The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-02 00:00:00

FIELD-DAY AT MAIDSTONE.

A gathering of the 3d battalion of Kentish Volun-
teers took place in the Mote-park, Maidstone. This
battalion comprised the Ist (Maidstone), 9th (Chat-
ham), 12th (Dartford), 15th (Sutton), 19th (Roches-
ter), 20th (Northfieet), 22d (Sheerness), and 31st
(Leeds Castle), Kent corps, all of which had cor
dially responded to the invitation to be present,
issued by Lieut.-Col. Scott, the commanding officer
of the battalion; and as the 39th Kent (Malting)
corps had also expressed a wish to take part in the
proceedings, permission was readily accorded. The
Earl of Romney kindly granted the use of his park
(in which the old volunteer force of the county were
reviewed towards the close of the last century by
his late Majesty George HI.), and notwithstanding
the unfavourable weather, a large number of per-
sons assembled, the interest being increased from
the fact that this was the first aggregate gathering
of volunteers which had taken place in the locality.
Most of the corps arrived by train, and marched
through the town, preceded by their bands, playing
spirited airs. On their arrival at the park they fell
out for a time for refreshment, the number of men
upon the ground being about 600. They afterwards
reformed and marched into column shortly before 2
o'clock, the hour appointed for the review. Lieut.-
Col. Scott (in command) and Adjutant (Major)
Laurie, of the 3d battalion, were present, with the
officers attached to the various corps, and also a
considerable number of the military from the cavalry
depot. The usual battalion movements were gone
through, including skirmishing, advancing, and
firing by wings, &c., the whole being executed in a
manner which showed that the volunteers in this dis-
trict were determined not to be behind those of other
parts of the country in rendering themselves effi-
cient for the duties they had undertaken. At the
conclusion Lieut.-Col. Scott addressed the men in
terms of high commendation at the way in which
they had acquitted themselves, and which was the
more creditable from the fact of this being the first
time the whole of the battalion had had the oppor-
tunity of acting together. Provision had been made
for the volunteers and their friends to dine in a
marquee on the ground, but the state of the weather
prevented this, and the dinner consequently took
place in the Corn Exchange. The ground in the
park was kept by mounted troops from the depot.

ASSIZE INTRELIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT-KINGSTON, April 1.

(Before Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

LOMAX V. NORTON.

This was an action brought by John Lomax, to
recover damages from Louisa Norton, for her breach
of promise to marry him.
The, defendant first pleaded that she did not
make the promise in manner and form mentioned,
and she also pleaded that at the time the promise
was made she believed the plaintiff to be a man of
chaste and moral habits and decent behaviour, and
that she had since ascertained that he was a man of
unchaste and immoral habits, and on that ground
she justified her refusal to marry him.
Serjeant Ballantine, Serjeant Parry, and Mr.
Foster appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James,
Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. T. Salter were coun-
sel for the defendant.

The learned judge, before the trial commenced,
threw out a suggestion that the cause was of such a
nature as to render it necessary to avoid, if possible,
going into a public inquiry. The learned counsel
on both sides, however, stated that they,could not
agree upon any terms, and the cause consequently
proceeded.

Sergeant Ballantine, in opening the case for the
plaintiff, said he and his learned friend would have
been extremely glad if they could have avoided en-
tering into the present inquiry, but he was afraid
that there was no alternative. It was, under all
circumstances, always a very painful matter. When
a gentleman brought an action of this description
against a lady, there were always unpleasant mat-
ters which it was as well to prevent being made pub-
lic, and he said his learned friends had done all in
their powerto avoid publicity on the present occasion,
but they had not succeeded, and it was therefore his
duty to lay the facts befora the jury. The plain-
tiff, he said, was about eight-and-thirty years of age,
He was connected with literary pursuits, as he was
instructed, and had considerable expectations of
property at the death of his mother, who was a very
aged lady. The defendant was ten years younger
than the plaintiff, her friends were very wealthy
and respectable, and she was also possessed of con-
siderable personal attractions. They first became
acquainted about 10 years ago, and they were on
very friendly terms, but the families became sepa-
rated, and did not have any communication with
each other until February, 1858, when the defendant
met the plaintiff accidentally at a sale, and invited
him to her house. The intimacy then continued,
and there could be no doubt that a very strong
affection sprung up between the plaintiff and the
defendant, and that they were engaged to be mar-
ried, with the full consent of the parents of both,
and the present action was brought against the de-
fendant for having broken that promise. He thought
it right to state that there did not appear to be the
slightest mercenary feeling on either side, and he
would admit that there was no ground for suppos-
ing that the young lady was actuated in her refusal
by the slightest feeling of a mercenary character,
neither had the plaintiff any such object in bring-
ing the present action. All he desired was to obtain
such a verdict as would relieve his character from
the imputations that had been cast upon it during
these proceedings, and by the plea that had been
placed upon the record.
Lord Chief Justice Erle here interposed, and said
that after the statement that had just been made by
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, he really thought it would
be much better for all parties that the inquiry
should not be proceeded with. _ _

Mr. Edwin 'James said he had done all he could
to avoid having a public inquiry in a case of such a
nature, but the father of the young lady, who was
defending the action on her behalf, felt that there
were circumstances connected with the inquiry
which left him no alternative but to lay the whole
case before the jury.
Chief Justice Erie said he understood that no
money was desired to be obtained by the plaintiff.
Sergeant Ballantine said, certainly not. If the
young lady had said that she was tired of the plain-
tiff and wished to break off the connection, hia client
would have been perfectly content.
Mr. Edwin James repeated that he had done all
he could to 'induce the father of the young lady to
come to some terms, but he peremptorily refused,
and therefore there was no alternative but that the
trial should proceed.
Sergeant Ballantine then proceeded with his ad-
dress, and he read some short extracts from corres-
pondence that had passed between the plaintiff and
the defendant for the purpose of showing that a
strong feeling of attachment had originally existed
between them.

Mrs. Lomax, the mother of the plaintiff, was then
called as a witness.
Chief Justice Erle, before she was sworn, however,
again interposed, and said that although this action
might be defended by the father of the young lady,
still, whatever his feelings might be upon the sub-
ject, the young lady herself was the real party in.
terested ; and having considered the nature of the
action, and what had been stated by the learned
counsel on both sides, he had no .hesitation in ex-
pressing his opinion that it would be very much to
come
s this
must o to
the interest of lgi§P..Norton, and to that of her
family also, if
some arrangement were
avoid going into such a painful inquiry as
necessarily be. He at the same time said he enter-
tained a very strong opinion that if the young lady's
father persisted in proceeding, he would most as-
suredly one day deeply regret what he had done, as
he would find that he had caused his daughter very
much unnecessary pain and annoyance. By going
on with the case, annoyance and injury might un-
doubtedly be caused to the plaintiff, but it could not
benmerfi.t
James
edseefeanid hdanet.w
as much obliged to his lord-
ship for what he had stated, which entirely coin-
cided with the View he had taken of the matter.
He and his learned "3
friend Mr. Lush had strongly
advised Mr. Norton to come to some arrangement
preve
that would
althoughrilgoy' b nt the necessity of going into a
public inquiry, but he appeared determined to pro-
ceed.
He thou it right at the same time to state
that
at one time Mr. Norton was un
al
e—.•
doubt
-Y willing that his daughter. should be
married to the plaintiff, he subsequently received
iiirnefoerm.ation respecting him which led him to be-
that the marriage could not be a happy one,
and it was therefore through him that the marriage
was broken off, but with the full consent of the

defendant, and he was nos prepared with a mass
of evidence to justify the course he had taken.
The learned judge again intimated his strong
opinion that some arrangement ought to be come to
between the parties, atid after some conference it
was arranged that a juror should be withdrawn,
that all the letters that had passed between the
parties should be delivered up; that the defendant
should withdraw all imputations upon the character
of the plaintiff; and that the second plea should be
withdrawn.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, April 1.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
MURDER IN LIVERPOOL.
Thomas Donegan was indicted for the wilful
murder of James Cassidy, at Liverpool, on the 26th
January last. The prisoner was also charged on
the coroner's warrant.
Mr. Aspinall and Mr. L. Temple were for the ,
prosecution, and Mr. Little for the defence.
On the 26th January (Mr. Aspinall informed the
jury in opening) the prisoner was entering the door
of a public-house at the corner of Dale-street and
Johnson-street, Liverpool. The house had a door
in each street, and both communicated with the
bar. A man named Heffman (a corn porter) was
coming out of the house at the time, and some dis-
pute having arisen bettveen the two as to the room
allowed for each other to pass, a scuffle followed,
and several blows were struck. The prisoner suc-
ceeded in entering, and the noise of the scuffle having
attracted the attention of those inside as well as
of persons outside the house, a number of people
entered by the door in Johnson-street, and a general
disturbance, in which the prisoner took a prominent
part, took place within the house. The deceased was
not there at all, and took no part in the scuffle at
any time. After some time the landlord ejected all
the people from the house, and Donegan 's father,
who was near the spot at this time, seeing the pri-
soner in a very excited state, thought it best to con-
duct him home. He took hold of the prisoner by
the arm and was leading him away, when Donegan
caught sight of Cassidy, who was standing against
a wall quietly smoking his pipe, The prisoner ob.
viously took Cassidy for one of the persons who had
been engaged in the quarrel, as he said, " Are you
one of them ?" and though assured by his father
that Cassidy had taken no part in the affray, the
prisoner nevertheless rushed at him, and struck him
in the neck with a knife or some sharp instrument.
Cassidy fell, and never rose again. Indeed, he had
been wounded so severely that he died almost in-
stantaneously. The witnesses would give precisely
the same version of the case which he (Mr ;Aspinall)
had just related, and the only question for the jury
would be whether or not anything had occurred
between the prisoner and anybody else which could
have brought him to that state of hot blood which,
under all the circumstances, would reduce the crime
from murder to manslaughter. The learned gentle-
man then called witnesses.
The first witness, James Barlow, son of the keeper
of the public house, spoke generally to Donegan
and Heffman having been drinking in the house on
the night mentioned.
Heffman (next examined), stated that he was first
assailed, on entering the house, by the prisoner, who
struck him in the face, and on Heffman returning
the blow the barman turned them out.
Another witness, named Miller, who was passing
the public house a little later, saw Cassidy coming
out at a side door in a state of intoxication. He
leaned against a wall, and while in this position
Donegan came up to him, and after asking--" Are
you one of them ?" struck him with a knife on the
left side of the neck, saying, " Take that." The
blood gushed forth, and death took place almost
immediately.
John Jones, who was passing at the time, corro-
the evidence as to Donegan giving the deceased a
blow with a knife. The prisoner then ran away!
and Cassidy fell down and died. One of the police
officers who assisted to capture Donegan stated that
there were about 30 people engaged in the affray
within the public-house, and that when apprehended
Donegan had a yellow mark, as if from a blow,
round one of the eyes.
A surgeon from the Northern Dispensary, Liver-
pool, stated that on examining the body of the
deceased he found the jugular vein cut, and that
this had caused death.
Mr. Littler, for the defence, urged that the case
would not warrant a verdict of murder, as there
was no evidence of there being in his mind at the
time that " malice aforethought," which was essen-
tial to the crime of murder ; and that the most
serious aspect of the case would not justify a vereuct,
more severe than manslaughter.
The learned Judge, in summing up, stated
that
prima facie all killing was murder, but that if
there was evidence of aggravation or quarrelling
leading to hot blood, the law, in mercy to man's
infirmity, reduced the crime to manslaughter, and
it was for the jury to say whether there was such
evidence of hot blood in the present case.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
shortly afterwards returned, and acquitted the
prisoner of murder, but found him guilty of aggra-
vated manslaughter.
The Judge, after commenting upon the enormity
of the offence, sentenced Donegan to penal servi-
tude for life.
ANOTHER TRIAL FOR MURDER. '
Joaquin Francisco, 27, a Brazilian sailor, was
indicted for the murder of a Spanish sailor, also
named Francisco, on the 17th of March, at Liver-
pool.
Mr. J. B. Aspinall appeared for the prosecution,
assisted by Mr. Conway; and Mr. Temple for the
.defence.
The jury were composed half of Spaniards and
half of Englishmen, and the necessity to translate
by interpreters the evidence of nearly all the wit-
nesses (who werre Spanish or Brazilian sailors),
greatly protracted the case.
e nr
ai ga
ah t m
nameen dt i oFn
leodr e
na
tt i nae , bnoeaarrd itnbge
It appeared that the deceased and prisoner were
byon tahpe
hd
oo cu ks es
, keptand
that some dispute arose between them in conse-
quence of some gallantries offered by the prisoner
to one of the female servants in the hOuse. The
quarrel increased, and the two men went into the
street to fight it out. Before, however, the deceased
had time to strike a blow or to place himself on the
defensive, the prisoner rushed upon him, and with
a knife or some other glittering weapon struck
deceased in the neck, causing him •to fall and soon
afterwards to die. The prisoner then went away
and changed his clothes, but. he was soon'afterward.
arrested, and was then observed to pass something
to a friend, and afterwards to throw a weapon of
some kind into the fire. The fire was not examined
immediately, but when it was examined a razor
blade was found (the handle having been consumed),
and subsequent chemical tests had proved that it
had been stained with human blood. As in the
previous case, it would be for the jury to decide
whether the act of the prisoner was performed in
that heat of temper which reduced the crime in
law to manslaughter, or whether there was the
malice which would justify a commital for murder.
Such were the leading facts, to which numerous
witnesses deposed.
Mr. Temple, for the defence, though he did not
deny that the wound inflicted by the prisoner bad
caused Francisco's death, argued that the use of the
razor by the prisoner was not with the intention of
murdering, but merely of wounding and disfiguring
the deceased. The learned gentleman dwelt strongly
upon the fact, elicited towards the close of the evi-
dence, that a large carving knife was found upon
the person of the deceased, beneath his clothes, after
his death, and said that the presumption was that
this knife was intended to be used against the de-
ceased, between whom and the prisoner there must
previously have been ill blood.
His lordship, in summing up, drew the attention
of the jury to similar legal distinction to those he
had before noticed.
The jury retired, and, after a brief absence, re'
turned with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
The prisoner was sentenced to penal servitude for
life. ,

BIRTHS.
GORE.—On Good Friday, at Margate, the wife of 10 /I.
Gore, Esq., of a son.
KEINIBLE.—On the 31st ult., at Bath, the wife of the Reit.
Charles Kemble, of a daughter.
RICHARDS.—On Easter-day, at 4, Porchester-square) the
wife of Charles Richards, Esq., of a daughter.

MARRIAGES.
na .1311
RAYNHAM—WILLIAMS.—On the 29th ult , at the r-r„gf
church, Clapham, Surrey, James, second son of Pri;
Rayuham of Rectory-grove, to Eleanor, eldest (laugh°
of Mr. T. 'Williams, of North-street.

WEST—EMERY.—On the 21st ult., at St. Paul's, Camden
town, Mr. Edwin Francis West, of Clifton, to Fanny
Emery, eldest daughter of Mr. Jocc-ph James Ewell, -
Westbury. terrace, Bayswater.
DEATHS.
Read
CHABOT.—On the 29th ult., at Camberwell, James
Chabot, Esq., aged 72.
COTESWORTIL—On tbo 29th ult., at Cheltenham, Yen.•
rietta, daughter of the late Robt. Cotesgrove, Esq.) 'le—.
mender, of H.M.'s Packet Service, Falmouth.
DAVIS.—On the 30th ult., Captain George Davis, late of
Cheltenham, aged 60. of
HownEN.—On the 30th ult., William Howden, Eq.,
Great George-street, Westminster, aged 36.
HENDERSON.—On the 30th ult., suddenly, at Felderlandi
near Sandwich, Kent, William Henderson, Esq., age"'
74.
ISE —On the 31st ult., in London, Fanny, widow of the
late Rear-Admiral Wise, C. 8., of Hoe-gate House, Ply"
mouth, aged 68.
-.4

LONDON : Printed and Published by MUF;DO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Otto e, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Coy aity of 1111101403
Tueaclay, April 2, 1801.

that
,at if
lling
nan'S
~ and
such

i ' .
k' ' •
it, „.:
i‘. .
I .'