The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
STANDARD.—Lord Brougham presented last night
a petition in the House of Lords from the Earl of Dun-
donald, better known by his gallant exploits as " Lord
Cochrane," claiming for the Noble Earl the priority of
invention of Captain Warner's destructive agent ; or,
at least, claiming to have invented, more than thirty
years ago, some other agent of destruction as ter-
ribly efficacious. Lord Dundonald's gallantry, skill,
and enterprise, as a naval commander, are too fre-
quently recorded in our naval annals to require
any other testimony. The nation owes to him
a deep debt of gratitude for most important
services, and we hope we may now without offence add
that the nation owes to his Lordship a heavy debt upon
another score—reparation for grievous wrongs. Thirty
years the gallant nobleman was made the victim of as
flagitiously iniquitous a verdict and judgment, as ever
disgraced the administration of justice in any coun-
try. It is difficult to read the trill'', of his
Lordship, and we have been rearming it lately,
in order to refresh our knowledge of the law
of conspiracy, without ce;ning to the conclu-
sion that judge and j':i-y were all mad or drunk
together. It may not be out of place to refer
to this scandalous trial, because younger men
may be at a loss to understand Lord Brougham's allu-
sion to the banishment of the Gallant Earl from the
service of his own country. The story in few words is
this :—A number of persons, one of whom was Lord
Dondonald's relation, and another his stock-broker,
contrived a fraud to raise the price of the public funds,
by false news (an anticipation of the restoration of the
Bourbons). The case against these persons was proved
clearly enough by an exposure of all their pro-
ceedings, in which it was manifest that Lord Dun-
donald took not the slightest part. It was
proved, however, that he lent a hat to the
principal agent, with whom he had a casual acquaint-
ance ; the hat was a plain round hat, such as gen-
tlemen commonly wore at the time, and still wear,
and the reasonable pretext for borrowing it was that
the borrower had on a showy military head-dress, which
caused him to be stared at in the street, notwithstanding
that his gaudy foreign uniform was otherwise shaded
by a cloak. Upon the strength of this unlucky loan
of a hat was Lord Dundonald dragged into the conspiracy,
deprived of his commission, and driven, from that noble
service, even upon which his achievements had reflected
new glories. But Lord Ellenborough was a commercial
man—the jurors were commercial men—and the times
were those in which about threescore men, women,
and children, used to be annually strangled at the
Old Bailey, for, as it was supposed, the be-
nefit of commercial credit. What chance, before such a
judge and such a jury, and in such times, for any one
exposed to the suspicion of being suspected of tampering
with the price of the funds ? So much for Lord Dun-
donald. Now as to his invention. Lord Brougham said
in his Noble Friend's praise, that though ill-treated, as
he certainly was, by his' own Government and his own
countrymen, Lord Dundonald reserved his secret from,
those foreign Governments by which he was empl,:,:yea,
and patriotically resolved that England al" Ile should
have the benefit of its possession. We confess that we
do not understand his Lordsl,
motive in this
conduct. If the secret is on.
which can be used without
exposing it to discover:;,
hesitate to give t", those we do not see why he should
Goverments that had a just
right to clair2s all his services, the full benefit of it. It
seems to, as that when a man engages in the service of
a fo:,ign State, he becomes, ipso facto, the subject of
`..:nat State—a vendre ou a pendre, as the old phrase has
it—and that he has no right to reserve any results
either of his physical or intellectual power, always
supposing that these are not to be directed against
the country to which he naturally owes allegiance.
We must repeat it, therefore, that if Lord
Dundonald's secret is not one liable to expo-
sure in the use of it, his Lordship ought to have
given to the foreign Governments that he served
all the advantage of it. If, however, the secret is one
which would bo explained in its application, it is plainly
of little value, except for the first blow. It might render
war more destructive for all parties in the long run ;
but the nation first using it could have the advantage but
once, as all other nations would forthwith adopt it.
Nay, it might, and if Captain Warner truly describes
his " long range," it would deprive some nations of ad-
vantages they already possess. What, for example,
would be the fate of our naval superiority
were the " long range" universally adopted? What
could Nelson himself do in conflict (if we may call it so)
with, an enemy six miles off ? We comfort ourselves
with the reflection that all these things are " moon-
shine," for the effect of them certainly would be to de-
prive England of most of the advantages she owes to the
physical and moral superiority of her people. Bayard
called the: use of gunpowder " the grave of valour"—
and of the valour which stimulates individual acts of
daring for the sake of individual glory it was the tomb.
Another and a more reflecting kind of courage has, how-
ever, succeeded, adapted to the changed style of war,
and now the victory is not to the impetuous and au-
dacious, but to the patient and enduring, to the cool,
collected, and determined. It is, however, impossible to
imagine what modification of fortitude could be success-
fully opposed to the invisible shell or the long range ;
the adoption of such instruments would be not merely
the grave of all kinds of valour, it would be the grave
of honour, honesty, and humanity; all war would re-
solve itself into surprise, and ambuscade, and wholesale
massacre; fortunately, we say again, the thing is mere
moonshine.
GLOBE.—Mr. Liddell's Dog Stealing Commit-
tee has produced a sensible report. Perhaps the
authority of a report of a Select Committee was hardly
wanted to recommend Mr. Liddell's proposals for the
protection of poodles. But we quite agree with him that
poodles ought to be better protected, and think the sug •
gestions of the Committee very commendable ; and we
by no means quarrel with the appointment of a Commit-
tee on the subject. The evidence collected by the Com-
mittee on the tricks of dog-stealers, and the
statistics of the dog-trade, is an interesting con-
tribution to a " Library of Entertaining Knowledge."
The taking of a reward for restoring a stolen dog
is at present not penal. Rewards are eagerly given for
the recovery of pet-dogs, and dogs are stolen with a
view to the reward. The premises of dealers in dogs are
not at present accessible to the police except after a
search-warrant has been obtained; to obtain which some
reason must be shown for believing that the missing dog
is in the particular premises to be searched, and which
can never be obtained without delay. This is a great
help to the dog-stealer, and furnishes a great additional
inducement to the parties robbed to offer high rewards.
The Committee apply themselves, then, to the preven-
tion of rewards, and the increase of control over the
dealers in dogs. They recommend that an Act should
be passed declaring dogs to be property, and mak-
ing the theft of a dog a misdemeanour; from which it
would follow, under the words of the 58th clause of 7
and 8 Geo. IV., that the taking of a reward for restoring
a stolen dog would be felony—that dealers in dogs
should be required to take out licenses, and
that their premises should be open to inspection of
police-officers—and that parties in possession of stolen
or lost dogs should be made responsible for such
possession, and be obliged to bring forward the
names and places of abode of those parties from whom
the said dog had been obtained, and that these latter
parties shall, in like manner, be held responsible. "It
appears to your Committee that such an obligation, com-
bined with the licensing of the premises of the dealers in
dogs, and the power of inspection given to certain officers
of police, would go far to check, if it would not entirely
put a stop to this pernicious and illegal traffic ; and the
same regulations might be applied to parties bringing
lots of dogs to the quays and wharfs of the different ports
for exportation to the foreign market."

THE PARLIAMENTARY SESSION.--It is now gener-
ally thought that the business in the House of Com-
mons will be brought to a close on Thursday next, and
that the House will on that day adjourn for a short
time, to enable the Lords to consider the Bills which
will be sent up to them. No prorogation, however, will
take place until judgment is given in the case of Mr.
Daniel O'Connell and the other traversers.
CABINET CouNcrL.—A Cabinet Council was held
at the Foreign-office on Saturday, at the hour of twelve
o'clock. The Council was attended by Sir Robert Peel,
the Duke of Wellington, Lord Stanley, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the Duke of Buccleugh, Mr. Glad-
stone, Sir Edward Knatchbull, the Earl of Haddington,
the Earl of Ripon, Lord Granville Somerset, Lord
Wharncliffe, Lord Aberdeen, and the Lord Chancellor.
Sir James Graham joined his colleagues immediately
after the adjournment of the House of Commons.
BRISTOL SUGAR MARKET, AUG. 2.—Our raw
sugar market has become quiet, and the trade continues
extremely cautious in their purchases, confining them-
selves to supplying their immediate wants only. The
sales since our last report are only 300 hhds. West In-
dia, chiefly the middling qualities, at former prices ; a
small parcel of crystallised Demeraras, of large grain
and good complexion, at from 70s. to 745. About 600
bags of Bengal% have changed hands at steady prices,
but the demand for Mauritius is very dull. Rum is
steady at the quotations.—Bristol Mercury.

COMPARATIVE TRAVELLING ON DIFFERENT RAIL-
WAYS.—In Mr. Laing's paper, appended to the evidence
taken before the Select Committee on Railways, it
is stated, among " other remarkable instances of
the effects of high fares, and limited acommoda-
tion in restricting the amount of travelling,"
that the London and Birmingham Company carry 130
per cent. fewer passengers per train, and 100 per cent.
fewer passengers per mile than the Glasgow and Ayr,
and 85 per cent, fewer passengers per train, and 135
fewer per mile than the Ulster; while the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway carries 60 per cent. fewer pas-
sengers per train, and 50 per cent. fewer per mile than
the Glasgow and Greenock (although the latter is ex-
posed to a sharp steam-boat competition), and 50,000
passengers fewer per annum, than are conveyed on the
Newcastle and North Shields line.—Railway Record.

BABIES.—It strikes us that more fibs are told about
babies than about anything else in the world. We all
say they are sweet, yet every body knows they are sour;
we all say they are lovely, yet nine out of ten have no
more beauty than a pug dog; we all praise their ex-
pressive:eyes, yet all babies squint; we call them little
doves, though one of them makes more noise than a
colony of screech howls • we vow they are no trouble,
yet they must be attended to night and day; we insist
they repay us for all our anxiety, though they take
every opportunity of scratching our faces, or poking
their fingers in our eyeslin short, we make it our busi-
ness to tell tho most palpable falsehords about them
every hour of the day.—American Paper.
RECOVERY OF LAND FROM THE SEA. Mr.
Samuel Hemming, of Bedminster, Bristol, has succeeded
in reclaiming by extensive embankments, no less than
1,600 acres of rich and valuable land from the sea on the
south bank of Lough Foyle, Ireland.

SUMMER ASWEE,4.
HOME. ElRCUlT.—uild:forcl, Aug. 3.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY.)
George Hart, 17, and Ddvid Chilton, 17, were in-
dicted, under the statute, for unlawfully setting fire
to certain growing heath and furze, the property of
Robert Munro.

Mr. Locke appeared for the prosecution) and Ml.
Charnock defended the prisoner.
Mr. Locks, in addressing the jury, explained that
the present indictment was framed under a statute
which made it felony for any person to wilfully set fire
to any growing crop of corn, heath, or furze, and
subjected them to be transported for seven years, or
for such term of imprisonment as the Court might
direct. The Learned Counsel then went on to say
that the prosecutor was a gentleman residing at
Godalming, and he possessed a good deal of property
in that neighbourhood. On the day mentioned in the
indictment the prisoners were observed by a woman
to go up to the furze, and with a lucifer match set
fire to it in several places. They ran off, but were
pursued, and taken into custody, and on their being
searched, a pistol and a quantity of gunpowder were
found in the possession of them, and upon the other
no less than twenty-two boxes of lucifer matches.
The above facts were clearly proved in evidence,
and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Baron GURNEY sentenced the prisoner to be
transported for seven years.
Jane Filar, aged thirty, was indicted for the mur-
der of her new-born male child.

Mr. Charnock defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner
had been cook in the service of a gentleman at Guild-
ford. On the 28th May she appeered to be very ill,
and at night one of the servants observed her to go
down to the water-closet, and she followed her, and,
according to her statement, shortly afterwards heard
the cry of a child. An alarm was given, and the
body of a child was taken out of the closet, and the
surgeon who was called in to examine it, expressed
his opinion, from certain circumstances, that the infant
had been born alive. There was, however, no posi-
tive evidence as to this fact, except the testimony of
the servant, who stated that she heard the child cry ;
but upon cross-examination she admitted that she
might have been mistaken.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of concealing
the birth of the child, and she was sentenced to six
months' imprisonment.
John Smith, 17, was indicted for a misdemeanour.
It appeared from the evidence of a police-constable
named Timsley, that, about one o'clock in the day on
the 26th July, he saw the prisoner bathing in the
Surrey Canal, and he came out of the water quite
naked, and just as a train was passing along the rail-
way he turned towards it, and behaved in a very
indecent manner

The jury found the defendant guilty, and
Mr. Baron GURNEY sentenced him to be imprisoned
for four months, at the same time remarking, that if
the defendant had been convicted summarily by the
magistrate, he might have been sentenced to hard
labour ; but in the present form of proceeding by in-
dictment, he had no power to affix hard labour to the
sentence.

His Lordship got through all the criminal business
by twelve o'clock, and he then proceeded to dispose
of some common jury causes, and he will sit again
on Monday (this day) for that purpose.
The business on the Civil side hitherto has not con-
tained any feature of public interest.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.--Neteeastle, Aug. 3.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
Mark Sherwood, a grey-haired man above the middle
age, and whose face bore traces of habitual indulgence
in spirituous liquors, was indicted for the wilful murder
of his wife, Ann Sherwood, on the 14th of March last,
by cutting her throat.
Mr. Ingham and Mr. Unthank conducted the prosecu-
tion ; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Wilkins.
Mr. INGuam stated the case, and proceeded to call
the witnesses.

itg of Thursdtty. The st6riittel Was eillpty; and firmly
contracted. She must have been six or eight hours with-
out food. She had not been dead less than two hours.
nor more than four, when I saw her at half-past eleven,
The prisoner could not have been more than an hour in
the state I saw him. _

Mr. Taylor gave similar testimony.
Sarah Ifichartisdn—t live itt the Castlezgarth; in new-
castle. I knew the deceased. She was not at my house
on the morning of the 14th.
Cross-examined---I knew the deceased, from her coming
to my house for firewood. I was never at the house in
Blandford-street. I never sold any whisky for her. I
did not know she made whisky. I sell firewood. My
husband is a labouring man.
Thomas Jenkins--I am a policeman. I went to
the house with Mr. Little, about half-past eleven.
Dr. Carr was there. I made a bed for the prisoner
in the corner next the fire. I went into the closet
to get the clothes. The things were disturbed. The
clothes were all off together at one side, as if they
had been slept in that night. There was a jug on a
low table beside the prisoner. It contained about a
pint of whisky. There was a little fire in the grate, but
it was not perceptible until I began to stir it, when the
doctor told me to make a fire. Two razor blades dropped
out. I got a light and went into the back room. I found
a still, and wash working in a barrel. There were about
two or three quarts of whisky in a jar. The prisoner
had two coats, two waistcoats, trousers, and shoes. His
hat was lying at one side. There was a small bottle of
whisky in his coat pocket.
Cross-examined—The clothes were off the bed, as if
they had been thrown on one side by some one getting
up. There was a hand-brush lying near the deceased.
It was about a yard off. It appeared to have been worn
a little. There was some blood on it. It was lying
among the blood.
Ralph Little, inspector of police, gave similar testi-
mony to that of the last witness. A towel, some pieces
of soap, and other articles were found on the prisoner.
The prisoner came to his senses at four o'clock in the
afternoon. He looked at me and said, " Little, I know
you, take my defence now." We were raising him up
to keep him from sleeping, and he said, " Let me lie,
for my days are numbered." I found a key hanging on
a nail inside the door, which opens the lock. The day
after I examined the prisoner's dress. He had his top
coat on. There was vomit on it, and apparently marks
of blood. I took his shirt off. There was a good deal
of blood on the left wrist. _

Ann Sutherland—l lived at Oakwell-gate, in Gates-
head, at the time of this occurrence. The deceased was
my mother's sister. On the 14th March she and the
prisoner lived in Bradford-street. I was at the house
about seven o'clock in the evening of the 13th. When I
knocked my aunt came to the door. I went into the
kitchen in the front room. I found no one in the room
but my aunt. I asked if she had heard any word about
her husband. She said yes, she had heard he was in
the town. She said he was in the closet, and she told
him to come out. He came out and shook hands with
me. He said something about forgiving, but Ido not
know to whom he applied the word. She upbraided him
about selling a waistcoat and a pair of shoes. I told her
not to mind, he would get his waistcoat back again. He
said he would. She said it would be like all the rest of
his gettings. He said he had got 3s. for it, and had
made a bargain to get it back again for the same money.
He said if she would give him 6s. hetwould go out and
not come back again that night. Shß,said if she gave it
she would only drink i‘.4ttd come i her again. She
said, " You know wliSt you mad, . e swear upon the
Bible to-day; ;what' -3* was goi ~to do to me." I
a asked her wll'atit waVhe said she' ould not tell me
what it was. "She sar -he could no ll me or any one
what it was,*tit she 'glad I h ome to see her
living. She then drew her hand onct or twice across
, her throat. He then asked hereto leg,im stop till six in
1 the morning, and then he would go to Gateshead and
look for work, and not trouble her any more. I asked
her to let him stop. He came round the table, took me
by both the hands, and going on his knees, said, God
would bless me if was a mediater of peace that night.
He said he had a blister on his foot, and asked me to feel
it, but I said, " Oh, yes," as I wished her to let him stop.
I then went out, and bid them good night. I came the
next morning a little after eight. I rapped at the door
several times, and called out. The prisoner ran up the
steps to the door and said, " Who are you ?" I asked
for my aunt, and he said she had gone out to Gobbys, a
woman called Richardson. He said she had got the key
with her. I told him to tell my aunt I had been there,
and would come back again. He said, " Yes, yes," quick,
in his usual way. He went down the stairs steadily, for
I listened at the door. I went to Mrs. Richardson, and
my aunt was not there. I went back to my aunt's about
eleven. I went to the door and it was fast. I rapped,
and received no answer. I went to Mrs. Ormiston's and
asked for my aunt. I borrowed a key from Mary Or-
miston, and opened the door. I went down the stairs.
I saw my aunt lying on the floor with her hand stretched
out, and I ran off directly to Mrs. Ormiston's and fell at
their door. _ . _

Edward Latimer proved that the window was fastened
in the inside.

Mr. WiLiuNs addressed the jury for the defence, con-
tending that the facts of the case showed that this was in
all human possibility a caso not of murder, but of man-
slaughter. He could not deny that this unfortunate
woman had come by her death at the hand of the pri-
soner at the bar ; but if they should think that the un-
fortunate blow was struck by the man without premedi-
tation in the course of the scuffle provoked by her, in
which she was the assailant, and in the course of which
she had by her taunts continued to irritate him to mad-
ness, it would be manslaughter only. He submitted
that all the facts bore out this view of the case. His
conduct as contrasted with her's the evening before—the
time at which the unfortunate woman came by her death
—the instrument which had been employed, and which,
as the counsel for the prosecution had stated, the pri-
soner was in the daily habit of using about that hour—
the hand brush lying on the ground near the hand of
the deceased, all tended to show that the husband had in
the morning been again assailed with violence and abuse
at a time when he had the razor in his hand, and that in
a moment of passion, arising from this violence, the
fatal blow was struck, which deprived the unfortunate
woman of her life.
His LORDSHIP summed up. The rule of law was that
when one person was wilfully the cause of the death of ano-
ther, he was prima facie chargeable with murder. If, how-
ever, the death arises from a blow struck in a conflict com-
menced without any such intention, and where the party
inflicting the blow has been the object of personal violence,
in some cases it may be manslaughter. It is, not, how.
ever, every amount of assault which would reduce the
crime to manslaughter. An attack of a grievous cha-
racter, followed by instant retaliation, producing death,
would frequently be of this kind, but in every case the
nature of the attack, if any, and the nature of the re-
taliation must be taken into consideration. The offence
would still be murder, if a slight attack were resented
with a murderous weapon, such as would probably, in
the knowledge of the party using it, produce death. No
mere words would be sufficient provocation ; but, if there
was any conflict whatever, the language accompanying
it, if of a highly irritating character, and such as would
naturally excite a man's anger as much as the most
grievous assault, might very properly be taken into con-
sideration. The great question which they had now to
consider was, whether they were satisfied that anything
occurred on that morning which would bring the present
case within the scope of the principles so laid down, and
reduce the offence from the higher to, the lower class.
His Lordship then went through the evidence with great
care and minuteness. _ _ _

Cross-examined—l never heard him upbraid her with
making whisky. The night before they had some words,
and she took up her clothes and slapped a part of her
person. I told her I did not like to see conduct of that
kind, and I would not stop to witness it. My aunt was
quick tempered. He did not say anything about my
stopping all night. When I went in the evening the
door was locked. My aunt locked it again. I saw no
whisky. She said she had given him the last threepence
to get him a glass. My aunt had no other residence at
this time. I had no quarrel with the prisoner but once,
a long time ago.
Agnes Little—l live in Blandford-street, about twenty
yards from the house of the deceased. I saw the last
witness about eleven o'clock at Mr. Ormiston's back door.
I ran down the stairs into the prisoner's house. I saw
the deceased lying on her right side, with her throat
cut. The prisoner was lying on his face with his great
coat on. His hat bad fallen off. I knew the deceased
only to speak to Mary Ormiston. Gave an account of
the room similar to that given by the last witness. The
deceased used to come for milk to the house of witness's
mother, usually between seven and eight. She did not
come that morning.
John Ormiston, brother to the last witness, stated that
the prisoner and deceased rented the room they occupied
from his father; they had been there two years and a
half. I heard the alarm on the morning of the 14th.
I ran down stairs, and the first thing I saw was the de-
ceased. Her throat was cut on the left side, and her
head lying over to the other side. There was a great
deal of blood where she lay. I saw no blood anywhere
else. About eight days after I found in a drawer a
piece of soap all bloody. The prisoner, when I went in,
was lying on his face near the window. There was fire
in the grate. I sent for a policeman. Mr. Carr and
Mr. Taylor came. I remained there till about three
o'clock in the evening. There was only one window
in each of the apartments, that in the front room looking
into the street. The receipts for rent were given in
the name of King. She was known by several names,
usually Nannie.
William Carr, surgeon—On till 14th of last March I
went with the last witness to see the body of the de-
ceased. She was lying on the floor on her back. There
was a wound in the throat five inches in length ; it was
superficial on the right side, but deeper on the left.
It was a transverse wound. This was joined by another
wound from below the chin downwards. Both carotid
arteries and jugular veins were divided. There
was also a very free opening into the windpipe.
The wound had been inflicted from left to right.
Death would be instantaneous. I do not think the de-
ceased could have inflicted the wound herself'. The
wound must have been inflicted as she lay. There was
no blood on any other part of her person. There were
two tranverse wounds over the left jaw bone. A super-
ficial wound below the left eye. On the thumb of the
right hand were two very deep wounds, and on the in-
side of the fingers of the same hand were three super-
ficial ones. The middle finger was not cut. On the
back of the left wrist was also a trifling cut. There ap-
peared to have been a violent struggle. There was a cut
on the gown in front, four inches and a half in length.
It divided the gown, the lining, and a double handker-
chief. There were three cuts on the stays, one on each
side of the busk, and one on the busk itself, dividing the
case in which the busk is lodged. The prisoner, when I
saw him, was lying on the floor, about a yard from the
deceased, on his belly. He was quite insensible, and
appeared to have vomited. I turned him on his back,
and on examining him I concluded he had taken a large
quantity of drink. I sent to
it. We
for a stomach-
pump. Mr. Taylor came with We emptied the sto-
mach of its contents, whisky and water. After a very,
considerable time he recovered. He was not out of dan-
ger till about three o'clock in the afternoon. For some
time at first he sunk, and was almost pulseless. His life
was in very great jeopardy. He would have certainly
died without medical assistance. I saw two razor blades
taken out of the fire. There was a basin in the room
containing water. His hands were
and
see medbltcoo
have
d obseeanp y
recently washed. lexamined
his person on the Saturday, two days after. There were
a few insignificant scratches on the palm of each hand,
and on the back of the ring-finger of the left hand. I
made a post mortcm examination of deceased on the even-

The jury remained in consultation upwards of six
hours, and finally returned a verdict of Guilty of murder.
Sentence was passed on the prisoner in the usual form.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Bodmin, Aug. 1.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN and a
Special Jury.)
SEDUCTION.—KEASH V. HAWKE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a farmer,
residing at Melluish, in this county, against the defend-
ant, to recover compensation for the seduction of his (the
plaintiff's) daughter.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Butt were for the plaintiff, ;
Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Greenwood appeared for the
defendant.

Mr. CROWDER having stated the case to the jury,
called the young lady who had been seduced by the de-
fendant. She stated that her father was a farmer, re-
siding at Melluish; that she had three sisters, two older
than herself, who were living in gentlemen's families,
and one younger, living at home. In 1841 she went to
live with the defendant (who was a widower), in the
capacity of housekeeper. It was her duty to look after
the house generally, and direct the other servants kept
by the defendant. She took her meals with him, and
was present in the parlour when he had company. At
the time that she went there, a young man by the name
of Fowell kept company with her, and used, once now
and then, to come and see her. About three months
after she entered the defendant's service, he commenced
paying attentions to her. He first began by requesting
her to dismiss her suitor, Powell, which she did. He
then grew more bold and warm, and assured her that he
had never seen any one since the death of his wife that
he liked as much as herself, and offered to make her his
wife. She, in reply, made objections, on account of his
family, who, she said, would not be willing, and because
she had no fortune. He said he did not care for that,
for that he had enough for them both. After this his
attentions continued, and she considered herself engaged
to him. She used to sit up with him at night,
after the other servants were gone to bed, and for a time
nothing could be more proper or respectful than his
conduct. She was accustomed to take hot—water
to his room. One morning, when she did this, he be-
haved very rudely to her. He did not, however, succeed
in his wishes, but she got away from him, and went into
her own room, where she sat crying. After a short time
the defendant came in there, asked her to forgive him,
and promised the offence should never be repeated. At
first she said she would not forgive it, but would commu-
nicate the circumstance to her parents ; but the contri-
tion expressed by the defendant altered her purpose, and
she relented. She then went down stairs and made him
his breakfast, after which he left, as he was going out
for the day. For some time after this his conduct was
quite proper, and her confidence in him was revived.
Things went on in this way for more than a month,
when one night she was awakened, about one o'clock, by
finding some one's arm round her neck. It was the de-
fendant. He took the bed. clothes in one hand and
pressed upon her mouth, and, notwithstanding resist-
ance on her part, he succeeded in obtaining possession of
her person. In the morning she was dreadfully dis-
tressed ; but defendant told her not to be so, for that he
would not lose her for all the lands which he possessed.
After this their intimacy continued, and she found her-
self in the family way. This she communicated to the
defendant, who told her that it was not so. She
repeated the same thing to him again, when be re-
quested her to go to a Mr. Moon, a surgeon, and
say she had taken a bad cold, and request him to
give her some medicine, This she did, and had some
medicine, which did her neither harm nor good.
After this defendant wanted her to take something to
get rid of the child, as he said people would jeer them
if she had a child before they were married. She re-
fused to do so. After some time a Mrs. Clements, the
defendant's sister, came to the house. Before this de-
fendant had wished her (the plaintiff's daughter) to
leave, saying that her sister had heard that she was in
the family way, and that she wished to persuade her to
the contrary. She refused to go. Mrs. Clements then
came. By the direction of the defendant she told Mrs.
Clements she was not in the family way, and offered to
go to a surgeon and be examined. Mrs. Clements said
she could not stay there, and she must leave, which she
accordingly did that day. This was in May. On going
home she told her parents what had happened. The
same evening they and herself went to defendant's, and
saw him and Mrs. Clements, his sister. He then denied
that he had ever promised to marry her, and Mrs. Cle-
ments asked her if he (the defendant) had ever done so.
She fearing, if she said he had, that it would set him
against her, said that he had not. Her wages were then
paid, and she and her parents returned to their house.
She afterwards wrote a letter to the defendant, to which
she received no answer. Two more were written with
the like effect. On the 22d of May, 1843, she met him
in a lane riding on a horse and carrying a gun. She de-
sired him to stop, on which he flung up his arms and
called out, "Be off ;" hearing this, she took hold of the
bridle of his horse, on which he struck her arms with
his gun and rode off. Subsequently, on the 17th of
August, she was confined of a female child, the expense
of which was borne by her father, with whom she now
lived, and by whom she had been maintained ever since
she quitted defendant's service.
This witness was then cross-examined at great length
by Mr. Cockburn, for the purpose of showing that she
had kept company with other men. She, however, denied
all this, and, with a very
few slight variations, which
rather told in her favour, stuck to the account she had
given in her examination in chief. In the course of this
cross-examination, it came out that after the child had
been born, she had met the defendant, and that she bad
then supplicated him to make provision for her child.
He was riding on horseback, and refusing to hear her,
curvetted the horse about, the animal being a very
vicious creature. She had her child in her right arm,
and a small stick in her left hand, which she flung at
the horse to keep him from her child. The defendant
immediately summoned her before some magistrate in
the neighbourhood, swore he was afraid she would do
him some bodily harm, and she was thereupon com-
pelled to enter into her recognizance to keep the peace
towards him.

THE SUN, LONDON,_ VIOVDAY EVEN'IN'G. ATIGITST 5, IM4.

In the sind a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with
damages 751.
Mr. Justice Wightman after this tOet the several
criminal cases that remained for trial, by which the busi-
ness was got through to-day.
CROWN SIDE.—FRIDAY.
MURDER.—EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—lllatthew TVeeks
was iridicted foe the efilful murder of Charlotte Dimond,
on the 14th of April last, by cutting her throats
It is impossible to describe the excitement oecasioned
by this trial. At an early hour the court-yard was
crowded with persons who appeared to have come from
all parts of the county, and during the day the Court
was completely crammed.
Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Oxenham, and Mr. Rowe con-
ducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Slade de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner and Charlotte Dimond
were fellow-servants in the house of a Mr. Peters, a small
farmer, residing at Penhale. Charlotte Dimond was a
young woman 18 years of age, an illegitimate child with
" but few friends ;" but she and the prisoner had for
some time kept company, as it is called in this county :
the girl, however, it would seem, was pleased with ad-
miration, and was not insensible to the attentions of
others, and a person of the name of Prout had been
favoured by her. On the morning of Sunday, the 14th
of April last, Prout called at the house of Mrs. Peters,
and saw Charlotte, and appointed to meet her that even-
ing at chapel. The prisoner and the deceased came
down stairs together that morning. Mrs. Peters asked
her where she was going : she at first made no answer,
but then said she should not be at home at milking time,
but that Matty (the prisoner) would milk her share of
the cows. She and the prisoner then went away toge-
ther. She was dressed in a dark green striped gown
and red diamond shawl, and a dark brown silk bonnet,
with light ribands, and had pattens ; and she had a
black silk bag, trimmed with lace, on her arm, and wore
cotton gloves. The prisoner had on a dark velvet frock
coat, grey trousers, and his best boots. It was dirty,
rainy weather. The prisoner came home alone, about
half-past nine o'clock in the evening ; but the girl
never came back again. Mrs. Peters asked him
where Charlotte was ? He said he did not know.
He then had his supper, pulled off his boots, and
went to bed. The next morning Mrs. Peters again
asked him where Charlotte was, and he again re-
plied he did not know. She went up into his room and
found his best stockings dirty up to the garterings. She
asked him how they got so dirty. He said the weather
and roads were dirty. She said, " Where is Charlotte ?
as you went away together, where did you go ?" He
said he went no further with her than Higherdown-gate,
and he believed she went on the moor, and he went to a
village about two miles off, and called on two families of
the name of 'Westlake ; but that they were not at home.
On Tuesday Mrs. Peters said, " Matty, you must know
where Charlotte is, and if you don't tell me, I'll go to a
magistrate before I sleep." He then said, "To tell you
the truth, she's gone- to Blissland, as Mrs. Langstone
has got an easier place than yours." Mrs. Peters told
him it was his fault, as she had never given her any
offence, and she asked him how she could have got
there after four o'clock. He said she was going to Mrs.
Spiers the first night. Mrs. Peters said to him, "You
jealous thing : it was your work to put away the maid ;
and men be as plenty down there as they be at home with
we." On the Wednesday morning she again spoke to him
about Charlotte ; he said, she had a letter from Mrs.
Langstone to go to Blissland. On the Friday the butcher
came there to kill a pig. The prisoner asked to be
allowed to kill it. He took a knife and put it to the
throat of the pig ; but then he stopped, and said some-
thing had given him a turn. He then took another
knife, and plunged it violently into the pig. During the
week many persons had spoken to the prisoner about
the girl ; but he said he had parted with her at Higher-
down-gate. He was then told that persons had seen
him on the moor ; but he said they could not swear to
him, as they had not spoken to him. On the Saturday
evening Mrs. Peters said to him, " Matty, what's the
talk about Charlotte—l hope it is not true ?" He did
not speak, but went to another part of the kitchen. She
then said, " Matty, I'm quite frightened; and, if you
have hurt the girl, you ought to be hanged in chains."
He did not answer. Her son and other servant then
went to bed. She said to the prisoner, " Matty, you
stop, I want to talk with you. I'm very much hurt
about this talk." He made no answer, but went off to
bed. The next morning (Sunday) he went out as usual
to attend the cows in his everyday dress. He saw Mrs.
Peters having a conversation with he; son and another
person, and he saw them go from home. iii then went
up stairs, dressed himself in his Sunday clothe:, and
came down stairs, having his umbrella in his hand,
althouge it was a very fine day. Mrs. Peters said to him,
" I hope you'll be back to dinner." He said he would.
He then went away, but did not return. He had been
in the habit of keeping Charlotte's best clothes in his
box; but a green gauze handkerchief was not with them,
and therefore she must have had that with her when
she went out on the Sunday, and this was found in
the prisoner's velvet jacket pocket after he had left the
house. Suspicion now had become very rife, and in-
quiries were made, and it was found that the girl had
never been seen since she was in the company of the
prisoner. A person of the name of Corry had. seen the
prisoner and a young woman in a dark dress go into the
moor on the Sunday afternoon. The prisoner limped
very much in his walk. He watched them for about a
quarter of an hour. Richard Pethick, a farmer, who was
on the moor between five and six o'clock on the Sunday
afternoon, saw a man and woman coming towards the
Roughter-ford. They came within 300 yards of him,
and then returned and went another way. He after-
wards returned and saw them again, they were thirty-
nine yards from him. He could distinguish tho man's
features and he limped. They appeared to bo loitering.
Sometimes they were close together, and sometimes she
' walked away from him. The woman had on a dark
dress. He watched them for an hour, and was sure the
prisoner was the man. They were about 100 yards from
Boughter-ford. A person of the name of Garel, a local
preacher, was coming across the moor, and saw a man
and woman loitering near the ford; they had both dark
clothes on. This information having been received,
foul play was more than suspected, and it was deter-
mined that the moor should be searched. Accordingly
parties went out in different directions, for that pur-
pose. They soon found some marks of pattens and the
impression of a man's shoe. They traced these a con-
siderable way across the moor until they lost the patten
marks. They, however, proceeded on their way until
they came to Roughter-ford, where in a wild spot, on
this desolate moor, along way from any human habita-
tion, in an old watercourse, they found the body of the
poor girl lying on its back with the throat cut in the
most frightful manner, the wound extending from the
back of the neck under the left ear round to the right
ear. The carotid artery and windpipe were com-
pletely divided. Indeed, the head was all but cut off.
A portion of the clothes was gone. There was no bon-
net, shawl, pattens, or shoes. Further search was then
made, and about half-a-mile off, in a turf-pit, covered
over, the parties found her shawl, bonnet, pattens, and
shoes. It was now evident that the poor girl had
come to ber death by violent means ; and inquiries
were made about the prisoner. He had not returned ;
but it was found that he had called at a house many
miles off, on the road to Plymouth, on the Sunday
when he left Mrs. Peters, and he had there shown a
black silk bag, which corresponded exactly with the
one Charlotte Dimond had on the 14th of April. He
was then traced to Plymouth, and was found walking
with his brother and sister on the lloe there. He was
taken into custody ; and in his pockets were found the
gloves which Charlottee had worn on the last day she
was seen alive. The prisoner's boots were compared
with the tracks on the moor, and particularly with one
adjoining the spot where the clothes were found, and
they corresponded exactly. The girl's necklace was
found on a bank close to the body. No blood was found
on the prisoner's clothes.
On the part of the prisoner it was urged that it was
impossible but the person who committed the murder
must have been covered with blood, whereas there was
not any on the clothes of the prisoner.
Mr. Justice Parresost summed up in the most careful
manner and with the strictest impartiality, telling the
jury that it was the duty of the Judge to lay down the
law, and for the jury to decide upon the facts in ac-
cordance with that law, without any consideration as to
the punishment or the consequences that would follow
from the verdict they might give. That verdict in this
case, he was sure, would be a conf;cientious one, and one
that would do justice between the prisoner and the
public.
The jury retired for about half an hour, and the fore-
man then said, "We are of opinion that the prisoner is
Guilty."
The Learned JUDGE then put on the black cap and
passed sentence of death upon the prisoner, assuring
him that no mercy could be extended to him in this

world.
The prisoner throughout the trial, which lasted from
nine o'clock in the morning till ten at night, never be-
trayed the slightest change in his demeanour until the
Judge directed his body to be buried within the pre-
cincts of the prison, when he fell back,'apparently in a
fainting state, and was carried from the dock. lie is
only twenty-two years of age.

OXFORD ClRCUfT.—Stafibrd, Aug 2.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY.)
MURDER.— Win. Beard, 35, was indicted for the wil-
ful murder of Ann Griffiths,. at the parish of Wednes-
bury, on the 16th of March /last.

The trial began at nine o'clock in the morning, and
lasted till the adjournment ,of the Court at half-past
seven o'clock in the evening, when the case for the pro-
secution had not closed.

August 3.
The trial of William Beard for the murder of Ann
Griffiths, at Wednesbury, was resumed this morning at
nine o'clock, and lasted till half-past six o'clock in the
evening, when the jury retired to consider their verdict,
which has not yet been returned.
Mr. Yardley and Mr. Huddleston appeared as counsel
for the prosecution, and the prisoner's defence was con-
ducted by Mr. Allen and Mr. Spooner.
The deceased Ann Griffiths lived at Wednesbury in
the capacity of housekeeper to a gentleman named
Crowthez, reputed in the nei ghbourhood to be a person
of considerable wealth, and, as he himself admitted, a
man who is " above the frowns of the world." The pri-
soner had lived in Mr. Crowher's service from Decem-
ber, 1841, till September, 1842, and during the time that
he was in his employ he used to go regularly on Wednes-
days and Saturdays with " slack" to some works belong-
ing to Mr. Crowther, whose habit it was on Saturdays to
leave home about ten o'clock, for the purpose of going to
the pits and paying his men. On the morning of Satur-
day, the 16th of March last, Mr. Crowther's servant
left the house, about ten minutes past nine o'clock, for the
purpose of drawing slack to his master's colliery, and in
about 20 minutes afterwards Mr. Crowther himself went
out, leaving Ann Griffiths alone in the house, and pro-
ceeded to his pits. About a quarter past 10 o'clock a
master named Emery, whose malthouse is about 50
yards from the wall adjoining Mr. Crowther's brew-