The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-28 00:00:00

blood be shed." And that passage which we should all have in
_memory, and close to our hearts, will be carried out in execution
against you all. In dealing in this guilty traffic, you might
have submitted to the power by which you were captured.
But this rebellion against that power, amounted to the crime of
piracy itself. The particular offence, however, of which you are
found guilty, and for which you will suffer, is the deprivation of
life--.depriving this unhappy young man of his life by the
cowardly and dastardly wounds dealt behind upon this poor
young man. His blood is rising up for justice, and demands
that the ministers of justice should visit your ofence with the
utmost punishment. The sentence of the Court upon you and
each of you is, that for this foul murder, of which you have
been respectively found guilty, you be taken from hence to the
place from whence you came, and from thence, at the usual
time, you be conveyed to the place of execution, and that there
you be hung respectively by the neck until you be dead.
An awful scene of consternation ensued among the prisoners.
Serve maintained his placidity to the end, but his heart ap-
peared to die within him. They were all removed handcuffed.
The three who were acquitted will be discharged.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Nottingham, July 26.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Lord Chief Baron PoLLocK.
John Fearn Webster was indicted for feloniously cutting and
wounding William Watkinson, in the parish of Basford, with
intent to murder him or do him some grievOus bodily harm.
Mr. Macauley prosecuted, and Mr. Flood defended the pri-
soner.

From the evidence, it appeared that in the month of April
last, the prisoner attempted to drive a cart through a garden in
the occupation of the prosecutor. The latter laid hold of the
horse's head and attempted to push him back, when the pri-
soner took up a spade and struck him upon the head, by means
of which he was for a considerable time rendered insensible,
and otherwise seriously injured. The charge with intent to
murder was abandoned, and the question now was, was the as-
sault committed with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
Upon cross-examination, it appeared that there was some dis-
pute as to the right of the road.

The CHIEF BARON thought at any rate the evidence as to
the commission of the common assault could not be resisted.
Mr. FLOOD concurred with his Lordship, but he thought he
might put in evidence by way of mitigation. He would prove
that a road had been actually staked out.
The CHIEF BARON directed the jury to find a verdict for
the common assault ; and sentenced the prisoner to one month's
imprisonment and hard labour.

(Before Mr Justice MAULZ.)
Richard Searson, Henry Rouse, and Samuel Morrison,
stood indicted for having, on the night of the 9th day of March
last, burglariously entered the dwelling-house of John Bailey,
in the parish of Bingham, and stolen therefrom a quantity of
cloth, waistcoat pieces, hats, and other articles, his property.
Searson pleaded guilty, and was admitted as a witness against
the other prisoners, who were said to be reputably connected
in that part of the county from which they came.
Mr. Wilmore conducted the prosecution, Mr. Miller de-
fended the prisoner Morrison, and Mr. Macauley appeared on
behalf of Rouse.

It appeared that on the night in question tne shop of the
prosecutor was opened by the door being bored by a bracebit,
and property was carried off to the amount of between 40/. and
501. According to the statement of Searson, the approver, the
prisoner Rouse came to him and said that he and Morrison
were going down to Bingham to get into Bailey's shop, and they
wanted him to accompany them. At first he refused, but
afterwards consented. They went together, and arrived near
the shop about twelve o'clock. Morrison went a little higher
up the street, he (Searson) stood on the opposite side of the
road, and Rouse bored a hole in the shop door with a brace-
bit. Morrison had in his possession a pistol, and Rouse had
another. The latter prisoner borrowed a knife from him, with
which he cut out the wood between the holes bored in the door,
and afterwards made off. Searson stated that the property
was afterwards divided between them, and mentioned meeting
a person named Stokes when on their return from Bailey's
house. His story was materially corroborated by other witnesses
called for the prosecution.
Mr. MILLER and Mr. MACAULEY severally addressed the
jury on behalf of the prisoners.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence,
The jury. Sound the prisoners Guilty, and they were all three
(Searson included) sentenced to ten years' transportation.
The assizes terminated at eight o'clock, the whole business of
the county of Nottingham having occupied only ten hours !

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Durham, July 25.
Mr. Baron Rolfe arrived in Durham last evening, and the
assizes have commenced here this thy. Both the Learned
Judges were sitting at York until yesterday afternoon. Mr.
Justice Cresswell remained till the middle of to-day, when all
the causes were disposed of but four ; those, by arrangement,
are remanets to the next assizes.
Mr. Baron Rolfe having arrived at the Durham station,
was conducted thence by the Sheriff of the county to the
Court-house, where the commission was immediately opened.
His Lordship then went to the Castle, to the judges' apart-
ments there. This morning, after attending Divine service,
he proceeded to the Crown Court, and the business of the as-
sizes was entered upon.
There are 20 causes on the civil side, and 39 prisoners for
trial. Of the persons named in the calendar one is to be tried
for murder, one for manslaughter, two for rape, one for bur-
glary and attempted murder, one for throwingboiling water
with intent to do grievous bodily harm: three for robbery attended
by violence, two for concealing the birth of children, three for
burglary, seven for stealing from the person, 19 for larceny,
four for receiving stolen goods, one fur coining, one for for-
gery, and one for instigating to compound felony.
The Learned JUDGE, in his charge to the grand jury, made
some observations respecting the case of Gould, charged with
shooting his wife at Durham, and also touching the general state
of crime in this county at the present time. His Lordship
said :—" Generally speaking, the cases do not present any de-
gree of enormity, but are merely such as your duties as magis-
trates will have made you familiar with, so far as their principles
are concerned. No observations of mine, therefore, could be of
essential service to you as far as relates to these cases. There
is, however, one general observation which I cannot abstain
from making—that in a calendar containing 40 names, or there-
abouts, one-half, or more than half,: have not received the
most elementary rudiments of education—for about one-
half can neither read nor write at all ; and, besides
that, more than three-fourths have received so slight an
education that they scarcely know more than their letters.
Now, that observation cannot but suggest to you, and to
every one, the expediency of encouraging, by all possible
means, the general and more extensive diffusion of educa-
tion, as a means of diminishing crime. It would be absurd
to suppose that because all men were educated they would
abstain from being guilty of offences; but when one sees the
composition of this calendar, and when one witnesses the same
thing in the calendar of other counties—that the great mass of
offenders are those who have received no education at all, the
matter is no longer a mere question of theory, but proves, by a
sort of positive demonstration, that to extended education we
must ultimately be indebted for any great diminution of crime.
Turning from thit general observation to the particular cases
in the calendar, it seems to me that at least one-half of them
have arisen since the last sessions, and that, had the sessions
intervened, a very large proportion of them would have been
tried at the sessions. I cannot see that there is anything in
the cases which indicates any great depravity existing in the
county at the present' time. There are, however, two un-
fortunate cases, in which persons have lost their lives, and
which present some features which may require one or two
observations. With regard to one case, that of Louis Henry
Gould, although it is stated here (in the calendar) that he has
been committed on a charge of manslaughter, it will be my
duty to direct you to charge
.him wi.h the crime of murder ;
because, according to the depositions, it seems to me that there
is nothing in the case to warrant, that extension of the law
which could mitigate his offence to the charge of manslaughter.
The'distinction between murder and manslaughter I need
hardly point out to you. Murder is the deliberate and preme-
ditated act of the party ; manslaughter is when the act is the
effect of a sudden impulse. There are other circumstances
that may justify—or, if not absolutely justify, at least mitigate
—the offence in the eye of the law. Now, among these cir-
cumstances, it has always been held, that it would reduce the
crime to manslaughter—it is stated in the, law books as pro-.
bable, though it is perhaps a case which does not happen once
in a century—that if a person finds his wife in the act of com-
mitting adultery,—it is said, in that case, if a. man, on the
impulse of the moment, were to put to death the adulterer,
that would be an act which the law would consider manslaughter,
not murder. But in this case, although I see from the deposi-
tions that there has been some jealousy, or suspicion, on the
part of. the person charged, yet I cannot perceive anything
which calls for an extension of the law to reduce the offence
to manslaughter; because here it would appear that there was
nothing at all but a man having conceived, truly or untruly,
some feeling of jealousy as to the conduct of his wife, a cer-
tain party passing by in the street at the time when they had
some words about it, his wife determining to go out and call
that party in, and then the prisoner drawing from his pocket a
loaded pistol and shooting her, and not having succeded, as he
thought, with that, he fired at her again. Now, in the first
place, unless it can be otherwise explained. the fact of a man
going armed vtli pistols would Ibe perfectly conclusive that
this would be act of murder. Unless it can be shown that
it was by accident that he had those pistols with him—and I
might even go the length of saying, that if the man even went
with the expectation of finding his wife in the act of adultery,
prepared to put to death the adulterer, that then the offence
would unquestionably be murder. It is not necessary to adopt
that hypothesis ; but, considering what the principle of law is,
which looks on the offence of homicide with a mitigating eye,
I cannot see that it applies to a person who goes deli-
berately prepared and in anticipation of what is likely to be
the result, and therefore acts deliberately—the circumstance
which reduces the crime, in such a case, to manslaughter,
being that a party is acting on the sudden impulse of the mo-
ment, and what the law thinks he has not the opportunity of
resisting. Such a case cannot apply where a person goes de-
liberately armed ; but, however, no such casuistry need be
applied to this case, because there was no act of adultery, nor
anything like such an act; and the indictment will therefore
be brought before you in a different form from that in which
it appears in the calendar."
Cuthbert Macdonald (24), Cuthbert Pratt (21), William
Bata (30), were severally charged with having, at the parish
of Wingate Grange, on the 4th of July inst., feloniously stolen
from the person of Thomas Earnshaw 1/. 7s. 2d., a knife, and
other articles, his property.
Mr. Fen wick appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Granger
defended the prisoners.
The facts of the case were shortly•these :—The prosecutor,
an old man, lives at Wheatley-bill Plantation, near Wingate
Grange, and on the night of the 4th of July, between ten and
eleven o'clock, he went into a public-house, near Wingate, kept
by a person named John Anderson. The three prisoners, with
others, were sitting drinking in the house, and the prosecutor,
who seemed also to have imbibed to some extent, after staying
some time, proceeded in the direction of his own house. On
the road the prisoners came up to him, threw him down, kicked
him, and succeeded in robbing him of his money, which con-
sisted of a sovereign, 7s. in silver, and 2d. in copper, Earnshaw
suffering so severely from the ill-treatment he received that he
was able to crawl but a short distance towards his house. He
lay there, out of doors, all night, and was found the next day
by a person passing along. He partly came to himself now
and then, but had not sufficient sense and strength to get home
unaided.

The prosecutor underwent a long cross-examination, which
did not materially alter the purport of his examination in chief,
though it showed that he had been at several public-houses in
the course of the day, and was of course somewhat intoxicated.
When apprehended, Baty said it was a bad job, and he did not
care how soon he was out of the country.
Several persons were called by the defending Counsel to show
that the old man had drank too much before the robbery to be
able to identify the prisoners. But the defence did not succeed
on that ground, the witnesses stating only that he had had two or
three glasses of beer, as far as they could observe, and that he
was sensible when he departed towards home.

The jury remained three hours in deliberation, and finally
found all three of the prisoners Guilty.
Pratt asserted after the trial that Macdonald was not pre-
sent, but that another man, now at Wingate, was. The pri-
soner Macdonald evinced deep grief, and declared his innocence
as to the robbery.
The Learned JUDGE told him it was for the jury to decide
that question. It was not his (the judge's) province Low to
interfere. He had but to put the law in force. The offence
committed was of a very serious kind, and must be severely
punished.
The three prisoners were then sentenced, each to be trans-
ported for the term of 15 years.

Viscount Canning ;left town on Saturday for Panshanger,
Herta, the ant of Earl Cowper.

~,1