The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-25 00:00:00

DATE AND ANOTHER V. BLURTON AND ANOTHER.

This was an action on a promissory note for 500/, brought
against the executors of one Patience Clarke, deceased, to
which the defendants pleaded that the said Patience Clarke
did not make the note in question.
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Bate and Robins, carry on business
in partnership as bankers at Stourbridge, where the deceased,
Mrs. Patience Clarke, who died in December, 1842, also re-
sided before death. She, it appeared, formerly kept a public
house, and being a woman well acquainted with business,
managed to accumulate some little preperty, amounting to
about 3,0001. Her family consisted of two sons and a daugh-
ter, and in 1836 her daughter, whose maiden name was also
Patience Clarke, was married to a person named Morris, then
established in business as a grocer at Stourbridge. At the
time of the marriage Mrs. Clarke had a deposit account of
1,000/. with the plaintiff's, and she told her daughter that she
had desired the people at the bank not to lot her husband
stand still for want of money, but to let him have anything
in reason. The business of Morris, backed by his mother-
in-law's capital, went on pretty well for some time, but in
1342 he fell into difficulties, and in the month of July in that
year his account with the plaintiffs was overdrawn to the
extent of 450/. In the interval which elapsed between July,
1842, and the time when her daughter married Morris, Mrs.
Clarke had withdrawn her 1,0001. placed with the plaintiffs
on a deposit account, and had advanced 500/. to each of
her two sons, Richard and Joseph ; the bank, there-
fore, required security for the payment of the balance
overdrawn by Morris, and Mrs. Morris, as she repre-
sented, went to her mother with a joint and several pro-
missory note for 5004 already signed by her husbaud,
in her pocket. She told her mother that the bank required
security, upon which the old lady told Mrs. Morris to sign
it for her, which the daughter accordingly did, signing
Patience Clarke," in a free and flowing hand. The note
thus signed was taken to the bank, but there it was ob-
jected that the signature was not made by Mrs. Clarke
herself, and Mrs. Morris was desired to'take it back, and get
it signed by her mother. Mrs. Morris accordingly did take
itbaek, and her account of the matter was, that when she
explained to' her mother what had occurred at the bank,
_Mr.% Clarke desired her to sign again for her, saying it would
do just as well. Mrs. Morris, therefore, affixed a second sig.-
nature to the note, but this time she wrote ".P. Clarke," in
a cramped and laboured hand, in order, as she herself ad-
mitted, to induce the plaintiff to believe that the note was
really signed. by her mother. As has been already stated,
Mrs. Clarke died in December, 1842, and in March, 1843,
the embarrassments into which Morris had fallen had become
so formidable, that his professional advisers judged it most
expedient that -he should make an assignment of all his
effects for the benefit of his creditors. Mr. Robins, as a cre-
ditor
who was supposed to be very largely involved, was in-
formed of the arrangement which was about to take place,
upon which he came to Morris's hOuse, and remarked to
Richard Clarke, the brother of Mrs. Morris, that he presumed
he was aware that he held a note of Mrs. Clarke's for 500/.
At this annonncement Clarke professed great astonishment,
and, according to the statement which Clarke himself, and
an attorney named Talbot, who was present at the time,
made, Mr:Robins then inquired of -Mrs. Morris why she had
not told her brother of the 5001. note, her brother having
assisted her husband in his difficulties. To this Mrs. Morris.
replied that she did not think Mr. Robins had wished him
to know it, upon which Mr. Robins said she was a wicked
woman, and left the house. When he was gone, Mrs. Morris
turned to her brother and said; " That the note was good
for nothing, and that Robins should not have a farthing ;
that she signed the name of her mother at full length,
• Patience Clarke,' without her authority, and that when the
note was refused, she took it home, and had it signed by an
old charwoman."

His LORDSIIIP summed up the evidence with great minute-
ness, leaving it to the jury to say to which of the witnesses
they would give credit.
The jury found for the plaintiffs, with 512/. 10s. damages.
The cases tried in the Crown Court to-day were devoid of
general interest.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Cambridge, July 22.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
John Garland, aged 65, was indicted for feloniously killing
Marv, the wife of John Dent.
Mr. Prendergast conducted the prosecution, Mr. O'Malley
the defence.

The deceased was the wife of a man living at Littleport, in
the Isle of Ely, and the prisoner has for upwards of 30 years
practised as a surgeon in that town. On the 22d of May last
the decased had, by imprudently lifting or dragging a heavy
sack of flour, brought on symptoms of miscarriage, and the
prisoner was sent for to attend her. He arrived as soon as
possible, and proceeded to administer the treatment he
thought necessary, in the course of which he removed a por-
tionpf the intestines of his patient, which had probably been
displaced by the exertion which had brought on the illness
which rendered it necessary to send for him. She was in
great pain, and another medical man was sent for, on whose
arrival it was found necessary wholly to remove the displaced
portion of the intestines. She continued to get worse, and,
notwithstanding the judicious treatment of two or three emi-
nent surgeons who were called in, she died at the end of
seventeen days. The surgeons who attended the post modem
examination of the body were of opinion that she died
from the effects of the prisoner's treatment, and that he had
shown gross ignorance in that treatment.

Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, in summing up the evidence, stated
that the law as applicable to this case was very clear; and
applying that law to the circumstances as they had been
proved, the jury would say whether or not the prisoner was
guilty of the crime of manslaughter. Every person, whether
he be a regularly licensed medical man or not, who professes
to deal with the life or health of his fellow-creatures, is bound
to bring to the case with which he deals a competent degree
of skill; and he is also bound to treat his patient with care
and attention. If he shows gross ignorance, culpable rash-
ness, or criminal inattention in the treatment of his patient,
and death ensues in consequence, he is guilty of the crime of
manslaughter. He may have no evil intention, he may in-
deed bring to the case the most earnest desire to effect the
cure of his patient; but still, if he is guilty of criminal mis-
conduct arising either from gross negligence, or ignorance, or
unjustifiable inattention, he is criminally responsible. One
or other of these it was necessary for the prosecutor to make
out,- in order to constitute that criminal misconduct which
renders a man responsible if death occurs. The learned Judge
read the evidence verbatim to the jury, and desired them to
consider whether in the treatment of his patient, as proved
by Mrs. Banvard, the prisoner had shown a gross and cul-
pable want of knowledge, care, or attention, and that her
death was caused thereby. If they were of opinion that he
had, he was guilty of the crime with which he was charged ;
if otherwise, he was entitled to an acquittal.
The jury, after some deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, in sentencing the prisoner, who was
deeply affected at his position, observed, that be should be
sorry if the proceedings in this case should tend to place
medical men in any danger, or induce them to abstain from
the fair application of their talents in the exercise of the
arduous and anxious duties of their profession. They were
not to expect a favourable result in every case ; medical
science could never attain that. The consequences of this
trial would seriously affect the prisoner's interests through
life ; and looking to that circumstance, the absence of every-
thing like towards his patient, and his advanced age,
when a long imprisonment must he attended by the most
prejudicial effects, the Court was induced to pass on him the
mitigated sentence, that he be imprisoned for one calendar
month.

l'anny Rutherford was indicted for feloniously setting fire
to an outhouse.

The prisoner is a child of the age of 15 years, and the out-
house which was burnt (together with the cottages of five
poor persons) adjoined the house of her father. The case
was made out by very satisfactory evidence, but no motive
could be assigned for the commission of the crime.
She was found Guilty, and sentenced to be transported for
15 years.
Igo civil cause was tried to-day, and the other cases in the
CroNin Court were of the most trivial character. The grand
jury threw out one bill for arson, in which five persons were
accused, and two ethers were acquitted on an uninteresting
point of law.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lincoln, July 22.
The Judges arrived in this city on Saturday, at half-past
five, and proceeded to open the commission for both city and
county. In the former there was neither cause nor prisoner.
In the county there are but nine causes and thirty-one pri-
soners, but though the number of the latter is not great, yet
the crimes with which they are charged are of a deep dye,
there being four for murder, one charged with intent to mur-
der, one for rape, several for burglary, three for highway rob-
ber y &c.
' CRIMINAL: COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CovratAN.).

Eliza Joyce, aged 31, was placed at the bar charged withhaving, in the October of 1841, at Boston, feloniously admi-
nistered a certain poison called laudanum to one Emma Joyce,
with intent to kill and murder her ; a second indictment
charged her with the commission of a like offence in the
January of 1842, on the body of Ann Joyce.
The prisoner was tried at the last spring assizes holden for
this county, for having murdered one of the children of her
•husband, by his first wife, when, owing to some defect in the
proof; she was liberated. Her husband, however, felt per-
suaded of her guilt,.and refused to live with her. Provision
was made for her in the Boston union, and it was during the
continuance of a violent fit of illness with which she was
attacked that she made the confession upon which she was
arraigned, namely, that she had murdered the two children
mentioned in the indictment by means of laudanum, the
eldest, which was three years old, being the daughter of her
husband by a fermer,wife, the other a child eighteen months
old being her own. The appearance of the prisoner, in deep
mourning, as she stepped into the dock, created a thrill of
horror in the Court. She was evidently ill both in body and '