The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-21 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 21,

lying in his berth, and the prisoner came to
him and asked him why he did not cook his sago.
The deceased said he could not stand so near the
fire. The prisoner made some remark, such as
" Who is to do it for you ?" and then took a can
and struck the deceased under the chin and under
the nose and made them bleed. He went away and
ordered the deceased to come down to the deck to
pick oakum. The deceased said he could not do it,
and the prisoner replied that it was all laziness,
and seizing the deceased by the shirt he threw him
upon deck, jumped with both feet upon his chest,
kicked him on the sides and head, and beat him.
The deceased at first cried out, but at last he became
silent and partly insensible. The prisoner then
ordered buckets of water to be thrown over the de-
ceased,
which was done, after which he was lifted
up and dry clothes put upon him. The prisoner
then left him for some time, and then returned and
asked the deceased "if he was satisfied." The de-
ceased said, " You had better kill me at once than
treat me so ;" upon which the prisoner again beat
and kicked him, renewed his threats, and said that
" he had better jump overboard," and that "he
should never see England again." Deceased sank
under this continued ill-treatment, and died shortly
afterwards. The doctor saw him on the Friday
after his death, and when he lifted the cloth from
his face observed that it was swollen, but at that
time he imputed this appearance to decomposition
having rapidly set in. The doctor supposed then
that he had sunk under the debility from which
he had so long languished. The prisoner
was afterwards transferred to a vessel called the
Severn, in which part of the crew of the Express
returned to Liverpool, when the proceedings which
had led to the present trial was instituted.
Witnesses were then called in support of the
above statement.

Mr. Aspinall then quoted some authorities with
a view to show that Brass River was a " foreign
pert or harbour," and that the offence not being
committed on the high seas the present count had
not jurisdiction.
His lordship overruled the objection, remarking
that there was no court at Brass River, and no law
to appeal to for the punishment of offences, other-
wise the prisoner might have been dealt with on
the spot, and at the time when the crime was com-
mitted.

Mr, Aspmall then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, contending that the prosecution had not done
their duty in confining themselves to one class of
witnesses (men of colour), whereas there were seve-
ral white men on board at the time of the alleged
outrage.
Mr. Bliss protested against this remark, saying
that they had called all the witnesses whom they
had been able to obtain.

His lordship, in summing up, confined the atten-
tion of the jury to the violence which occurred on
the Saturday specified. Notwithstanding.the con-
flict of opinion and statement as to the time which
elapsed between the last act of violence and the
death of Henderson, the offence more resembled
manslaughter from the fact that the violence was
that of abuse, inflicted from time to time in fits of
passion, but probably without the expectation that
death would immediately follow. Nor did it im-
mediately follow. His lordship having pointed out
the legal distinctions between murder and man-
slaughter, carefully went through the evidence,
after which the jury retired to consider their ver•
diet, and after an absence of two hours had not
agreed to a verdict. One of the jurymen being very
ill they were discharged. Wilson awaits his trial
on the other indictment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-Aug. 20.

MANSION-HOUSE.— William Balmanno, a
solicitor's clerk, was brought up in custody of Jar-
vis, a detective, charged with stealing the sum of
£l4 belonging to his employers, Messrs. Preston
and Turner, solicitors, of Water-lane, Great Tower-
street.

Mr. Turner said that the prisoner entered their
service on the 13th of June last, and on that day he
gave him £ll for duties on a grant of administra-
tion. He produced the papers, which were with-
out the stamps, and he also produced a book, in
the prisoner's handwriting, in which he charged
£ll Os. 4d. for the stamp, and £1 for court fees, and
£1 for the stamp on the bond. The prisoner had
not paid that money ; if he had, the stamps would
be on the paper produced. He also produced a
letter which he had received from the prisoner the
previous morning through a police officer, in which
he stated that he had lost the money, and if he
(prosecutor) would not offer any evidence against
him the whole of the amount, £l4 Os. 4d., would be
paid immediately.
George Laverick, clerk to the prosecutors, said
that on the 13th June Mr. Turner gave him two
-Post-office orders, each for £5, which he gave to
the prisoner in his presence, together with £3 10s.
in cash. He had paid the prisoner money since
that time, and he believed it had all been paid with
the exception of £1 for a stamp on a bond on the
same estate as the others, but the bond had no stamp

upon it.
The prisoner, who said he would reserve his de-
fence, was committed for trial.

CLERKENWELL.—TIIE LATE ATTEMPTED
MURDER.—Charles William Jeffs, aged 30, resid-
ing at No. 40, Acton-street, Gray's-inn-road, was
brought up before Mr. D'Eyncourt on the charge
of carting and wounding Francis Cossum, with in-
tent to do him grievous bodily harm.
The case, which was partially heard on Tuesday
last, seemed to excite the utmost interest, and dur-
ing the proceedings the court and its approaches
were crowded by a vast concourse of persons anxi-
ous to hear the proceedings.
Mr. Sleigh attended on behalf ofthe accused, who,
on being placed in the dock, was found to be still
suffering from injuries he had received to his right
arm.

The prosecutor, on being called, said, in answer
to Mr. Sleigh, that the prisoner lodged in his
mother's house, at which place he (witness) became
acquainted with him, but that was some few years
ago.
Mr. Sleigh—How long ago ?
Prosecutor—About two or three years.
Mr. Sleigh—Have you been intimate with the
prisoner's wife before this unhappy occurrence ?
Prosecutor—l have been intimate with her, and
such intimacy continued until this occurrence.
Mr. Sleigh—Have you ever visited the prisoner's
wife ?

Prosecutor—l have been in the habit of meeting
her for a long time.
Mr. Sleigh—Have you taken her to any place of
entertainment ?
Prosecutor—l have not taken her to any place of
amusement, but I have carried on this illicit inter-
course for some time. _ _

vv
Mr. Sleigh—Was that while the husband was at
home ?
Prosecutor—No; during the husband's absence I
visited his wife.

Mr. Sleigh—You do not deny that you com-
mitted adultery with the prisoner's wife ?
Prosecutor—l have committed adultery with her
while her husband has been out at work.

Mr. Sleigh—Was the prisoner at home when you
went to the house on the day of this occurrence ?
Prosecutor—He was not at home at the time, but
came in while I was there. I left the prisoner's
wife in the sitting-room, and she passed from one
room to the other.
Mr. Sleigh-1)o you know what the prisoner is ?
Prosecutor—l believe he is connected with the
press.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you go to his house with
the expectation of seeing him ?
Prosecutor—No; I went there at the time 1
knew he would be away from home.
Mr. Sleigh—How have you known when he has
been out ?

Prosecutor—Sometimes she has let me know
such was the case by signal from the window.
Mr. Sleigh—What occurred when the prisoner
came in ?
Prosecutor—He came in, and I went away, and
proceeded to the corner of Exmouth-street, when he
came up to me and inflicted the injuries upon me.
Mr. Sleigh—What did he say to you?
Prosecutor—He said, " Go down on your knees,
and confess you have seduced my wife."
Mr. Sleigh—Did you strike him with any weapon?
Prosecutor—l did not; and I did not snatch the
knife from his possession. I mean to say I never
seized the knife, or struck him. Neither was I
aware that he was a left-handed man ; and I did
not make a eat at him, or seize the knife.
Mr. Sleigh—When were you with the prisoner's
wife before this occurrence ?
Prosecutor—l was with her on the Wednesday
before, in the Gray's Inn-road. The prisoner was
at the time out at work.

Mr. Sleigh—Did you visit any house.
Prosecutor—We did not go into any house except
a public-house.
_ _

Mr. Sleigh—What description of house is it ?
Prosecutor—lt is an ordinary public-house.
Mr. Sleigh—You come hero to have the prisoner
punished. liViiat is your determination now?
Prosecutor—l wish to withdraw from the prose-
cution.

Mr. D'Eyncourt—now long was it after you left
the house that the assault took place ?
Prosecutor—lt was about 10 minutes or a quarter
of an hour after I had left the place.
l‘lr. Sleigh—There are several gentlemen here
who have known. the prisoner for some time, and
.
and who are to be responsible for his ap-
pearance if required on any future occasion.
After some further remarks from the learned

1861.

counsel, the prisoner was admitted to bail to appear
this day for the completion of the depositions.

WE STM INSTE R.—THE GALWAY MAIL PACKET
COMPANY.--Mr. George O'Malley Irwin attended
at this court, and addressing Mr. Dayman, the
presiding magistrate, said—l wish to make
an application to you under the 6th and 7th of
Victoria. I obtained a summons here a short time
ago against Mr. John Orrell Lever, M.P., for
publishing 'a malicious and defamatory libel
upon me, and at that time I also took sum-
monses against Mr. Isaac Butt, M.P., and Mr.
Lester O'Beirne, to give evidence, but they did not
attend, and in consequencelof their absence I was
unable to support the charge. The applicant then
read the sth section of th© 96th cap., showing the
penalties imposed for the publication of a libel.
Mr. Dayman—What is the object of your pre-
sent application ?
Mr. Irwin—l wish to. renew the summons against
Mr. Lever, and summonses to compel the attend-
ance of the necessary witnesses, and, if they do not
attend, to grant warrants for their apprehension.

I made my application to your colijague, Mr.
Ingham, for the summons against Mr. Lever and
for those for witnesses, and he granted them, con-
sidering their attendance necessary to support the
charge. The officer is here and can prove the ser-
vice of the summonses. I should like to have him
examined now.

Mr. Dayman—l cannot do that now.
Applicant—Mr. Isaac Butt was a necessary wit-
ness to prove the publication of the libel.

Mr. hayman--You assume the publication of a
Libel.

Applicant—l read it in his own rooms, but he
took it away from me by force. I copied the
words in the pamphlet. They said that he was
-victimised by an impostor. I ought to have been
allowed to bring it away.

Mr. Dayman•Llt was his property, perhaps.
Applicant—lt was on his table, and he said that
Mr. Lever gave it to him. He was stronger than
me or I would have brought it away. lam the
victim of a libel and slander, and my duty to the
public, the Government, and myself, requires that
I should take every step to bring the offender to
justice. Witnesses were summoned to support my
charge; they did not attend. It was an insult to
the Court, and no man can protect himself or family
if such a thing is to be allowed. I have had the
honour of sitting on the bench myself and know
that the enforcing the attendance of important wit-
nesses is most material. Since I was here before I
have obtained important information. I have ascer-
tained who the printer and publisher of this libel is,
and I apply for a summons against him. My last
complaint was dismissed because Mr. Butt and
Mr. O'Beirne did not attend.

Mr. Dayman—You cannot assume that. They
might not have been able to produce the pamphlet
of which you complain,or give evidence that would
support your charge. There is nothing to show that
they could have proved the publication of a libel.
Applicant—lt lay on Mr. Butt's table, and I
copied the words " that he was victimised by an
imposter" from it. lam no impostor.
Mr. Dayman—That would not be proof of publi-
cation.

Applicant—Anybody reading it on his table is a
publication. Ino more doubt the publication than
I do the light coming through that glass (pointing
to the window). I require summonses for these
parties to support my charge.
Mr. Dayman—l do not feel disposed to grant
any summons.
Applicant—l have ascertained that it is Mr. Isaac
Butt's printer and publisher that have printed and
published this pamphlet.
Mr. Dayman—l have on a previous occasion
heard your charge, and there being no proof to sup-
port it it was dismissed.
Applicant—l have been branded as an impostor.
I am no impostor. I gave evidence before the select
committee on packet and telegraph contracts. (Ap-
plicant was here stating the effect of that evidence
against Mr. Lever when Mr. Dayman stopped him
by observing that he could not allow such particu-
lars to be gone into.)
Applicant—lt is no good summoning witnesses if
they do not attend ; it is a farce, a mockery, and a
delusion. What protection is there for any man's
private character. Summonses are no use, nothing
but the force of a warrant would get them here.
Mr. Dayman—Having once heard the case and
dismissed it, I must decline to grant fresh sum-
monses. I leave you to a remedy quite independent
of this Court. You can go before a grand jury and
prefer a bill of indictment. You seem to take for
granted, without knowing whether it would have
been so, that the witnesses you summoned could
have proved your case.
Applicant—Mr. Lester O'Beirne admitted having
had the pamphlet.
Mr. Dayman—And suppose Mr. O'Beirne had
thrown it into the fire, his attendance here would
be no use.

Applicant—lf that was the case I could produce
secondary evidence. Any copy of the libel would do.
Mr. Dayman—lt would not. You remember you
summoned Mr. Roebuck, who, in his evidence,
told you he had thrown the pamphlet into the
waste-paper basket.
Applicant—l could get the manuscript from the
printer.
Mr. Dayman—l do not know that.
Applicant—The printer always files it.
Mr. Dayman—lf of the tendency you describe, it
. .

is not very likely it should remain in. his possession.
Applicant—My complaint was dismissed because
Mr. Isaac Butt and Mr. Lester O'Beirne did not
attend. It is impossible to come to a fair decision
without the necessary witnesses. I press you again
to renew the summonses.
Mr. Dayman—l must decline. Unless you are
prepared with a witness who can produce the very
identical article, you must break down.
Applicant—Mr. Isaac Butt has the pamphlet, as
I told you I saw it there.
Mr. Dayman—lt does not follow that he has it
now; he may have burnt it.
Applicant—l am entitled to try whether he has.
Mr. Dayman—Unless you could show me that

you had in your possession clear and distinct lega'
proof to support the charge of libel, I could not

_ _
grant a summons. I cannot understand why you
do not indict.

Applicant—There has been a very strong opinion
expressed by the Recorder upon the adoption of
that proceedings by which I might be prejudiced.
The proper course is to apply to a magistrate.
Again and again applicant urged his suit, but
Mr. Dayman repeated that he could not grant sum-
monses without he was provided with positive
proof. He declined to issue speculative summonses
against persons to produce certain things which he
only assumed they had in their possession.
Applicant suggested that if he got the pamphlet
the magistrate would feel no difficulty in granting
him the summonses he required.
Mr. Dayman declined to give any opinion upon
what might arise, confining himself to the matter
as it now stood.
GREENWICH.--THE DANGER OF LEAVING
TRAINS WHILE IN NOTION.-Mr. Francis Cross,
an elderly gentleman, residing at Park-place,
Eltham, Kent, appeared to a summons charging
him with leaving a train while in motion on the
North Kent Railway, whereby he had incurred a
penalty of 40s.
Mr. Robinson, from the solicitor's office to the
South-Eastern Railway Company, attended to con-
duct the case, and Mr. Knapp, the barrister, at-
tended for the defendant.

The defendant, who had a severe wound on the
side of his face, and who was otherwise seriously
injured through leaving the train at the Blackheath
Station, was accommodated with a seat. Upon the
case being called on for hearing,
Mr. Knapp said he had consulted with the de-
fendant, who by his advice had consented to plead
guilty on consideration that the summons was dis-
missed on payment of a nominal penalty.
Mr. Robinson said he could not allow of the
summons being dismissed or withdrawn, as the de-
fendant by his own act had suffered serious injuries,
and a formal claim had been made upon the com-
pany on his behalf in respect to the same. He
(Mr. Robinson) was perfectly willing that a con-
viction should take place, and a nominal penalty
imposed, providing an agreement in writing were
given that proceedings against the company would
cease.

Mr. Knapp said the defendant was perfectly
willing to give such a guarantee.
Mr. Maude remarked that the Act of Parliament
was intended to protect passengers while travel-
ling upon railways, and to punish persons for break-
ing the law. The defendant appeared to have been
considerably punished personally, and with the
consent of both sides he (Mr. Maude) would merely
impose a fine of is. and 6s, costs.
The money was immediately paid.
Mr. George Clayton, grocer, of 8, St. James's-
street, Hatcham, New-cross, appeared to a summons
for a like offence on the London and Brighton
Railway.
Mr. Inspector Carpenter attended to conduct the
case for the company.
The defendant was a passenger by the 9 p.m
Crystal Palace train on the 13th inst., and as the
train was entering the New cross station, he was
seen by
.two of the ticket collectors to jump from
the carnage, when he was thrown violently upon
his back.
In answer to the magistrate, the defendant said
the train had stopped, and that the cause of his
falling was that his feet slipped.
Mr. Maude said he had no doubt the motion of
the train was the solo cause of the defendant falling,
and ordered him to pay a fine of ss. and costs.