The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-12 00:00:00

E

rendered a man dispunishable for an unlawful act; be-
fore that state of things could exist it must be shown
that the disease of the mind under which the prisoner
laboured rendered him incapable of judging between
right and wrong, or whether a' the time he was betrayed
into the act he knew that tills, act was a wrong and un-
lawful act for him to do. Now, did the evidence
adduced for the offence accord with those prin-
ciples ? True, at one period the prisoner appeared to
have laboured under a particular delusion, but although
that delusion might have been a very good defence,
were they trying this unfortunate gentleman for the
murder of the messman, it was no more a defence to
this case than it would have been a defence to
an action had he seduced his neighbour's wife at the
time the delusion prevailed. A man might be insane
on one subject, and sane on every other, and if he com-
mitted an unlawful act, which could have no possible
reference to the particular point of delusion, it by no
means followed that he was irresponsible for it on the
ground of insanity. These were the principles which ought
to guide the jury in disposing of the present defence.
The Learned Judge, after recapitulating the evidence,
commenting upon it as he went along, left it for the jury
to say whether they were clearly satisfied that the pri-
soner was suffering from a disease of the mind, which
incapacitated him from judging whether the act which
he had committed was right or wrong for him to do. If
they were convinced that he was unconscious of what
he was about, they must acquit him ; but, on the
other hand, although they might believe him to be an
eccentric character, which made it a matter of regret
that he had not been taken better care of, yet, if they
thought he was sufficiently sane to distinguish between
right and wrong they must convict him accordingly.
The jury retired at 20 minutes past three, and did
not return into court until five minutes past seven, when
they gave a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was immediately called up for judgment.
Baron ALDERSON addressed him to the following
effect:—Robert Pate, the jury have found you guilty after
a very long and patient inquiry, and there can be no rea-
sonable doubtithat they have come tola right conclusion. At
the same time it is quite clear that you are a person of
very eccentric habits, and in some degree differing from
other men, and it is probable that it has pleased God to
visit you with some mental affliction, for which you are
to be pitied. The offence you have committed, however,
is one of a very serious and important character. You
have been found guilty of striking a female, which, for
a soldier, is a very shocking thing; but when it is con-
sidered that this female was your Sovereign, that she was
one entitled to the respect of the whole country by her
virtues and her exalted position, that act which, in an
ordinary► case would be a very serious offence, under
these circumstances became truly serious. How could
it happen that you, a soldier of the country, could
insult one beloved by all, on account not only of
her exalted station, but by her domestic virtues?
Yet, this was the object of your attack, and whom you
insulted by a blow. Considering the station of your
family and your own position, the Court will not inflict
the disgraceful punishment of whipping upon you. The
Court has some respect for you, though you had no re-
spect for others. It will still, however, do its duty, and
pass such a sentence upon you as will prevent you, at
all events for a long period, from doing any further mis-
chief. I would fain believe you were not in your right
senses at the time you committed this act, and it has
long been the boast of the country that no man of sine
mind could be found capable of committing an attack on
his sovereign, but at the same time I think the jury were
quite right, upon the evidence that was adduced, in not
acquitting you upon the ground of insanity. Under all
the circumstances, the sentence that I feel it my duty to
pronounce upon you is, that you be transported beyond
the seas for the term of seven years. . . . .

The prisoner heard the sentence without betraying
the slightest emotion; and when the Learned Judge had
concluded his address, he bowed to the Court, and im-
mediately turned round, and without uttering a word,
retired to the gaol.
The trial lasted nearly nine hours.
FORGERY.—Jokn Jones, a respectably dressed young
man, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with
forging a cheque upon the London and Westminster
Bank for 2501, and was sentenced to ten years' transpor-
tation.

POST-OFFICE ROBISERIES.—Joseph Hillier, aged 35, a
postman,wbo was indicted for stealing a post letter contain-
ing two half-sovereigns, the property of the Postmaster-
General, having pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to ten
years' transportation.
Edward Hawkes, another postman, aged 39, pleaded
guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing two
post letters, containing two half-sovereigns and a sove-
reign, the property of the Postmaster-General, and was
sentenced to ten year' transportation.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE •CHANCELLOR'S COUKT, Julyll.

(Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, sitting fur Sir J.
WIGRA3I.)
THORNHILL V. TRORNHILL.

Mr. LLOYD appeared upon a petition asking leave to
take a ward of the Court (a young lady) to Boulogne.
It was proposed that the lady should be accompanied by
her stepmother.
- _ _ _

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I will not give her leave to
go to Boulogne ; if she wishes to go to Dieppe she may.
Why does she want to go to Boulogne?
Mr. LLOYD—I am not instructed, Sir.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Leave to go to Boulogne I
positively refuse.
Mr. LLOYD said that last year the Vice-Chancellor
of England had given leave to the ward to go to Bou-
logne or Dieppe.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—The Lords Commissioners
may give her leave to go to Boulogne, if they think fit,
but I positively will not.
Mr. LLOYD—Then perhaps your honour will grant
leave to go to Dieppe,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—No; not unless you give me
a reason.

Mr. LLOYD—She has some stepsisters at Boulogne, I
am informed.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I will not give her leave.
At this time of the year there are a great number of
applications to take wards of the Court abroad.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 11.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL and a Special
_ .

Jury.)

RAILWAY COLLISION.-PHILLIPS V. THE LONDON AND

BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action brought to recover compensation
for injuries received by the plaintiff in consequence of
the negligence of the defendants' servants.
Mr. BEAVAN stated the case for the plaintiff, who is
a commercial traveller, in the service of Messrs. Foster,
of Friday-street. It appeared that on the 7th of No-
vember last,_ about five o'clock in the evening, the
'plaintiff was coining up from Blackwell to London by
railway, and when near the junction line at Bow, a col-
lision took place through the negligence of the railway
officers, and the plaintiff and several other gentlemen
were severely injured.
Mr. CLARKSON. on behalf of the plaintiff, objected to
any statement being made as to accident to others, for
the company had settled with them.
Mr. BEAVAN then called witnesses, who proved the
accident, and that the plaintiff had been laid up from the
7th November to the 31st December, and was still suffer-
ing from a thickening of the skin over one of his legs;
his expenses for medicine, &c.. was 10/.
Mr. CLARKSON, for the defendants, said it had been
claimed on behalf of the plaintiff, that he should be
paid for his loss of time, but it had been stated, and he
would prove, that as to the loss of time, the plaintiff had
been paid as usual by the respectable firm by whom he
was employed.
Mr. Prince Hoare, one of the firm, was called and
proved this fact, and that they had paid another person
tor doing his work.
Mr. BEAVAN replied, and contended that Messrs. Foster
and Co. ought to be reimbursed.
The Learned UNDER•SHERIFF said that it was a
matter of difficulty to say what amount of da-
mages ought to be given for bodily pain and
injuries, bat in such a case it ought to be taken
into consideration whether the injuries were caused by
wilfulness or wantonness, or whether by sheer accident.
The jury, after retiring, gave a verdict for 701.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July 11.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERIC HOLDER.

This insolvent, who had been a lieutenant in the 14th
Regiment of Light Dragoons, was opposed by Mr. Hook,
shoemaker, New Bond-street.
Mr. COOKE supported the application for discharge.
It appeared that the insolvent had been in prison
since March, 1849. He sold his commission for 1,190/.
in January, 1848, and placed nearly 600/. of the money
inl. the hands of a person named Bloxam to settle with
Is creditors, and he had been unable to obtain an ac-
count of its disbursement.
Mr. Hook said he had no desire to prolong the impri-
sonment, but thought that efforts should be made to ob-
tain an account from Bloxan3,eonocrurtrhed w
the moitnheythfeor
cre-
ditor, creditors.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER
and adjourned the case fora week for the attend-
ance of Bloxam.
A
_day,
but otherw engagements
Tailliße:tLienEsnutTincutititsl4zs "NEY MOIIAT.
Tieohvisminscoalvseen.—t,
prevented by
wo or three
had been in the battle of Aliwal and cineeitnealt, who
in India, was to be heard to agements
his detaining creditor sending his dischaasr
days ago, and on the case being called thg:ommr of the
Queen's Bench reported that he was out of custody.
Mr. COOKE (with whom was Mr. Sargood)com;l'ai
of the trick which had been played to prevent Lieutenantned
Mount, who had been some time in prison, from being
heard. The lieutenant, who served in all the late battles
in India, and had been wounded, had unfortunately been
mixed up in bill transactions, and had been annoyed by
rossthiei`r,o6,o
wphericehenhte.
gentlemen
notne to make him sell his com-
mission, do. Two days before his
hearing his discharge was sent, as it was known his
leave of absence would expire on the 14th inst , and no
doubt it was intended further to harass the applicant.
He (Mr. Cooke) had an affidavit of facts, and his appli-
cation was that the Court would dismiss the petition
and allow one to 'be filed under the protection statutes,
by which the lieutenant would be protected when he re-
turned to his regiment. The Learned Counsel spoke
warmly on the case, and said he felt for a man who bad
been treated in such a manner after the services he had
rendered in India.
Mr. Dowse appeared for Messrs. Lyon, and stated that
they had nothing to do with sending the discharge to the
prison.
The Cuiar CoaistissioNea granted the application by
dismissing the petition. The insolvent would take what
course he thought proper.
'A petition was immediately filed under the Protection
Act, and protection granted to the ht August, when the
case will be heard betore the Chief Commission r. It is
OW firet case of the kind that has oceuued.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HO,IIE ClRCUlT.—Hertford, July 11 .
The commission for the county of Herts was opened
on Wednesday, and this morning both Courts proceeded
to business, the Chief Baron presiding on the Civil Side
and Mr. Justice Erle in the Crown Court. The business
is very light, there being only 18 prisoners for trial on
the criminal side. On the civil side eight cases are en-
tered. one of which only is to be tried by a special jury.
The Chief Baron did not sit until twelve o'clock, and he
bad nearly got through his list at the rising of the Court.
None of the cases disposed of yesterday contained any
matter of interest to the public.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

William Robins was brought, in the custody of
John Forrester, before Alderman Gibbs, charged with
having stolen a cheque for Bq. 10s., the property of
Mr. Newton, as the secretary to the St. James's Mu-
tual Association, their bankers being the London and
'Westminster Bank, in St. James's square.
Mr. Muliens, of the firm of Bush and Mullens, at-
tended for the prosecution.
It appeared that Mr. 'ewton was in possession of
some cheques for the purposes of the association,
which cheques had been signed by three of the direc-
tors, but which should be countersigned by Mr. New-
ton, as the secretary. These cheques had been placed
by Mr. Newton in his desk, which he had considered
a secure receptacle, and he considered them safe, in-
asmuch as the additional signature of himself was
required to make them negotiable. The prisoner
had been at work for Mr. Newton in the room in
which the desk was kept on the Bth and 9th of July,
in the afternoon of which latter day that gentleman
missed the cheque above referred to. The cheque
was presented in the usual course at the bank,
and paid, the omission of the secretary's signa-
ture not having been noticed by the cashier. On as-
certaining his loss, Mr. Newton immediately repaired
to the London and Westminster Bank, and was in-
formed that the cheque had been paid in SI. and 101.
bank notes ; in consequence of which steps were
taken to stop the payment of the notes at the Bank of
England, and on Wednesday a man named Kennedy
presented three of the 101. notes in question, for
which he required gold. His answer not being deemed
satisfactory, he was detained and introduced to Mr.
Forrester. _ _

- ---- - -
Mr. Mullane stated that after calling this evidence
to substantiate the above facts, he should be com-
pelled to place Kennedy in the box as a witness
against Robins.
Kennedy was accordingly sworn, and he gave the
following account of the matter :—I am a working
upholsterer, and reside in Church-row, Stoke New-
ington. I know the prisoner, and have known him
for nearly 18 or 20 years ; we have worked together.
On Tuesday afternoon I saw him at the Admiral Dun-
can, in Soho. He said he wanted me to assist him in
a job, and was to go with him. I said, " how about the
money for the materials?" He said, "Oh ! that is all
right enough." He then produced a cheque,
and asked me to go out and get it cashed.
I was tired at first, and stayed a little while, and then
I said well, if he would go with me I would go. He
said it was all perfectly right, but objected to go
himself. The thing appeared filled up in the usual
form, and although I at first hesitated, yet knowing
the man so long, I went and got it cashed. He went
as far as Waterloo-place with me, and said he would
meet me at the Bell, in Pall-mall. I got the notes
and money from Mr. Bardmore (a witness), and
went to the outside of the Bell public-house. I saw
the prisoner, and handed him the money, hut he did
not take it then ; and we went to a public-house at
the corner, I believe, of Blue Cross-street, and he
took a portion of it, and left 441. 55., exactly one-
half, in my hands. We then went and purchased
some hair-cloth for chairs, and we were together very
late that night, and yesterday morning I took the
three 101. notes produced to the Bank, to be changed,
and I wrote my name and address on them, and was
then detained. I afterwards gave to Mr. Forrester
an account of how I came possessed of the notes,
and. gave him up the money remaining in my pos-
session .

Cross-examined by the prisoner—You had seen me
'our or five days prior ? Witness—Yes, several

times.
Did I not say to you what a pity it is that people
should leave their money about, and that I had seen
a cheque, and you said why did you not take it up,
and we would square it ?—I do not recollect any such
words.—(A laugh.) I do not recollect your men-
tioning such a thing to me before.
Did you not take me to a friend to get that friend
to go and get the cheque changed ?—No. I did
not. I went to show it to a friend, because I had
some doubts whether it was right, and I thought it
was too large a cheque for one to pass in my position
of life.
Did you not say that if that party would go
you would give him 201. to get it changed ?—No.
The money did not belong to me, so I could not give
it to him.
Did not you, after you bad got this cheque
changed, when we went to the public-house, put a 51.
note apart for the person who gave you a little bit of
advice how to change it ?—No. That was your doing
altogether.—(A laugh.) You said there was a third
party in the business, and we had better give him the
Si. to keep him quiet.
Did you not say, after the money had been paid,
" Get a 101. note changed and give me 51., and I will
give you a Si. note ?"—I might have said that.
The prisoner—One party is as deep in the mud as
the other is in the mire, my Lord, and no mistake.
Did I not give you the five sovereigns and you gave
me the 51. note? Witness—Yes, yes, that is clear.
When we were at Mr. Lloyd's, where we had a
glass of brandy-and-water, you pulled out of your
pocket and gave me three 101. notes, one Si. note, and
six 151. Had you not in your possession the same
amount, with the 51. for this same party ?—Yes, that
is right.—(Laughter.)
I never had the whole of this money in my band, if
you recollect ?—I wanted you to take it, but you said
" Put it in your pocket and come on."
The witness answered other questions in such a
manner as clearly proved that his proper place was
the bar of the court.
John Forrester said I took the prisoner into custody
last night, outside the Admiral Duncan public-house,
in Compton-street, Soho, and conveyed him to Mr.
Ne wton's house, where he was identified as the party
who had been working there. I then told him he was
charged with giving a cheque to a man of the name of
Kennedy. He said he knew nothing at all about it.
I then went to his lodging in Kingsgate-street, Hol-
born, and found a purse containing 23 sovereigns and
a half-sovereign.
The prisoner said the fact was, that he never would
have thought of doing the thing if his co-partner,
Mr. Kennedy, to whom he talked about the cheque,
had not urged him to do it by saying they would
square it. He said they applied to a third party,
who, upon looking at the cheque, did not, being an
experienced hand, like the appearance or date of it at
all, and that they stopped his mouth with 51., but Mr.
Kennedy was the most to blame.
Alderman GIBBS said he would send the prisoner
for trial, and ordered the depositions to be made out
accordingly.
SOUTHWARK.
Yesterday Mary Ann _Herbert, a young married
woman, was brought before Mr. A'Beckett, charged
with swallowing poison, for the purpose of destroying
herself.
Mr. Humble, a surgeon, residing in the London-
road, stated that on the preceding night he was sent
for to a house in St. George's market, where he was
informed a woman had taken poison. On his arrival
he found the defendant surrounded by several persons,
and they pointed her out as having a short time pre-
viously swallowed some poison, contained in a paper,
which she afterwards destroyed, in order that it
might not be detected. He questioned the woman
herself on the subject, but she refused to give him
the slightest information as to the nature of the in-
gredients she had swallowed, and expressed her de-
termination not to submit to any operation to neu-
tralise its effects. He, however, told her that he
should insist upon using the stomach-pump, and
produced the instrument, telling her at the same
time that he should have her held down if she did
not submit quietly, and finding that she closed her
mouth to prevent the introduction of it, he threatened
on
rhreienrasdolet:
to remove her front teeth for the purpose. She,
however, now became alarmed that he was about
to put his threat into execution, and confessed that
she had swallowed a quantity of white precipitate
powder. Upon being made acquainted with this
fact, instead of having recourse to the stomach-pump,
he administered the necessary antidotes, which had
the desired effect ; but as she had expressed an inten-
tion to repeat the offence, he considered it incumbent
taegnliyvye her into custody of a policeman. The
witness added that he felt it his duty to complain of
and more particularly the conduct of the persons in the room, who refused
t.,(!rnnl
yc
not
eowt
that when eonf
submittinghh eerf ohunu
sdtbotahnmed defendantmedical
chaol
aaidi ‘
basensi
yett h though n ga ht
oa
nw aware r
chair
h thata ir sheint h e hadeomr
onsetr takeno f
ft ah e deadly
room
smoking
Mr. A'BECKETT asked the defendantlereet apathy.
what
.ah
a pipe of tobacco with the
e
had
to say in answer to the charge, and she replied that
she was 'excited at the time, and that having
the
powder in the room she swallowed it, and now re-
gretted the act ; and she added that she had taken some
spirits previously which caused her to do it.
Her husband, who said he was a smith by
trade, on
being asked why he exhibited such a total want of
feeling, knowing that his wife had taken poison,
which it was probable would have killed her, and
yet, he being acquainted with the fact, sat, smoking,
regardless-of the consequences, not even offering to
render the least assistance to the medical gentleman
through whose instrumentality ber life was pre-
served ? in a careless manner, said that he could not
help his wife takillig Pawn) and that he knew right

well that if he interfered in the business she would
be likely to fly at him, and scratch his face ; and as
he did not wish to be clawed, he thought it the most
advisable plan not to interfere, but to let her have her
own way. He knew her temper better than any one
else, and when she had a drop in her she was very
passionate and self-willed.
Mr. ATECKETT—Then because you were afraid
your wife would have scratched your face, that is
your excuse for not rendering assistance when you
knew she had swallowed poison, which might have
speedily ended in her death. The magistrate then
said that he should call upon the defendant to find
sureties not to repeat the attempt upon her life.
The defendant expressed her regret at what had
happened, and said that she should not act in such a
manner again.

The hu—sband tendered to become responsible for
her future behaviour, and his recognisance to the
amount of 201. was accepted, and she was liberated,
and they left the court together.
LAMBETH.

A respectable-looking young woman, dressed in
deep mourning, waited upon Mr. Norton for bis as-
sistance in recovering property detained by Mr.
Meddle, which belonged to his unfortunate house-
keeper, who was found dead in the kitchen of his
house, the particulars of which extraordinary occur-
rence must be fresh in the memory of our readers.
The young woman stated that she was the daugh-
ter of the murdered woman, and had frequently ap-
plied to Mr. Meddle for her mother's clothing, and
what little money she might have left. He refused
to give them up, and a short time ago he attended at
this court before Mr. Elliott, and promised to give
up all her property to her brother, who resides at
Ipswich. She (applicant) had received a letter from
her uncle authorising Mr. Maddle to give ber the
property, and he still refused. She now, therefore,
wanted his worship's advice and assistance.

Mr. NORTON said that, if she wag the daughter of
the deceased woman, Mr. Meddle ought to restore the
property to her, and not to her brother.
Saunders, one of the summoning. officers, informed
the Magistrate that the applicant was an illegitimate
child, and when Mr. Elliott was informed of that he
agreed with Mr. Middle that he had better give the
property up to the deceased's brother, or his order, as
Mr. Maddle resolutely refused to give it to the appli-
cant.

Mr. NORTON asked the latter whether she had the
authority of her uncle with her ? She replied that
she had a copy of it, which she produced. It clearly
authorized Mr. Maddle to give the property up to
the deceased's daughter.
Mr. NORTON asked her whether she had applied to
Mr. Maddle with the original note ? Applicant replied
that she had, and had left it with him. He still refused
to give up her mother's property, which mostly con-
sisted of wearing apparel, which might turn out use-
ful to her in her present position.
Mr. NORTON said it was most extraordinary con-
duct on Mr. Maddle's part to refuse giving up the
property to the daughter, especially after his promise
to Mr. Elliott on the last occasion when he attended
at this court. He thought some officer had better go
with the young woman and see him about it.
Saunders said that would be almost useless. Mr.
Maddle would not give it up unless compelled by law.
Mr. NORTON said the young woman had the au
thority Mr. Maddle required, and he ought to keep
his word and give up the goods. As he so often re-
fused he would see what a summons would do. His
worship directed a summons to be served upon him
directly to attend at this court and answer for his
conduct.

The young woman thanked the magistrate for his
kind interference, and left the court.
The summons was instantly made out and pliced
in the hands of Saunders for service.

[The following appeared in our Third Elition:of
[ast night :—]

FRANCE.

In the Assembly yesterday the discussion of the
Law on the Press was resumed. The whole of the
first article was adopted.
The President then read the second article, which
was similarly voted. It was as follows :
" The proprietors of journals and periodical publica-
tions, at present existing, are allowing a delay of one
month, from the date of the promulgation of this law, to
accomplish the above formalities."
" Art. 3. When the editor of a journal or periodical
publication shall have been sent for trial before a Court
of Assizes by a decision of the Court of Inquiry, for a
crime or offence committed by the press, if a new deci-
sion of the same kind should intervene against the edi-
tors of said publication before the decision of the Court
of Assizes, a sum equal to one-half of the maximum of
the fines he msy have incurred for the new off-nee must
be lodged, within the three days of the notification of
each decision, even were the Court of Cassation appealed
to against the sentence."

de Tinguy moved the following amendment :
" Every article on political, philosophical, or religious
questions inserted in a journal, must be signed by its
au hor, under the penalty of a fine of 500 f. for the first
offence, and of I,ooor. for the second."

In order to prevent all false signatures,:lll. de Tin-
guy asked that the author convicted of that fraud
should be sentenced to a fine of I,ooof. and an im-
prisonment of six months.
M. Lavergue supported the amendment, but on the
condition that the cautionnernent and stamp be sup-
pressed. Its principle, he said, was eminently re-
publican, and he claimed for his political friends the
initiative of a measure which must tend to moralize
the press.
M. Heurtier combated the amendment, which was
supported by M. Laboulie, who contended that if
journalism was a rostrum, as it was generally de-
scribed, the writer should boldly ascend that rostrum
and fearlessly present his breast to the man he at-
tacked. If he was obliged to sign his article, the vile
pamphleteer, who insulted the National Assembly,
would consider before he dared to do so.
Messrs. Canet, Larochejacquelein, and Chasseloup
Laubat were next heard, atter which a division having
been called for there appeared for the amendment,
313 ; against it, 281.
The amendment was accordingly declared to be
adopted.
This decision occasioned great agitation in the As-
sembly, and the proceedings were for a moment sus-
pended.
When the sitting was resumed, M. Charancey, in
the name of the committee, proposed the following
additional paragraph :
" The signature of the author shall be affixed to the
original manuscript of the article, the communication of
beingow cgonsulteits publication."d, took the paragraph
into which can only be required by the Attorney-General
within
eotnAhseisdsmee rrnoanbttilhoynf and referred it to the committee.