The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-11 00:00:00

that occasion, but not on oath. lie attended there to
cross-examine the child. The child's examinati.n was
taken down in writing. Heard Mr. Kenealey sly some-
thing as to who had beaten tilt child. Mr. Kenealey
said, in reply to a question put by the Alderman, that be
did not deny having beaten the child. Before the chi!cl
was examined Mr. Kenealey- said, '° I do not seek to throw
any doubt on the child's testimony; let the child be here,
I want to examine him." The child was examined as
to its moral consciousness, and afterwards it was exa-
mined, at the request of Mr. Kenealey. This was on
Monday, the 18th. Mr. Kenealey appeared afterwards
before the magistrates on the Thursday following, when
he was held to bail.

Cross-examined—Learnt from Mr. Kenealey that hr
brought the child from Ireland. Witness tn.!' read the
evidence of the child given before the magi,trate.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty on the second
count of the indictment.

The remainder of the trial will be given in our Second
Edition.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
al,d a Common Jury.)
The Court was occupied this morning with the case of
Armand v. Weekei, which was au action fur a❑ unlaw-
ful diktresv. The proceedings, which were of great
length, presented no important feature.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and a Common Jury.)
ROSAH (PAUPER) v. BURT AND OTHERS.
This was au ac►ion in forma pauperis, to recover
compensation in damages for injuries sustained by the
plaintiff, in consequence of the alleged negligence of the
defendants.

Mr. Ball appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chain
bers conducted the case for the defence.

The plaintiff was a poor woman named Sarah Ann
Rosam, living in Bedfordbury, Covent-garden, who
got her living by awing and acting as a laundress, and
the defendants were the contractors for paving for the
parish of St. Martin's in-the-Fields. It appeared that
on the 6th of November, 1847, she was returning home
from work about nine o'clock at night, and in passing
through Bedfordbury, where the pavement had be®n
taken up and not relaid, her foot came in contact with
one of the loose stones, and she was precipated on
the ground with considerable violence, in consequence of
which she sustained a compound fracture of the spine,
and her person was otherwise injured by the accident.
There was no signal light to show passers-by that any
excavation had been made, nor any barrier or boarding
put up to protect them from meeting with any injury,
and as the night was dark the plaintiff was ignorant
of the state of the pavement at the time she
passed through the street. The occurrence was
witnessed by several persons, and the woman
was carried off in a helpless state to Charing-cross
Hospital, where she remained until the 9th of May, 1848,
a period of 184 days. She was not wholly cured when
discharged, being obliged to walk with crutches, and
had, in consequence of her long illness, lost all connexion
with the persons who had been in the habit of employing
her. Since leaving the hospital she had bean supported
chiefly by charity, and was now an inmate of the work-
house. The plaintiff was above 50 years of age, and was not
likely again to be in a position to earn her own liveli-
hood, and under all these circnmstances it was submitted
she was entitled to ample compensation as against the
defendants for the serious injuries which she had sus-
lained.

Several witnesses were called whose evidence proved
the Facts as detailed ebove, and it apppeared further
that the pavement had been taken up, not by the parish,
but by some persons who were carrying on building
operations in the neighbourhood. Scaffolding had been
put up and a hoarding erected in order to allow these
operations to be carried on, and when they were taken
down, shortly before the accident, the parties neglected
to replace the pavement.
Mr. Burst All, the surveyor of pavements for St. Mar -
tin's, stated that the defendants were employed by the
parish to lay down and repair the pavements, but that
they were not permitted to do any thing without au
order, and he had given them no directions i❑ this par-
ticular instance to repair the pavement in Becifordbury.
Mr. CHAMBERS submitted, on this evidence, that the
defendants were clearly not responsible fur the defective
state of the pavement.
The CRIES BARON said this was, no doubt, a very
lamentable case. The poor woman ought to have had
some redress tor the serious accident she had met with,
but it was to be regretted she had not had better advice
as to the party against whom she ought to proceed. It
was distinctly proved that no responsibility attached to
the defendants. They were only justiqed in repairing the
pavement when they received orders to thateffect from the
surveyor; and it was not their business to wander about
the parish, and do whatever they thought necessary or
proper upon their own authority. Though he regretted,
therefore, that the plaintiff had fixed upon the wrong
parties, he could not commit an injustice upon the de-
fendants for the purpose of repairing the blunders of
those who ought to have given her better advice. His
Lordship then directed the jury to find a verdict for the
defendants.

The jury accordingly returned a verdict fur the de.
fendants.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
ATTEMPTED PARRICIDE.—A young woman, named
Louisa Susan Hartley, aged 19, described in the cah-ndsr
as a spinster, was indicted fur feloniously administering
to Joseph William Hartley, her father, a quantity of
deadly poison, called arsenic, with intent to kill and
murder him.

Mr. Parry prosecuted, and Mr. Ballantine defended the
prisoner.

The facts of this case have so recently come to light
that they must still be familiar to the reader of The Sun.
The prosecutor was a fellowship porter, who, in April
last, lived at the Hope public-house, in Gravel-lane,
Southwark, where his daughter, the prisoner, resided
with him, and attended to his domestic affairs, his wife
having been dead some years. On the 16th of April,
about eight o'clock in the
.morning, the prisoner, who
generally prepared his breakfast, woke him up, and told
him that his breakfast was ready. She then handed
him a cup of coffee and some bread and butter on a
small tray. Upon tasting the coffee, it seemed very un-
pleasant, which induced him to say to the prisoner,
" Louisa, you must have put something into
the coffee," and she replied, " No, I have not,
father." He tasted it a second time, when his mouth
became parched, and his teeth shook very
much, and he said to the prisoner, " Why, daughter,
you have put poison in the coffee," but she denied it,
and took up the cup of coffee and emptied it into a wash-
hand basin. There was a secund cup of coffee on the
table, which she had poured out for herself, and which
he afterwards tasted. It had not the favour of the cup,
and he therefore secured the contents of the first cup,
and carried it to Guy's Hospital, where it was found to
be strongly impregnated with vitriolic acid, but not suf-
ficient to eause death. His stomach was also cleansed
with the pump, and then he returned home and gave his
daughter into custody, when she denied having at-
tempted to poison him, and stated that she accidentally
dropped a little soda into the cup.
'1 he cause assigned for the rash act was revenge for
the father's ill-treatment, and on more than one occa•
sion she had been heard to threaten the life of her fa-
ther. Once she declared that she would get some vitriol
and administer to her father, and just prior to the com
mitts! of this offence she vowed she would cut her fa-
ther's throat with a razor, and stab herself afterwards.
Mr. BALLANTINE obtained an admission from the
prosecutor, in cross-examination, that he was discharged
from the service of the Watermen's Company fur em-
besalement and forgery, while some time before that he
took a quantity of laudanum, but it was not for the pur-
pose of destroying himself. During the lifetime of his
will, he usually kept fire-arms, in his house, but he never
slept with them under his pillow. It was thirteen or
fourteen years ago that he took poison, and about eleven
years had elapsed since he was discharged from the
Watermen's Company.

After an able and Pathetic address from the prisoner's
Learned Counsel, who insinuated that the charge was
the result of an abominable and deep-laid scheme of the
prosecutor to get rid of his daughter, as she was too
feeble to work, and was therefore an expense to himself,
The jury returned a verdict of Nut Guilty, and the
prisoner was accordingly liberated.