The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-16 00:00:00

the new Bankrupt Act but his petition was discharged Henry Capel, a respectable-looking man, and a surgeon„
with a severe reprimand from the Commissioner and was indicted for the manslaughter of his own child, Emily
the insolvent was arrested soon afterwards. Ann Capel.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said there could be no doubt
bMr Sewell prosecuted. The prisoner was defended by
Nixping. ut Oat the insolvnt ad contracted his debts unfairly,
Th e facts of this case are very few. It was prove,' that
and without the intention of payment. There was, also,
the prisoner had been married but a short time before the
another serious charge against him—of having made occurrence. The child killed was' his first child, and was
away with his property to the detriment of his creditors. about 14 weeks old. A servant stated that she heard tier
As the case stood now, he should adjourn it to next mistress shriek out, and went into the kitchen where she I
Monday,
,when he could assure the insolvent a severe was. The prisoner was there, and she saw a small. stick on I
remand would be inflicted. the ground, broken in two. On the child's head there was a
mark, and some blood. The prisoner said if would not have
happened, if the stick had not broken. An old nurse stated
that she also went into the kitchen, and saw the stick and
the mark on the child's head. She said to prisoner that he
ought not to strike his wile. He replied that sly; had made
use of bad words, and that •it was necessary to correct her.
She then took the child, which died in a few hours after.
A surgeon proved that he had made a post mortem exami-
nation of the body, and that he attributed the death to the
blow on the head.
Mr MISSLNG addreesed the jury firr the prisoner, relying on
the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence.
Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN, in summing up, told the jury that
if they were of opinion that the prisoner had attempted to
strike his wife, and had occasioned the death of the child,
though without intending it, he would be guilty of man-
slaughter, as beating his wife was an illegal act. If, how-
ever, they were not satisfied, and thought the blow was in-
flicted in some way by sheeraccident, they must acquit him.
After a short consultation they returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.

SUMMER ASSIZES.

WESTERN CIRCU I T.—Winchester, July 13.
CROWN COURT. ,
(Before Mr. Justice WiGHTlitax.)
John Curd, a boy, aged 16, was indicted for having felo-
niously assaulted -Caroline Berger, a child under ten years
of age.
Mr. Sewell conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was
defended by Mr. C. Saunders.
This is a case we should, not refer to, but to give publicity
to an important decision pronounced by the Learned Judge
on a point of evidence. ,
The prisoner had been in the employ of a • Mr. Hancock,
who was not the prosecutor, and in point of fact had nothing
to do with the prosecution. When, however, the charge was
made against the prisoner, and before he was apprehended,
his master told bins it would be much better for him to con-
fess. and if he did so, he would prevail, if he could, with the
father of the child not to take any steps in the matter. The
prisoner on this said, "If he ( Mr. Hancock) would send for
the surgeon he would confess." The surgeon was sent for,
and the prisoner then made a satement.
Mr. SAUNDERS, for the prisoner, objected to that statement
being received in evidence. It was made, he contended,
after an inducement held out to confess by his master who
had sufficient authority over him, to render any statement
subsequently made by the prisoner, in consequence of that
inducement, inadmissible. The Learned Counsel cited 2 Russ
on Crimes, p. 839, and the cases there cited.
Mr. SEWELL, on behalf of tho Crown, contended that, in
order to render a statement inadmissible that'had been made
in consequence of an inducement held out by a third person,
it was absolutely necessary that that third person should be
one in some way connected with the charge, and having some
authority in reference to it.
Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN (after consultation with his Learned
brother, Mr. Justice Patteson) decided that the party hold-
ing out the inducement being clothed with the authority of
" master," was sufficient to exclude the statement made in
consequence of such inducement.
• • Mr. SEWIILL then stated to the jury that, in consequence
of the decision, he did not think that he could support the
case, and he should therefore not proceed with it.
A ~....ato, we Not Guilty was theu returned, and the pri-
soner was discharged.
Robert Baez was indicted for the murder of John Harrison,
by shooting him with a pistol.
Mr. Sewell proaecuted. The prisoner was defended by Mr.,
Cockburn and Mr. Raulinson.
On the case being called on, Mr. Raneresol,e-stated to the
Court that he should demur to the indictment, which he ac-
cordingly did. Several grounds of objection- were siege(' in
the demurrer, but all were abandoned but one. This was
that the indictment charged the prisoner with having com-
mitted this murder on the high seas, and that there was no
proper, venue. In the margin was the venue "Hampshire."
Then there was an inducement stating that the parties were
on the high seas when the alleged offence was committed.
The indictment after this inducement went on to allege each
fact to have taken place "then and there," Without directly
averring that it was upon the high seas.
Mr. RAULINSON contended that the averment of place was
not sufficient. It ought to have averred in express terms
that each fact, had taken place on the high seas, 2 Stock Cr.
Pl. 455. The only venue of importance in this indictment
was that in the margin, which was Hampshire. The " then
and there" consequently must be referred to this venue, and
Got to that stated in the indictment. But even if it were
not so held, it would still be bad for uncertainty, as it would
not then appear to which venue the "then and there" re-
ferred; and the King v. Rolls, 1 Re. Rep. 223, was cited as
an authority.
Mr. SEWELL argued that the "then and there " must
necessarily have reference to the last venue, which was the
immediate antecedent.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN (after consulting with Mr. Justice
Patteson), decided in favour of the Crown; and the prisoner
was called upon to plead over.
Mr. COCKBURN then put in a special plea, which was to
this effect :—That the alleged offence had been committed on
the high seas. near to Spalatro, in Italy That icharge had
been preferred against the prisoner at Spalatro, alleging the
crime to have been committed within the jurisdiction of that
Court. That that charge had been gone into, and the pri-
soner acquitted.
Mr. SEWELL prayed some time to consider this plea,
r -..........".
which was granted by the Court. After the Learned POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
Counsel had done, he informed the Court that he had deter-
mined to take issue upon it, which he did in the regular form (YESTERDAY.)
and manner. MANSION-HOUSE.
The jury were then charged to inquire of the truth of this A porter, named William Hickey, in the employment
plea. of the East India Company, was brought before Sir
In order to prove it, an Italian was called, who swore that Peter Laurie, charged with having stolen some tea, which
he knew the handwriting of the chief registrar of the Civil lie deposited between his legs and his stockings. It
and Criminal Court of Spalatro. He also stated that he knew appeared from the investigation, that, although a trust-
the seal of that Court, and had seen the original. A paper worthy and vigilant officer, is appointed to search the
was then put into his hand, and he swore that the signature men employed by the Company when they are on the
to the paper was the signature of the chief registrar, and that point of leaving the warehouse, plunder takes place very
the:seal attached to it was the seal of this Court.
extensively there.
The paper was then tendered in evidence.
Mr. SEWEI,L objected to its reception. He contended that
The prisoner, who had been in his situation two years upon being asked whether he
before it conla be made evidence it must be proved that the and a half, acknowledged,
Court had jurisdiction over this offence, and that some lawyer had about him any of the Company's property, that he
acquainted with the cases of the parties must prove that this had a little tea, and at once showed that he owed the
paper was in the nature of a record, and that it was, in point appearance of gouty legs to the padding of about two
of fact, a valid instrument. pounds of tea in his stockings.
`Mr. Justice WiourstAle admitted it. Sir PETER LAURIE—Did he confess that he was
On its being read it proved to be a document in the shape guilty ? The witness replied that he had confessed his
of a certificate to this effect :—That the prisoner had been evilt, and that he begged for mercy in consideration of
tried at Spalatro for homicide ; that he had been convicted his wife and large family. It wag, however, the deter-
had
been brought i sentenced to ve y
uperior coears' imprurt ; and th isonment ;
at ththe judgppemeat an a
nt al
urination of the Hon. East India Company to prosecute had been ordered to be suspended, and the prisoner discharged. in every case of a similar nature.
It was then contended, on the part of the Crown, that there Sir P. LAURIE said it was quite usual for people to
was no evidence that the prisoner had been duly acquitted. cry out against suggestions for sending cases of theft, to
That the prisoner ought to have produced the whole of the what were called paltry amounts, for trial. A severe
record, in order to see what the charge was, and upon what judgment was passed upon those who committed the
grounds the acquittal had taken place. accused without any knowledge of the circumstances
It was replied, on the part of the prisoner, that this docu• under which the prosecution was undertaken and parse-
ment was sufficient proof of the trial and the acquittal, and rered in, and nothing was more erroneous and
dis-
thori ty
the case of Rex v. Colson, 1 Leach, 135, was cited as an au- ingenuous than the practice of condemning the magis-
ac
Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN decided against its sufficiency, en tr y fur committing for robberies of inconsiderable
the ground that it did not appear, from the paper, that the amount. In -the present case the prisoner was confi-
judgment was final. The language of the document was that dentially employed, and he had violated the reliance
the judgment be suspended. For anything that he (the placed upon him by stealing as much as he thought he
Learned Judge) could tell to the contrary, this suspension of could successfully conceal, and the East India Company
the judgment had been obtained on the ground of some formal reasonably thought that, if they did not prosecute, they
defect in, the proceedings, and not upon the merits, and there might calculate upon a pretty extensive imitation of the
was nothing
other cha to
prefer sho
red at w that i
palatrot could.
be pleaded in bar to an- conduct of the prisoner. The magistrate had no option
rge S
in such a case, notwithstanding which he was sure to
The jury were then directed by the Learned Judge to find
prosecutors in the condemnation.
that the prisoner -had not been previously acquitted, &c participate with the
which they did, and their verdict was then finally entered. " The prisoner declared that he had never in his life
The prisoner was again arraigned, and pleaded not guilty, before committed any offence of the sort. I
and the trial proceeded in the usual manner.
Mr. Sewell then opened the case, and informed the jury A young man, who upon every occasion on which he is
that he should give up the charge of murder, and press the apprehended gives a different name, was brought up
case against the prisoner only as a charge of manslaughter. charged with having stolen a purse out of a lady's pocket
Having detailed the circumstances of the case, he called that morning on London-bridge.
witnesses to prove it, who spoke to the following facts : A policeman stated that a publican, who said he saw
The prisoner was the master of the brig called the Chief- the prisoner dip his hand with remarkable dexterity into
tain, and the deceased was one of the• men under his coin- the lady's pocket, collared the prisoner, who very willingly
mend. In February, in this year, the brig was lying off consented to allow himself to be searched. There was,
Spalatro, in Italy. The men one day went on shore and
several of them got intoxicated, among whom was the de- however, no occasion !or a search. for the purse, as a per-
son in the crowd picked it up in the roadway and handed
ceased tied the ship's carpenter, who was now called as a wit-
ness, and who also spoke of the manner in which the deceased it to the witness. The prisoner had been in company
had met with his death. On their return on board it was with other persons, following up several respectable
the time of the deceased and Spilsbury (the ship's carpenter) people for the purpose of robbing them, and had been
referred to to keep watch. They went, however, into the watched by the officers for some time. He was, how-
round-house, and after sleeping for some time, awoke and ever, an uncommonly clever hand.
began to quarrel. The deceased wanted to fight, which Sir P. LAURIE—WeII, prisoner, what can you say to
Spilsbury refused to do, and the deceased getting very noisy
and determined to fight, Spilsbury went below to the pri- this charge ?
A yoting man, who said he attended professionally for
soner, who was asleep in bed, to complain of him. The
on
prisoner told him to go back and fight it out. Spilsbury the prisoner, submitted that the purse was found in the
ry
this went on deck, and meeting the mate he had a
quarrel
street, and there was no proof that the prisoner had ever
and a tussel with him. Whilst this was going on the pri- had it in his possession.
soner came on deck with a pistol in his hand, and parted Sir P. LAURIE—Who were those gentlemen who were
Spilsbury and the mate. The mate then went below and the with you when the purse was missed ? The prisoner
prisoner then moved towards the deceased, and then, evi- said he was by himself, and had not been in the com-
dently by some accident, the pistol went off, and the de- pany of any person the whole morning.
ceased was shot. The prisoner evinced the greatest sorrow ; SirP. LAURIE—How, then, did this solicitor happen to
went on shore immediately and procured a surgeon, aad know that you were in custody ? The prisoner—As I was
fetched him again the next morning. His skill however
day. however
was quite unavailing, and the deceased died on that,
going
along with the officer a friend saw the situation I
Mr. COCKBURN addressed the jury, contending that the was in, and sent this gentleman to attend for me.
thing was altogether an accident. Sir P. LAURIE—No doubt of it. The friends that were
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN summed up the case, telling the with you when you picked the lady's pocket took care
jury that if they were satisfied that death had been occa- to employ him, but I shall take care to have the gentle
sioned by a careless use of the' pistol by the prisoner, it was man here who saw your hand draw the purse out of the
manslaughter. If they were not satisfied of this they must lady's pocket.
acquit him.
The prisoner's solicitor—Perhaps, Sir Peter, you
After a long consultation they returned a verdict of Not would be good enough to dispose of this case summarily.
Guilty, and the prisoner was forthwith discharged. Sir PETER . LAURIE—Not at all, Sir. I must have
Benjamin Hunt was indicted with having unlawfully and your friend confronted with the person who saw his
maliciously set fire to a dwelling-house, the property of Sir - •
J. W. Pollen. motions.
The prisoner's solicitor—He is no friend of mine.
Mr. Polden proiecuted. The prisoner was undefended.
•
The evidence in this case was very circumstantial, and we Sir
PETER LAURIE—He is a friend of yours. You
were certainly surprised at the verdict. have been employed by his confederates to come here to
A woman was called, who stated that she went about the defend him. You won't point out to me the individuals
country selling nightcaps and lucifer-matches. On the 14th who sent you here for him—will you?—(A laugh.)
April she was at a public-house, when she saw the prisoner, The prisoner's solicitor—All that I can say is, that I
and he purchased of her two boxes of these matches. On attend for him.
the sth of April, late in the evening, an uninhabited cottage Sir PETER LAURIE—WeII, I shall remand him, and
of Sir J. W. Pollen, which was situated with several others
near to where the prisoner lived, was on fire. The cottage further inquiries shall be made, I assure you.
was built of mud, with a thatched roof. The back part of CLERKEN WELL.
the roof came down very near to the ground, so that a per- John Barrett, a fashionably-dressed young man, who
son might have easily put a match into it, and as it was away gave his address as a furrier, 72 and 73, Castle-street,
from the road, would not have been seen. Very shortly be- Bristol, was charged with obtaining money on false
fore the fire was observed the prisoner had been seen near to
the house, he having called at a cottage situated close to the pretences, by representing himself as the authorised
collector of the Anti-Corn-law League.
one that was burnt. He was subsequently met by a man
whom he knew, at a short distance from the cottage at which The prisoner when placed in the dock put his arms'
he had called. The man stopped and spoke him. Whilst akimbo and burst out .laughing, He cross-examined_ each
they were talking together the fire was perceived by the wit- witness with lawyer-like dexterity. and minuteness.
ness, who exclaimed " There is a fire down in old Hunt's It appeared from the evidence of Mr. John Newman,
house," which was the name of the person occupying the a brass-worker, residiug at No. 9, Plumtree-street,
cottage immediately adjoining the one burnt. The prisoner Bloomsbury, that about six months ago the prisoner
replied to this that he supposed they were singeing a pig. called on him, saying he bad been requested to do so
Witness said he did not think they would be engaged in by Mr. Ingram, of 52, High. street, a member of the
singeing a pig at that time of day, and invited prisoner to• go Anti-Corn-law League. The prisoner then asked wit-
down with him and see out the matter. The prisoner refused ness, if he were not a member of the League, and
to go, and the witness went without him. He found the cot- upon his replying in the affirmative, he said, "lam a
tage on fire, and saw that the fire had commenced in the
thatch. He and several other persons who were assembled young man of fortune, and have become a member
then set to work and endeavoured to extinguish the
i o
you give me thec the League to serve my
two cards you have My party and my country.
_
flames. Whilst thus engaged he perceived the prisoner If
standing by, and asked him to carry a bucket, which he and a shilling, I will get them stamped for you by the
refused to do ; and did, in fact, take no part in endeavour- Registrar of the League." He produced a book contain-
ing to put out the fire. The cottage was entirely consumed. lug the names of several pe-rsons, purporting to he sun-
The next day a search was made near the fire, and close scribers to the League. Witness told him that he should
on the spot, and for several yards beyond it, a quantity of have some better authority. The prisoner said—" That
matches were found scattered on the ground. In a hedge is a useful suggestion, and I shall act upon it ; I will go '
whi
nearch, on being shown to the woman who had sold to the house the cover of a match-box was picked ups
, to the League-office and get authority." He, thereupon,
to the prisoner, was like, she said, those she sold to him,
left the shop, and returned in half-an- hour, with a
though she confessed she could not read. A small bit of printedcard,pasted in the book, andwhichpurported to
brownish paper was also picked up close to the house, be authority for him to act as collector to the League.
which had evidently been
,ignited. Next morning the Witness then gave him his two cards and a shilling, the
prisoner was apprehended. He was found at work with prisoner promising that he would get the cards stamped 1
his jacket off, which was lying on the ground at some dis- for him, so that he could attend all future meetings of
tance frdui him. On the policeman going to this jacket, and the League gratis. He never returned the cards, nor
staking it up, prisoner said he was very welcome to search it,
but that he would find nothing there. The policeman did witness ever see him after until Wednesday last,
when he accidentally met him at St. Giles'-s Church. The
searched, and found a hole in the lining of the pocket, and .s
within this hole the lucifer matches ;'he also found a crumpledprisoner gave his name as Hutley, and denied all knew-
piece of paper, which resembled the bit of paper picked up prigs of the fraud. Witness having ascertained that
near the fire. ---' seevgereal other tradesmen had been defrauded, gave him
(Monday) morning, at a coffee-
Mr. Justice WIGHT/VA-NT having summed up these facts to into custody on that 1
the jury, after a short consultation they returned a verdict of shop, where he lodged.
Guilty. Mr. Thomas W. Ingram, 52, High-street, St. Giles's,
The Learned Judge, addressing the prisoner, said that he deposed that the prisoner obtains d the same sum from
had been convicted of one of the worst offences known to the him. The prisoner said he was worth 5001. a-year, and
law, as it was impossible to anticipate what loss of life might that the order would " admit two to the boxes."
ensue from it. It was necessary that the punishment should - Mr. Alfred Saul, Secretary to the Anti-Corn-law
be somewhat'in proportion to the offence. Hiadordehip then s League, said, the prisoner, whom he bad never seen be-
sentenced him to.transportation for life, . . - - -

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—York, July 12.
(Before Mr. Justice CuEsswELL )
William Anderson was indicted for a burglary in the house
of Ann Wood, at Haworth, on the 23d of April last. Mary
Cowl and Ann Robinson were charged with receiving the
proceeds of the robbery, knowing that they had been stolen.
Mr. Elsey and Mr. Pulleine conducted the case for the pro
secution ; Mr. Wilkins appeared as counsel for Cowl, and Mr.
Bliss for Robinson.

The principal witness against Anderson was a young lad,
fourteen years of age, who had been an accomplice in the
robbery, and was now admitted evidence for the Crown. He
said that the day before:the robbery was committed he came
to York with the prisoner Anderson, and went to lodge in
Walmgate, in the house of Mary Cowl. He came from Hull,
and on the way -between Hull and Beverley became ac
quainted yith Anderson. Anderson, in the course of conver-
sation with him, asked him if he would like to be a "finger-
smith," and said that he (Anderson) would be the " nailor."
The day after they came to York, Anderson and he went to
Mary Cowl's about five o'clock, and after loitering about for
some time they came to Mrs. Wood's house. Anderson then
took a chisel out of his coat pocket and prised the door open.
Both went in and went up stairs. They searched the house
and tried to get into the room where. Mrs. Wood slept, but
finding the inmates were being disturbed, they took the
things which they had already found, and left the house.
Knaggs then went on to state that they returned to Cowl's,
and there saw Cowl and Robinson;that they showed to
them the things which.had been taken from Mrs. Wood's;
that they got part of the-plunder, and assisted in concealing
the remainder. The fact of the robbery having been proved
by other testimony, evidence was adduced to show that the
prisoner Anderson, in company with Knaggs, was seen
loitering about lieyworth the evening of the robbery, and
about eight o'clock were observed getting over the fence out
of the garden of the prosecutrix: It appeared also, that on'
the constable going to Cowl's house,-she at first denied that
Anderson had brought any bundle to her house, but on its
being found in the coal-hole with a quantity of stolen pro-
peity, she said he had brought a bundle, but she thought he
had taken it away with him again.

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Bliss addressed the jury for the pri
soners Cowl and R ibinson.

His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury found Anderson Guilty, acquitting the female
prisoners.—Sentence was deferred.
Charles Cluderay was charged with having, at Bradford, on
the 30th of March last, robbed John Clayton.
Mr. Hardy and Mr. Johnstone were for the prosecution ;
and Mr. J. Hill for the prisoner.
The prosecutor in this case is, it appeared; a coal-miner,
and on the "day in question had been at Bradford-market.
On his return home in the evening, having arrived at a place
called Bowling-lane, near. Bradford, he was attacked by four
men, who knocked him down, and took from him some mut
ton, lard, and other articles. He was so much injured by the
blow he received, that he was unable to give any account of
the persons by whom he had been assaulted, and was con-
veyed home in a•very precarious state, so much so that his
life was for some time in very considerable danger. Two
persons who were at some little distance at the time of the
robbery, and saw the transaction, spoke to the prisoner as
being one of the parties engaged in it.
The prisoner was found Guilty.—Sentence deferred.