The Sun.
London, England, 1868-07-24 00:00:00

THE DOVER MURDER.

At the Maidstone Assizes on Thursday, Thomas
18, railway porter, was indicted for the wilful murder of
Edward Adolphus James Walsh, at Dove; by shooting
him with a gun on the Ist of May last. Prisoner
pleaded not guilty. Mr. Serjeant Sleigh was specially
retained, with Mr. Straight, to conduct the prosecution,
by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Com-
pany, in whose service both the deceased and the prisoner
were engaged at the time of the unhappy occurrence. The
Prisoner was defended by Mr. Ribton and Arr. Biron.
The facts of the case were very few and simple, and the
evidence in support of the charge was most conclusive. The
deceased had been for several years the station-master at
the Priory Station of the London, Chatham, and Dover
Railway at Dover, and he was a man of kind and inoffen-
sive habits, and very much respected by all who came in
contact with him or were acquainted with him. The
prisoner was employed at the same station as a porter and
carriage cleaner, and it appeared that for some time
previous to the Ist May, the day on which the deceased
lost his life, he had been in the habit of discharging a
pistol within the station buildings. He was requested
by deceased not to continue such a proceeding. This did
not seem to have any effect, and the deceased felt it his
duty to communicate with Mr. Cox, a superior officer of
the company, upon the subject, and on the Ist of May that
gentleman went to the Priory Station, and in the presence
of the deceased he told prisoner that he must apologise,
and promise not to repeat the act complained, or he
should be compelled to report him. The prisoner was
evidently in a state of great excitement and anger at
having been reported by the deceased, and refused to
apologise. Mr. Cox then read the report he intended to
send in against him, which recommended that a slight fine
should be imposed upon him. Mr. Cox having done this,
left the office, and he bad only gone a very short distance
when he heard the report of a firearm, and it turned out
that the prisoner had deliberately aimed a gun at the
deceased, and discharged it at a very short distance from
him, the ball passing completely through his head
and killing him upon the spot. Immediately after
committing the dreadful deed, the prisoner ran
out of the office, and jumped into one of the rail-
way carriages that were standing upon the line,
where lie was taken into custody with the gun in his
rosssession, and upon the weapon being secured it was
evident that it had only been discharged immediately
before. Where the prisoner obtained the gun from did not
appear. Several of his fellow-porters were called to prove
that very shortly before the occurrence the prisoner had
been heard to utter deadly threats against the deceased,
and that upon several occasions he had openly declared
that if the old - (meaning the deceased) interfered any
more with him, he would have his life. For the defence
an attempt was made by Mr. Ribton, in cross-examinati o
to shew that some short time previous to the Ist of May
the prisoner had received an injury on the head by being
jammed between the buffers of two carriages. None of
the witnesses, however, appeared to have the least know-
ledge of such an occurrence having taken place, except
one, who said that he did hear something about the pri-
soner having sustained some slight accident, and remem-
bered that he was away from duty for a few days, but
after he returned he appeared to be just the same as usual
in his conduct. The father and mother of the prisoner were
examined, but their evidence mainly tended to show that
the prisoner was brought home last July in a nearly insen-
sible condition, in consequence of his chest and head
having been struck by the buffer of an engine. They
stated that after this the prisoner appeared very flighty,
and conducted himself in a curious manner ; but it
appeared that he resumed his occupation in a very few
days, and no medical man was called in to attend him.

Mr. Justice Willes, in summing up the case to the jury,
said it was no part of his duty to answer the speech of the
learned counsel for the prisoner, but he felt that it was
his duty—and he should not shrink for a moment from
performing it—to inform them that the law of this
country was that any man who deliberately killed another
was guilty of the crime of wilful murder; and they must
find the prisoner guilty of that offence or acquit him
altogether.
The jury, after an absence of not more than five
minutes, found the prisoner guilty of wilful murder.
Mr. Justice Willes warned the prisoner to give up all
hopes in this world, and turn with bitter repentance to the
God of mercy for pardon. lie then proceeded to pass the
formal sentence of death, directing that it should be
carried out according to the statute.
This will be the first prisoner executed within the walls
of the gaol, pursuant to the new Act of Parliament passed
during the present session.

4' LAW AND POLICE.

THE rO',VERS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY.—Before
the Lords Justices, the appeal case of Riches v. Owen was
heard. The defendant to the suit was an agetit, ship-
broker, &c., and amongst other things possessed a lease-
hold interest, in a colliery. On the 20th February he
executed a deed for the benefit of his creditors, which was
duly assented to and registered. This bill was filed,
alleging that the defendant had broken the covenants on
his part contained in the deed with respect to the winding-
up of his business and the realisation of his estate, and
that he refused to submit to the control of the
inspectors, and the bill prayed the appointment of a
receiver. The Vice-Chancellor appointed a receiver, and
the defendant appealed. Their lordships dismissed the
appeal.
CURIOUS DIVORCE CASE. —ln the Divorce Court Mr.
John Wormald, a partner in the banking firm of Childs
and Co., petitioned the court that a de facto marriage,
contracted between his daughter and a man who was once
a footman in his service, might be annulled, on the
ground of an undue publication of banns. The
footman persuaded the young lady to run away
with him to be married. The day after the
ceremony she seemed sorry for what she had done,
and returned to her father's house. She gave a false
name to the parish clerk, and this forms part of the peti-
tioner's case for the undue publication of the banns. The
case stands over for argument. The marriage took place
in October 1867, and the young lady has now reached the
age of 15.

THE TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY.—In the
Sheriff's Court, the case of the Contract Corporation v.
the Tottenham and Hampstead Railway was heard. It
was a proceeding by the Contract Corporation Company
against the Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Rail-
way Company, by a writ of elegit issued out of the Court
of Queen's Bench, to recover a sum of £33,888, for which
a judgment had been recovered. The counsel for
the plaintiff said that the Contract Corporation, whom
he represented, had obtained a judgment against the
railway company, and they having no goods and chattels
which could be taken in execution in the county of
Middlesex, a writ of elegit had been issued, and their duty
was to ascertain what property the company possessed
which could be made available for the purposes of the
judgment. The railway company had, under their Act of
1862, made several stations, and completed a line of railway
of some miles, which might be estimated as worth, in
round numbers, £lOO,OOO, which, taking the annual value
at 5 per cent., would make £5,000, which could be made
available to satisfy the judgment. All he now required
was a verdict finding that the railway possessed the pro-
perty in Middlesex, on which an application would be
made to the Court of Chancery for the appointment of a
receiver. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

ACTION AGAINST A RAILWAY COIIPANY.-At the Staf-
ford Assizes the case of Nixon v. the Great Western
Railway was heard. The action was brought by the
daughter and executrix of the late Mr. Nixon, a picture
iealer of Birmingham, to recover damages for the death
of Mr. Nixon, which, it was alleged, was caused in conse-
quence of the negligence of the defendants. On the 13th
of November last Mr. Nixon met his death through a
collision between the luggage train belonging to London
and North-Western Railway Company, and the train
belonging to the defendants, in which he was a third-class
passenger. The collision occurred at the Sedgley Junction,
near Dudley, and was caused by the admitted negligence
of the London and North• Western Company's servants.
The only question was the amount of damage. The jury
gave £5OO to the widow, and £l5O to the plaintiff.

Fn;LEs's GOOD DEEDS AT HOME.-At Marl-
• borough-street Police-court, Mr. Bacon, the landlord of
ionic small houses in Prince's-row, Newport-market,
applied to the magistrate for advice. He had let one of
the rooms— a bac:: room, second floor—at 3s. 6d. a week
to James Finlen, the pers'm who went with deputations
to Mr. Gladstene's home and made speeches at the Hyde
Park and Reform demonstrations. He would neither pay
rent nor go away. He had occupied the room for seven
weeks, but had only paid two weeks' rent. his wife, the
applicant believed, was in some asylum. There were
three children in the room, filthy and starving. There
was not a chair, cup, or a plate in the room, and,
indeed, there was nothing in it but a piece of old sack-
ing. The children had no one to look after them ; they
were covered with vermin, and nearly naked. The father
came borne generally about three o'clock in the morning.
Eiden had been twice convicted of deserting his children.
One or other of the lodgers gave the poor children food.
Mr. Knox asked how Finlen lived ; to which the applicant
replied that a short time since 400 Fenians subscribed 6d,
each for him. Mr. Knox advised Mr. Bacon to take a
broker into the house, and if it was in a filthy condition
during the hot weather, the inspector o 1U11441408 would
no 421114 interefere, •