The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-29 00:00:00

place, unless it can be otherwise explained. the fact of a man
going armed with pistols would ;be perfectly conclusive that
this would be an 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
Bat', (30), were severally charged with having, at the parish
of Wingate Grange, on the 4th of July inst., feloniously stolen
from the person of Th-,mas Earnshaw 11. 7s. 2d., a keife, and
other articles, his property.
Mr. Feowick appeared fur the prosecution, and Mr. Granger
defended the prisoners.
The facts of the case were shortly these : The prosecutor,
an old man, lives at Wheatley- hill 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 And!rson. 1 n
he three pris me, 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, e hich 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
oy a person passing along. He partly Caine 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 klasses 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 Junca told him it was for the jury to decide
that question. It was not his ( the judge's) province row 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 fur the term of lb years.

OMAGIT ASSIZES.-CRIM CON.
( Before Chief Justice PIIINNEFATHER, and a Special Jury.
ROBERTS V. HERDXAN.

Mr. MAJOR, Q.C., stated the case. Mr. Roberts came
from Belfast—his wife was a foreigner, a native of Malta.
It was in Malta she lived, and there his client first saw her,
and married her. He belonged to a profession that was
remarkable for being a manly and an honest one—he was a
sailor. He was a master—a rank upon an equality with a
first lieutenant in the navy, and equal to a captain in the
army. He belonged to the Mediterranean squadron, and
was stationed on board the Electra. The duties of the squadron
were to cruise round the coast. In 1840 he became acquainted
with his wife, and occasionally met her when he entered Malta.
Mrs. Roberts was a native of Her father was dead, and
her family consisted of her mother, a brother, and two sisters.
His client was invited to a ball in Malta, which was given by the
governor, and he there met his future wife. She attracted him
by her personal appearance, which was most captivating, and
she was of a very tender age, being, he believed, under 17
h her u
imo-
therstsuitor.
years. His client was not more than 27 years of age, in person
hand,
house,om e and
and wasesing
pr ePos
On the Ist November, 1840, he was married to Miss Conchetta
Petite, in the apartments of the Roman Catholic priest there.
receiveds .thereile became
as her a
acknowledged visitor at
That Reverend Gentleman would be produced to them.
The defendant was extensively engaged in mercantile
pursuits, being in partnership with a Mr. Mulholland, in
Belfast. The firm became proprietors of a mill, on which
a large sum had been expended in the erection. About
six or seven years ago Mr. Herdman became the resident
partner at Sion Mills, as they were called. There he
had a cottage, and kept an extensive establishment, and a car.
riage. He is and was then a married man, the husband of an
amiable woman, the father of an interesting family. On coming
to this part of the country he united in all the objeetsof charity.
It was to be lamented that the character he had thus acquired
was mainly instrumental in ruining his victim. At the time
he met Mrs. Roberts, she could not have been more than
twenty years of age, when she possessed innocence and a happy
home. Her father had been a captain in the Malta Militia,
and subsequently held a civil appointment under the
British Government. After the plaintiff's marriage, he resided
at Malta with his wife at her mother's house, where he left her
when duty called him away, and resided there when he came
on shore. Before he was ordered home he was transferred to
another vessel, the Wasp. He returned home in her. The
life of a sailor separated him necessarily from his wife oc-
casionally. He therefore made arrangements for her to reside soil h
his brother, ar, old bachelor. On arriving in England, in 1842,
he took his wife to his brother's house. When she had remained
there a short time her husband was appointed to another vessel,
the Daphne. At that time the Daphne was to accompany the
Queen in Scotland. On board that vessel was Doctor Moody,
the surgeon of the ship. He was appointed first. Dr. Moody
was married to a native of this county about three or lour
years ago. He being placed in the same situation as the
plaintiff, he purchased a cottage for his wife at Strabane.
The doctor would only have to go out on foreign ser-
vice occasionally, but Mr. Roberts was ordered to go to
South America. He felt much difficulty in placing his wife
in a place of security. She spoke English badly, and felt
unwilling to reside with her brother-in-law, notwithstand-
ing the admiration that old bachelors entertain for the
female sex ; but she had not the advantage of female society
in his house. It was determined on that she should go to
Malta, but Dr. Moody owed some compliment to Mr. Ro-
berts, and he proposed that she should live with
his wife. Such an arrangement was perfectly proper.
The first visit was paid six weeks after the arrival
of Mrs. Roberts, by Mrs. Herdman, who called and left her
visiting card. At that moment Mr. Herdman was making his
wife the innocent and unsuspecting instrument of his designs.
The visit was paid, and Mrs. Roberts felt it to be her duty to
return that visit. Mr. Herdman, who watched her every move-
ment, was there to receive her. After the visit had been paid,
and when they had gone some distance, Mrs. Herdman followed
the car, and invited them to dine on the following Thursday. The
invitation was accepted, Mr. Herdman's good character being a
sufficient guarantee for their propriety in so doing. They dined,
and he paid every attention to the ladies. He expressed a de-
sire that be should be instructed in the Italian language, and
be wished that Mrs. Roberts should be his instructress. He
had been for some time learning the Italian. He then invited
her to come and see an entertainment to the children in the
factory. Mrs. Moody refused, and then Mrs. Herdman
pressed Mrs. Roberts to accept the invitation. This was at
the latter end of March, and they would find that it was
during that time he first succeeded in undermining the mo-
rals and ruining the virtue of his victim. She remained
for some time on a visit, for two or three days. On the even-
ing of her return home she was driven in a gig to Mrs. Moody's
by Mr. Herdman. Mrs. Moody observed the gig coming, and
went into the house to receive them. They did not come by
the direct road, but by a circuitous route. When they came to
the door Mrs. Moody invited Mr. Herdman in to take his tea.
He came in and left his gig at the door. Mrs. Moody observed
that the conversation between Mr. Herdman and Mrs. Ro-
berts was carried on in the Italian language. She thought it
very strange that the conversation should be carried on in a
strange language, when she was the only female present.
Mrs. Moody found a letter that Mr. Herdman had addressed
to Mrs. Roberts. At this time the soirée to the factory chil-
dren took place, to which be had invited Mrs. Roberts. In
March of the year in which the criminal intercourse arose, Mrs.
Robe, is was an inmate of Mrs. Herdman's house for 10 days ;
and after that time the letter in question was written. He would
apologise to the gentlemen of the jury for reading this docu-
ment; however, he would read only some parts of it The
letter was written in the Italian language, and he held in his
hand a translation of it, which would be proved. The defendant
had presumed to address her in most disgusting language,
from which it was clear he had undermined the morals and de-
stroyed the peace of Mrs. Roberts. It proved that he had suc-
ceeded in his base designs. Mr. Herdman continued, through
Mrs. Herdman, his plans on Mrs. Roberts. She was subse-
quently invited to his house, and neither Mrs. Herdman nor
Mrs. Moody had their suspicions awakened. He need scarcely
tell the jury that Mrs. Herdman would not have encouraged
their intercourse had she been at all aware of what was going
on. Some rumours now got afloat. Mr. Herdman drove Mrs.
Roberts to Derry, and he introduced her there to several
persons, among the rest to Mr. Bartkoski, his instructor in
the Italian language. When Mrs. Moody heard this she wrote
to Mrs. Roberts to come home. She returned home, and I
think it was at this time, about the 26th or 27th May, Mrs.
Moody, whose suspicions were now aroused, communicated
them to Mrs. Roberts. At first she repudiated and denied
that they were true. Subsequently, however, she COMM •
nicated to Mrs. Moody that she was ruined and undone. If
ever there was a woman who should have been protected, it
was this woman. She was here a foreigner and a stranger,
with the wife of a brother officer of her busband's.
Who, if she wanted advice, should have given it to her
so soon as this man, who was the father of a family, and
who was generally looked up to in the neighbourhood? He
described himself as a " villain," when charged with his crime.
What word was there in the English language which conveyed
so strong an idea of all that was base and dishonourable as the
word " villain ?" He hoped the jury would mark their sense
of his conduct. After a few ether remarks, the Learned Gentle
man concluded by calling witnesses, who proved his statement.
Mr. Baooxs addressed the jury for the defendant. He
said that in this painful case—this very painful case—it now
became his duty to make some observations. The question
the jury had to consider was the amount of loss the plaintiff had
sustained. His wife was a native of Malta, a remarkable place
for the laxity of the morals of its inhabitants. Those
who knew the history of Malta moat be aware that it had
always been nothing more than a great camp. At present
there were a great number of troops stationed in it, together
with a great many vessels of war stationed at it. There
could not be a doubt that its morals were as lax as those of any
country in the south of Europe, and that was saying a great
deal. In Italy, it was well known the marriage vows were not
regarded with the same strictness as they
happily were in this
country. Very often themarriage vows were usedas a convenient
cloak for thei: gallantries; and very often the friend or gallant
superseded the husband. The marriage was an improper one
in every respect. She was a Roman Catholic, aid he was
a Protestant; and, as healed observed, in every respect there
was a material difference between them. According to his
own account he gees to a ball, he finds her a p'easant part-
ner, and he marries her, with no other recommendation than
a handsome lace, and contrary to his brother's wish. He
would ask them, which of them having a friend would to see a marriage take place under such circum-
stances? Which of them, having a son, would not rather
see him in his grave than see him make such a marriage ?
Such marriages are never known to turn out well. Mrs.
Roberta was a perfect mistress in the art of dissimulation. She
was able to deceive the defendant's own wife, and to commit
adultery with her husband in his own house, without Mrs.
Herdman being able to discover it. During a year that she
resided in the neighbourhood after this unfortunate occur-
rence, the defendant did not once visit her. They had been,
told the defendant had a large factory, that he kept a car-
riage and a fine establishment; but let them remember, in
awarding the damages, that they were taking the money from
his innocent wife and children. They should ask themselves
what loaf had the plaintiff snoteined ? None. He had re.