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

ASSIZE 121' TELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CROYDON, AUG. 7.
CROWN SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
THE KINGSWOOD MURDER.

The trial of Johann Charles Franz, 24, the Ger-
man who was charged with the wilful murder of
Martha Halliday, was resumed at 9 o'clock yester-
day morning.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, specially retained, with
Mr. Robinson, again appeared for the prosecution ;
the Hon. G. Denman, Q.C., with Mr. W. Best, was
counsel for the prisoner.
Mr. Denman proceeded to address the jury for
the defence in a most powerful and eloquent speech,
which occupied rather more than four hours in the
delivery. He said that it had been truly stated
by his learned friend Sergeant Ballantine that the
case against the prisoner rested entirely upon what
was called circumstantial evidence ; but, while
he should riot attempt to dory that in many cases
evidence of this character was the most satisfac-
tory that could be laid before a jury, still he could
not subscribe to the observation of his learned friend
that it was sufficient to show that all the facts
which were brought forward were consistent with
the guilt of the prisoner, but thought that it was
necessary also to show that they were inconsistent
with his innocence—and he believed he should be
able to satisfy them that this was not the case in
reference to the present charge. lie then observed
that it appeared the prisoner had endeavoured to
gain a livelihood by his labour, that he was not a
man of bad character, and he did not therefore ap-
pear to be the sort of a man who was likely to com-
mit a crime of this dreadful description, and the
principal evidence against him appeared to be that
he was seen in the neighbourhood of the place
where the crime was committed in company with
another man ; but there was nothing whatever to
show that he was ever in the house or near it, ex.
cept from the pocketbook and the papers that were
contained in it, and he submitted that there was
nothing in the case to show that the statement of
the prisoner that he had been robbed of this pocket-
book was not true, and it appeared to him that
there were many facts in the case which tended to
show that it was so. The learned counsel then pro-
ceeded with great feeling and earnestness to call the
attention of the jury to the destitute and helpless
condition of the prisoner, who, ho said, was not only
!deeply steeped in poverty, but entirely ignorant of
our language, and consequently unable to give any
of the necessary instructions for his defence, and
who, but for the humanity of the Saxon Embassy,
would have been altogether without legal assistance
to answer the dreadful charge made against him.
He then went on to comment upon the evidence
which had been adduced in support of the prosecu-
tion, and concluded by stating that although sus-
picion might be created by that evidence, still it
was not sufficiently cogent to justify the jury in
saying upon their oaths that the prisoner was guilty
of a crime for which his life must undoubtedly be
forfeited. _

av
Mr Justice Blackburn then ,'proceeded to sum
up the case to the jury, and went very carefully
through the whole of the evidence. He observed
that it certainly was a very material question for
them whether it had been satisfactorily established
that the prisoner was one of the men who was seen
near the scene of the murder shortly before it was
committed ; and, if they believed that this had been
made out, they would then have to take into con-
sideration the other circumstances of the case, and
say by their verdict whether the evidence satisfied
them that the prisoner was one of the parties con-
cerned in the murder. His lordship then read
through the evidence, and concluded by leaving the
case in the hands of the jury.
The jury retired at 5 o'clock to consider their ver-
dict, and were absent about an hour, and upon their
return into court they found the prisoner Not
Guilty.
It was said that when the jury retired ten of
them had made up their minds to return a verdict
of guilty..
The prisoner was immediately discharged from
custody, and it was stated that means were afforded
him by the Saxon Embassy to return at once to his
native country. .

(Before Mr. Justice Williams and Special Juries.)
SMITH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages sustained
by the plaintiff, who was a guard in the service of
the Post .office, for injuries sustained by him through
the negligence of the servants of the defendants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Prentice, and Mr.
Underdown were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr-
Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Pollock were for the de-
fendants.
After one or two witnesses had been examined,

the learned counsel on both sides held a consulta-
tion, and the defendants consented to a verdict, with
£l5O damages.
CLEMENTS Y. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY.
This was an action of the same description.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Craufurd, and Mr. Lum-
ley Smith were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. C. Pollock represented the
company.
This action arose out of the same accident that
was the subject of the first inquiry. It will be re-
membered that on the 16th of November last the
mail up train, travelling at the rate of 40 miles an
hour, ran into the cattle train at Atherstone, and
the consequence was that nine of the drovers in
charge of the cattle were killed, and a number of
the Post-office servants who were travelling in the
Post-office van were seriously injured. The plaintiff',
who was engaged as a letter-sorter, and who received
£75 a year salary, which, with other perquisites,
amounted to nearly £l5O, had, it appeared, received
an injury by a similar accident that occurred at
Rugby in March, 1859, and upon that occasion the
company gave him £l2O as compensation. At the
second accident it appeared that he was thrown a
distance of 22 feet, and that several of his com-
panions who were with him in the Post-office van
were thrown upon him, and it was alleged that he
had received an injury to his spine, and that his
eyes were affected by the shock that he had received.
In order to make out these facts*, Mr. W. Lewis,
the physician to the Post-office, Dr. Pearson, Dr.
Webb, Dr. Gay, Dr. Poland, and Dr. Farre, all of
whom are eminent in their profession, were exa-
mined, and they expressed their opinion that the
plaintiff had sustained very severe injury from the
shock that he had received. In the course of the
trial an offer was made on the part of the defen-
dants to consent to a verdict, with £250 damages,
but this offer the plaintiff refused to accept, and the
case proceeded. At the close of the plaintiff's case
on Tuesday evening a suggestion was made that
the plaintiff should consent to allow his eyes to be
examined by Dr. H. Walton, the surgeon attached
to the Ophthalmic Hospital, by an instrument
called an ophthalmoscope, but although the learned
judge expressed a strong opinion that he ought to
allow this to be done, he refused, and the trial was
then adjourned.
Mr. Bovill, at the sitting of the Court yesterday
morning, addressed the jury for the defendants, and
said that the answer to the action was, that the
plaintiff had greatly exaggerated the injuries ho
had received, and he called as witnesses Dr. Haynes
Walton, Dr. Arnott, Dr. Partridge, Dr. Barnard
Holt, and Dr. Skelding, all of whom stated that
they had made a careful examination of the plain-
tiff, and could not discover the slightest indication
of his having sustained any injury to the spine, and
with regard to the condition of his eyes, they stated
that he was suffering from a malady called asthen-
opia, to which all persons who were engaged in ex-
amining minute objects by strong artificial light
were subject, and that it was not at all of a perma-
nent character or in any way to be ascribed to the
accident. Several of these gentlemen stated, in an-
swer to questions put by Mr. Hawkins, that they
were paid five guineas for making a report upon
the case to the railway company, and 25 guineas
per day for attending to give evidence, but they
stated also that they expected the same fee from
their private patients, and that it was their usual
charge.
Dr. Skelding, one of the medical witnesses for the
company, in cross-examination by Mr. Hawkins,
said that when an accident happened upon the line
it was usual to send for him to see the patients upon
their arrival at Euston-square, and he had been so
called upon probably a hundred times in the course
of the year, and he took a note-book with him and
made notes of the different cases, and reported upon
them to the company. He also said that when a
patient broached the subject of compensation he
entertained the question, and reported to the com-
pany his opinion as to the amount of compensation
that should be given, and sometimes paid them with
his own check. The plaintiff, in the first instance,
required £550 damages, and he advised that an offer
of £250 should be made him.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Bovill, in
re-examination, :Dr. Skelding said he should not
have advised this offer to be made if he had been
aware that the plaintiff would refuse to allow Dr.
Walton to examine his eyes, and that there were
grounds for believing that the defect existed in them
long before this accident, and that, in point of fact,
the accident had nothing whatever to do with it.
Mr_ Bovill, in summing up the defendants' case,
complained a good deal of the course that had been
taken by Mr. Hawkins in bringing out the fact
that an offer of £250 had been made to the plaintiff
on the previous evening, and he said that the offer
was made in ignorance of what was afterwards
ascertained, that there was reason to believe that
the injury to the plaintiff's eyes solely arose from
the nature of his occupation, and had nothing to do
with the accident. This opinion was strengthened
by the fact that the plaintiff had refused to permit
his eyes to be examined, although the learned judge
had so strongly intimated that he ought to do so.
When the offer was made the company believed
that the plaintiff had really sustained an injury to
his eyes that might require rest to restore them,
and they made him an offer of liberal compensation;
but from what subsequently came to their know-
ledge, they felt themselves justified in withdraw-
ing that offer, and he expressed his opinion that
Mr. Hawkins ought not to have brought the offer
before the jury, and that it was solely in the extre-
mity of the case that he had felt compelled to do so.
The learned counsel concluded by expressing his
opinion that the evidence had clearly established
that the injury sustained had been grossly exagge-
rated, and called upon the jury not to give the plain-
tiff any more than a reasonable amount of damages
for the expense and loss of salary that he had sus-
tained.
Mr. Hawkins commented in severe terms upon
the conduct of Dr. Skelding in the transaction, and
described him as a sort of lawyer's clerk, doctor,
and compensation maker, whose only duty, he said
appeared to be to go to the bedside of any unfortu-
nate persons who had received injury through the
negligence of the company, not for the purpose of
endeavouring to assuage their pain, or to render
them any assistance, but, note-book in hand, to en-
deavour to extract from them something that was
calculated to benefit the company; and he urged,
notwithstanding what had been said by his learned
friend, as to his having acted unprofessionally in
extracting from him that he had recommended an
offer of £250 to be made to the plaintiff, that he
was perfectly, justified in the course he had to take,
when he had to deal with a witness of this descrip-
tion. He then said that, without entering into
the precise nature of the injuries sustained by
the plaintiff, he would put it to the jury, as
men of common sense, whether it was possible,
having regard to the nature of the acci-
dent, and to the fact that nine unfortunate per-
sons lost their lives, and that the plaintiff was via•
lently thrown a distance of 22 feet and four or five
other men thrown violently upon him, that the
plaintiff could have escaped without sustaining
some severe injury from such a shock, and for that
injury he called upon them to give him reasonable
and proper damages.
Mr. Justice Williams, in summing up the case to
the jury, said that in itself it was very simple, but
from the peculiar course of the evidence it had, in
his opinion, become one of very considerable public
importance. It was no doubt very necessary that any
one who received injury in consequence of the negli-
gence of a railway company should receive compen-
sation for that injury ; but, on the other hand, it
was not to be tolerated that the occasion of a rail-
way accident should render the company liable to
pay large amounts of money for false and exagge-
rated claims, in order to put money into the pockets
of persons who were not entitled to it and those
professional advisers who attempted to enforce
claims of such a description. If such a course of
proceeding were to be sanctioned it would not only
be extremely unfair and unjust to railway com-
panies, but eventually the public must suffer by it,
for the heavy costs and damages consequent upon
it would compel railway companies to raise their
fares in order to cover these additional expenses, and
the public would thus suffer very materially. His
lordship then called the attention of the jury to the
facts that had been brought forward, and expressed
his opinion that the plaintiff acted wrongly, after
what took place, in refusing to allow his eyes to be
examined, and he also said ho thought it was
wrong for Mr. Hawkins to introduce the fact of the
offer of the £250 having been made on the previous
evening, but he was satisfied that he had done so
under a misapprehension of the circumstances
under which the offer was made.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages £275, and they at the same time stated
that they were not at all influenced in coming to
this decision, by the offer of the £250.

CHESTER CIRCUIT.-CHESTER) Aug. 7.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Common Jury.)
BLAKE V. DONE.
Mr. Welsby and Mr. M. Lloyd were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Grove, Q.C., and Mr. Pulling
for the defendant.
This wan an action of ejectment by a mortgagee.
John Done made his will, and left his property to
the illegitimate son of his sister. The. main ques-
tion to be tried was whether John Done, the tes-
tator
itwneasssecsapabl
behalf of the plaintiff
weree ecaflmledakolnugb a will.
W
in support of the will, who, however, had to admit
that the testator was of dull mind. One old school-
master under whom he had been at school said he
was with him
managed during the three years he