The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-02 00:00:00

COURT OF
‘QUEEN'S BENCH, May 1.

- The Court too (Sittings in Banco.)
k the Crown paper this morning. No case
-of the least public interest came on.

BAIL COURT, May 1.
(Before Mr. Justicellllnuez.)
THE QUEEN v. RICHARD ANDREWS.
Mr. MILLER applied to the Court on behalf of Richard An-
drews, a prisoner in Warwick gaol, on a charge of murder,
that he might be admitted to bail before the magistrates of
Birmingham, in the county of Warwick. He made this ap•
plication on the ground, that there was not a scintilla of evi-
dence in the case to support the charge. The deceased was
the infant child of the prisoner. She was about three or four
Years of age. The prisoner's wife was dead, and he lived with
this child in./Istate of abject poverty, in a small house in a
court of Birmingham. The prisoner had been remarkable for
the very great attachment he had for his child, and the
kindness he invariably showed to it. About half-past seven
in the morning of a day in January, the prisoner hav-
ing gone out some little time, the people in the
court were alarmed by screams of distress which
proceeded from the house, and going to the window they per-
ceived a tire in the room, and ac ildT(nteoyu.sweetnhteiirnotwo
tnbeexhpornesse•
gun) " fihting with the flames."_
shavings,
with au old rug
and found the chili' on a bed of _
The child, which was
over it—the shavings being on fire.
one of the grounds of
very much burnt, was at once rescuedre
and conveyed to the
hospital. Near the place (and this was
observed
suspicion) where the child's hand had
"fight-
ing with the flames" was a small cinder been ;
which, however, in
his (Ur. Miller's) opinion would, upon the trial, decidedly
manifest the innocence of the prisoner. When the child was
being taken to the hospital by the wife of a man who had
been first to rescue it—and who kept a house of ill-fame in
the court, this woman said—" I believe it was her father who
set her on fire." The child, before it had been taken to
the hospital, was asked how she got on fire, and she
replied` she had felt so very cold that she had gone
down stairs to warm herself—that she had played with the
fire, and then had got into the rug. In two or three hours
after, about eleven or half-past eleven, -Then in the hozpital,
somebody spoke to her on the matter. and she said it was
her father put her there. At this_time the mind of the child
.was giving way. and there was' no doubt (and the affidaYits
gated it) that, in fier then wancteriDg state, she f9ehly re-

collected what had fallen from the woman when carrying her
to the hospital. Before twelve o'clock the evidence of the me-
dical gentlemen testified that she was in a state of complete
delirium. He should state, that as soon as ever the father
heard of the accident he hurried to the hospital in the great-
est agony, and that the moment the child saw him she
strove to get to him, and hugged him in the fondest way,
which she certainly would not have done, had he been the
cause of the dreadful torture she was enduring. Unfortu-
nately the inquest upon the child was taken before a Coroner
who was of the medical, and not of the legal profeslion,
and who admitted these expressions of the child in evidifnce,
which the Court would be aware a lawyer would not have
done. The consequence of the admission of this illegal
evidence was, that a verdict of " 'Wilful murder"
was returned, and the man was committed under
the Coroner's warrant to Warwick Gaol, to take his
trial. At the last assizes an application was made by the
prosecution to put off the trial, on the ground that the two
persons he had alluded to who first discovered the fire, were
not present, and their evidence was essential. They, in fact,
were persons of bad character—the police had been after
them for some crime or other, and they had absconded. The
prisoner had applied to the Court that the depositions of these
witnesses should be read, in order that the Court might be
satisfied there was no sufficient evidence against him, and so
authorise him to go at large on bail until the absconding
witnesses were brought forward • but Mr. Baron Gurney
hesitated about this, on the ground he could not recog-
nize consents in criminal cases. Before the witnesses went
up to the grand jury the solicitor to the prosecution had
very properly warned them that they must not repeat to that
tribunal the illegal evidence which the Coroner had so im-
properly admitted before his jury.
Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN—fben the prisoner is arraigned
on a true bill as well as on the Coroner's warrant.
Mr. MILLER—Yes, my Lord; but I have affidavits to prove
that, though warned not to do so, the witnesses did give the
same illegal evidence before the grand jury that they had
previously given before the Coroner's Court.
Mr. Justice WicirrmAx—Holv can you properly know
what passed before the grand jury ?
Mr. MILLER—The affidavits of the witnesses are now sin
my hand.
Mr. Justice Wwirrmarr—Had the prisoner been kept in
custody simply on the Coroner's warrant, my course would
have been pretty clear, but when he is detained by reason of
a true bill found by the grand jury, the case takes a very
different aspect. Can you give me a case in point ?
Mr. MILLER would endeavour to do so..
Mr. Justice WomiTmAx—l will take time to consider the
matter, and to mention it to Mr. Baron Gurney. But you
must be prepared with a case m point when the subject is
again brought before the Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 1.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court tookthe special paper to7day.
THE QUEEN v. EXANUEL SCOTT AND OTHERS.
Mr. Ennis applied for a rule to show cause why a fine of
5,0001., and some smaller fines, which the Court of Queen's
Bench had imposed upon the defendants, who are railway
engineers, belonging to the Leeds and Manchester Railway,
for the purpose of compelling them to widen and improve a
parish road over which the railway passed, should not be en-
forced, and why further proceedings in the matter should be
respited. The road was at first only 18 feet wide, and the
parish authorities required that it should be made 30 feet wide.
Colonel Pasley had pointed out how the improvement could
be effected, and the defendants forthwith set about the matter
and completed the requisite improvement, and as the fines
had been only nominally imposed, in order to compel the de-
fendants to widen the road forthwith, it was now sought to
have the parties relieved from any further process.
Baron ALDERSON said that it was necessary to show that
the public were satisfied with the alterations made in the
road. It might so happen—though he did not mean to say it
was so in this case—that both plaintiffs and defendants
might be satisfied with what had been done, while the public
convenience might not have been consulted in the matter.
It was therefore necessary for the defendants either to get
an affidavit from two resident magistrates, or from Colonel
Pasley, to the effect that the public convenience had been at-
tended to in the making of the improvements.
Mr. ERLE—Your Lordship could grant a rule nisi, to be
made absolute on our procuring such an affidavit as your
Lordship suggests.
Baron ALDERSON—Yes, you can have a rule nisi, under-
taking to get such an affidavit.
Rule nisi granted accordingly.
The other cases that came before the Court up to the time
of our going to press, were merely arguments on demurrer,
involving only questions of law.

SHERIFFS' COURT, April3o.
Before Mr. Under-Sheriff KENNEDY and a Common Jury.

SEDUCTION-BARNES V. MILLS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, William
Barnes, an engineer, in the employ of Sir John Rennie,
against Frederick Mills, his nephew, a cabinet-maker, re-
siding in Drury-lane, to recover compensation for the seduc-
tion and loss of the services of his daughter. The damages
were laid in the declaration at 1001.

Mr. NASII, in addressing the jury, said the present case
was one of the most painful that had ever been brought in a
court of justice, and a most heartless one on the part of the
defendant. The plaintiff was a man in a humble station of
society, with a family of six children, four of them girls, the
unfortunate object of the present inquiry being the eldest,
depending upon his exertions for support. The defendant
was the son of plaintiff's own sister, a young man, who,
instead of ruining his cousin, ought to have been her pro-
tector. He (the Learned Counsel) would not dilate upon
the conduct of the defendant, but leave the jury to judge of
it from the narrative he would lay before them, and the evi-
dence in support of it. The Learned Counsel then detailed
the circumstances, as afterwards brought forward in evidence.
Miss Mary Ann Barnes, an artless, simple, but pretty young
girl, was then called, and depesed as follows :—My father's
name is William Barnes, and he resides at No. 11, Longstaff-
buildings, Great Guildford-street, Southwark. He is an en-
gineer at Sir John Rennie's. The defendant, Frederick
Mills, is his nephew and my first cousin. I have known him
about three years, and during that time he has paid his ad-
dresses to me. From the first time I walked with him he
promised to marry me. That was two years ago. I remem-
ber August of last year. On the 15th of that month the de-
fendant came to me and said he intended to marry me on the
morrow. He further said that he thought we had been walk-
ing long enough, and it was time that we made matters up.
He should furnish a room, as he had money sufficient to buy
the goods, and would get me to mind them for a fortnight,
when he would then be married. I told my parents, and they
consented to my going to mind the apartments, which were
in Thomas-street, Stamford-street. They were furnished,
and the defendant came to see me daily, and left at eleven
o'clock at night. There was a mutal agreement between us
that he should take no liberties with me.—(A laugh.) For
some days he made no attempt to break the agreement, but
on the Saturday night he wished me to allow him to sleep
with me, but I refused. He then said, "If you do not, I
will sleep with the first girl I meet, and, in that case, think
no more of me as your husband." On his promising to marry
me the following day I consented. On the Sunday evening
he brought his sister to tea with me, and afterwards we all
went to Chelsea, but on reaching Westminster-bridge
coming back, he left me to oome home by myself. I
saw him the next morning (Monday), and upbraided
him for his conduct. He promised to come in
the afternoon, but he did not, and I did not see him
again. 'The following Thursday I was ill in bed, when the
defendant's mother and sister, with a porter, came to take
away the things. I got up, and defendant's mother said to
the porter, "Drag away the things; never mind her." The
landlady of the house, pitying me, sent to my parents, and
they took me home. About the beginning of October, and
after the action was brought, I met Mills, whilst coming
home from work. He came up to me crying, and said the
action was a bad job. It began to rain, and we went inte a
tavern. Whilst there, he said he would marry me if I would
go down to Gravesend with him. I consented, and we went
the next day. We stayed there ten days, and on returning we
went and lived in Marylebone.:l stayed there five weeks, at
the end of which I had nothing to eat or drink for three
days, as he refused to give me any money. He said I must
go home, and I went, my parents having again consented to
receive me. Whilst at Gravesend, defendant said, "Now I
have settled all your law proceedings, and you and your
father's lawyer may go to the devil ; and that if his (the
solicitor's) name was Game, and he was game by nature, he
should not game him out of anything."—( Laughter.) My
reason for not going home when I came from Gravesend was
not being married. I was afraid. The witness, in continu-
ation of her evidence, stated that she was in the habit of
earningi money at her needle, and also that she had the
management of the younger members of the family.
Mr. Nash was about to call other witnesses, when
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF, finding no one for the de-
fendant present, thought it was unnecessary to call any fur •
ther evidence. He then addressed the jury, and said that
everything was admitted by the defendant except the amount
of damages. It was a very serious case, and it was for the
jury to say what compensation the plaintiff was entitled to
for the loss of the services of his danghter.
The jury consulted for about a minute, and returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

Two young men named Hart and Johnson, who were
fashionably dressed, and had very much the appearance
of medical students, and a little boy named Johnny
Britton, who was what is called " very, tidily togged
out," and walked between the other two, in quality of a
little brother, were brought before the Lord Mayor
charged with having made repeated attempts to pick
pockets.
Richard Tyas, a beadle, who once belonged to the
police, and has a pretty extensive knowledge of the
" pocket shakers " of the metropolis, stated, that between
twelve and one o'clock in the day, he saw the three pri-
soners, all of whom he knew to he thieves, walking along
Cheapside, and " trying it on " with the passers-by.
Hart walked alongside of Johnny Britton, and contrived
to hold a cloak before him, to enable him to work at his
ease without detection, and the little thief, with very
amusing skill, made several experiments, while Johnson
was on the-look-out behind. They at last observed that
the witness was following them, and they quickly passed
out of the street. The witness, however, continued to
follow them, and told them that he should give all the
officers he should meet notice of their business, and that
they had better go over the water to the Borough,where
they were well known. Johnson retaliated in strong
language, but " little Johnny " scorned the use of words
on such an occasion, and made a straight-forward blow
at the beadle, who received it on his mouth, and speedily
showed blood.
Every one in the justice-room was surprised at hear-
ing of the pluck of so diminutive an antagonist, but
Johnny looked contemptuously at the beadle.
The witness added that Johnson and Hart showed
every disposition to follow the example of the little-un,
but were prevented by the interference of other people.
The LORD MAYOR—Did you see them attempt to pick
pookets ? Witness--Yes ; the last person they tried
was a lady, and Britton handled her all about' in an
extraordinary manner.
the constable, said he knew the prisoners to be
expert and daring thieves. The boy was regularly co-
vered by the other two,
_an. dhe could whip out a purse as
cleverly as a handkerchief. A great deal was done in
saw m
that way.
BLitbre ; a
Britton—That's a lie.e were You
going neverme--not one of
you
quietly along about
our business when you came up and mired u
nt thieves.no
Why should we stand that sort of rig ? We a
thieves.
A policeman said he saw the three prisoners u the
beadle, and he took hold of Britton, who, though
the smallest, was certainly the most formidable. They
were all known at the station-house.
The LORD MA von--I have no doubt that Hart sni
Johnson loci, upon the boy as an instrument with which
to commit robberies. lam sorry I cannot send them to
the Central Criminal Court fur trial, for they are most
dangerous. I shall, however, send each of them for
three monthstQl3rideli ell 46 rogues and yagabonds.

Johnny Britton—There's 11 3s. 6d. of ourn in the
pockets of these here police fellows. They a'nt agoing
to have that, are they ?
Hart—These police ought not to treat us this way.
Johnny Britton—Not a bit of it. I give these rubbish
many a shilling.—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—YOU are showing us that the
officers are fully correct in their accounts of you.
Johnny Britton—They ought not to take our money
if they meant to go it this way. That a'nt fair, I'm
sure. Arter all they didn't see us take anything ; and
if they did, don't we tip 'em to keep 'em quiet ?
The prisoners were then committed to Bridewell.
The wretched borleft the bar vowing vengeance against
the beadle.

A young woman, named Louisa Johnson, was brought
up charged by Mr. Prentice, pastry-cook, of Cheapside.
The complainant stated that the defendant walked
into his shop on Tuesday evening, and demanded money
from his wife, as recompense for eight months' impri-
sonment. She had upon those occasions broken his
windows, and been punished by the Lord Mayor. and
she bad visited him immediately after her discharge
from gaol upon each occasion. Witness, the moment his
wife uttered the name of Louisa Johns'on," naturally
turned his attention to the defendant, whose name was
associated with the word "smash," and asked her what
she meant by persecuting his family. She replied that
she had been eight months in prison, and money she
must have, or she would smash Mrs. Prentice and every-
thing else. As there was no reason whatever to doubt
the disposition or the power of such a customer, witness
immediately took hold of her to prevent mischief, and
called a policeman to deal with her.
Defendant—l say, old fellow, what an out-and-out
liar you are ! I never said no rich thing.
The LORD MAYOR—I have often had occasion to
punish you. Defendant—Not ct all. You know nothing
at all about me. .

The LORD MAYOR—You are altogether incorrigible.
You applied to me to take you out of prison, and you
promised to conduct yourself well. Defendant—No
sich a thing. You blame me for what other people did.
I never saw you afore.
The LORD MAYOR—You were locked up in a parti-
cular manner in prison, in consequence of your riotous
conduct, which prevented the performance of divine wor-
ship in the chapel. Defendant—No, I wasn't. I tell
you I know nothing about you, and I don't want to know
nothing about you.
Complainant—For the last two years I have been
subject to the most dreadful persecution from this woman.
The moment she has been committed for smashing my
windows, she has promised when she should come out to
do the same, and she has performed her promise. I
wish to know what reason she has for attacking me ?
Defendant—l have reasons for it. _

The LORD MAYOR—He asks you what they are ?
Defendant—l don't choose to make him or you as wise
as myself ; no mistake about that old fellow.
The complainant declared that his wife was suffering
in her health from the conduct of the defendant, and was
unable to appear to give evidence.
Defendant—" Take that you old rascal (throwing a
small scent bottle at the complainant), I'll give it you."
The LORD MAYOR, having censured the officers for
not having searched so desperate a woman before they
brought her to the bar, directed the complainant to ap
pear at the Quarter Sessions on Saturday, to exhibit ar-
ticles of the peace against her. His Lordship then com-
mitted the defendant, in default of bail, to appear at the
sessions. .

Louisa Johnson had, previously to her attacks upon
the windows of Mr. Prentice, gone the " whole hog" upon
the windows of other tradespeople, and would probably
have transferred her powers from him to his neighbours,
if he had not resolutely followed her up to punishment.
The defendant, after leaving the bar, said she would
" call again."