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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY giIENING, AUGUST 21, 1861.

had the audacity to refuse to make the return of
the expenses of his department which had been
demanded by the Finance Commission, and with-
out which the Budget, or financial statement, so
long promised, could not have been framed. Blunt-
ness of speech has been ascribed to Mehemet Kiprisli
Pasha as a fault, and not, perhaps, without some
justice. It is not, therefore, surprising that on the
occasion in question some plain truths were uttered.
Elsewhere it would have been impossible for two
Ministers who had gone such lengths in mutual
recrimination to have remained for even a day mem-
bers of the same Cabinet. The Sultan, however,
sent for them, and by his injunctions a momentary
cessation of hostilities was effected. So matters
went on until Abdul Medjid's death. In the long
run Mehemet Kiprisli Pasha has rid the country
of the more dangerous, because the more able, of
the two favourites, but has in his turn succumbed
to Mehemet Ali, who happens to be the husband of
the present Sultan's own sister.
If mere personal considerations were to weigh
with the ex-Vizier, I should most assuredly regard
his fall as the most successful act of his administra-
tion ; for, at a moment when the eyes of all Europe
are turned towards this country, he has identified
himself with the question of financial reform, and
suffered martyrdom in the cause. A demand for a
considerable augmentation of the sum to defray the
annual expenses of the army and navy, and more
especially of the latter, met with a peremptory re-
fusal on his part. The proposition, which originated
with Mehemet Ali Pasha, was approved by the Sul-
tan, and the Grand Vizier, refusing to give way,
was somewhat summarily dismissed. It is the old
tale. Money is wanted by the Sultan, no matter for
what purpose, and the Minister who hesitates to
comply with the requisition has to give place to a
more facile and accommodating politician. It is use-
less to conceal the fact ; the economies effected in
the Imperial household are the only practical re-
forms for which the new Sultan is entitled to credit,
and it becomes day by day more painfully apparent
that these are utterly insignificant as compared
with the additional outlay determined upon for the
service of the naval and military forces of the em-
pire. One of the consequences is, that the exchange
has once more risen to the exorbitant rate of 199
piastres to the pound sterling.

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 bet ter 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. A'spinall then quoted some authorities with
a view to show that Brass River was a "foreign
port or harbour," and that the offence not being
committed on the high seas the present court 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 Nihon the crime was com-
mitted.
Mr. Aspinall then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, contending that the prosecution had not done
their duty in co►:fining 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 vex,
dict, 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.

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

WESTMINSTER.—TIIE 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 consequenceof their absence I was
unable to support the charge. The applicant then
read the sth section of the 96th cap., showing the
penalties imposed for the publication of a libel.
Mr. Dayman—What is the object of your pre-
sent application P
Mr. Irwin---I 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 colleague, Mr.
Ingham, for the summons against Mr. Lever and
for these 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. Dayman—You assume the publication of a
libel.

Applicant---I 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. Layman—lt 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 pi otect 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. Butts 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-1 hav'e 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 witnessesif
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 independer4
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 lire, his attendance here would
be no use.
Applicant-1f that was the case I could produce
secondary evidence. Any copy of the libel would do.
Mr. Dap-Ilan—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.
Appicant—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 ten(!ency 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 legal
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 proceeding; 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.
GREENWICII.—TuE DANGER OF LEAVING
TRAINS WHILE IN MOTION.—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 ho 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 consideiation 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 ls. 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 carriage, when he was thrown violently upon
his hack.
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 sole cause of the defendant falling,
and ordered him to pay a fine of ss. and costs.