOR.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YouN., Dec. 14.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
Frederick Holmes Johnson, aged 23, was indicted
for, the manslaughter of John Fletcher at the
borough of Leeds, on the 14th of November last.
Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Bruce prosecuted.; the
prisoner was undefended, but after one or two
witnesses had been examined, his Lordship passed
the depositions to Mr. Campbell Foster, and re-
quested the learned counsel to defend the prisoner.
The circumstances of this case were such as to
involve the inquiry in very considerable difficulty.
The only witnesses who could speak with certainty
to the cause of the death of the deceased were the
'prisoner himself, his mother, Mrs. Johnson (with,
whom the prisoner resided, and who kept a brothel
in Templar-street, Leeds), a girl of the town called
Rhodes, who lived at Mrs. Johnson's, and another
unfortunate girl who Was there with the deceased
on the night of the occurrence. All these (includ-
ing the prisoner himself) had been examined before
the coroner, and their statements were extremely
contradictory and inconsistent. So suspicious, in-
deed, were the jury with regard to the evidence
that, as will be seen, they refused to believe them
on the one point on which they.all agreed.
According to the evidence it appeared that the
deceased left his house on the morning of the 14th
of November quite well ; his course during the
day was not traced ; but in the evening he was
found, partially intoxicated, at the Templar
publichouse, in Templar-street. Annie Green, a
girl of the town, brought him, shortly after 12
o'clock, from the tavern to Mrs. Johnson's. The
deceased was then asked to provide drink for those
present, Mrs: Johnson, Annie Green, Elizabeth
Rhodes, and. prisoner. He refused, and then pri-
soner took him by the shoulders, lifted him out of
his chair, and turned him out of the front door,
which the prisoner then closed. Five minutes after-
wards the deceased was found lying senseless at
the door. Prisoner brought him in and laid him
" half on the carpet and half on the hearthrug,"
where he lay all night before the fire. They did not
seem, according to their own account, to have sus-
pected that he was hurt, and he was believed to be
only drunk ; but in the morning Rhodes took him
home in a cab. He was examined that afternoon by
a surgeon, who found on the left side of his head a
large fracture of the skull, and another distinct
bruise over the right eye. He died the same day
from pressure on the brain resulting from the frac-

ture. •
The widow of deceased was called to prove that
her husband was brought 'home insensible and with
empty pockets. Hawksworth, a waiter at the Tem-
plar Inn, spoke to having seen the deceased in com-
pany with Rhodes and another girl of the town
about 12 the night before. Annie Green, Elizabeth
Rhodes, and Mrs. Johnson gave accounts of what
took place at Mrs. Johnson's, which agreed pretty
well together. Caroline Bennett, a neighbour, spoke
to hearing a great quarrelling at Mrs. Johnson's
backdoor at 12 at night. Mr. Brass, also a neigh-
bour, severe that he heard a great disturbance in
Johnson's house shortly after 12 o'clock that night,
throwing about chairs, and a fall as of a table
knocked over, and male and female voices elevated
to a high pitch, and finally, a great scream as of a
woman in fright. Cromack, a policeman, proved
that he was called to the house by Elizabeth
Rhodes about a quarter to 1 o'clock, because she had
been struck in the face by the prisoner. The de-
ceased was lying on the floor. Mrs. Johnson said he
was drunk, and her son hadbroughtlim in andlaid
him there to come to himself. Mrs. Butler, a
neighbour, swore that she was called in the next
morning by Mrs. Johnson. She described the appear-
ance then presented by the deceased. He was
snoring very badly and in a stupor. Mr, Price,
surgeon, described the injuries received by the de-
ceased ascertained by him on a pest mortem exa-
mination. On the left side of the head • there was
a serious fracture of the temporal bone, part of the
skull was detached and driven inwards, and there
was a bruise over the right eye. Both of these in-
juries could not have been caused by one blow, but
the fracture might have been made by a heavy fall
down the three stone steps of the front door if the
side of the head came in clntact with the edge of
the bottom step, and a convulsive attempt to rise
might have caused the deceased to "flounder" for a
minute or two, and to fall on his face and cause the
other bruise over the right eye.
Mr. English, the chief constable at Leeds, de-
tailed. a statement made to him by the prisoner, and
Mr. Blackburn, the coroner, verified a voluntary
statement .which he made on the conclusion of the
inquest.
The learned counsel for the prisoner objected to
the introduction of this evidence, on the ground that
it was a statement made at an adjourned inquest ;
that, being an adjournment, it related back to the
commencement, and was, in fact, part of one and
the same inquiry, and that, as the prisoner had been
formally sworn at an earlier stage of the proceed-
ings, that oath must be consislered as covering all
that the prisoner said at that adjourned inquest ;
and he referred to Smith's case (1 Stark.), River's
case (7 C. and P.), and Pikesley's case (9 C. and P.).
His Lordship, however, ruled that the statement
was admissible as a voluntary statement, and it was
accordingly put in and read.
:Mr. C. Foster, for the defence, complained that
this police-officer should have been called to repeat
what was afterwards to be put in as evidence in a
much more authentic form, and expressed his
opinion that it had all been done with a view to
get in the words " I should have been off in three
days if you had not come." But the real question
was, what was done, and not what was said, by the
prisoner. The facts proved in evidence were that
Mrs. Johnson, the mother of the prisoner, was the
owner of the house—a disreputable house,certainly,
but that did not affect her dominion over the house,
or alter her legal rights and privileges as its mistress.
Elizabeth Rhodes (who came into the box evidently
with no friendly feelings to the prisoner, who had
struck her on the mouth that very night) had con-
curred with all the witnesses in showing, what was,
indeed, further corroborated by the prisoner's own
statements—viz., that Mrs. Johnson requested the
deceased to leave the house ; that the others joined
the mistress in . that request ; that when deceased
refused in a half-drunken stupor to go away she
insisted on his doing so ; that the deceased became
obstinate. and doggedly refused to move; that then
she directed her son to turn him out, as she had a
perfect right to do, and the deceased accordingly,
without any unnecessary violence, was lifted up by
the shoulders, walked across the room, and put out
of the front door., No one at the time perceived
that any injury had been done to him. The law
required.that in order to convict the prisoner of man-
slaughter it should be shown that homicide had oc-
curred in consequence of some unlawful act of the
prisoner's. Where was the unlawful act in this case ?
A drunken man came out from the light into the
dark, he forgot the steps or missed his footing, and
then falling with hif head against the corner of the
step he received the injury of which he died. But all
this pointed to accident and not to manslaughter.
It had been suggested that there were more wounds
than one, and the inference which the jury were in-
vited to draw was that there had been a previous
fight, but this had been altogether disproved; and
the evidence of the surgeon established that all the
injuries might have been caused by a heavy fall first
and then by a floundering fall on the flags. Several
of the neighbours had been called to support a sug-
gestion that there had been a fight heard in the
house, but the cross-examination had shown that
that was after deceased was turned out, and was not
at the door at which the fatal event really occurred.
The high words to which Bennett swore evidently
referred to the quarrel between the prisoner and
Elizabeth Rhodes, and not to what took place be-
tween the prisoner and Fletcher, and all which was
substantiated by the evidence of the policeman who
was called in consequence of it. The evidence of Mr.
Brass was all in the same direction, and was farmer°
easily explicable on the hypothesis that the dis-
turbaece was among the ienaates of the house, and
net an attack on Fletcher. Further, there was no
motive for the crime. Some suggestion of a robbery
had been thrown out, but it had altogether failed
in the attempted proof'. But with that the learned
counsel and the jury had nothing to do. The real
point at issue was, did the deceased person receive
his death wound at the hand of the prisoner
There was no proof of anything of the kind. It was
shown that he had been treated with humanity and
consideration after his fall, and that he had been
neglectfini
eneagat
ill
ely:
at sentcathot
counsel
nhh
soeem prisonere,cooirnn te lauodweuea
alabds.
oshown,Nothing
and furtherfor
tthanat
responsible.aliportarCdd efeceTbh3e'
reviewing the arguments ho had used in the course
of it, and referred his lordship for the confirmation
of the law he had ventured to lay 'down for the
lordship
guidance of the
spoke j u t
His
its a very complimentary

manner of the defence, which the learned counsel I
had made, under circumstances of peculiar diffi-
culty, and -finally requested.. the jury in returning
their verdict to prepare a special answer to the fol•
lowing question :—Did Fletcher receive the fatal in-
juries in the house, but not in putting him out of

th 3 house, as represented.
The jury retired for consideration, and on their
return into court very shortly afterwards said they
were of opinion that the deceased received the fatal
injuries in the house, and not in being expelled

:rom the house
His Lordship—Then you can have no difficulty
in returning a simple verdict of guilty of man.

slaughter.
Foreman of the Jury—That is our verdict, my

.oro.
The learned Judge expressed his firm opinion
that the verdict was correct, and sentenced the pri-

soner to-penal servitude for 15 years.
John Hart was charged with having, at Leeds,
on the 12th Nov. last, stabbed Edward Reid, with

intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Wheelhouse and Mr. Maule prosecuted ; Mr.
Middleton defended the prisoner.
It seemed that the prosecutor went to the house
occupied by the prisoner and a woman named
Mitchell. When he arrived there he found the
prisoner in the act of striking the woman, and on
her appealing for protection to the prosecutor
(whom she knew previously) the prosecutor was
struck by tie prisoner on the head with the fire
poker. A scuffle took place, and the woman made
her way up fan stairs, the prisoner immediately
following her. The prosecutor, fearing some foul
play- towards the woman, instantly followed her
and the prisoner upstairs, and passing the man on
the stairs arrived in the bedroom before the prisoner
got there. 01 the instant after the prisoner came
into the room he made a blow with his knife at the
prosecutor in the lower part of his body, and
wounded him very seriously. The rrisoner's knife
• was subsequently found, covered with blood, at the
bottom of the staircase by a policeman.
Mr. Middidon addressed the jury, contending
that the prisoner was justified in using the knife
at the moment in self-defence, and that therefore
there was not even an unlawful wounding.
After a eareful summing up the jury found a ver-
dict of Guilty, end the prisoner was sentenced to
be kept in penal servitude for three years.
There remains but one case, the charge of the
murder of Mr. Broughton at Leeds, which is fixed
for to-morrow, and is scarcely expected to be con-
cluded in one day.
LIVERPOOL, DEC. 15.
(B)fore Mr. Justice Willes.)
Mr. Justice Wines has arrived here from Ches-
ter, and this norning, assisted Mr. Baron Martin
in the trial of irisoners.
James Hassel was indicted fct attempting to
murder Ameliaßrown. Other counts charged other
felonious intents.
Mr. Charles lopwood appeared for the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Torrdefended the prisoner.
It appeared hat the accused was a lodger in a
house in Sackaille-street, Manchester, where the
prosecutrix and her sister, Mrs. Story, and her sis-
ter's husband lied. He was married, but had se-
parated from hi; wife, and had for some time past
employed Mrs. 3rown tb clean up his room for him.
It was suggested for the defence that the two had
been for some tine criminally intimate. She had
been a widow for the past three years, but strongly
denied any impro?er intimacy between herself and
the prisoner.
Amelia Brown—l was taking., breakfast with
Hassell. As he vas going to leave his lodgings I
asked him if I should clean them that day. Ho said
I might, as he would not go before Monday. This
happened on Saturday. He asked me if I would
go to clean for him at his new lodgings. I said no.
He said he had heard I was to be married. I said
it was a lie. I then got up to go. He got hold of
me and slammed the door. I said, " Leave me loose,
let me go." He dragged me to the other side of the
room, and got hold of an axe from the shelf. I be-
came insensible from for, and was ill nearly 12
weeks, and am not well /et. I did not throw the
pots at him. I did not threaten to stab him wit
a knife. I did not say I would sclald him with the
kettle, or dash out his brains with the axe. •
Cross-examined by Mr. Torr—l had not been
drinking. I had not been on improper terms with
the prisoner. I knew he had a wife. •
Eliza Story—l am siacr to Ani2lia. Brown. I
heard her cry, " Let me go," and ran upstairs. I
found the prisoner beating my sister over the head
with this piece of wood. (The handle of the axe.)
I tried to defend her, but he would not give over. I
• ran down to the door, and criod " Murder." Pri-
soner came down and waited to get out. I put my-
self in his way, shut the door, and bolted it. He
said, " I will go with yen to the police-office."
John Birch—l am a surgeon. I was called to
Amelia Brown. She was insensible. I found many
contusions on the face, seven er eight wounds on
the head, all to the bone, one of them a deep cut
from the back to the frost of the head, eight inches
in length. There was a fracture of the skull. Deep
marks on the arm and wrist showed great violence
—probably in a struggie. The handle of the axe
might have caused the wounds and contusions; it
is rather sharp. I found the axe-head in the room.
It has a splinter in it which fits the handle. It had
no blood on it when I saw it.
The statement of the prisoner before the
at him, threatened to stab
apntseized the axe, and swore
magi-
strate was put in and read. In it he stated that
oashiten,haanddthhia•odwgnontlele
!she would dash out his brains with it.
Mr. Torr addressed the jury strongly on behalf
itonfrgel
setisshstr
enormity,
convictionnu thei.
ty bufacts,uptotheaond
co,
nof
Litt
gpo rfthat
ne
he
indictment
er, fcould
S ng
o o
nts
tending that the evidence would justify the jury in
acquitting of any intent to murder. He called wit-
nesses who proved the quiet character of the pri-

Boner.
The learned Judge summed up the case, calling
attention to the fact of the axe-head not being wet
when found, and the medical evidence that the in-
juries might have been inflicted with the handle.
He 'read the material parts of the evidence, and
pointed out to the jury that, if not satisfied either
of the prisoner's intent to murder or the grievous
bodily harm, it vas open to them to find a verdict
of 'unlawful wounding.
Verdict—Not guilty of intent to murder; guilty
of intent to do grievous bodily harm.
The prisoner niade again a long statement, re-
peating what he had said before the magistrates.
The Judge characterised the act as a wrong,
cruel, and savage one—not a single blow, and alto-
gether without acequate provocation, and sentenced
the prisoner to fear years' penal servitude.