The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-06 00:00:00

ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED in ALL THE THREE PAPERS, Morning Noon, and Night, thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE,

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
RON VIE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The conduct of the Admiralty in the case
of Lieutenant Gray, tried last week by a court-martial,
at the instance of the French Government, for boarding
and searching a French slaver, without an Admiralty
warrant for that purpose, has induced considerable sur-
prise, mingled with disapprobation, throughout both
branches of the service. The nature of the charges
which Lieutenant Gray was called upon to answer ; the
evidence adduced in their support ; and the deciSion of
the Court upon the case—have also been freely can-
vassed in all circles. The general opinion is, that the
proceedings taken against Lieutenant Gray are calcu-
lated to embarrass our officers when employed on
such service as that on which that gallant officer
was engaged at the time when the alleged disobe-
dience of orders was committed. Nor does the Bri-
tish Government appear, by its conduct in the tram-
action, to have sustained the honour and indepen-
dence of the British flag. A truckling to French dic-
tation—a disposition to gratify the incendiary ravings
of the anti-British faction, which is endeavouring to
rouse public feeling in France into a cry for a war with
England—is recognised in this surrender of a British
officer for trial, on such charges as those which were
preferred against Lieutenant Gray. The extraordinary
kind of evidence which was admitted by the Court in
support of the charge against the prisoner, and the judg-
ment—apparently unsupported by the evidence—have also
contributed to excite sympathy for Lieut. Gray, and to
fasten a large portion of condemnation on the Admiralty,
and on Lord Aberdeen, as Foreign Secretary. The first
charge upon which Lieutenant Gray was put upon his
trial was —" For disobedience of orders on the coast of
Africa, on the 4th of July, 1842, in causing the French
vessel Luiz d'Albuquerque to be detained and searched,
she having at the time displayed her proper colours, indi-
caing the nation to which she belonged, and no sufficient
cause having existed for suspecting such colours to be
false." The evidence proved that Lieut. Gray received
special orders to watch for a slaver, the description of
which was furnished to him for his guidance. A
vessel (the Luiz d'Albuquerque) strongly resembling
,hat alluded to in his orders, hove in sight. He gave
chase. She hoisted French colours, He came up with
her—boarded her ; and, to ascertain her true character,
overhauled her papers. The evidence before the court-
martial fully showed that there were passengers on
board whose names were not inserted in the ship's papers.
A further examination of the vessel exhibited food, such
as is invariably used for the sustenance of slaves on their
transit, and scarcely ever used for any other purpose.
The searchers also discovered manacles for fastening the
slaves to each other, and to the deck—the vessel had a
slave-deck; and in other respects showed the kind of
service in which she was engaged. But she hoisted
French colours! And the boarding and searching of
the Luiz d'Albuquerque was, therefore, an affront to the
French nation—an insult to the French flag! Do not
Brazilian slavers sometimes hoist French colours and
American colours, for the manifest purpose of inducing a
belief that they are protected by those flags in
the vile traffic they are engaged in ? Once on
board, the only mode of satisfying the officer
as to what she was, and to whom she belonged,
was to inspect the vessel, and examine her papers.
Everything on board tended to confirm the belief that the
Albuquerque was a slaver. That she was really a French
vessel could only be ascertained by the search he insti-
tuted. The papers produced, in order to induce a belief
that she was French, were manifestly fabricated. " The
log was written on sheets of paper apparently done that
morning " [the chase lasted twenty-four hours]. Capt.
Foote, who commanded on the station to which Lieut.
Gray belonged, and who was examined OR the court-
martial, was asked by Lieutenant Gray :—" Would
you have been satisfied with my conduct if
I had not examined the papers of the Luiz d'Albu-
querque under the circumstances ?" We beg special
attention to the answer of Captain Foote :—" If I had
received information that Lieutenant Gray had seen a
vessel which hoisted French colours, and had not ascer-
tained her nationality, I should have been very highly
displeased ; because I consider that the mere display of
a French flag may be done by the most arrant Brazilian
and Portuguese slaver, to avoid capture ; and it is very
frequently done on the west coast of Africa,
both with the French and American flags."
Evidence was also given by British officers who
had been engaged in the same service, that it was the
practice of British commanders to board ves-
sels suspected to be slavers, in order to as-
certain their nationality. In the teeth of evidence such
as that we have epitomized, and notwithstanding the ab-
solutely exculpatory evidence of Captain Foute, the
court-martial found that "the first charge was proved !"
On the two others they acquitted the prisoner; and they
sentenced him to be reprimanded, and enjoined him to be
" more cautious in future !" To be sure they had one
description of testimony to which we have not speci-
fically alluded—strong enough against the accused, in
all conscience ; but not exactly the kind of evidence
which courts of law, whether military or civil, have
been in the habit of receiving. The court-martial
which tried and convicted Lieut. Gray, and sentenced
him to be reprimanded, actually received as evidence a
leading article of La Presse, a French newspaper; which
embodied a statement of Capt. Belle, the master of the
Luiz d'Albuquerque. This statement—which, it must
be admitted, emanated from a source of all others the
most likely to be prejudiced, and was furnished by the
individual most interested in giving an exaggerated, if
not absolutely false, account of the transaction—was
actually put in by the Admiralty, as a part of the proof
in support of a charge against a British officer ; and it
was admitted as evidence by the Court! The statement
contained in the French paper is false upon the face
of it. It is declared to be so by the untainted declara-
tion of the gallant officer whose conduct was the sub-
ject of inquiry. It is worth nothing—except indeed that
it affords another proof of the length to which the war
faction in Paris will proceed, in endeavouring to foment
a hostile feeling between the two countries ; and of the
pusillanimity of Lord Aberdeen. In this, as in the
Otaheite affair, a show of resistance made by him to the
claims, or even a disregard of the clamours, of the war
party, would have intimated, in a way that would have
been understood, that however much their bullyings
might work upon the fears of their own government,
they were treated as they deserved by that of England.
STANDARD.—We understand that in consequence
of the remonstrance of our Government, with reference
to the violence offered to the (late) British Consul at
Otaheite, in March last, by the French autho-
rities, a letter has been brought under the no-
tice of the British Ambassador at Paris, written
by Mr. Pritchard upon the 7th of November, 1843.
This letter, we have been informed, consists of two
paragraphs, one of which contains his resignation of
the consulship ; the other is a protest, in his own
name, against the deposition of Queen Pomare. We
learn too that Mr. Pritchard, after the cessation of his
consulship, followed up his protest by several acts tend-
ing to inculcate the belief that the Government of Great
Britain would send a flee in aid of the Otaheiteans,
so that upon the appearance of her Majesty's
steam-ship the Cormorant, the greatest excitement
was occasioned from the expectation that she was one
of
.the coming fleet ; in consequence of this the
captain was invited to withdraw, and Mr. Pritchard,
who was arrested while on his way to the vessel, was
subsequently put on board of her, upon the condition
that lie should not be landed on any one of the Society
Islands. We learn further that the dispatch of Captain
Bruat of the 13th of March, describing and justifying
the expulsion of Mr. Pritchard, appeals to the very
different conduct pursued with regard to Mr. Orsmond, the
reverend colleague of Mr. Pritchard, who, if we may
credit Captain Bruat, not only did not join his brother
missionary, but endeavoured to dissuade him from the
course he was pursuing. Upon Mr. Orsmond the highest
elogium is pronounced in this dispatch. Such is the
tenour of the important information we have received.
This new view of the affair will be seen considerably to alter
its character. The original wrong committed by Admiral
Dupetit Thouars, in usurping the absolute sovereignty
of the island, a wrong frankly and handsomely acknow-
ledged by the French Government, and, as far as time
and distance would permit, repaired—this original wrong
remains unaltered, but the consequences flowing from
that wrong may be greatly coloured by circumstances.
It is obvious that if some proportion is not ob-
served between the first provocation and the means
of retaliation resorted to, there can be scarcely
any extravagance of outrage which may not be justified,
or which it will be lawful to punish. Our own quarrel
with China affords an example in point. We were, we
think, clearly the wrong-doers in the firsunstance, but the
Chinese retaliated so enormously beyond the just propor-
tion as to leave a heavy balance of injury in our favour,
and we took care to exact it. Now, it is possible to
believe that something of the kind may have arisen
at Otaheite, even without giving credit to all the ex-
aggregations of the Siecle. And passing by this hypo-
thesis of disproportional retaliation, we can imagine an-
other, which would relieve the Government of this
country from all responsibility in this matter. After
the complaint of the Queen and the British inhabit-
ants had been remitted in form to Europe, it is
plain that they were bound to rest there, as far
as regarded their relations with this country.
It was undoubtedly open to them to get rid of the
usurped authority of their oppressors, if they
could, and we should blame neither native Otaheitean nor
naturalised Englishmen for making the attempt, could it
be made with any prospect of success ; but though they
were clearly entitled to vindicate their liberty by them-
selves, having applied and, as it turned out, applied in
every sense successfully for the mediation of Great
Britain, they had no right to shift their ground, and
call for the support of Great Britain in a civil war
awitinst the ,de' 'factb 9otier4nien;t cyganised cr
actually waged without her knOwledge or. consents It
is possible that Mr. Pritchard, having formally divested
himself of the character of a British Consul, may have
identified himself with the people among whom he had
so long enjoyed hospitality and kindness ; and, adopting
may have gone further than, as a
itch
, sn t he
goyernmont, LA this lie would
ought to do in hostility to the de
facto,
thoughf ee ] i
usurping,,

do no more than any honourable, warm-hearted
man might be expected to do, though more, certainly,
than any regular Government of our age could support
him in doing. There seems to be something ano-
malous in allowing to a de facto Government, founded in
wrong, any rights ; but still experience has shown,
in the manifold evils of private war, that it is,
on the whole, conducive to the safety and
happiness of the human race to allow to even
a merely de facto government such a pre-
sumption of right as shall protect it from being
irregularly attacked by other governments, and to
prevent other governments throwing their shield
over those who irregularly attack it. We carry
the principle even lower than the case of govern-
ments ; we carryit down to individuals. Suppose
a ship attacked in the Channel by another bearing,
say the flag of France. The owner of the ship
attacked carries his complaint to Downing-street,
whence it
is duly remitted to Paris, and a
just reparation is made. But suppose the owner of the
injured ship " to take," as we say, " the law into his
own hands," and. upon the next opportunity to get foul
of his late assailant, and again to get the worst of it,
the British Government would certainly give him
no help in the quarrel now of his own seeking.
If the case of Mr. Pritchard's conduct at Otaheite
has been similar to the case last supposed, we
do not see why it must not be governed by the
same principle ? We do not pretend to say that Mr.
Pritchard has been moving a private war against the de
facto government at Otaheite; but, if he has been doing
so, much as we may admire his generosity and courage,
we cannot honour his prudence, or give him great credit
for a care for the interests of his native country. We
must say one word, too, for the members of the• de
facto government in the Society Islands. In March
that government must have believed that they were
exercising legitimately an authority derived from their
Sovereign ; they are, therefore, scarcely to be blamed,
if they vindicated that authority without any unnecessary
violence or cruelty ; and if they found Mr. Pritchard,
who was no longer a consul, exciting a bad feeling
against their government, it was their right, as well as
their duty, to deport him. The original wrong-doer
in such cases is commonly the only wrong-doer,
for they who derive from him a de facto authority which
they are taught to believe also an authority de jure,
must,
ust, to the best of their judgment, act upon that au-
thority. We say this much in justice to all parties, for
as to the affair itself, we think it cannot possibly end in
anything serious. Such misunderstandings must be ex-
pected to be constantly arising, but it is only when they
occur between ill-disposed or extremely silly persons,
that there can be any difficulty in accommodating them
satisfactorily.

out food. She had not been dead less than two hours.
nor more than four, when I saw her at half-past eleven,
The prisoner Could not have been 'nue than an hour in
the state I saw him.
Mr. Taylor gave similar testimony.
Sarah Richardson—l live in the Castle-garth, in New-
castle. I knew the deceased. She was not at my house
on the morning of the 14th.
Cross-examined--I knew the deceased, from her coming
to my house for firewood. I was never at the house in
Blandford-street. I never sold any whisky for her. I
did not know she made whisky. I sell firewood. My
husband is a labouring man.
Thomas Jenkins—l am a policeman. I went to
the house with Mr. Little, about half-past eleven.
Dr. Carr was there. I made a bed for the prisoner
in the corner next the fire. I went into the closet
to get the clothes. The things Were disturbed. The
clothes were all off together at one side, as if they
had been slept in that night. There was a jug on a
low table beside the prisoner. It contained about a
pint of whisky. There was a little fire in the grate, but
it was not perceptible until I began to stir it, when the
doctor told me to make a fire. Two razor blades dropped
out. I got a light and went into the back room. I found
a still, and wash working in a barrel. There were about
two or three quarts of whisky in a jar. The prisoner
had two coats, two waistcoats, trousers, and shoes. His
hat was lying at one side. _There was tt- small bottle of
whisky in his coat pocket.
Cross-examined—The clothes were off the bed, as if

they had been thrown on one side by some one getting
up. There was a hand. brush lying near the deceased.
It was about a yard off: It appeared to have been worn
a little. There was some blood on it. It was lying
among the blood.
Ralph Little, inspector of police, gave similar testi-
mony to that of the last witness. A towel, some pieces
of soap, and other articles were found on the prisoner.
The prisoner came to his senses at four o'elcck in the
afternoon. He looked at me and said, " Little, I know
you, take my defence now." We were raising him up
to keep him from sleeping, and he said, " Let me lie,
for my days are numbered." I found a key hanging on
a nail inside the door, which opens the lock. The day
after I examined the prisoner's dress. He had his top
coat on. There was vomit on it, and apparently marks
of blood. I took his shirt off. There was a good deal
of blood on the left wrist.

Edward Latimer proved that the window was fastened
in the inside.

Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the defence, con-
tending that the facts of the case showed that this was in
all human possibility a case not of murder, but of man-
slaughter. He could not deny that this unfortunate
woman had come by her death at the hand of the pri-
soner at the bar ; but if they should think that the un-
fortunate blow was struck by the man without premedi-
tation in the course of the scuffle provoked by her, in
which she was the assailant, and in the courso of which
she had by her taunts continued to irritate him to mad-
ness, it would be manslaughter only. He submitted
that all the facts bore out this view of the case. His
conduct as contrasted with her's the evening before—the,
time at which the unfortunate woman came by her death
—the instrument which had been employed, and which,
as the counsel for the prosecution had stated, the pri-
soner was in the daily habit of using about that hour—
the hand brush lying on the ground near the hand of
the deceased, all tended to show that the husband bad in
the morning been again assailed with violence and abuse
at a time when he had the razor in his hand, and that in
a moment of passion, arising from this violence, the
fatal blow was struck, which deprived the unfortunate
woman of her life.

His LORDSHIP summed up. The rule of law was that
when one person was wilfully the cause of the death of ano-
ther, he was prima facie chargeable with murder. If, how-
ever, the death arises from a blow struck in a conflict com-
menced without any such intention, and where the party
inflicting the blow has been the object of personal violence,
in some cases it may be manslaughter. It is, not, how-
ever, every amount of assault which would reduce the
crime to manslaughter. An attack of a grievous cha-
racter, followed by instant retaliation, producing death,
would frequently be of this kind, but in every case the
nature of the attack, if any; and the nature of the re-
taliation must be taken into consideration. The offence
would still be murder, if a, slight attack were resented
with a murderous weapon, • such as would probably, in
the lc.n:;4:.ledge of the party using it, produce death. No
mere wads would be sufficient provocation ; but, if there
was any conflict whatever, the language accompanying
it, if of a highly irritating character, and such as would
naturally excite a man's anger as much as the most
grievous assault, might very properly be taken into con-
sideration. The great question which they had now to
consider was, whether they were satisfied that anything
occurred on that morning which would bring the present
case within the scope of the principles so laid down, and
reduce the offence from the higher to the lower class.
His Lordship then went through the evidence with great
care and minuteness. _ _

The jury remained in consultation upwards of six
hours, and finally returned a verdict of Guilty of murder.
Sentence was passed on the prisoner in the usual form.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Bodmin, Aug. 1.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN and a
Special Jury.)
SEDUCTION.—KEISH V. HAWKE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a farmer,
residing at Melluish, in this county, against the defend-
ant, to recover compensation for the seduction of his (the
plaintiff's) daughter.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Butt were for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Greenwood appeared for the
defendant.

Mr. CRO
WDER having stated the case to the jury,
called the young lady who had been seduced by the de .
fondant. She stated that her father was a farmer, re-
siding at Melluish ; that she had three sisters, two older
than herself, who were living in gentlemen's families,
and one younger, living at home. In 1841 she went to
live with the defendant (who was a widower), in the
capacity of housekeeper. It was her duty to look after
the house generally, and direct the other servants kept
by the defendant. She took her meals with him, and
was present in the parlour when he had company. At
the time that she went there, a young man by the name
of Fowell kept company with her, and used, once now
and then, to come and see her. About three months
after she entered the defendant's service, he commenced
paying attentions to her. He first began by requesting
her to dismiss her suitor, Fowell, which she did. He
then grew more bold and warm, and assured her that he
had never seen any one since the death of his wife that
he liked as much as herself, and offered to make her his
wife. She, in reply, made objections, on account of his
family, who, she said, would not be willing, and because
she had no fortune. He said he did not care for that,
for that he had enough for them both. After this his
attentions continued, and she considered herself engaged
to him. She used to sit up with him at night,
after the other servants were gone to bed, and for a time
nothing could be mere proper or respectful than hia
conduct. She was accustomed to take hot water
to his room. One morning, when she did this, he be-
haved very rudely to her. He did not, however, succeed
in his wishes, but she got away from him, and went into
her own room, where she sat crying. After a short time
the defendant came in there, asked her to forgive him,
and promised the offence should never be repeated. At
first she said she would not forgive it, but would commu-
nicate the circumstance to her parents ; but the contri-
tion expressed by the defendant altered her purpose, and
she relented. She then went down stairs and made him
his breakfast, after which he left, as he was going out
for the day. For some time after this his conduct was
quite proper, and her confidence in him was revived.
Things went on in this way for more than a month,
when one night she was awakened, about one o'clock, by
finding some one's arm round her neck. It was the de-
fendant. He took the bed-clothes in one hand and
pressed upon her mouth, and, notwithstanding resist-
ance on her part, he succeeded in obtaining possession of
her person. In the morning she was dreadfully dis-
tressed ; but defendant told her not to be so, for that he
would not lose her for all the lands which he possessed.
After this their intimacy continued, and she found her-
self in the family way. This she communicated to the
defendant, who told her that it was not so. She
repeated the same thing to him again, when he re-
quested her to go to a Mr. Moon, a surgeon, and
say she had taken a bad cold, and request hitn to
give her some medicine, This she did, and had some
medicine, which did her neither harm nor good.
After this defendant wanted her to take something to
get rid of the child, as he said people would jeer them
if she had a child before they were married. She re-
fused to do so. After some time a Mrs. Clements, the
defendant's sister, came to the house. Before this de-
fendant had wished her (the plaintiff's daughter) to
leave, saying that her sister had heard that she was in
the family way, and that she wished to persuade her to
the contrary. She refused to go. Mrs. Clements then
came. By the direction of the defendant she told Mrs.
Clements she was not in the family way, and offered to
go to a surgeon and be examined. Mrs. Clements said
she could not stay there, and she must leave, which she
accordingly did that day. This was in May. On going
home she told her parents what had happened. The
sante evening they and herself went to defendant's, and
saw him and Mrs. Clements, his sister. He then denied
that he had ever promised to marry her, and Mrs. Cle-
ments asked her if he (the defendant) had ever done so.
She fearing, if she said ho had, that it would set him
against her, said that he had not. Her wages were then
paid, and she and her parents returned to their house.
She afterwards wrote a letter to the defendant, to which
she received no answer. Two more were written with
the like effect. On the 22d of May, 1843, she met him
in a lane riding on a horse and carrying a gun. She de-
sired him to stop, on which he 'flung up his arms and
out, Be off ;" hearing this, she took hold of the
bridle of his horse, on which be struck her arms with
his gun and rode off. Subsequently, on the 17th of
August, she was confined of a female child, the expense
of which was borne by her father, with whom she now
lived, and by whom she had been maintained ever since
she quitted defendant's service.
This witness was then crospexamined at great length

by Mr. Cockburn, for the purpose of showing that she
had kept company with other men. She, however, denied
all this, and, with a very few slight variations, which
rather told in her favour, stuck to the account she had
given in her examination in chief. In the course of this
cross-examination, it came out that after the child had
been born, she had met the defendant, and that she had
then supplicated him to make provision fur her child.
He was riding on horseback, and refusing to hear her,
curvetted the horse about, the animal being a very
vicious creature. She had her child in her right arm,
and a small stick in her left hand, which she flung at
the horse to keep him from her child. The defendant
immediately summoned her before some magistrate in
the neighbourhood, swore he was afraid she would do
him some bodily harm, and she was thereupon com-
pelled to enter into her recognizance to keep the peace
towards him.
In the end a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with
damages 75/.
Mr. Justice Wightman after this took the several
criminal cases that remained for trial, by which the busi-
ness was got through to-day.
CROWN SIDE.—FRIDAY..
MIIRDER.—EXTRAORDINARY CASE.-11fatikew Weeks,
was indicted for the wilful murder of Charlotte Dimond,
on the 14th of April kit, by cutting her throat,
It "is impossible to,describe the excitement occasioned
by this trial. At au early hour the court-yard was
crowded with persons who appeared to have come from
all parts of the county, and during the day the Court
was completely crammed.
Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Oxenham, and Mr. Rowe con-
ducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Slade de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner and Charlotte Dimond
were fellow-servants in the house of a Mr. Peters, a small
farmer, residing at Penhale. Charlotte Dimond was a
young woman 18 years of age, an illegitimate child with
" but few friends ;" but she and the prisoner had for
some time kept company, as it is called in this county :
the girl, however, it would seem, was pleased with ad-
miration, and was not insensible to the attentions of
others, and a person of the name of Prout had been
favoured by her. On the morning of Sunday, the 14th
of April last, Prout called at the house of Mrs. Peters,
and saw Charlotte, and appointed to meet her that even-
ing at chapel. The prisoner and the deceased came
down stairs together that morning. Mrs. Peters asked
her where she was going : she at first made no answer,
but then said she should not be at home at milking time,
but that Matty (the prisoner) would milk her share of
the cows. She and the prisoner then went away toge-
ther. She was dressed in a dark green striped gown
and red diamond shawl, and a dark brown silk bonnet,
with light ribands, and had pattens ; and she had a
black silk bag, trimmed with lace, on her arm, and wore
cotton gloves. The prisoner had on a dark velvet frock
coat, grey trousers, and his best boots. It was dirty,
rainy weather. The prisoner came home alone, about
half-past nine o'clock in the evening ; but the girl
never came back again. Mrs. Peters asked him
where Charlotte was ? He said he did not know.
He then had his supper, pulled off his boots, and
went to bed. The next morning Mrs. Peters again
asked him where Charlotte was, and he again re-
plied he did not know. She went up into his room and
found his best stockings dirty up to the garterings. She
asked him how they got so dirty. He said the weather
and roads were dirty. She said, " Where is Charlotte ?
as you went away together, where did you go ?" He
said he went no further with her than Higherdown-gate,
and he believed she went on the moor, and he went to a
village about two miles off, and called on two families of
the name of Westlake ; but that they were not at home.
On Tuesday Mrs. Peters said, " Alatty. you must know
where Charlotte is, and if you don't tell me, I'll go to a
magistrate before I sleep." He then said, "To tell you
the truth, she's gone to Blissland, as Mrs. Langstone
has got an easier place than yours." Mrs. Peters told
him it was his fault, as she had never given her any
offence, and she asked him how she could have got
there after four o'clock. He said she was going to Mrs.
Spiers the first night. Mrs. Peters said to him, "You
jealous thing : it was your work to put away the maid ;
and men be as plenty down there as they be at home with
we." On the Wednesday morning she again spoke to him
about Charlotte ; he said, she had a letter from Mrs.
Langstone to go to Blissland. On the Friday the butcher
came there to kill a pig. The prisoner asked to be
allowed to kill it. He took a knife and put it to the
throat of the pig ; but then he stopped, and said some-
thing had given him a turn. He then took another
knife, and plunged it violently into the pig. Daring the
week many persons had spoken to the prisoner about
the girl ; but he said he had parted with her at Higher-
down-gate. lie was then told that persons had seen
him on the moor ; but he said they could not swear to
him, as they had not spoken to him. On the Saturday
evening Mrs. Peters said to him, " Many, what's the
talk about Charlotte—l hope it is not true ?" He did
not speak, but went to another part of the kitchen. She
then said, " Matty, I'm quite frightened; and, if you
have hurt the girl, you ought to be hanged in chains."
He did not answer. Her son and other servant then
went to bed. She said to the prisoner, " Matty, you
stop, I want to talk with you. I'm very much hurt
about this talk." lie made no answer, but went off to
bed. The next morning (Sunday) he went out as usual
to attend the cows in his everyday dress. He saw Mrs.
Peters having a conversation with her son and another
person, and he saw them go from home. He then went
up stairs, dressed himself in his Sunday clothes, and
came down stairs, having his umbrella in his hand,
althouge it was a very fine day. Mrs. Peters said to him,
" I hope you'll be back to dinner." He said he would.
He then went away, but did not return. He had been
in the habit of keeping Charlotte's best clothes in his
box; but a green gauze handkerchief was not with them,
and therefore she must have had that with her when
she went out on the Sunday, and this was found in
the prisoner's velvet jacket pocket after he had left the
house. Suspicion now had become very rife, and in-
quiries were made, and it was found that the girl had
never been seen since she was in the company of the
prisoner. A person of the name of Corry had. seen the
prisoner and a young woman in a dark dress go into the
moor on the Sunday afternoon. The prisoner limped
very much in his walk. lie watched them for about a
quarter of an hour. Richard Pethick, a farmer, who was
on the moor between five and six o'clock on the Sunday
afternoon, saw a man and woman coming towards the
Roughter-ford. They came within 300 yards of him,
and then returned and went another way. He after-
wards returned and saw them again, they were thirty-
nine yards from him. He could distinguish the man's
features and he limped. They appeared to be loiterin.g.
Sometimes they were close together, and sometimes she
dwraelskse. d anny from
essbatehedlim
tihem.
forT h womanur, had on a dark
and
wassurethe

prisoner was the man. They were about 100 yards from
Roughter-ford A person of the name of Gard, a local
prencher, was coming across the moor, and saw a man
land woman loitering near the ford; they had both dark
clothes on. This information having been received,
foul play was more than suspected, and it was deter-
mined that the moor should be searched. Accordingly
parties went out in different directions, for that pur-
pose. They soon found some marks of pattens and the
impression of a man's shoe. They traced these a con-
siderable way across the moor until they lost the patten
marks. They, however, proceeded on their way until
they came to Roughter-ford, where in a wild spot, on
this desolate moor, a long way from any human habita-
tion, in an old watercourse, they found the body of the
poor girl lying on its back with the throat cut in the
most frightful manner, the wound extending from the
back of the neck under the left ear round to the right
ear. The carotid artery and windpipe were com-
pletely divided. Indeed, the head was all but cut off.
A portion of the clothes was gone. There was no bon-
net, shawl, pattens, or shoes. Further search was then
made, and about half-a-mile off, in a turf-pit, covered
over, the parties found her shawl, bonnet, pattens, and
shoes. It was now evident that the poor girl hP.',l
come to ber death by violent means ; and inquiries
were made about the prisoner. He had not returned ;
but it was found that he had called at a house many
miles off, on the road to Plymouth, on the Sunday
when he left Mrs. Peters, and he had there shown a
black silk bag, which corresponded exactly with the
one Charlotte Dimond had on the 14th of April. He
withvvas then traced
his
brother
and
sister
toh a
o,
thend
wase i g
Hoe there.fdoun

taken intocusiodYiaa-in his pockets were found the
gloves which Charlottee had worn on the last day she
was seen alive. The prisoner's boots were compared
with the tracks on the moor, and particularly with one

adjoining the spot where the doilies were found, and
they corresponded exactly. The girl's necklace was
found on a bank close to the body. No blood was found

on the prisoner's clothes.
. the
On the part of the prisoner it was urged that it was
impossible but the person who committed the murder
must have
not any on
Mr. Justice PATTESON summed up in the most careful
the
een clothescov ere
ofd wthiethblood, whereas there was
prisoner.
jurym anntehrataintdwwasiththtehedusttyricotfesttheimyuadrgtiealtiotyl,a3t,edlloirvsign the
law, and for the jury to decide upon the facts in ac-
cordance with that law, without any consideration as to
the punishment or the consequences that would follow
from the verdict they might give. That verdict in this
case, he was sure, would be a conscientious one, and one
that would dojustice between the prisoner and the
public.

- The jury retired for about an hour, and the fore-
man then said, "We are of opinion that the prisoner is
Guilty."
The Learned JUDGE then put on the black cap and
passed sentence of death upon the prisoner, assuring
him that no mercy could be extended to him in this
world.

The prisoner throughout the trial, which lasted from
nine o'clock in the morning till ten at night, never. be-
trayed the slightest change in his demeanour until the
Judge directed his body to ho buried within the pre-
cincts of the prison, when he fell back, apparently in a
hinting state, and was carried from the dock. Lie is
only twenty-two years of age.