The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-08 00:00:00

mr
; AUGUST 8, 1850.

be atone. The next time she came she said she had had
I a great deal of trouble; that mine was a very difficult
planet to rule—(Laughter)—that she should be as glad
to get it done as I should; but she could not without
more money or money's worth. I told her I had given
her everything I had, She said, "If you have not more
of your own you can get it. I know as well as you your-
self whether you can get it or not." I said I could nor.
She said, " You can get a dress of Mrs. Jeaffreson's,
which I will bring back." I said, "I will not touch a
thing belonging to my mistress." She said, "You can
gut a shirt of Dr. Jeaffreson's, for you need not be afraid
but that I shall bring it back, for. I have everything of
yours done up in a bundle at home, and I shall bring
them all back." She added, "1 huow you can get it,
and I intrit have it; you nerd not be efeeid of me; I
have childreb of my own, and I would not mislead you;
I have more of other peoples' clothes than •I have of
yours; and I am very particular in keeping everything
right to bring it back." She persuaded me, and I gave
her a night-shirt of Dr. Jeaffreson's; it was not marked,
but I told her it was the Doctor's. Next time I gave
her another night-shirt of Dr. Jeaffreson's. On the
next day she had a pair of sheets of my master's; I told
her they were his; and they were also marked. The
next time she came I gave her two linen shirts, which
were marked, and which I told her were his. The next
time a gold chain, a vinaigrette, a locket, a ring, and a
key, all of which I told her were Mrs. Jeaffreson's. She
told me that she did not want the things for herself, that
the had plenty of money of her own, and if that would
do she need not trouble me, but that it would not do.
She only wished it would; but to rule my planet she
must have either money or money's worth from me. I
wanted to get the chain back, but she said that she had
better have too much than too little, and then it would
be ended, and that if she had not enough she should have
to come again.. So I let her keep all, and she promised
to bring all back the same night at ' six o'clock, but she
never'etteme again. That was on the 16th of July. I
thou told the footman, for the purpose of his giving in-
formation to the police. I was myself committed by the
magistrates upon the charge of stealing the property;
but I have been out on bail.

" This witness, whose appearance was rather prepos-
sessing; exhibited in the witness-box some simplicity of
manner, but certainly no want of ordinary intelligence.
Another female servant of Dr. Jeaffreson's had been in-
vited by the prisoner Cooper to have " her planet ivied,"
but she declined.

Mr. WILLMORE—She preferred having an unruly
planet.—(Laughter.)
Other witnesses traced different portions of the pro-
perty taken into the possession of the male prisoners, one
of whom, William Hill, appeared to have been living
with Cooper as man and wife.
When the prisoners were called upon for their defence,
Cooper reiterated the assertion which she had made in
cross-examining the girl Strange, namely, that the pro-
perty was given to her by Strange as her own, and that
she did not know that it belonged to her master. The
male prisoners denied all knowledge that the articles
were stolen.

The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury
that the prisoner Cooper was in point of law guilty of
larceny, if at the time when she made the representa-
tions which induced the witness Strange to part with
the property she intended to appropriate them to her
own use.

The jury found the prisoners Guilty, and they were
sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Warwick, Aug. 6.
_ _

Before Lord Chief Justice JEavis and a Common Jury.)

PELL V. COUCII.

This was an action on a promissory-note for 3001. by
the endorsee against the endorser, and on a bill of ex-
change for 2001. by the endorsee against the acceptor.
The defendant had pleaded several pleas, but those upon
which the questions in the case turned were a denial of
the endorsement of the note, and a denial of the accept-
ance of the bill.

Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr.
Mellor, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Whitehurst,
Q.C., and Mr. Denison, for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a farmer and grazier near Market
Harborough, and the .defendant had been engaged with
the plaintiff's son in mining speculations in, Wales. The
one had been manager and the other purser of a mining
company called the Abergwessin Silver Load Mining
Company, but the plaintiff's son ceased to be purser in
December, 1847, and was now out of the country; and the
defendant was dismissed in September, 1849. The maker
of the promissory-note was a Mr. Hungerford, of
Dingley. Park, near Market Harborough, who took 50
ehares in the company in September, 1846, and paid for
them by the note in question, which he dishonoured, and
which the plaintiff had cashed. Messrs. Couch and
Pell were the payees of that note, and it seemed clear
that whether the endorsement wr.s written by Couch, the
defendant, or his partner in the mining speculations,
there was sufficient evidence of authority to bind the
defendant. The bill of exchange was dated in June,
1847, and was said to have been given to the plaintiff to
secure further advances made by him to his son and the
defendant, but the defendant dented that he had accepted
that bill at all. Two witnesses expressed their belief
that it was his handwriting, and tour that it was not;
but there were other documents in evidence in the cause,
which were admitted to have been written by the de-
fendant.

The Learned JUDGE told the jury'to look at those do-
cuments and endeavour to satisfy themselves on the
question of handwriting.
The jury found a yerdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
5751.

Eight other causes have been disposed of, but none of
bem have presented any features of general interest.
August 7.

CROWN COURT.7(tseforo Mr. Baron PLATT.)

Benjamin Siviter, 'aged 33, was indicted for having, on
the Ist of June last, at Birmingham, unlawfully taken
one Sarah Upton out of the possession and against the'
will of John Upton, her father, she, the said Sarah
Upton, being an unmarried girl under the age of 16.
Mr:O'Brien appeared on the part of the prisoner.
The prosecution was not conducted by counsel.
Sarah Upton, a girl of the age of 15, was the principal
witness, and made the following extraordinary state-
ment:—The prisoner was a Sunday-school teacher at
Birmingham, and the witness had been a scholar in his
Bible class. The father of the witness was a tailor living
at Birmingham, and the prisoner was also by trade a
tailor; and after the girl had left the Sunday-school the
prisoner, et the request of the father, came to his house
to teach the witness and a younger sister reading and
writing. That was about six months ago. During the
intercourse thus originated a very strange sort of inti-
macy bad sprung up between the prisoner and his pupil.
He had made her numerous presents, including a tar
boa, a lace fall, some ornamental cards with verses on
them, and a lock of his hair. She had frequently met him
and walked with him alone, and had gone several times
with another girl of about the same age, named Sarah
Cartwright, to fetch the prisoner away from public.bouses.
Just before Saturday, the Ist of June, the girl Sarah
Upton had written a letter to the prisoner, which fell into
his wife's hands; and on the afternoon of that day be met
the girl, and sent her to the school-room to fetch her
copybook, in order that his wife might not have the op.
portuuity of "matching the writing." After meeting
him in the streets, about eight o'clock that evening, she
went to the house of Sarah Cartwright's aunt, and
stayed there till past ten. She and Sarah Cartwright
then went out again, and about half-past ten met with
the prisoner. They walked about till eleven o'clock;
the prisoner and Sarah Cartwright asked her to go
home, but she said she was afraid to go home, as her
father would beat her. According to her statement, the
prisoner said to her, " You will be happy where I am;
and I will stick to you like bricks." Sarah Cartwright
left them, and they went away together. They walked
on out of Birmingham, and first went to Smethwick.
They called at several places for refreshment, they tra-
velled on all that night and the next day. They went
to Hagley and Bourne-heath, where they were at eight
o'clock on Monday morning. The prisoner there said
to the girl that he would rob somebody, and she being
afraid that he would, and that they might both be
taken into custody, asked him to take a room and get
work out. However, they went on to Bellbroughton,
to the Clent Hills, and to Stourbridge. Once the pri-
soner asked her if she would drown herself, and she
said she would not. Near Stourbridge, on the Tues-
day morning, about two o'clock, they found a cottage
open and they went in. The people said it was too
late for them to ga on the road that night, and they
might stay there. The witness slept with the cottager 's
wife, and the prisoner sat up, Afterwards they began
to return towards Birmingham ; they walked all the
next night; and on the following day the girl was found
by her father in the streets of Birmingham, about a
quarter of a mile from- his own house. Once during
that journey an illicit, intercourse took place between,,
prisoner and the girl by the Smethwick Canal.
Sarah Cartwright stated, that on the Saturday night
both she and the prisoner several times begged Sarah
Upton to go home; that she said she was afraid; but
that at last she woul go home if the prisoner would go
with her; that the 'prisoner said he would, and that
when the witness left them they were going in the di-
rection of Mr. Upton's house.
Mr. O'BRIEN addressed the jury; and
The Learned Jonas: iU summing up told the jury that
if they thought that the prisoner, even in concert with
the girl herself, was a party to the removal of her from
the parental control, he might be convicted of the offence
with which he was charged,
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing upon him the sen-
tence of 12 months' imprisonment, expressed his regret
that the law did not enable him to inflict a punishnient
adequste to the enormity of the offence, for it was too
clear that the prisoner, whilst engaged in the task of
expounding the Scripture to the witness, had availed
himself of the opportunity to corrupt her mind by atten-
tions and conduct which, in his situation, could not fail
to excite horror and detestation.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Exeter, Aug. 5.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. RussßLL GIIR-

NEY, Q.C.)
CASE OF THE BIRDS.—THE DEATH OF A PARISH
APPRENTICE.—Robert Courtice Bird, 34, and Sarah
Bird, 35, were called upon, and surrendered to ther bail.
It will bo remembered that they were tried for murder at
the last spring assius, and were acquitted. They were ar-
raigned upon au indictment charging them with having,
in the mouth* of November and December last, in the

[PRICE SD.

parish of Buckland Brewer, assaulted and ill-treated
Mary Ann Parsons, with intent to do her some grievous
bodily harm.
Mr. W. C. Rowe and Mr. Kerslake were counsel
for the prosecution; Mr. Shade and Mr. Cox for the
defence.

Mr. Slade put in a written document of some length,
as a plea of autrafois acquit, which was read by the clerk
of arraigns.

Mr. Rows proposed to traverse in this way—that do:-
fendants were not acquitted of the murder and felony,
including the same identical assaults.

Mr. SLADE objected, because his friend attethpted to
raise by his replication two distinct matters—one a
matter of law and one a matter of fact, which he con-
tended he had no right to do. •
After a short conversation it was arranged that the
replication should stand thus—that the defendants were
not acquitted of the felony, including the same identical
assaults, ill-treating, beating, and wounding, to which
they had now pleaded. •
The jury were sworn to try this issue, between the
Crown and the defendants.

Mr. SLADE addressed them first, as it lay with him to
prove the affirmative. The only evidence ho proposed to
put in was the record of the previous trial, which set
forth the indictment. The indictment set forth a series
of assaults, and it would be for his Learned Friends to
show if there were any other assaults which they could
charge against the prisoner. They would see by that
record that the same assaults were charged, almost in the
same words, as committed on Mary Ann Parsons. There
would thus be a prima facie case in favour of, the plea,
which, if unanswered would entitle the prisoners to en
acquittal at their hands. '
The JUDGE—That is your case on the part of the
prisoners?

Mr. SLADE bowed agsent.
His LORDSHIP had the heads of the previous indict-
ment read over.

Mr-RowE submitted that the affirmative issue was
upon his Learned Friend to prove that the assault of
which the prisoners had been acquitted were the same as
now charged, and that they had thereby been in peril,
and of that they had no evidence. The charge in the
indictment was not of a common assault, but of attempt
to commit a capital offence ; and not only was there no
offence charged as an assault in any of the six counts,
but the assault on the face of the present Bill was of a
different character.
His Loansnq, after hearing lengthened arguments on
both sides, said the matter in issue is, that the defendants
were not acquitted of a felony and murder, including
the same distinct ill-treatings and woundings, as in the
present indictment. The question is, is the mere putting
in of the former record sufficient evidence for the jury
to find upon the issue? All that can be inferred is, that
certain assaults were charged similar in nature to those
charged in the present indictment, and charged in the
former indictment as preceding the death of Parsons.
Now, the question I am called on to decide is, is that
sufficient evidence upon which the jury may act? lam
clearly of opinion that the evidence is not such as the
jury ought to act upon to find that these offences are
identical. On the authority of " King v. Gutteridge,"
the prisoners could only be found guilty of an assault
involved in and connected with the felony charged in the
indictment. In the case of the " Queen v. Phelps" (2
Moody, and Williams, 217 and 240), precisely the same
doctrine is laid down. Now that which was prosecuted
in the former case was the murder of Mary Ann Parsons.
Assuming that the jury were satisfied that the assault
charged now was part of the charge then. unless the
defendants could go much further, and show that it con-
duced to the death, it will be my duty to tell the jury
that these are not the offences for• which the prisoners
have been previously in peril.
Mr. SLADE asked to have the point reserved.
To show that these assaults were all put in evidence at
the late trial,
Mr. SLIDE called

Mr. J. H. Dennison—l was present at the trial of
Bird and his wife for the murder of Mary Anne Par-
sons. I took notes of the trial. Ido not know what has
become of them. I have no idea whether they have been
destroyed or not. The witness said he could not recol-
lect the opening speech of Mr. Rowe, whether he refer-
rod the death of deceased to a series of beating and ill
treatment or not.

In answer to Mr. RowE, he said he heard Mr. Turner,
the medical man, describe the state of the body, both
internally and externally, and refer the cause of death
to a blow or blows upon the head. The Learned Judge
directed the jury that there was no evidence to prove
which of the prisoners struck that blow,' nor any evi-
dence to go to the jury upon the queakipn of assault.
The witness remembered that the Judge Addressed the
jury for a short time, and told them they must acquit the
prisoners.
Mr. Cox was called, and he stated that, from ripollee-
tion, as well as from his notes, the ea* if the
Crown, as presented to the jury on the las occasion,
was that death had ensued trona a series o ill treat-
; ment.

To save time, it was arrangei that his Lordship
should read the evidence of Hopper, Morris, and Johns,
from Mr. Justice Tstliourd's notes.

In reply to Mr. SLADE, Mr. Cox said the assaults were
put forward prominently as producing the death, and it
was only at the last moment that it came cut that the
blow in the head was the immediate cause of death. It
was thought that the beatings were relied upon. When
Mr. Justice Talfonrd was stopping the case, he thought
the blows spoken of. by the witnesses were the cause of
death until the medical evidence showed the contrary.
On the suggehtion of the Learned JunoE, Mr. Justice
Talfourd's note wa• real, to the effect that finding there
was no evidence as to any blow on the head having been
given by either of the prisoners, he felt bound to direct
an acquittal.
To carry the case of identity of the offence further, it
was stated that the witnesses to this charge were the
same as on the previous indictment.
Mr. RowE considered he was bound to give every ma-
terial which could assist the jury in arriving at a right
judgment. He, therefore, called medical evidence to
prove that the assaults were not conducive to the death.
Charles Colwell Turner—l am a surgeon, living at
Bideford. About the 6th of January last I went
to Gorland Farm, the residence of the two de-
fendantl, and cxtmined the body of Mary Ann
Parsons. I observed a great number of wounds
on the legs and thighs, varying in extent and
character; also on the hips, the arms, the shoulders, and
the head. On the external part of the head there was
an extensive bruise on the loft side; and internally on
the back part, an extensive bruise, and a considerable
quantity of extravasated blood; the membranes of the
brain were congested, and at thebase was extravasation
of blood. I consider the cause of death was in the in-
' juries of the bead. There was nothing in the other vital
parts of the body to account for death. I cannot say
whether death would have resulted from the other in-
juries if life had not been destroyed by the blow on the
head.

Cross-examined—l found this child's body very much
emaciated, and the powers of life very much reduced.
There was no fracture of the skull. The wounds on the
body generally might have produced incipient conges-
tion of the brain, but not one injury individually.
By his LORDSHIP--I have no doubt that, in this in-
stance, the blow on the head caused death.
Mr. Edye, surgeon, of Exeter, was called to corrobo-
rate Mr. Turner. He concurred in that gentleman's
views as to the cause of death, and that the blows on the
body were not conducive to that cause.
Mr. Ilowz left the matter in his Lordship's hands
without observation. _

Mr. SLADE addressed the jury on the issue, whether
the assaults conduced to the death of Mary Ann
Parsons.

His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury, after consulting nearly an hour, found the
issue for the Crown. _ _

The Court then rose at seven o'clock.
Tuesday, Aug, 6.
At ten o'clock Mr. R. Gurney took his seat, and im-
mediately said that he had considered the application of
Mr. Slade as to reserving the point decided yesterday,
and would assent to this course, but he would not admit
the defendants to bail.
Mr. ROWE then said he should not offer any evidence
until the decision of the Judges had been obtained.
His LORDSHIP observed that the imprisonment would
no doubt be taken into consideration should the prisoner
be convicted. •
The prisoners were then removed in custody, and
this being the last criminal case, the Court rose at about
a quarter before eleven.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.
BRISTOL. AUG.- 7.
STOCK Exofreacou.—The share market was more active
to-day, and prices are rather improved. The only alteration
we have to notice is in the Midland, which closed at 34k-
-Ditto, Six per Cent., 120%.
LIVERPOOL, AUG. 7.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market has been dull to-day,
and prices lower. The transactions were as.follow :—East
Lancashire. B%—Great Northern, 15!4 dis.—Lancashire and
Yorkshire, Fifths, 9 7-16 dis.—Ditto, 32/. Shares, 91,i dis.—
Ditto, Preference, 121,‘I—Lancaster and Preston, Quarters,
London and North-Western, 11114-- Ditto, New
Quarters, 15-16 p.—Ditto Fifths, ILA p.—Midland, Halves,
24 ;IN dis.—Bolton, Blackburn, Clitheroe, and West York-
shire (No 1), 41/8.
bIANCEIESTER, MTG. 7. •
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The share market to-day was
rather weaker, and business very limited. Prices, on the
whole, are declining. The transactions were as follow :
East Lancashire, B—Ditto, Quarters, 2—Great Northern,
15%—Lancashire and Yorkshire, ;Preference, 6 per cent.,
12 1-16—Lancashire, Preston, and Wyre, 414—London
and North-Western, New Quarters, :;"i p. --Ditto, Manchester
and Birmingham, Quarters (C), 11/8 n. p. —Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 1-reference, Quarters, 8 5-1 s;
South-Eastern and Dover, Consolidated Stock (No. 4),
BIRMINGHAM, AuG. 7.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—We have little change to notice in
this share market. A small business has been done, and
prices generally remain stationary at last quotations. The
only transactions reported to-day were—London and North-
Western, Fifths, 1/. as. 9d. p.—Coventry and Nuneaton,
2 p.

ITYPOCEIONDRIACISM.-A story is told of a hypo-
chondriac gentleman of rank and fortune in Ireland, who
fancies one of his legs of one religion and the other of ano-
ther. He not infrequently puts one of his unfortunate legs
Outside the bed=clothes to punish it for its religious errors.