The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-05 00:00:00

MURDER IN INVERNESS.

On Sunday morning last, says the Inverness Ad-
vertiser, the community were horrified to learn that
a man had been found dead, and to all appearance
foully murdered, in a backyard of one of the houses
in town. The facts of this painful case, in so far as
they have been allowed to transpire, are believed to
be as follows :—David Cumming, joiner, a young
man of 23 years, in the employment of Mr. Mackay,
of this town, had been working for his master at a
job in the country, and returned to Inverness on
Saturday to visit his parents, who are decent
respectable people residing at the Shore. In the
absence of his master, Cumming, we believe, received
from Mrs. Mackay £1 as wages, and thereafter he
appears to have been engaged chatting with
acquaintances, one of whom he treated to a bottle
of lemonade, leaving him at 11 on Saturday evening
at the head of Church-street. So far as yetascertained
this was the last time Cumming was seen in life. His
road homewards was by the foot of Church-street, on
his way to the Shore, and as the place where his
body was found lay out of the path some malign
influence must have withdrawn his steps in the di-
rection of Rose-street. When last seen Cumming
was quite sober; and, indeed, as we are given to
understand, he was remarkably correct in his
habits, being a temper ite and well-behaved young
man. On the south side of Rose-street, and imme-
diately beyond the foundry of Messrs. Smith and
Mackay, there is a range of three tenements of two
stories each. These ere numbered 35, 36, and 37,
and are inhabited by the poorer class of people, one
family occupying the ground floor, and a second
the attic above. All the houses have back gardens
of considerable extent, which stretch to the boun-
dary wall of Bell's Institution. No. 37 is the house
nearest Academy-street, and part of the ground at
the back of this house is occupied by a stable which
has an entrance from the street. There is also a
range of three wooden cellars at the back of this
tenement. It was in one of these erections, the
centre one, that Cumming's body was found on Sun-
day morning. About seven o'clock, and while yet
dark, Mrs. Fraser, who occupies the lower part of
No. 37, heard heavy moaning outside, as from some
person in distress, and, procuring a light, she went
into the back yard, and opening the door of the
centre cellar, from whence the sounds proceeded, to
her c:Ltrcrne horror and surprise she saw a man
lying on the floor, and apparently dead. She in-
stantly gave the alarm, and the burgh police and
Dr. 'Mulford were immediately on the spot, and had
the body removed into Nlrs. Fraser's house. By this
time, however, only a little warmth remained to in-
dicate where life had once been. The poor lad was
dead; nor was the cause of death difficult to dis-
cover. On his temple were the marks of a blow as
if from a heavy hammer, which had cut in and
indented a portion of the skull. When first seen the
body was entirely divested of clothing, with the
exception of two stocking and one boot. It being at
once apparent that there had been robbery, if not
certain and deliberate murder, the police set to
work to discover if possible any traces of a struggle
near the place, and observing marks in the court-
yard as if a body had been dragged along, they
followed the traces. These led through to the
back garden past the stable, and from a point here
across the garden of No. 36 into toe one belonging
to No. 35 of the street, and through this garden
immediately to the back of this psrticalar house.
Further search revealed to-day the clothes of Cum-
ming, which were brought from an out-house of
the same garden, and a little later, Superinttndent
Sutherland having observed something protruding
from the ground of the cabbage plot of this house,
only a few yards from the back window, the spot
was dug up and brought to light the watch, a
broken guard, a necktie, and ls. ld. of money, be-
longing to the apparently murdered man. As a
matter of course a watch was placed over the in-
mates of the house No. 35, and in the course of the
mason, day they were apprehended and carried to prison.
The tenants of this house consist of a working
,nohwis
liew iifne,thaen ree:oeffideTaeughters who, with
the authorities. We
'h© exception of the youngest daughter, a mere
lightof
thi besidesagva ocno Como to t circumstanceso
i nt vh east-,
respecting certain membersanaboorvtehidseftaanillieldy,
oothers
connected with thetrdannbs
unfavourable character
dubiety,
however,
night of the suspected murder. All the circum-
stancesries are afloat, some of them absoluttelyiN false;lbaeney
remain in great mystery and satnoa-
whatever trustworthy information has
ob-
tained by the authorities it would be manifestly
imprudent imprudent at this stage to reveal to the public, in
case that the ends of justice might be thereby de-

feated. We should have mentioned that the greater
part of the money believed to have been in Cum-
ming's possession on Saturday evening was not
found. The ls. ld. dug out of the ground behind
the house No. 35 was all that was recovered.

LAW INTEL f FA'ENCE.LDec. 4.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before Mr.
(Justice Byles and a Special Jury.)

MAITLAND V. BRAMWELL ----A LADY SUED FOR LIBEL

-SINGULAR CASE.

This was an action against a Miss Bramwell to
recover damages for libel and verbal slander; and
originally there was a plea of justification upon the
record, but this was subsequently withdrawn, and
the only plea remaining was that of not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Joyce appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Lush and Mr. Matthews for
the defendant.

In the opening speech it was stated t hat the plain-
tiff was secretary to the Royal Benevolent Society,
and also to the Seaford Convalescent Hospital. The
defendant had been one of the lady nurses in the
Crimea. Mrs. Bowler, who had been a paid nurse
in the Crimea, was, in Aug.,1860, appointed, upon
the recommendation of Miss Bramwell, to be matron
of the Convalescent Hospital. Mrs. Bowler had two
daughters, Mrs. Jones and Ada Bowler, and on 30th
September last she was brought before the commit-
tee charged, among other things, with allowing
persons to be at the spital without permission, with
incurring debts without authority, and with allow-
ing Ada to be drunk there. In the course of the in-
vestigation, Mrs. Jones handed to the committee a
letter from Miss Bramwell. This document was of
rather an incoherent character, but among other
things the writer said she felt bound to state that
1" she feared Mr. Maitland was not acting as he
should by the young women who came to the office,"
and continued, " Indeed, here, by his own admission,
he led me to realise that he thought no sin of the
charge brought against him by Ada." Further,
she said that, " Mr. Maitland endeavoured to act in
an improper way with Mrs. Jones, which she re-
sented. Dr. Wright and General Ashburnham
were appointed by the committee to investigate
those charges, and in answer to a communication
from Dr. Wright, Miss Bramwell sent another let-
ter, in which she said—" If be (Mr. Maitland) is
secretary, the words, ' for the protection of women
and children,' should be removed." These were the
principal passages which were now complained of
as libellous, and the matter having got a wide cir-
culation the plaintiff was compelled to bring this
action to vindicate his character and the position
which he held, and he did not ask for an amount of
damages which would put money in his pocket, but
simply sufficient to indemnify him for the expenses
incurred.

Mr. Maitland was called, and said he had been
married 17 years, and had five children. He was in
the Athlone police for 15 years, in which body he
held a captain's commission, and he retired with
the highest pension and testimonials which it was
possible to obtain. He was pensioned in 1858. In
March, 1359, he came to England, and in April
following was appointed secretary to the Royal
Benevolent Society, which was under the patronage
of the Duke of Cambridge. He was also appointed
to the same position in reference to the Seaford
Convalescent Hospital, which was opened in August,
1860. Mrs. Jones came to him recommended for
matron to the hospital by Miss Bramwell. He first
saw Ada on the Bth August last. She was at the
hospital without his knowledge, and in breach of
the rules. This and other matters led to an inquiry-
by the committee. On the 20th September, in con-
sequence of a communication with Mrs. Jones, he
saw Miss Bramwell, who said he had been accused
of keeping Ada for a twelvemonth, and of having
taken her seven times to houses where he was known
by the name of Jack. Further, that there was an
anonymous letter, said to have been written by him,
offering to take her to Cremorne. He asked her to
produce the letter, and she searched for it, but could
not find it. He told her these statements were
falsehoods. On the sth Octo'..er, at a meeting of the
committee, when Miss Bramwell was threatened
with an action for libel, she said that, if the jury
acquitted him, she should still believe him guilty.
Cross-examined—He had been honorary secre-
tary to the Society for the Protection of Women
and Children from Aggravated Assaults; but that
society had ceased to exist. He never saw Ada un-
til August, 1861. Her mother came to him about ,
her, saying that she had been kept by a gentleman,
and was then in a Reformatory. Ho said he could
not admit her into the hospital; but it was arranged
that she should go to the Christian Young Women's
Home in Marlborough-street, an institution managed
by Miss Bramwell. He got her a situation at the
Crystal Palace, where she remained two days. She
stayed in the Home about a week, at the end of
which time she came home drunk.

In re-examination, the plaintiffpositivelv and in-
dignantly denied that there was any truth in the
allegation that he had behaved improperly with
Ach or Mrs. Jones, or that he had ever written the
Cremorne letter. Indeed he had never been to Cre-
morne but once in his life, and that was with his
wife.

In cross-examination he had previously denied
by anticipation most of the statements subsequently
sworn to by the defendant's witnesses.
Dr. Bright detailed a long conversation which he
and Gen. Ashburn ham had had with Miss Bram-
well, in which she repeated in substance the charges
of immorality which she had made agaiast the
plaintiff.
Mr. Lush, in addressing the jury, said that Miss
Bramwell, since her return from the Crimea, had
devoted her time and her property to benevolent
objects, and, among other works, she has esta-
blished the Christian Home for the purpose of
taking care of young women of respectability; and
he further stated that she had made the communi-
cation now in question believing their truth, and
that, so far from having acted maliciously, she had
done only what she considered it her duty to do.
Miss Bramwell was examined, and stated that
Mr. Maitland introduced Mrs. Jones to her in the
autumn of 1860, and told her that Mrs. Jones was
the daughter of Mrs. Bowler. He asked if she
could get a subscription so that he could send Mrs.
Jones to the hospital at Seaford. NV itness sub-
scribed a guinea in the name of a lady of her
acquaintance for this purpose, and another guinea
was afterwards subscribed. Subsequently witness
told him she thought Ada was going wrong, and
he said it was a pity, she was a pretty girl; but he
had had great experience, and if she was determined
to go to the devil it was no use to try to prevent it.
When witness said that it was a pity Ada should
be at Seaford when Mr. Maitland's sons were there,
he said it did not matter, that he expected young
men to be wild, and that he had been wild himself.
The witness then at some length referred to con-
versat;ons in which Mrs. Jones had told her the
circumstances which she referred to in the letters
now sued upon as libels. She added, that at an
interview she had with Mr. Maitland, he said that
if she would send him the Cremorne letter, and say
that she did not believe Ada's statements, she
should hear no more about it.

Mrs. Jones said she became acquainted with the
plaintiff and defendant on the 17th 'August, 1860 ;
she saw Mr. Maitland first, and he took her to Miss
Bramwell. In a conversation witness told Miss
Bramwell that she thought there was something
between Ada and Mr. Maitland that there ought not
to be. That Ada said that Mr. Maitland wished her
to goto his office on many evenings between half-past
four and five. That he had had improper inter-
course with her, and that he had taken her to a
house and had stayed with her there. Miss Bram-
well said, " Do you really think he has done so ?"
and witness replied, " Yes, from the way in which
he acted to me." Witness told Miss Bramwell that
when witness was coming out of Mr. Maitland's
office he had offered to kiss her, and that she gave
him a backhanded slap. She told Miss Bramwell
that about the cal of February she went to Mr.
Maitland to ask him to give her the money for half
a note, as she was going into the country. He
said there had been with him a young woman who
had had a baby; that she came for assistance, and
that he told her she must not get in that wag again.
(The remainder of the conversation was unfit for
publication.) He told witness that he would change
the half note if she went back again at half-past four
or five. Witness also told Miss Bramwell that
when she returned she saw Mr. Maitland coining
out of his office, and that he went back and took
his usual seat and said, " I wish I had plenty of
money, I would run away with yoo." To which
she replied, " There are two parties to that ques-
tion.'' She also told her that he would change the
half note, and that as he was corning round he took
her by the shoulders and threw her upon the floor,
and that it was with difficulty she got away from
him.

Cross-examined—Are you a widow ?
Witness—l decline to answer that question, 133-
cause it is irrelevant. She had represented her-
self whi!st lodging at Hampstead As a married
woman ; and she was married, not through the
Church, hut in the presence of witnesses. This
was in the Isle of Man, and her husband was Hy.
Bn. Jones, a commission agent. She knew of her
sister Ada living in Brompton-square, and that
she was there called Mrs. Arnold. When Ada
lived in Warwick•street she passed by the name
of M'Donald, and the latter part of the time by
that of Mrs. Pedder. Ada visited witness two or
broughamri
in
s idt.eiai.
the
three times at Hampstead, and she came in a
with.brougham. ithhera
a
ltivery servant. Witness once
went. with her in the brougham. Her mother
Haomthpsetreadlay.d'ihesen
also
oa came
e
to ITlsit. 'witness in a brougham, and at that time

she was employed at Messrs. Gall and Anderson's,
in the millinery line. She was dismissed from
there for being away all night. The charge was
sleeping in a coffeehouse with a strange man, but
the charge was not true.
Mrs. Bowler said that her late husband was a
surgeon. Ada was at Seaford from April to August.
On the 19th September witness sent for Mr. Mait-
land and told him that Ada said he had been taking
improper liberties with her. He denied it, and was
very angry for a time, and then he said " Mrs.
Bowler, will you let this pass into oblivion ? but if
Ada should ever say anything again, will you write
it down and send it to the office ?"

Witness said she would. Mr. Maitland had pre-
vipus to this made complaints of her accounts, and
she said she could not possibly attend to so many
duties. She told Miss Bramwell of what Ada had
said.

Cross-examined—She had viritten to Mr. Mait-
land on the 22d and 24th September; a few days
after, she told him what Ada said, lamenting the
hardship of her having to suffer for the life Ada
had chosen to lead, and promising that she should
never come to Seaford again. Witness was dis-
missed from Seaford. Her daughter Ada had been
leading an abandoned course of life for about two
years. Witness had never made charges against
anybody else so far as she knew. Mr. Burroughs
was ward-master at Smyrna, and he had also held
a position at Bridewell. Witness had lodged with
him, and owed him £l4. He sued her for it. The
letter now put into her hands was written by her
to Mr. Burroughs. (In this letter she said that she
supposed he thought he had done wonders in put-
ting her to such expense, but at the same time she
must remind him that she had it in her power to
have revenge. She had ascertained from one of the
committee of Bridewell that he (Burroughs) had no
right to take any one as a lodger, and at the earliest
opportunity she would inform Mr. Johnson of it,
and of other things as well. The back gate was
convenient, and it must not be thought that she
forgot things so soon. It was an old saying that
revenge was sweet, and he knew that whatever she
undertook she would accomplish).
Ada Maria Bowler was called, but it appeared
that she had-made no communication personally to
Miss Bramwell; what she had said was to Mrs.
Jones and her mother.

His Lordship said that under these circumstances
her evidence was not admissible, for the question of
the guilt or innocence of Mr. Maitland was not in
issue upon the record.
Mr. Maitland was recalled and he distinctly de-
nied that he had ever said to Miss Bramwell or any
other lady, that if Ada persisted in going to the
devil it was of no use trying to stop her.
Mr. Lush, after referring to the painful circum-
stances involved in the case, submitted that the
only question was whether Miss Bramwell believed
the statements which she made in her letters to the
committee, and verbally, at the time she made
them, and had acted bona fide in what she did. He
contended that the whole tone of Miss Bramwell's
communications with the eommittee showed that
this was so. _ _

Mr. Sergeant Parry complained of the " unfair
and jesuitical" course taken for the defence in with-
drawing the plea of justification, and preventing
the plaintiff from having the opportunity, which he
so much desired, of having it decided whether the
imputations made were true or false. He submitted
that the writing the letters was a purposed delibe-
rate malicious act, and that in writing them Miss
Bramwell had lent herself as a tool to serve her
protegee, Mrs. Bowler, by attempting to damage
Mr. Maitland, and that upon the statements of two
young women, one of whom she personally knew to
be a drunken prostitute. Surely no protection could
be claimed for statements repeated on such authority
by simply saying that Miss Bramwell believed them
and that without having made due inquiry.
Mr. -Justice Byles said, that in addition to the
principal counts for libel, there were others founded
upon the various statements which they had heard,
for verbal slander. As to the law upon the mat-
ter, anything was a libel which in writing tended
to bring a man into hatred,- ridicule, or con-
tempt, whilst verbal slander was not actionable
unless—with certain exceptions—the words im-
puted an indictable offence. But both verbal and
written slander were privileged if communicated
from pure and upright motives by a person inte-
rested to do so to a person interested to receive it. It
might be that the law went further, and that if the
communication was made to a person interested to
receive it, even though it was made by a person not
interested to make it, there was privilege; for two
Lords Chief Justices of this court had so held. The
evidence here was that the defendant subscribed, or
got some one else to subscribe, to the hospital in
1860 or 1861, and if the jury believed this evidence,
then he was of opinion that the defendant was in-
terested to make the communications, and they
would be privileged, whether true or false, provided
they were made from pure and upright motives.
The jury, after considering the matter fer half
an hour, found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages, £5.
The trial occupied the whole of yesterday and
the best part of to-day.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
•
HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, Dec. 4.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams.)
Charles Lamb, 18, was charged with the man-
slaughter of Robert Parkes.
Mr. Barrow prosecuted; and Mr. Ribton was
counsel for the defence.

It appeared that the prisoner and the deceased
were both labouring men, and that on the night of
the 17th of August, some dispute took place between
them on account of the deceased interfering with
the prisoner while ho was engaged in conversation
with some young woman. Blows were exchanged,
and the prisoner was seen to strike the deceased on
the left eye and knock him down. It was at first
thought that this blow was only inflicted with the
prisoner's fist, but it turned out that he had a
closed clasp-knife in his hand at the time, and it
was supposed that it was with the handle of the
knife that this blow was struck. The deceased
died two or three days afterwards.
The learned judge having summed up,
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.

. _
David Jones, 29, soldier, was charged with arson
at Deal.

Mr. Ribton prosecuted.
In this case it appeared that the prisoner was
seen to go towards the stack, and to come away
from it in a few minutes afterwards, and almost
at the same moment the stack burst into flames.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
Sentence deferred.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, DEC. 4.
(Before Mr. justice Willes.)
George Cooper, 23, Thomas Cooper, 29, Richard
Roberts, 34, colliers, and Thomas Gwilliam, 31,
quarryman, were indicted for the wilful murder of
Samuel Beard, at the Forest of Dean, in August
last. Another indictment charged them 'with man-
slaughter.
Mr. Powell and Mr. Cripps conducted the prose-
cution ; Mr. Griffiths defended Roberts, and Mr.
Cook and Mr. Evans the other prisoners.
This trial occupied nearly the whole of the day,
and caused much excitement, the deceased having
been much respected, and holding the office in the
Gloucestershire police. The evidence was very
voluminous, but the facts may be summed up as
follows :—lt appeared that Mr. Thomas Guest, a
farmer, of Littledean, having missed several sheep,
and the offence of sheep stealing being rife in the
Forest, he had given information to Sergeant
Beard, the deceased, who undertook to watch Mr.
Guest's flock on the night of the 17th August. Ac-
cordingly on that night Mr. Guest anompanied
him round the farm. On the same evening the
four prisoners had been drinking together at the
" Speech House," a well-known inn in the centre of
the Forest; and on leaving Roberts borrowed from
the landlord a large file or rasp, which he said he
wanted to do some work with at home. The four
prisoners then went away in the direction of Mr.
Guest's land, where they admitted they set nets to
catch hares, They were there for some time,
Roberts, Gwilliam, and Richard Cooper watching
at a gate leading into a field, where Thos. Cooper
was setting the nets. While so occupied, Beard
detected Thos. Cooper, and seized him, on which he
called to his companions to come to the rescue. The
deceased thought Cooper was the sheep stealer, of
whom he was in search, and endeavoured to take
him into custody ; but he resisted, and a desperate
struggle ensued, Cooper using a heavy hedge stake
and Beard using his policeman's staff. 'When the
other men came up, however, the odds were too
great, and Beard was set upon by the whole party,
and in the melee received serious and, as it turned
out, fatal blows on the head and body, the blood
flowing profusely from his wounds. At last Beard
was completely overpowered, and was left sense-
less on the field. In the meantime, the farmer,
Guest, who dl/41 not show much courage, concealed
himself behind :a hedge. and when the fight
was over went to look for Beard, but, as he says,
could not fins him, ilor could he get any reply to
the repeated shouts for " Beard." Next morning
the deceased was found lying helpless in a corner
of the field. He wan removed home, and some
severe cuts were found on his face and head ; some
of which, it was believed, had been inflicted with
the file. He lingered for a day or two, when death
ensued. When on his deathbed, Beard identified
all four of the prisoners as having been the men
who attacked him.
The Coopers and Gwilliam acquitted Roberts of
having had any part in the actual attack on Beard,

and Mr. Griffiths in hig behalf also pleaded a wife
and children in mitigation of Roberts's sentence.
The jury found the prisoners guilty of man•
slaughter, recommending Roberts to mercy.
His Lordship sentenced them each to 15 years'
penal servitude, but said he "&would recommend
Roberts for a mitigation of punishment.