The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-28 00:00:00

TWE LONDON THURSDAY EVENX NG, MARC II 2% 1844.

on the second reading—and he thought he was about
the only member of the House that had done so—he must
say that never was Bill brought forward with so little
title to their support. Why, the only ground on which
. it was supported was the not very creditable one that
a better Bill would not be brought forward, inasmuch
as it would he opposed by tl e country practitioners
He would say that he thought the House of Commons
had been very much wronged on this subject. Let him
call their Lordships' attention to what was the plain
state of the case. In the Honse of Commons, previous
to the division, Sir James Graham, after stating all the
authorities for the abolition of these Courts,
and stating his own opinion as strongly as
possible on the subject, wound up a most effective
speech by saying " Upon principle, then, I cannot yield
to the opposition to this Bill. With all deference I must
say that if the House shall think proper to reject this
BA I cannot offer any measure likely to be more accept-
able in its place." Sir ltoliert Peel, also, at the conclu-
sion of the debate, said the Government were aware
by introducing this measure, they were exposing them-
selves to the opposition of their friends, but they would
not endeavour to purchase a continuance of their sup-
port by shrinking from the discharge of what they con-
sidered their duty. On the division the numbers were
186 to 84, a much larger majority, in proportion to the
members present, than any which even the present strong
Government had had since they first came into office.
Now, what became of all that courage and determination
not to shrink from their duty? Why, the Bill was re-
ferred to a Select Committee, and so far from being re-
cognised and adopted by the House of Commons, it was
reported by that Select Committee on the 28th of
May, and from that period to the end of the
session no steps were taken on the subject. He thought
therefore, it was hard upon that House to call upon it to
pass the Bill which was admitted by all to be
the means of perpetuating very great evils ; it
kept up the diocesan courts and perpetuated courts
that bad not business to sustain them :
Under all these circumstances, he thought the country
when it judged Of this Bill, would believe that the Go-
vernment had pursued a course of yielding to the most
humiliating necessity to which a strong Government was
ever driven.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that he had no objec-
tion to take kis share of the responsibility of bringing in
this measure. He admitted that the Government did
before bring in a Bill that went much further than
the present one. They found that there was a strong
opinion respecting the Bill, not only in the House
of Commons, but elsewhere, not- only on the part of
practitioners but of the public in general. He was quite
ready to take any blame of the part he had had in
bringing in the Bill.
Lord COTTENHAM said the question was not
whether the Government had yieleld to pressure or not.
but whether it had acted properly. The question whe-
ther it would be inconvenient for parties to come to
London to transact their business had 'been a matter of
inquiry ever since the year 1832, and every report
of the Commissioners had stated that the advantages of
removing the courts to London would far outweigh any
inconvenience that would be occasioned by making
parties come to London to attend the courts.

In answer to a question from Lord BROUGHAM
as to the standing to be required in a barrister, in order
to be qualified to sit as a judge in the Court,
;The LORD CHANCELLOR saw no reason why five
years should not be a sufficient qualification. He had
no objection to make the required alteration.
The question that the report be received was then
about to be put, upon which
Lord BROUGHAM rose, and said he wished to
correct a misapprehension which had arisen out of what
he had stated the other night, upon the presentation of
a petition from certain females in Scotland. He had
received several letters from persons in the country,
and • one stated that he for one ought not
to attempt to prevent the libouring classes
from obtaining a limitation of their hours of labour,
constdering that he was at present receiving a large
pension fur doing nothing out of the taxes imposed
upon the people. Now the pensions which he and
his Noble and Learned Friend received were only
compensations for large incomes they had sacrificed at
the bar. His Noble and Learned Friend behind him
(Lord Campbell) was in a still worse position, for he bad
given up a large income, yet he did not receive any
pension.

Lord CAMPBELL—I often work ten hours a day.
Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble and Learned
Yriend had worked ten hours a day, and frequently
worked so hard that he envied the situation of the factory
children. Some of the letters requested him to follow
up the useful suggestion which he had made, that
wages should be fixed at a minimum, and that
manufacturers should be prevented from giving their
work-people less than a certain amount. What he said
was that he would prefer a law fora minimum of wages
unjust and absurd as it might be to a law for a maximum
of hours. Another of his correspondent asked•him, how he
could say that toil was the lot of man, and at the same time
advocate the abolition of slavery. He spoke only of
voluntary toil; all that he required was that men should
not be compelled to work, or prevented from working.
Lord MON I'EAGLE moved for a return of the cor-
respondence between the Government and the Inspectors
of Allistrict Lunatic Asylums, on the subject of the
treatment of lunatics in Asylums in Ireland.
In Ireland lunatics were not subject to supervision of
any Government agents, and he thought there should
be some provision made from the estimates of the year
to effect this purpose.
The motion was agreed to withont opposition.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

TIT TERSALL'S.-T HIS EVENING.
QUARTER TO SIX O'CLOCK.
TWO THOUSAND GULNEAS STAKES.
6 to 4 agst Mr. John Day's The Ugly Buck.
CHESTER CUP.
11 to 1 agst Pharaoh
15 to 1 agst Pagan
15 to 1 agst Cattonito
17 to 1 agst Jamie Forest
20 to 1 agst Bramble
22 to 1 agst Vakeel
25 to 1 agst Alice Hawthorn
27 to 1 agst Sir Robert
DERBY.
6 to 1 agst Ugly Buck
6 to 1 agst Rattan
17 to 1 agst Orlando
22 to 1 agst lonian
20 to 1 agst Cockamaroo
20 to 1 agst T'Auld 'Squire
40 to 1 agst Campunero
45 to 1 agst Grey Momus colt—taken
100 to 1 agst Akbar

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT, Kingston, March 27.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)

TUE MURDER OF LORD GRANTLEY'S GAMEKEEPER.
—James Elsley, 38, was indicted for the wilful murder
of James Edwards.
There were four counts in the indictment. The first
charged the prisoner with shooting the deceased ; the
second with shooting him, and also beating him to death;
the third with beating him only ; and the fourth charged
the murder to have been committed by casting the de-
ceased into the water, and thereby suffocating and
drowning him.
Mr. Clarkson, with Mr. Locke, conducted the prose-
cution ; and Mr. Charnock appeared for the prisoner.
The case seemed to create a good deal of interest, and
the Court was crowded during the trial, which lasted
some hours.

Mr. CLARKSON stated the case for the prosecution,
which he said was instituted by Lord Grantley, in
whose service the deceased was employed as gamekeeper.
He observed that although his Lordship had felt it his
duty to prosecute the present indictment against the pri-
soner for the murder of an old and faithful servant, yet,
of course, he had no desire but that the case should be
fully and' fitirly investigated, and if in the result the
jury should be satisfied that the more serious charge had
not been made out against the prisoner, such a result
coming from a conscientious conviction in the minds of
the jury, upon the evidence, would be quite satisfactory
to his Lordship and to all concerned in the prosecution.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state the facts
of the case as they afterwards appeared in evidence, and
also the law upon the subject, concluding by calling the
following witnesses :--
Joseph Head, examined by Mr. LOCKE—I am bailiff
to Lord Grantley, and live at Bromley. I-knew the de-
ceased, James Edwards. He acted as gamekeeper to
Lord Grantley. I recollect the 6th of January, and on
that day I went along the Wey and Avon Canal, to-
wards Wonersh. I know the lock which separates the
canal from the Lynarsh-field. (A plan of the neigh-
bourhood was here produced and proved to be correct).
Examination continued—l was on horseback by the
side of the canal about nine o'clock in the morning,
when I saw something on the water, which, at first, I
thought was a piece of sack or tarpauling. I dismounted,
and threw in stories for n:y dog to go into the water, but
he would not do so. I made some inquiries, and ob-
tained assistance and returned to the spot. At this time
the body was out of the water, and I recognised it to be
that of the deceased, who was in his usual dress. The
body appeared very much beaten. The head was
wounded in several places. I examined the ground near
the car.al, particularly on the Lynarsh side; and on that
side it rises up to the edge of the canal, for a distance of
two feet. I observed a large pool of blood, and from
that spot it is five or six yards to the edge of the canal.
There is some furze about two yards from the canal,
which is used as a preserve for game. I examined these
furze bushes, and saw some small portions of human
flesh on parts of them, and the pool of blood lay on the
ground below the furze. I also saw the marks of heels
and toes of shoes near the bank of the canal, and a few
years nearer to the lock of the canal, I saw other marks
of the same size and description, and I there found the
hat and stick of the deceased, which I now produce.—
(The hat bore an indentation on one side evidently oc-
casioned by a very violent blow. The stick was a very
slight one.)
Cross-examined--It is dead water in the canal except
when the lock is let off. At the place where the body
was found there are about three or four feet of water.
The furze may be about two or three yards from the
bank of the canal. At the, open part of the furze a per-
son might very easily get into the canal. There is a good
deal of traffic at times on the canal.

Re-examined--The land on the opposite side of the
lock is not preserved. The land, all along, retires to-
wards the Lynarsh-field, and if the body had rolled fli.t
all, it must have rolled up a hill. I have seen the de-
ceased wear the hat I produce, and also know the stick
to have been his.

Mr. Duncombe, a surveyor, who had been previously
called to prove the correctness of the plan, was again
placed in the box, and he described the details and the
position of the different localities, with a view to show
that it was impossible for the decease' to have rolled into
the river, as represented by the prisoner in his state-
meta.

William Stanton, examined by Mr. CLACKSON—My
father has a wharf on the canal, near Lord Grantley's
preserve. On the morning the body was found, in con-
sequence of soniething Mr. Head said to me, I went to
the canal and saw an object floating in the water. I as-
sisted to bring it to the bank, and it turned out to b 3 the
body of the deceased. I knew him directly, and I re-
marked that one of his ears was very much, lacerated,
and on the opposite side the skull seemed to be beaten
in. The wounds appeared to have bled a good deal, and
they were bleeding at the time the body -was taken out
of the 'water.

Humphreys Durrant confirmed the testimony of the
last witness, relative to the finding of the body. He
also said he observed that the ear was jammed all to
pieces.--(This correspondedwith the marks on the hat.)
The ear was cut in every direction.
Charles Jenkins, inspector of police, produced a
broken gun-stock, which was Sound near the canal, also
the broken lock of a gun.
Henry Day; examined by Mr. LocKE:—On Saturday,
the 6th of January, I was close to the canal in the Ly-
narsh• field, and I picked up the broken gun-stock. It
was in the furze. There was blood upon it, and also a
small quantity of human hair. The brass upon the butt
of the gun-stock was bent up, and upon that I saw
the hair.

Henry Green deposed that on the same day the water
was drawn off the canal, and he found in the bed of the
canal the remaining portion of the broken gun-stock.
Edmund Walker, :examined by Mr. LocKE—I am
gamekeeper to Mr. John Sparkes. I knew the deceased
well, and was with him at the Jolly Farmer public-house
at Bromley, on the evening of the sth• January. There
was a raffle going on;: and a good many people were in
the house. The .deceased came in about half-past seven
o'clock in the evening, and we drank together. He was
quite sober when he went away, which was about eight
o'clock in the evening. When. Edwards went away he
had such a stick in his hand as the one that has been
produced, and I have no doubt it is the same.

Cross-examined—l' cannot Undertake to swear posi-
tively that it is the same stick. We had only two pints
of beer together, but I don't know what the deceased
had drank before. I stayed an hour, expecting the de-
ceased would return as he had promised, hut as he did
not come I went away.
Alexander Lambert examined by Mr. CLARKSON—
I was at the Jolly Farmer public-house on Friday, the
sth of Januiry, and I remember the prisoner coming
into the house in question about seven o'clock. His legs
appeared to be wet, and he asked me to let him dry his
clothes by the fire. I did so, and went into the bar,
whore I saw the deceased, and drank some beer with
him. He was quite sober. He left the room for a short
time, and asked me to hold his stick while he was
gone. I did so, and I have no doubt the stick that has
been produced is the same.—(The portions of the
broken gun were here handed to the witness, and he
identified them as having originally formed a gun
which he had seen in the possession of the prisoner.

By Mr. CHARNOCK—I was not examined before the
Coroner. The prisoner is a married man, with a family
of six or seven children. It is a very old stock indeed.,
and appears to be worm. eaten. Ido not swear positively
to the stick, but to the best of my belief it is the same.
Re-examined—The prisoner had been Working for a
person named Tickner.
George Lucas, pot-boy at the Jolly Farmer, proved
that he saw the prisoner leave the house about eight
o'clock.

Charlotte Brown examined by Mr. CLAitxsoN—l live
at Bromley, and about eight o'clock in the evening of the
sth January I heard the report of a gun come directly
from the Lynarsh field, and shortly afterwards I heard a
second report in the seine direction. Ten minutes might
have elapsed between the two reports.
John Turrell proved that he also heard the report of
a gun, and likewise heard some person cry out very
much. The cries were repeated several times, and at
last he went out, and then heard some one call out " Oh
dear!" Thd sound came in a direction from the lock.
He heard no other sound after the person called out
" Oh dear!"

Thomas Champion, examined by Mr. CLARKSON—On
the night of the sth January I heard the report of a gun,
and about five minutes afterwards there was a cry of
" Come on." Immediately afterwards I heard a second
report. _ _ _

Joseph Head re-called—The deceased had persons
under him called watchers, whose duty it was at night
to watch these preserves.
By Mr, CHARNOCK—The deceased was taller and
stouter than the prisoner, but I cannot say whether he
was a stronger man.
John Burl, examined by Mr. LocKE—I know the pri-
soner, and have frequently had conversations with him.
About a twelvemonth ago he told me that he would
never be taken by any one man.
Cross-examined—l don't know what we were talking
about which led to the observation, nor whether it was a
year and half or two years ago.

Charles Jenkins re-called-LI am the inspector of po-
lice stationed at Shere, near Guildford. On Saturday,
the 6th January, in consequence of what I had heard I
went to Bromley, and from thence to a place called Run
Common, where I found the prisoner working for a per-
son named Tickner, and took him into custody. I con-
veyed him to the Jolly Farmer at Bromley, and left him
in charge of a parish constable while I searched the pri-
soner's house. I found in his house a short smock frock
with spots of blood upon it, and which appeared to have
been partly washed and hung to the fire to dry. The
blood was upon the breast and upon both sleeves. I
took the frock back to the prisoner, and he told me, in
answer to a question I put to him, that it was his own
frock. I then told the prisoner I should take him on
suspicion of the murder of the keeper, and he replied
" Thank God, I am innocent" Shortly after this I
searched the prisoner. and found a powder-horn and a
clasp knife in his pockets. I next examined the pri-
soner's person, but could not discover any bruises or
other marks of violence. I made a further search at the
house of the prisoner the next day, and found a large
quantity of chisels, planes, and tools of every description.
William Biddlecomb, examined by Mr. LOCKE—I am
chief constable of Godalming, and accompanied the last
witness, when he searched the prisoner's house. I
examined the prisoner's arms, chest, legs, and head,
and found no mark of violence on any part of his per-
son. I subsequently searched the prisoner's cottage, and
in the grate in the bed-room I found a shirt covered
over with old rags. The shirt was torn in the breast,
and there were marks of blood on that part, and also on
the left wristband. The right wristband appeared as
though it bad been in dirty water and afterwards dried.
I searched the prisoner's wood-house, and found the coat
which I now produce. It was wet, and in the pocket
there were some pheasant's feathers. I also found two
guns, and part" of another gun. In the prisoner's house
I also found the greater part of a leg of mutton, a piece
of pork in salt, and also some butter.
Cross-examined—The right cuff of the jacket appears
to be very much torn. It is also torn under the arm.
Charles Hollington, examined byMr. CLARKSON—I am
inspector of the police at Guildford, The prisoner was
given into my custody about 10- o'clock at night, on. a
Saturday the 6th, and the next day, in consequence of
communication I received, I went to the police station to
see the prisoner. He told me he wanted to ask a favour.
I said if it related to the charge against him, I must
caution him that what he said must be taken down, and
would be used against him at a future time. He told
me that it did not relate to the charge, but that he de-
sired to see Mr. Pitman, the clergy man of Stratford
parish, and I promised to endeavour to do what he
wished. On the Monday morning I again saw the pri-
soner, and he told me he wished to say something. I
said he had better wait till the inspector who took him
in charge came: He said that he could not wait, adding
that he wished to relieve his mind. At this time he ap-
peared very feeble and dejected, and scarcely able to
support himself. I then took down in writing the
following statement from the prisoner's mouth:—
" On Friday evening I went home and took supper, but
on entering the door I saw my son eating some victuals.
I said to him, Where are you going to Bill?' He said,
lam going to the raffle.' I said, ' What is the use of
your going to the raffle?' He replied, James Shurlock
is going to give me a pint of beer, father; will you come
down and take a part of it? I told him that I would
as soon as I had eat my supper. I went down as soon
as I had eat my supper, and took part of a pint of beer,
and called for another; and after that me and my son
went home together, and my son had something to eat
and went to bed. When he was gone I said to my wife,
'Oh, how hard it is for us to be in such distress ; we
have neither butter, nor cheese, nor sugar,' and whether
she had any tea I am not certain, for , when we were at
supper we had but a piece of bread each of us, with a
little tea without sugar or milk, and as I had spent the
twopence for the beer, we were quite destitute. It hurt
my feelings; so I said to my wife, will go and get a
bird or two if I possibly can, for I cannot bear to see us
in such distress.' And I took the gun and went and
shot a brace of birds, and I thought if I could get sale
for them it would get a little tea and sugar. 1 came
away from the preserves directly, hoping that I should
return safe, but when I got to the river side I
saw the keeper coming towards me. I stood on one side
behind a furze bush ; but he saw me and said, you,
I've got you now.' He appeared to me to be a little the
worse for drink. He put up his stick and tried to strike
me, saying your eyes, I'll kill you.' I replied,
Don't do that, good man ;' and as he was going to
strike me, I jumped in and threw him down. He got up
again and used the same expressions. threw him
down again, and he held me and repeated the third time,
I will kill you.' I then said to him, We will fight,
life for life.' He replied, I will,' and directly he got
up, he struck at me with his stick and I warded off the
blow with my gun. I then struck him with the butt end
of the gun ; and as near as I can tell, it was near the
side of the temple. He rose again, and I saw the blood
running down his face. Ho seemed fully bent to come
at me again'; and I struck him again with the butt end
of the gun, and he fell down. Whether I struck him
once or twice afterwards I am not certain ; but the last
time I struck him on the ground, he rolled into the river.
I then went away and left him, and saw him no more.
I then went home, and my wife said to me, Have you
got any thing ?' I showed her what I had got, and she
said, Whatever shall we do with them.' I said, I
don't know,' I could not say anything more to her then,
but went to bed. She hung my wet clothes to dry by
the fire, and got up the next morning and brought them
to me. (Signed) " JAMES ELSLEY."
Examination continued—ln consequence of what the
prisoner said, I went, on the Monday evening, to hls
cottage, at Bromley, and saw a bee-hive that was in his
garden, and I there found two hen pheasants. The
prisoner had told me where to find them. They ap-
peared to have been shot.
Cross-examined—l asked the prisoner to sign the
statement, and he did so very readily.
—Mr. C. J. Woods examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I am
one of the Coroners for this county, and I remember
upon the occasion of the inquest being held on the body
of the deceased, that the witness Hollington tendered
his statement, and when it was read over he said he
wished to abide by it iA every respect.

Thomas Punter examined by Mr. Loess-1 remem-
ber last winter hearing the prisoner say he would do for
Edwards some day or other if he had a chance.
Cross-examined—Did not know what he meant by it,
or who else was present when it was said. Could not
say when he first mentioned the conversation having
taken place.
James Douglas examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I am a
labourer, but I am not in any regular service. I was
placed to watch the prisoner in the station-house at
Guildford; and on the Sunday morning the prisoner
made a statement to me. I did not mention that state-
ment to any one until last Tuesday night, when I dis-
closed it to inspector Hollington. The prisoner said to
me, lam so full I cannot bear it any longer. He then
knelt down on his knees, and .said he hoped the Lord
would forgive him, and protect his wife and family. The
prisoner then said, that he saw a man coming over the
lock, but did not know who it was at the time, and that
he ran back into the furze bushes, and as he was doing
so, he looked back and saw it was the keeper, and if he
had kept on running he would have just got into the
cover out of his Way ; but as it was he got into the
furze thinking he would pass him. Edwards, however,
he said saw him and said "-- you, I've got you, I will
kill you;" and he replied, " don't do that good man." Ed-
wards again said that he would, and as soon as
he said so, he (prisoner) paid into him, took him
round the waist, and threw him on his back.
Edwards got up, and they struggled, and both
fell to the ground, and were struggling together for a
minute-or two, when Edwards again said, " you,
I'll kill you." He then said .to him, "If that's what
you mean, Jem, we will fight life for life." Edwards
then asked him to let him get up, and, as soon as he
had done so, he came at him with a stick, and he' hit
him down with the butt-end of The gun, and he laid on
the ground' for several minutes. I (the witness) told
him that he might then have ran away, but he said that
he could not go away from the spot, and he felt deter-
mined to finish him. The prisoner went on to say that,
after a little time, the deceased came at him again, and
they continued to fight nearer and nearer to the canal,
and the deceased fell down near the canal, and he (pri-
soner) put up his foot and poked him in, and went away
and left him.

Cross-examined—Believes this was all that took place►
Did not put it down in writing, and should not have
mentioned it when he did, if he had not been asked the
question. He sometimes acted as assistant to the police,
sometimes as a gaoler, and did any job in a fair way.
He was formerly a publican, and then took to being an
assistant to the police. _ He was not whitewashed.

By the Courai—l did not at first think there was any
material difference between the prisoner's statement to
me, and the one he made to the inspector.
Mr. John Ray examined by Mr. LOCKE—I am a sur-
geon, and reside at Bromley. By the direction of the
coroner, I made a post mor tem examination of the de-
ceased. I observed many lacerated wounds upon the
head and face, and no less than twelve on the right side.
There were also the same number on the left side. There
was a wound upoa the nose which exposed the bone.
The principal wound was over the right ear, and this
was three inches long, and three broad. The temporal
bone and the jaw bone were both fractured, and pro-
bably at one time by the blow of some heavy instrument.
At first I thought there were traces of a gnn-shot wound,
but I did not discover any shot. The skull was
fractured, and laid bare in several places. The deceased
died of aneurism of the brain, which would have caused
instant insensibility, and almost immediate death. The
jugular vein was severed, as was also the carotid artery.
Witness was shown some blood upon the ground, which
be had no doubt flowed from the jugular vein. It would
be totally impossible for a person who had lost such a
quantity of blood as must have been lost in this case, to
have risen fromfthe ground.
By Mr. Cnikalloca.—All these injuries were such as
might be produced by two men fighting with a gun and
a stick.

By Mr. CLARRSON—There could have been no fighting
after the deceased received the blow on the side of his
head, which fractured the skull and severed the jugular
vein. The skull was completely smashed, and there
must have been a number of blows struck upon both
sides of the head.

Mr. John Chandler, surgeon, of Guildford, confirmed
the testimony given by Mr. Ray.
By the CoURT—Did not think that suffocation had
anything to do with causing the death of the deceased.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. CHARNoca then addressed the jury for the pri-
soner, and he commenced by observing that he felt
deeply the responsibility that was thrown upon him in
having to defend the prisoner upon such a dreadful
charge as the one now made against him ; but he
trusted he should be able to satisfy the jury that the
offence did not amount to murder. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to comment upon the circum-
stances of the case, and said that it was a melancholy
thing that, in order to enable persons in the position of
Lord Grantley to enjoy their pleasures, and preserve
their game, the lives of the poorer classes wereto be
sacrificed, and he expressed his opinion that it would be
much better if there were no game, and that such lordly
pleasures should be altogether abolished, than that such
dreadful cases as the present, and similar ones all over
the country, during the present assizes, should have
taken place. He then went on to contend that the state-
ment of the prisoner was the real truth of the transac-
tion, and that the violence had been done upon the un-
fortunate deceased under the impression entertained by
the prisoner that his own life was in danger, and, under
such circumstances, the offence would only amount to
manslaughter.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON summed up, and went minutely
through every portion of the evidence, commenting, in
his usual clear and admirable manner, upon 'the more
important points, as he proceeded, concluding byleaving
the case in the hands of the jury.
The jury retired, and, after being absent about twenty
minutes, returned into Court, and delivered their verdict,
finding the prisoner guilty of Manslaughter.
The prisoner was immediately called up for judgment,
and the Learned Judge, after observing that the prisoner
had reason to be extremely grateful for the lenient view
the jury had taken of the case against him, sentenced
him to be transported for life.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN
and a Common Jury.)
SKINNER V. SALE.—TRESPASS.

This was an action for an alleged trespass and seizure
of the goods of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded
Not Guilty as to the trespass, and that the entry into the
house was by the leave and license of the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that
the plaintiff was now a pauper, but that he had been a
tenant of the defendant. The plaintiff occupied a cot-
tage at Pain's-hill, of which the defendant was the land-
lord. The Learned Counsel remarked that the law gave
to landlords very great privileges, and it was most im-
portant that these privileges should not, as in this in-
stance, be strained too far. Yet here the defendant had
taken the opportunity of distraining for rent, on the 4th
of January last, in the absence of the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT called the plaintiff's wife's sister, and other
witnesses, from whose evidence it appeared, that on the
day in question the defendant came to the cottage, took
an inventory of the goods, and, although it was a wet,
snowy day, turned the woman and her two children out
of doors. A distraint was made upon the goods, and a
quantity of tools belonging to the plaintiff were also
taken away.

Mr. THESIGER, for the defendant, suggested that the
remark about the privileges of landlords was only
meant to influence the minds of the jury. The defen-
dant, he said, was justified in distraining for the rent
due to him, and with respect to turning the plaintiff's
wife out of doors, she had stated to a witness that she
intended to give up possession the next morning after
breakfast. The Learned Counsel called witnesses in
support of his statement, but did not prove that any rent
was due on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT, in reply, contended that no answer had
been given to the case. All the goods of these poor
people had been seized, and the defendant had even
made a merit of allowing the poor woman to take her
clothes. The Learned Counsel, after again adverting
to the inclemency of the season when the plaintiff's wife
and her young children were turned out of doors, re-
marked also upon the fact that the distress had been
put in at the time when the plaintiff was absent, and not
only had lie been expelled from his home, but his in-
dustry had been paralysed, in consequence of his tools
having been taken from him. Thus he was ruined, and
was compelled to sue in forma pauperis. In this coun-
try, happily, however, a poor man could recover damages
for any injustice practised towards him, even by the
highest dignitary in the land.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up the case, said there
was no doubt the house had been entered and the plain-
tiff s family turned out of doors. This might have been
justified if rent had been due, but he did not find any
evidence that such was the case.

Mr. THESIGER said the plaintiff in his declaration
charged that he was a tenant of the defendant.

Lord DENMAN said they could not assume that rent
was due because there was a possession. As to the al-
leged leave and license to enter the premises, the wife
had no right to give up possession without her hushand's
authority. There was no justification for the trespass.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff Damages 151.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 26.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Thomas Cashmore, aged 20, was indicted for cutting and
wounding Robert Middleton, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Hulton conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was
not defended by Counsel.

It appeared that there had been some preiious grudge be-
tween the parties, and meeting accidentally on the day in
question, the prosecutor addressed the prisoner tauntingly by
the title of Mister Cashmore. The prisoner being offended at
this, addressed to the prosecutor a query, the exact applica-
tion of which did not appear, namely, " Who killed Isaac
Cutts?" The prosecutor, who is a much more powerful man
than the prisoner, was much irritated at this, and, seizing the
prosecutor by the collar, shook him violently. The prisoner,
in return, threw a stone, and then ran into the shop in which
he was employed in his trade of joiner. The prosecutor fol-
lowed and kicked him repeatedly. A struggle ensued between
them, which lasted for some little time, and on its ceasing
the prosecutor found that he was wounded on the left side,
and was—bleeding copiously. The prisoner had then a chise
in his hand, but at what time of the contest he had procured
it, or whether he had the chisel in his hand when it com-
menced, did not appear. On the person of the prosecutor
being examined, it appeared be had received two wounds,
evidently inflicted with the chisel, which had been struck
from below upwards. One was just above the hip bone, and
the other higher up. They were of a serious nature, and his
life was for some time in peril.
The prisoner in his defence declared the prosecutor had
beaten and kicked him very severely, and that he had struck
in self-defence, without reflecting that he had the chisel in
his hand.

Verdict—Guilty of a common assault. To be imprisoned
for six calendar months.

Catherine O'Brien, aged thiriy, was indicted for cutting and
wounding her husband, John O'Brien.
Mr. Whigham conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that on the evening in question the prosecutor
Was sitting in his house half asleep, leaning his head on his

hand. His wife, the prisoner, came in, and he waking np,
thought she seemed under the influence of drink, and accused
her of being intoxicated. She was at that time cutting some
bread with a knife. She retorted his accusation with some
irritating words, and the prosecutor finally struck her. A
scuffle ensued, when the prosecutor received a wound in the
face, extending from the cheek-bone to the corner of the
mouth. He now, however, seemed very unwilling to press
the charge, and stated it to be his belief that the wound was ac-
cidentallv inflicted.—Verdict not guilty.
The final entry of causes is forty-seven for the Salford list,
and ninety-four for the West Derby list. It has been ar-
ranged that all in the second lists after No. 60, except unde-
fended causes and special juries, shall be tried before Mr.
Justice Coltman, after the criminal business shall have been
disposed of.

. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Monmouth, March 26.
CROWD COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
James Wynyar d, aged 22, a fellow of extremely forbidding
appearance, was charged with maliciously cutting and stab-
bing James Berry, with intent to do him grievous bodily
harm.

Mr. Greaves prosecuted ; the prisoner was defended by Mr.
Skinner.

On the 2d of last September the prisoner and some others
were drinking at the Golden Ball, at Monmouth, and after-
wards sat down to cards ; a dispute arose amongst them, and
the prisoner made use of some opprobrious epithets towards
the uncle of the prosecutor, which he resented, and a challenge
to fight having been given to the prisoner, he struck Berry
in the side, who fell with Wynyard upon him, and, while
down, the prosecutor received so many severe kicks from the
prisoner, that his chest remained black and blue for a month
after. The landlordthen interfered, and separated them ; but
the prisoner, watching his opportunity, struck at Berry, over
the head of his mother, who was sitting at the fire, and with
a clasp-knife stabbed him nearly to the heart. Fortunately
he recovered, the wound not proving very serious, although at
first presenting a dangerous appearance
Mr. Skinner called g witness, who gave a somewhat different
version of the occurrence; but the. jury-did nut seem to place
much reliance on his story.

Wynyard was convicted, and sentenced to transportation
for fifteen years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

David Ilearit who has been known as a coffee-stand
keeper on London-bridge, was brought before Sir Peter
Laurie, charged with having committed a robbery upon
a sailor.

Ford, the prosecutor, stated that he belonged to the
ship Brilliant. now lying in the London Docks, and
that, as he was passing over London-bridge, at a very
early hour in the morning, he saw the prisoner, and in-
vited him to have something to drink, a compliment
which was at once accepted ; that they walked to a
public house in Darkhouse-lane, and there enjoyed some
liquor, and that the prosecutor laid his head upon the
table at about half-past three o'clock, and fell asleep ;
that, while he was reposing, the landlady saw the pri-
soner's hand slip into the prosecutor's pocket, and that
she seized him in a vigorous manner, and with the as-
sistance of a person whom she called, she opened
the clenched fist, and took two half-crowns and some
small silver out of it, after which she deposited the thief
in the custody of a policeman. In the prisoner's posses-
sion were also found two books, which were the prose-
cutor's property.
A boy named Plummer stated that he saw the prispner
draw a watch from the prosecutor's pocket, but as there
was a guard chain to it, the fellow failed.in disengaging
it. The witness said he had himself something more to
make complaint of against the prisoner. A few nights
ago he had gone to the theatre, and having been de-
tained till a late hour, he asked the prisoner, who was on
London Bridge, to accommodate him by letting him know
where he could get a bed. The prisoner offered to take
him home to his own house ; and thither they went, and
the prosecutor, after having treated his host, retired to
bed. At six in the morning, however, the prosecutor
was surprised at the entrance of the prisoner, who
threatened to hand him over to the custody of a police-
man who was waiting below, if he did not consent to fork
out two shillings.
Sir PETER LAURIE said he was astonished that the
police should allow a man who must, as was apparent
from the statements just made, be known to be a bad
character to have the privilege of standing on London
Bridge.
The prisoner was then remanded.
Two common girls of the town, named Elizabeth
Boswell and Mary Reid, were brought up, charged with
having been concerned with another girl in robbing a
young female, aged about fourteen years, named Susan
Furr. In the course of the examination Sir Peter Laurie
found that there was ground for supposing that a plan
had been made to entice the little girl into a house of
ill-fame in the notorious vicinity of Wentworth-street,
and that, if it had not been for the interposition of a
decent and humane woman named Ann Kean, the poor
child would, in all probability, have been ruined.
Susan Furr had, it appeared, from a long statement
made in an unmethodical manner, been living with a
young lady at a house in Clerkenwell, and was employed
in making artificial flowers. The lady had occasion to
leave town, and the little girl, having obtained an ad-
mission for two to the City of London Theatre, was ob.
served in conversation with the prisoners, to whom she
offered the orders. It afterwards appeared that she
went home, made up all her clothes in two bundles, and
put them into the possession of a girl who was known to
be the companion of the prisoners, but who decamped
with the property. The prisoners, who had taken a
room in Wentworth-street for the accommodation of
Susan Furr and themselves, were, after the disappear-
ance of the thief, taken into custody, and they stated
that the little girl had applied to them to help her to a
lodging, and ageed to pay the expenses arising from the
accommodation which they provided in the above-men-
oned street!

Sir PETER LAURIE said that the robbery was nothing
in comparison with the awful danger into which the
child was near falling. He knew that girls of the town
were regularly employed in decoying the innocent and
inexperienced of their sex, and such emissaries were in-
finitely more to be dreaded than even the person to
whom the victims were betrayed. There was no offenco
which he was disposed to punish more severely than
the diabolical one of being in any way instrumental in
the ruin of female innocence, and he wished to impress
upon the police the obligation they were under to give
all the protection they could afford to poor young females
who were exposed to the industrious villainy of the
women he alluded to.

The escape of Susan Purr was, in Sir Peter Laurie's
view, attributable to Ann Kean, who gave the alarm to
the police, and acted in sueh a manner as entitled her to
very high commendation. The little girl, whose father is
dead, and whose mother's intellect has been affected by
the calamities of her family, became an object of much
interest, and Sir Peter Laurie stated to her aunt, who
was in attendance at the police-room, that he should
use his influence to gain admission for her into one of
the great institutions of the metropolis.
The two prisoners, as there was no evidence against
them calculated to show that they had done any mis-
chief to the child, were discharged, upon their promise
to appear, if required to be present, upon the apprehen-
sion of the female who stole the bundles.