The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-11 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

Heury Davies was indicted for feloniously assault-
ing Thomas M'Carthy with a poker, with the intent
to do him grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Clarkson conducted the prosecution, and
Messrs. Doane and C. Jones appeared for the defence.
From the evidence of the prosecutor, it appeared
that both he and the accused were licensed victuallers
at Chelsea, Mr. Davies being the landlord of the Ca-
dogan Arms. The occurrence in question took place
in the night of the 12th of January in the defendant's
house. The prosecutor was in the house drinking for
a great many hours, and in the course of the evening
some dispute arose, and, aocording to the prosecutor's
story, the accused seized a poker from the fire-place,
and struck him a very severe blow with it on the
head. In cross-examination, he admitted he was a
good deal the worse fur liquor at the time, and that
he had made use of insulting language to the accused.
The defence set up was, that no poker was used,
but that upon the prosecutor making use of some of-
fensive expression to the accused, he collared him,
and they struggled and fell down, and that he hurt
his head in the full.

A witness named Fry was called to prove these
facts, and he swore positively that no poker was made
use of.

Captain Fitzgerald, a Magistrate for the county of
Middlesex, was called to speak to the character of
Mr. Davies, and he described him as a very honourable
and respectable man, and he bore testimony to the
excellent mariner in which his house was conducted.
The jury expressed themselves satisfied, and with-
out troubling the Judge to sum up, at once returned
a verdict of Not guilty.
Mr. Baron GURNEY observed, that the real fact of
the matter appeared to be, that the prosecutor had not
wilfully mis-stated the facts, but from the quantity
he had drank he was not in a condition to tell what
really did take place.
(Before the RECORDER.)
Anne Elizabeth Earnshaw, 34, married, and Emma
Wells, 28, single woman, were indicted for stealing a
silver knife, value 6s. 6d., the property of Mary Anne
Rose. Mr. Ballantine prosecuted, and Messrs.
Clarkson and Wilkins appeared for the prisoners.
The circumstances under which the present, and
several other charges of a similar character were
made against the prisoners having been very recently
fully given in our police reports, it will be unneces-
sary to repeat them at any length on the present
occasion. The prisoner Earnshaw, who is respectably
connected, accompanied by the other woman, Wells,
were in the habit of going to the shops of different
jewellers, and asking to look at various articles, such
as watches, rings, &c., and taking that opportunity to
steal every article that came in their way. In the
present case they went into the shop of the prose-
cutrix, in Farringdon-street, and asked to leok at
some silver fruit-knives. A great number were
shown them, but they did not purchase any ; and,
immediately on their leaving the shop, a silver knife
was missed. The prisoners were followed to a pawn-
broker's shop, and taken into custody, and upon Wells
being searched, a silver knife was found in her pos-
sion, which the prosecutrix identified as her property,
but it appeared that it was not the same she had
missed.

Mr. CLARKSON, on behalf of the prisoners, argued
that the knife in question might have been sold at
some former time, and that there was no proof of its
having been stolen at the time the prisoners were in
the shop.
Several witnesses were called, who gave the pri-
soners an excellent character • and it was stated that
Earnshaw was in the receipt of a considerable income,
and that the other prisoner lived with her as a
companion. _ _

The jury found Earnshaw Not Guilty, and con-
victed Wells, but at the same time recommended her
to mercy.
The RECORDER said they had better wait a little
before they took this step.
The prisoners were then indicted for stealing two
diamond rings, value 31. 7s. 6d., the property of
Thomas Chapman.
This case was of a similar description to the last,
and the jury returned the same verdict, acquitting
Earnshaw, apparently upon the ground that the pro-
perty was found in the possession of Wells.
The prisoners were then arraigned upon another
indictment, charging them with stealing a gold watch,
value 301., the property of John Smith.
The prosecutor in this case is a watchmaker in the
Strand, and the prisoners went into his shop, and
wished to look at some watches. A great many
were shown them ; but they said none o► them suited,
and left the shop without purchasing any article, and,
almost immediately afterwards, a gold watch, value
301., was missed from one of the trays. This watch
was subsequently found in the possession of the
prisoner Wells.
The jury, in this case, found both prisoners guilty.
The prisoners were then indicted for stealing a gold
locket, the property of George, Lamb.
The case was clearly made out, and the jury again
returned a verdict of guilty against both pri,oners.
The RECORDER sentenced them to be transported
for seven years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
CLERKEN WELL.
THE ABDUCTION CASE.— Wm. Burton Newenham
was brought up on remand, charged with the abduc-
tion of Miss Frances Louisa Wortharn, of 28, Gerard-
street, Coburg .road, Islington, a ward in Chancery.
The prisoner took his place in the dock with great
composure. Ile was neatly dressed, but looked paler
and in worse spirits than on the previous occasions.
The Court was crowded with respectable civilians and
professional gentlemen, and great anxiety was mani-
fested to know the result of the struggle between Mr.
Combe and Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce for the
possession of the prisoner. Mr. Allen, the tipstaff of
the Court of Chancery, was in attendance, bearing the
Lord Chancellor's warrant for the prisoner's ap-
prehension.
Mr. Mallard, a county Magistrate, sat on the Bench
with Mr. Combe, as a spectator. Mr. Southey, of the
Temple, conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Hum-
phries defended the prisoner.
Mr. Southey said that since the last hearing of the
ease he had communicated with Vice-Chancellor
Bruce, and informed him of the Magistrate's deter.
mination, and of his reasons for coming to that deter-
mination. The Vica-Chancellor said he considered
Mr. Combe acted wrongly in detaining the prisoner
against the Lord Chancellor's warrant. The Vice-
Chancellor said he entertained a very strong opinion
on the subject, but he had not been able to commu-
nicate with the Lord Chancellor, who was at his
country seat in Berkshire. He (Mr. Southey) had
been directed by the Vice-Chancellor to express his
opinion, and it was under his Honour's direction he
did so. He would not call upon the Magistrate to
pursue any particular course. Having communicated
what had transpired, he was now ready to go on with
the case. _ _

Mr. COMBE—Let the case be proceeded with.
Mr. Humphries—Before your Worship comes to
any decision I have a proposal to make.
Mr. COMBS—I have already decided. I do not
think it necessary to reiterate the reasons which I
have already publicly stated for the course I am
about to pursue. It the Lord Chancellor or the
Vice-Chancellor have the power to take the prisoner
out of my hands, then let them exercise it, and I
will, of course, yield to it at once. A prisoner has
been brought before me charged with a very grave
offence—evidence has been submitted which warranted
me in believing that that offence had been committed.
I have reason to know that evidence can be adduced
which will prove the commission of a much higher
offence. I repeat I do not feel myself at liberty to
give the man up to the Court of Chancery under such
circumstances. If the law gives paramount autho-
rity to the Lord Chancellor—authority to take a
prisoner under these circumstances from a police
magistrate, I must submit, of course, but I am not
aware that the law confers any such powers.
Mr. Southey--I do not now make any application
to you one way or the other.
Mr. COMBE—I was called upon to give the pri-
soner up to the tipstaff of the Court of Chancery now
present on a former occasion, I refused to do so, and
I now refuse. Call upon Mrs. Wortham to appear.
After some delay, Mrs. Wortham, mother of the
lady, made her appearance. She was genteelly at-
tired, and took her place in the witness box with ap-
parent reluctance. Having been sworn,
Mr. Comnr, asked Mr. Southey if he would exa-
mine her, or should he (the Magistrate) do so? Mr.
Southey preferred the Magistrate's doing so.
In answer to questions from the bench, Mrs.
Wortham repeated her former testimony, which the
clerk (Mr. Mould) upon this occasion took formally
down in depositions for trial. She added several new
facts. The following is the substance of her testi
mony :—Her husband was in the shawl trade in Re-
gent-street, and died on the 14th of June, 1842, leav-
ing no property whatever. Tier daughter, an only
one, Frances Louisa, the subject of the present inves-
tigation, was born on the 24th of December, 1828,
and was consequently 15 years old last Christmas
eve. The prisoner came to lodge at her house in
June, 1840, and continued to lodge with her at Ge-
rard-street up to the period of her husband's death,
when he left.
Mr. COMBE—Do you know what he is ? Witness
—No ; I have been informed that he is a person of
independent fortune. A lady in the neighbourhood,
with whom he formerly lodged, told me so. The
witness proceeded to state that, after her husband's
death, the prisoner continued on visiting terms with
her. Six months after her husband's death, her
daughter was bequeathed landed property to the value
of 400/. a year, but at present encumbered with a life
annuity of 2001., of which bequest the prisoner was
aware. On the 7th of January, 1843, witness re-
ceived a letter from Bir. Hawkins, one of the trustees

of the property, which letter she showed to the pri-
soner on the Sunday following.
Mr. Humphries objected to this evidence. Where
was the letter ?
Mr. South ,y said it would be produced on a future
occasion, but was not then in Court.
Mr. COMBE—State what the prisoner said when
you apprised him of this bequest to your daughter.
Witness—He said " Oh, I am very happy to hear
it."—(A laugh.) I asked him if I should not write
to Mr. Hawkins ; but he said "By no means, and
that he would recommend me to his attorney, Mr.
Hammond, of Furnival's Inn." He agreed to take
the copy of the deed to his own solicitor; but I never
got it back since. I saw it the day the bill was filed
in Chancery. The prisoner subsequently stated that
he was afraid it should go into Chancery ; but he did
not say anything about Miss Wortham being made
a ward of Chancery.
Mr. COMBE—Was there any conversation between
you and the prisoner about her being made a ward of
Chancery ? Witness—Yes ;on the evening before
he abducted her. He was at my house. I had just
received a letter from Mr. Camberton; one of the
trustees.
Mr. Humphries objected to the contents of this let-
ter being stated, as it was not produced.
The witness, in answer to the Magistrate, said the
prisoner read the letter, and when she spoke to him
about her daughter becoming a ward of Chancery,
he said he " thought it would be so." The witness
then narrated the circumstances of her daughter's
abduction, which took place on the 13th of October
last, and which have been already published. He
removed her during the temporary absence of the
witness, who did not again see them until last Thurs-
' day week at the station-house. Witness was then her
daughter's only guardian, and had never given her
consent to the abduction, nor even known that the
prisoner was paying his addresses to Miss Wortham.
Mr. COMBS—Was your daughter from home after
her father's death for any period. Witness—Yes ; for
six months at school, with Miss Brown, on Stockwell-

common.
Mr. COMM—Did the prisoner see her. Witness—
Yes ; he frequently accompanied me there, and some-
times went there with books and messages from me
to her.
Mr. COMBE—Now, Mrs. Wortham, tell me if you
had any communication with your daughter since her
return ? Mrs. Wortham (after much hesitition)—l
have had some, but not a great deal.
Mr. COMBE—Did she explain any of the circum-
stances of her departure to you?
Mrs. Wortham again hesitated.
Mr. Southey-1 object to the question.
Mr. COMBE repeated the question. Mrs. Wortham
(reluctantly)—Yes; she told me she thaught she was
going to Furnival's Inn.
Mr. Southey-1 object to any question on this head.
Mr. COMM—You, the solicitor for the prosecution,
object ! Why, I must say, that is very strange
indeed.
Mr. Southey—l say it is very indiscreet to put
such questions now, and that it will defeat the end of
justice.
Mr. COMBE—State your objection.
Mr. Southey—l have done so.
Mr. COMBE—You have objected, but you have
given me no reason for objecting.
Mr. Southey—l have already given you my senti-
ments on this matter in private.
Mr. COMBE—Sentiments are not reasons. I think
the questions are necessary ; and if you cannot show
me the contrary I will feel it my duty to put them.
Mr. Southey—Airs. Wortham is here to give her
evidence of what she knows of the matter, but not
to mention what Miss Wortham said.
Mr. COMBE—She is here to answer what questions
I think proper to put to her, and if she does not an-
swer them she may as well know that I have the
power of sending her to the House of Correction.
Mr. Southey—What the daughter told the mother
is not, I submit, necessary to the present inquiry, and
I feel myself bound again to say that extracting such
information from her will defeat the ends of justice.
Mr. COMBE —lf you really think so, you are bound
to show me why.
Mr. Southey—l will, in your private room.
Mr. COMER—Then let us hear them. The Worthy
Magistrate and the Solicitor for the prosecution then
retired to the Magistrates' private-room. After the
lapse of a quarter of an hour they came into Court,
when Mr. Combe said that he had heard all Mr.
Southey had to say, and that he still remained of the
same opinion. The case must be proceeded with.
But he would now remand the prisoner, that those
documents might be produced which w ere necessary
to complete the case.
The prisoner was then remanded to Wednesday
next at twelve o'clock.

SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS.

REIGATE.

Upon the report of the visiting justices to the
Brixton house of Correction being made to the Court
on Tuesday, it appeared that Mr. Gardiner, the sur•
geon to the gaol, had expressed his intention to re-
sign his appointment, and requested the Court to take
the necessary measures to appoint a successor. The
ground for tho resignation. as stated by Mr. Gar-
diner, was incapacity to fulfil the duties of the office,
by reason of bodily infirmity and illness, and a cer-
tificate to that effect, signed by Sir B. Brodie and
Dr. Chambers, was put in to support the statement
as to the condition of his health.

Mr. DERRICK, before the report was received,
begged to be allowed to say a few words upon the
subject with a view to ascertain the real grounds for
Mr. Gardiner's resignation. He had heard that one
of the prisoners who was ordered upon the treadwheel
refused to work, and said that he was unable from
illness. Mr. Gardiner, however, upon examining
him, declared he was able to work, and insisted that
he should go on the wheel, and on his still refusing
he was flogged ; eventually some other medical gentle-
men were called in, and they at once said that the
prisoner was not in a fit state of health to go upon the
wheel, and these circumstances led to an intimation
being given to Mr. Gardiner that he had better re-
sign. He mentioned these facts in order that some
explanation might be given upon the subject.
Mr. GossE said he was very glad Mr. Derrick had
mentioned this subject, because it gave him an oppor-
tunity, as one of the visiting justices, to contradict
the statement referred to. The facts were these : a
prisoner had refused to go upon the wheel, stating
that he was too ill to do so. Mr. Gardiner was re-
ferred to, and he, after examining him, declared that
he was not ill, and upon the man still refusing to go
to the wheel, he was ordered a flogging. He still de-
clared that he was ill, and the magistrates called in
another medical man, and his report being doubtful,
they called in two others, and they concurred in the
opinion of Mr. Gardiner, and declared the prisoner was
in a fit condition to go upon the tread wheel. The
magistrates, under these circumstances, felt themselves
compelled to enforce the regulations of the gaol ; and
he assured the Court that the circumstance had no-
thing to do with the resignation of Mr. Gardiner,
which was alone caused by his incapacity, from ill-
ness, to perform the duties of his office.
Mr. KEMBLE begged to confirm the statement
made by Mr. Gorse, and he remarked that the disci-
pline of the gaol would be completely at an end, if a
prisoner was allowed to porsist in refusing to work
when he was declared to be competent to do so by
the medical officer.

Mr. PENIIRYN remarked, that the surgeon could
have no interest in declaring a man to be in a fit state
of health to go to work, if he did not believe he really
was so. He did not think there was any blame to be
attached to Mr. Gardiner in the transaction, and when
his opinion was confirmed by two other medical men,
he thought he was justified in ordering him to go
upon the wheel.
The report was then received.
Mr. KEMBLE said he thought that there was an-
other matter of very considerable importance con-
nected with this proceeding. Mr. Gardiner had de-
clared himself to be incompetent to perform the duty
of surgeon, and two most eminent men had expressed
the same opinion in their certificate. Three months
must elapse before a fresh surgeon could be appointed,
and he really thought they ought to consider whether
the prisoners should be left for that period in the
charge of a medical man who had represented himself
to he incapable of performing the duty.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that it would be very
difficult to find a gentleman of competent skill who
would be willing to undertake the duty from the
present time until a fresh surgeon was appointed. He
then inquired whether the honourable magistrate
intended to make any motion upon the subject?
Mr. KEMBLE did not wish to make any motion ;
but he must repeat that, when their medical officer
declared that he was unable to perform his duty to
the prisoners under his charge, if anything serious
should arise, the Magistrates would be placed in a very
painful position.
An HoN. MAGISTRATE then moved, that the elec-
tion of a successor to Mr. Gardiner should take place
at the usual period, the general quarter session.
Mr. KEMBLE said that would be a period of nearly
three months, and as some amelioration he should
move that the election take place on the second ad-
journment day.
Mr. JOHNSON had no objection to offer to the
amendment, hut he begged to say that Mr. Gardiner
had always performed his duty faithfully, and he was
sure that if he felt any inconvenience was likely to
arise from his inability to perform his duty to the
prisoners under his charge, he would take care to
obtain competent assistance.
The amendment was then put and carried.

ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTION.—Tuesday a special
general meeting of the members of this Institution was
held at their house in Bloomsbury-square, the Earl of
Arundel and Surrey in the chair, when Surgeon Law-
rence, of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, was appointed
medical officer, in place of Dr. Little, resigned.