The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-17 00:00:00

Stairs and called her master, who was asleep in the
siting-room. The house having been broken open
a few nights before, he was sitting up. She told
her master what had happened, and the names of
the three men. They then proceeded to examine
the house, and they found that three cheeses hid
been taken from the dairy. Three ducks had also
been taken. The girl then took him to an out-
how3e, where she had previously seen the prisoners
go, and there they found the cheeses and the ducks.
The police were sent for, and the next morning the
three prisoners, who worked on the railway, and
lived near the prosecutor's, were apprehended, and
the girl identified them. The dairy had been en-
tered through the roof.
For the defence it was urged that of all the ex-
traordinary cases ever presented to a jury this was
the most extraordinary. When tho girl saw the
men in the yard why did she not alarm her master
and the other inmates of the house ? But instead
of that, according to her own statement, she never
called anyone until the men were gone. It was
submitted that the story was too extraordinary to
be believed. The yoang girl was the only witness,
and she pointed out to her master the place where
the cheeses and the ducks were found. " Those
who hide can find." The girl must have had an
enmity against Westlake. He called the two other
prison ere, who lodged with him, to prove that he
was not in the house, and so the girl charged them
also. It was therefore irged that the case was too
dangerous for a jury to convict upon.
The learned Judge summed up the case.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
Westlake was sentenced to 15 years', and the
other two to 10 years', penal servitude.
Joseph Weaver was indicted for having, at Dart-
moor Prison, assaulted William Rumbelow, a
warder of that prison, on the 24th of November,
with intent to murder him.

Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Bere were counsel for the
prosecution.
William Rumbelow—l am one of the warders of
the prison. The prisoner was a convict. On the
24th of November the prisoner was brought to the
refractory cells. I put upon him a body belt,
which is a covered chain, to which are attached two
handcuffs, in which the prisoner's wrists are placed,
giving him five inches' play for his hands.
The Judge—Does it squeeze him round the body ?
WiLuccia --it is put on so that it cauuot hurt him.
The chain is locked round the body. There is a
staple at one part of the chain. Before it was put
on the prisoner said, as soon as he got out of the
cells he would rip open any man he could see. He
was in the refractory cell about two hours and a-
half. While he was there I heard the glass of the
cell window breaking. I unlocked the door. The
prisoner was standing on the guard-bed, a sort pf
wooden bulk raised from the floor. His right hand
was free, and he had taken off the body belt, having
forced the lock. He had hold of the belt with the
left hand. I went up to him, and he made a blow
at me with the belt, which I parried and knocked
him down with my staff. Not wishing to injure
him further, I went to free him from the belt ; he
laid bold of my staff and I fell. The staff broke,
and the prisoner struck me twice on the right
temple with the part he had. Three of us then,
after violent resistance, took the staff from him.
He got hold of my flag: r between his teeth and
bit the top joint of it off. The prisoner was then
taken to a cell. I don't know where I struck the
prisoner, because it was in a moment of irritation.
The prisoner had previously asked me to looseu
the belt, as it was too tight, and I refused.
By the Prisoner-1 did not beat you for five
minutes before you struck me.
The Prisoner—You beat me on the head, and
here is the mark.

The Judge to the Witness—Was there a mark
on the prisoner's head?—Yes, my Lord, but I can't
account for it except it was when he fell against the
bulkhead.

By the Judge—What ii it put on fox !--For re•
fractory conduct.

By the Judge—ls it to inflict pain ?—No, my
Lord.

The Judge—But do you think if you had this on
with your hands confined in that position it would
not cause pain. I suppose these handcuffs are not
padded ?—N9, my Lord.
Mr. Coleridge—l understand, my Lord, that
this is sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and
reported ovary fortnight.
The Judge—l am not aware of any act of Par-
liament to justify the Governor or the Secretary
of State to inflict such a punishment.
Witness—The body-belt is put on by order of
the Governor. I have known a prisoner have it
on fur six weeks. I don't know that I have tried
it on myself. It is only sufficiently tight to pre-
vent their slipping it off.
The Judge asked for some Act of Parliament or
regulation to justify this treatment.
Mr. Coleridge said he knew nothing of it except
what he read in his brief, because the briefs were
sent from London, and no one here knew any-
thing about it.
The Judge said it was clear that there ought to
be some inquiry bdote a jaclge, as there was no act
that he knew of.

The prisiner, when called on fur hi 3 defence,
said he wished to ask for mercy.

The Judge, in summing up, said they must to
careful to see that the parties had not brought this
act upon themselves, and had not exceeded their
authority. Of course warders must be protected.
The ques'ion, however, was what was the intention
of the prisoner at the time he inflicted the blow ?
He could not help saying that as far as he knew the
law, an instrument of that kind should not be put
ou if the object was to give pain, or inflict punish-
ment in that way. It was said that th's was con-
sideredmode,o and approved. They
f the instrument—he
hadheartod btehea proper
descri ptin
owned he was not aware of any law that justified
its being put OR.
guilty, with intent
to Tdhoegjrtileryvofuosunboddtih prisoner
lye
harm.
The Judge, in passing sentence, said he found
the prisoner had been twice convicted of felony,
and had been sentenced to 4 years' penal servitude.
He had been in a northern prison, where he had
conducted himself in an orderly manner ; he had
then been taken to Millbank, where he had not acted
properly ; he had then been removed to Dartmoor
Prison, where his conduct had been very bad, al-
though he had then been drawing towards the end
of his sentence. He had this bait put upon him,
which was said to have been approved as a means
of restraint, and although he was
at first inclined
to take a different view of it, yet he was not now
prepared to say that it was anything more than a
means of restraint. No doubt it was necessary.
where there were so many convicts, that severe
means should be adopted.
The Prisoner—My
Lord, be beat me for five
minutes before I did anything.

The Judge—l protest that if I thought a hair of
your head had been unnecessarily touched I would
not have given you a day's punishment, but I be-
lieve the evidence that h bean given. I should
not do my duty if I did n)t order you to ba kept
in penal servitude for 14 years.

CRIMINAL COURT.--Dec. 15.

THIRD COURT.

Ann A'exander, 38, married, was indicted. for
marl yin; John Wilkinson, her husband being then

Iu th's case it appeared that about 14 years ago
the prisoner left her husband, Thomas Wm. Alex-
ander, a short time after their marriage, and went
with Wilkinson to America, and previously to doing
so married him, he (Wilkinson) bring at that time a
married man.

There being no evidence to prove that the pri-
soner was the woman named in the certificate, the
jury acquitted her.
John Wilkinson, 45, shoemaker, was then in-
dicted for feloniously marrying the woman Ann
Alexander, his wife Francis being then alive.
In this case, as in the former, there was no wit-
ness to identify the Prisoner as being the man whose
marriage the certificate mentioned, and he was also
acquitted.
Thom-is Wm. Alexander, 49, shoemaker, the
other husband of Ann Alexander, was then indicted
for feloniously marrying
Rebecca Collard Sayers.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
Mr. Brooke prosecuted, and said that the case,
although singular, was not one calling for severe
punishment, as the prisoner, no doubt, thought
that the woman Alexander, whom the Couit had
tried, was not alive when he contracted the second
marriage, which he did in 1850, at Faversham,
Kelt. His first wife had left him 15 years ago for
the man Wilkinson.
The Common Sergeant said that the conduct of
the first wife and Wilkinson was most disgraceful.
The prisoner's conduct was not so bad, and he should
sentence him to one mouth's imprisonment.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Erie and Mr. Justice Crowder.)

CEIARGE Or RAN:.

Joseph Drake, a milkman, was indicted for a rape
upon Alice Toomes, a child about ten years of age. The
facts of this case have already appeared in The San, It
will be recollected that the prisoner kept a dairy, and
the child had been hired to attend to the business during
the absence of the prisoner; he afterwards made arrange-
ments for her to sleep in his house, and during this tame
the offence with which the prisoner was indicted was
alleged to have been committed.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sot
,enced to 15 years' penal servitude•