The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOV.OIII3EII 29, 1861.

in the City, and went with me to Somerset-house.
I never went with her to Madame Tussaud's. On
that day we went to a brothel in Wych-street, and
I again made her a present. We afterwards went to
the Lyceum. I ltft her at Bishopsgate Church, she
saying she was going home, and afterwards to the
Eagle. Two or three weeks afterwards I met her
at the Eagle, and whenever I was there I saw her.
On a subsequent occasion she went with me to
Somerset-house ; and on that occasion we went
again to a brothel, as well as on other occasions.
About five or six weeks after Christmas, 1859, I
went with her to a brothel kept by a person named
King.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine complained that the at-
tention of those engaged in the case was distracted
by the child not being so quiet as it might be.
Mr. Justice Willes said the child must be taken
out of court.
Mr. Huddleston, however, observed that for the
purpose of seeing the likeness it would be necessary
to have the baby in court. (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Willes—lf it is necessary to see it, it
is not necessary to hear it. (Laughter.)
The defence being closed, the jury, after consider-
ing the matter for a short time, said that they were
unanimously of opinion that the defendant was the
father of the child, and they assessed the damages
at £25.
In answer to his lordship they added that they
did not think that there was what was popularly
called a seduction, but that the defendant picked the
girl up and got her with child.
His lordship, after some little discussion, said he
would consider in what shape the case should be
put, for the purpose of taking the opinion of the
full court upon the matter.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—Nov. 28.

THE MURDER AT DEPTFORD.
George Inkpen, described in the calendar as being
20 years of age, and by trade a hammerman, was
placed at the bar to plead to an indictment charging
him with the wilful murder of Margaret Edmunds,
and also to the coroner's inquisition, charging him

as an accessory to the murder.
The officer of the court having read the abstract
of the indictment and the finding of the coroner's
inquisition,
Mr. Justice Byles interfered, and after a short
conference with Mr. Avery, the clerk of arraigns,
directed that the prisoner should be given in charge
to the jury on the indictment only, as the finding
of the coroner's inquisition raised an important
question of law which might as well be avoided if
possible.
The prisoner, who is a simple•looking youth,
with a mild expression of countenance, was then
arraigned on the indictment for wilful murder, and
in a low but firm tone of voice pleaded not guilty.
Mr. F. H. Lewis conducted the prosecution, and
Mr. Sleigh, with whom was Mr. Orridge, the de-
'

fence.
Mr. F. H. Lewis, in opening the case, briefly
alluded in feeling terms to the painful nature of the
transaction which gave rise to this prosecution, and
proceeded to detail the facts as they are disclosed in
the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecu-
tion, and having done so, called
Stephen Ellis, who deposed that he was an in-
spector of the t division of metropolitan police,
stationed at Greenwich, and that, from information
he had received from some friends of the prisoner,
he went on the evening of the 11th of the present
month to Amelia-terrace, Deptford, where the pri-
soner resided. He then asked to see the prisoner,
and was told that he was upstairs in bed. Shortly
afterwards the prisoner came down, and witness
asked him to walk a short way with him. At that
time three or four of the prisoner's friends, some of
whom had given information to the police, were
present. When the prisoner came outside the door,
witness said to him, " I suppose you can point out
the spot where it occurred ?" The prisoner then
said, " I will tell you all about it," and then went
on to say as follows—" I had been to a footrace at
Hackney-wick, and came down by the train, and
got out at the High-street, Deptford. I then went
to call on Brimell, the barber, and then went to the
Lord Duncan public-house in the High-street.
Whilst I was at the bar there, she (meaning the
deceased) came in for the supper beer, and I went
out after her, and we had some conversation, and
she asked me to have some of the beer, which I did,
and we drank it between us. In the course of fur-
ther conversation, she said it was of no use living,
for her friends were always nagging' at her. We
then walked down the Mornington-road, towards
the Surrey Canal, and when we got there she pro-
posed that we should drown ourselves. She asked
me if I had got a handkerchief to tie ourselves
together with, and I produced one, which she said
was too short, and that it was not long enough to
tie us both together. She then said I have got
some tape with me, but I did not bring it out for
that purpose. I then said that I had got some boot
laces, and that they would do, and we then fastened
ourselves together, and she said she did not think
she would be able to sink because of her crinoline.
We then threw ourselves into the canal, she having
put her arms round my neck. We turned over in
the water two or three times, and the string or
laces broke and we were separated, and she seemed
to be soon drowned. I got out on the opposite
side of the canal, and instantly got in again, and
tried to get her out, but could not find her. I
then swam across the canal and got out and
went home. Before we got into the canal I was
very bad, and she was obliged to hold me up."
The witness then proceeded to say that seeing the
prisoner shivering, be asked him if he felt any
better now. The prisoner replied " Yes, and if I had
been like this some time ago, I should not have had
this charge against me." The prisoner then
pointed out where it would be likely to find the
body of the deceased, and soon afterwards her body
was discovered and got out of the water quite dead.
The prisoner then asked to be allowed to look at her
face, and inquired if she was disfigured. Witness
permitted him to look at her face, and on seeing it
the prisoner said, " She is so changed."
In his cross-examination by Mr. Sleigh, the wit-

ness stated that the prisoner told him he had been
drinking freely, and mentioned the places where he
had been at during the day.
Mary Ann Collins was next examined, and stated
that the deceased was her sister, and was 24 years
of age. She had seen her alive on the night of the
10th Nov., and she was then in good spirits, as, in
fact, she always was. The deceased has kept com-
pany with the prisoner for about two years.
Mrs. S. Russell, the wife of Mr. Russell of the
Income Tax Department of Revenue at Deptford,
proved that deceased was in her service as house-
maid, and that she was always a girl of very good
spirits. Witness last saw her alive about half-past
7 o'clock on the evening of the 11th inst., when she
was going out for their supper beer, and at that
time her spirits were as usual, and she did not evince
any singularity of conduct or demeanour. The
deceased was only sent out for a Pint of beer.
The landlord of the Lord Duncan public-house
was then called, and stated that he well remem-
bered the prisoner, whom he had long known, being
at his bar on the evening in question. The prisoner
was a very sober young man. He came into the
house at about half-past 7, and witness believed he
had partaken of either a pint or glass of porter. He
saw the deceased come in for her beer, and he no-
ticed that she and the prisoner spoke together.
When she went out she reopened the door almost
immediately, and beckoned the prisoner to come
out to her. The prisoner did so, and they appeared
then to be the best possible friends.
Mrs. Sarah Lewis was next examined, and proved
she lived in a cottage built under one of the rail-
way arches, near the scene of the occurrence, and
that on the night in question she heard a loud
scream as if from a female.
Another person, residing in an adjoining house,
also deposed to having heard a scream, which she
described as a fearful one and of long duration.
John Rossiter stated that he met the prisoner in
a lane leading from that part of the canal where
the body of the deceased was found. The prisoner
was running and was very wet, looking as if he
had been overboard.
Further evidence was given, the substance of
which was to the following effect :—That the boot-
lace which the prisoner had spoken of was three
days after finding the body, dragged up from the
canal, at no great distance from where the body
was found, by police-constable Turner, 237 R; and
it also appeared that the prisoner had been, as
stated, to the foot-race with the waiter at the Ship
and Bell public-house, East Greenwich, and that
they had drunk, between three of them, half a pint
of brandy, and subsequently a pint of ale between
two, and that the prisoner had had nothing to eat
during the time he and Ibis friend the waiter were
out, with the exception of a biscuit, of which he had
only taken a mouthful. While they were drinking
the ale, a man came in with boot-laces, and the pri-
soner and the waiter each bought one, in order to
get rid of him. The laces were long leather ones,
of the same description as the ones taken out of the
canal, and now produced.
Mr. Joseph Henderson, surgeon, of High-street,
Deptford, proved that he had examined the body of
the deceased, who had diei of suffocation, produced
by drowning.
e upon
upperThereher
person,p a
r were eor ef w
tinht
with
thee marksleft
exceptionar mo of violence
and o f
whatevera
bruise on th
two
slight bruises ina
ofcorrespondingth line up the body
upon the left side
had been e head, which, in all pro-
bability,occasionedsutby deceased having
fallen against some hard substance.
The
csalseeigfl, i
for
noa
verprosecutionfezlins havingcrallacdedr.
closed,
that there was a total absence of anyePsrtioefoonftmenadea
malice
prepense on the part of the prisoner, so as to eat

blish or support a charge of wilful murder ; and he
argued that from the confused state the prisoner
was in from having been drinking, his mind was not
in a state to clearly understand what was going on.
His own statement showed that she placed her
arms round his neck, a circumstance which indi-
cated that he was acting under her directions.
Several witnesses were then called, who stated
the prisoner to be a very humane, sober, and well-
disposed youg man.
Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up the case to the
jury, remarked that the case was of a most painful
character to all parties. HisPordship minutely re-
capitulated the whole of the evidence, and explained
to the jury the law affecting it. His lordship
stated that where two persons agreed together to
commit suicide, and only one dies, the party agree-
ing and taking part in the act was clearly guilty of
murder, and liable to the consequences of the crime.
The prisoner's own statement fully established that
he had agreed with the deceased to join in the act
which had proved fatal to her.
The jury, after a brief consultation in their box,
expressed a wish to retire; but as they were about
to leave the jury-box,
The foreman asked his lordship whether, if they
believed the account given by the prisoner of the
transaction was a true one, the offence amounted to
wilful murder.
Mr. Justice Byles—Certainly it would.
The jury again conferred for a very brief space
of time, and at length returned a verdict of guilty,
strongly recommending the prisoner to mercy.
Mr. Justice Byles—Then you think his story was
in every particular true ?
Foreman—We do.
Mr. Justice Byles—And that there was not any
malice on his part ?
The jury (almost unanimously)—No, not the
slightest.
The prisoner was then asked the usual question,
whether he had anything to say why sentence of
death should not be passed upon him, but he made
no reply.
Mr. Justice Byles then assumed the black cap,
and, with great emotion, said this was a most pain-
ful case, and he entirely agreed in the opinion ex-
pressed by the jury as to the absence of all malice;
and he would take every care that the recommen-
dation to mercy, and the opinions they had ex-
pressed, should be forwarded to the proper quarter.
At present it only remained for him to pass the
sentence of the law, directing the removal of the
prisoner to the gaol of the county in which the
offence had been committed, namely, Kent. His
lordship then passed the sentence in the usual form
and words, adding the aspiration—May the Lord
have mercy on your soul.
The prisoner, who maintained uncommon self-
possession during the whole of the proceedings, then
bowed and calmly withdrew from the dock.
Samuel Thomas Gillard, a letter-carrier, who had
pleaded guilty to an indictment for stealing a post
letter containing a sovereign, was brought up for
judgment, and sentenced to three years' penal ser-
vitude.

feloniously killing and slaying Sarah Penfold, his
wife.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted, and Mr. Best defended.
The evidence adduced disclosed that the prisoner
and his wife lodged at 3, York-place, Pitt-street,
Old Kent-road, and that on the 12th November inst.
the landlady, Mrs. Jones, was attracted by scream-
ing and quarrelling in their room, which she en-
tered, and found the wife lying all in a heap behind
the door. The wife stated that her husband (the
prisoner) having refused to give her any breakfast
she had pulled his hair, and he had struck her a
blow which had knocked her down. She seemed in
great pain, and was removed to a neighbour's room,
and remained there for some time. The prisoner
was then very kind to her, and sent for brandy to
relieve her, and applied a plaster to her side. She
was then taken to her own bed, out of which, how-
ever, she fell, and died on the following day. A
post mortem examination disclosed that the spleen
had been ruptured, and had caused her death. The
medical man attributed the rupture to a heavy fall,
caused by a blow.
Mr. Best addressed the jury in an able speech,
contending that the injury might have been caused
by the fall out of bed.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy, and
The Recorder sentenced him to eight months'
hard labour. _ _ _ _

towards him language calculated to lead to a breach

of the peace.
Mr. Giffard, the barrister, attended on behalf of

the defendant.
Mr. Bush said that on the morning of Saturday,
the 16th inst., he was coming to town by train on
the South-Western Railway, and at the Barnes
Station observed defendant get into the compart-
ment of a first-class carriage next to that which he
was in. The defendant's friend got in first, and
observing the defendant himself put a short pipe
into his mouth before getting into the carriage, he
called to him and said, " Will you have the good-
ness to put that pipe out ?" Nothing more occurred
at that time; but as the train had reached the
Waterloo Station, and just as he had got out of
the carriage, the defendant came up to him and
said, "Are you the person who spoke to me at
the Barnes Station ?" and he replied " Yes."
The defendant then said, " Why did you, a per-
fect stranger and a person I do not know, speak
to me in that way." He (Mr. Bush) re-
plied, " Because I saw you were smoking, and
asked you to put your pipe out,
The defendant
said, "Itis a lie." Witness said he saw him put
the pipe into his mouth and saw smoke issue from
it. The defendant replied, "It is a lie, a d—d lie,
and you are a d—d infernal liar." The defendant
continued to follow him, and said, "I have a great
mind to hit you, to teach you not to speak to me
again :" and made use of an expression which he
did not wish to repeat. He asked him his name,
but he refused to give it, and on reaching his cham-
bers he (Mr. Bush) committed to writing all that
had been said. This he submitted to some of his
friends, to take their opinion as to what he should
do in reference to the matter, and they were of
opinion that ho could not pass it over ; and he ap-
plied for and took out the present summons.
In cross-examination by Mr. Giffard—Mr. Bush
said he was not aware that the train at the Barnes
station had passed the platform; but said that
neither the defendant or his friend were about to
get into the carriage that he was when he called
out to the former to put out his pipe. Was quite
certain he prefaced the request with the courteous
expression,-" Will you have the goodness," and that
the deman was not made in a peremptory and in-
sulting tone. On the contrary, his tone and manner
were gentlemanlike.
Mr. Giffard, in his address to the Court, in reply
to complainant, said that the morning in question
was a very frosty one, and his friend and client,
Mr. Sheriff, as well as the gentleman who accom-
panied him, had smoked their pipes from their resi-
dence to the Barnes station, but discontinued on
reaching that place. On reaching the station the
train had slightly shot beyond the platform, so that
Mr. Sheriff and his friends had some slight difficulty
in getting into a first-class carriage. Having an
umbrella in one hand and his pipe in the other, and
requiring the use of both hands, he, at the moment,
thought his mouth would be the safest place for his
pipe. He placed it there, and, while getting into
the carriage, heard somebody exclaim, "Put that
pipe out;" but at the moment thought it came from
some friend, or some person who knew him, and
who said it in a joke. Finding, however, that it
came from a stranger, and showing to the gentle-
men who were in the carriage with him that he was
not smoking—on the contrary, that his pipe was
out—he had determined on asking for an explana-
tion. He did ask for that explanation ; and when
Mr. Bush had repeated that he had seen smoke
come from his mouth after his denial of the fact, he
did say the assertion was a lie. The complainant,
however, could not complain much if he chose
to doubt and disregard the assertion of a gentle-
man, and thereby give the lie pointedly, if he re-
ceived the lie direct.
Highly respectable witnesses were called whose tes-
timony bore out the statement of the learned gen-
tleman, and said the tone of the complainant in the
first instance was that of a person in authority, and
emphatically denied that the defendant had made
use of any disgusting expression.
Mr. Elliott observed that when a person was seen
with a short pipe in his mouth it was but natural to
infer that he was smoking, and he did not see the
impropriety of any passenger asking him to put the
pipe out. The language of the defendant was cal-
culated to provoke a breach of the peace, and he
must therefore put in bail for six months.

IMMORAL TRAFFIC IN BELGIAN
GIRLS AND WOMEN.

Mr. 'Albert, interpreter to the Marlborough
street Police-court, and one of the agents of the
Society for the• Protection of Women and Children,
Duke-street, St. James's, yesterday begged permis
sion, with the sanction of the society, of which Lord
Raynham was president, to make the following
statement to Mr. Tyrwhitt, with the view of obtain-
ing magisterial advice and co-operation in a matter
of great importance. Some short time ago the ma-
gistrates at this court had received a letter from a
foreign woman, detailing particulars of an immoral
traffic in young foreign girls and women, and stat-
ing that some of the girls were detained is a house
of ill-fame agaiust their will, and were, obliged to
give themselves up to a life of prostitution.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he perfectly well remembered
receiving such a letter, and that he had at once for-
warded it to the society.
Mr. Albert continued—The parties for whom the
protection of the law was now sought were young
girls brought over from Belgium—some under the
pretence of being provided with situations, others
without the knowiedge and consent of their parents,
and all compelled to enter upon a course of prosti-
tution. The principal agent in this scandalous
_traffic was a Belgian, who kept a house of ill-fame
in Marylebone, and who had already been con-
victed and punished in his own country. The
girls whom he got into his clutches had no possible
means of escape. They were supplied with clothes,
jewellery, and board at this man's expense, and no
matter how large the profits of their un-
happy life they wore always brought in debt. Be-
sides being confined to the house they were fre-
quently beaten and otherwise ill-used by the keeper
of the house. The society had bees at great pains
to collect evidence, and they had so far succeeded
as to be able to prove that young girls of the ages
of 13 to 15 were regularly brought from Belgium
to London ; that the person who procured the girls
in Belgium received a stipulated sum, according to
the youth and attractions of tho victim. Some of
these un fortunate girls were the children of respect-
able parents ; some had even been enticed from
boarding schools without the knowledge of their
parents, and the majority had been deluded by false
pretences of one kind or other. The difficulty which
the society experience was to get at these girls to
ascertain from their lips whether they were de-
tained against their consent, and by what means
they had been induced to leave their homes. The
girls were too strictly watched for the society to
hope to get such positive proof as they required.
The proceedings of the parties here and in Belgium
had become so notorious, and the traffic so increas-
ing, that the society, who had fully prepared them-
selves with evidence, had resolved to attempt to
deal with the evil, and had authorised him to lay
the matter before the magistrates of this court for
their advice, and in the hope that they would point
out the course of law the society ought to follow to
effect their object.
Mr. Tyrwhitt suggested that some person should
be sent to the house to collect statements from the
girls themselves privately.
Mr. Albert did not think this would be a prac-
ticable proceeding.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said there could be no difficulty in
getting access to the house, and if it was then found
that any of the inmates were kept there against
their will they might insist on being released.
Mr. Albert said it might appear strange to say
that girls could be kept in a house against their will
in this country, and perhaps it might be impossible
in the case of English girls ; but with a Belgian
girl it was different, for she was ignorant of the
laws, and being in debt and in fear of the keeper
of the house she might think he had power to im-
prison her, and even if she got free, where was she
to go ? The worst cases were those girls of tender
age who had been taken away from their parents,
some perhaps willingly, others by false statements
and promises.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he doubted whether the Ab-
duction Act applied to Belgium.
Mr. Albert—lf the mother of one of these children
came over and deposed that her child had been taken
from her care without her consent, would not that
constitute a case within the operation of the law ?
Mr. Tyra hitt did not think the offence could be
dealt with here in that form. He had no doubt
the publicity which the matter would receive would
have a very salutary effect. With respect to girls
detained, as alleged, against their will, a resort to
the Habeas Corpus Act was easy.
Mr. Albert said that would no doubt be effectual
as regarded an individual case, but the society took
higher ground—they desired not only to bring the
offenders to justice, but to put an end to the base
traffic altogether. In the Norton-street case the
authorities of Marylebone had interfered with suc-
cess. He hoped their attention would be drawn to
this matter, which was within their district.
Some further remarks and suggestions having
been made, Mr. Albert thanked the magistrate, and
left the court.

BENSON'S WATCHES AND CLOCKs.•-." Perfection of
mechanism."—Morning Post. Gold watches, sto Ico guineas;
silver watches, 2 to 50 guineas. Benson's new Illustrated
Pamphlet, free for two stamps, descriptive of every construc-
tion of watch, enables persons in any part of the world to
select with the greatest certainty the watch best adapted to
their use. Watches sent free and safe by post on receipt of
a remittance. —J. W. Benson, 33 and 31, Ludgate-hill, 0 and
147, Cornbill, London E.C, Established 170. .