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

G, JULY 2B, 1845.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTERN CIRCUIT—Exeter, July 24.
(CROWN COURT.)
TRIAL OF THE MURDERERS OF THE CREW OF
THE WASP.
This being the day appointed for the trial of the prisoners
charged with piracy and murder on the high seas, the greatest
excitement prevailed, and euriosity was wound up to the
highest pitch to get a sight of the prisoners. The outer court
gates were kept closed, in order to prevent too great a rush
into the castle avenues ; and the upper part of Castle-street
was densely crowded with persons, many of them respentably
attired females, desirous to obtain admission. In the interior
of the Castle additional barriers were erected in the part de-
voted to the public, to prevent too great a rush of persons ;
and, for the accommodation of the reporters of the public
press, an additional temporary desk was erected.
The prisoners were thus described in the calendar :—Fran-
cisco Fereira de Santa Servo, aged 39,able to read and write well ;
Janees Majaval, aged 22, imperfect education ; Manuel Josi
Alves, aged 23, imperfect education ; Florenco Ribeiro, aged
30, imperfect education ; Juan Francisco, aged 35, no edu-
cation ; Jozi Mari Martinos, aged 33, imperfect education ;
Antonio Joaquim, aged 25, no education ; Sebastian de San-
tos, aged 26, imperfect education ; Manvil Antonio, aged 22,
no education; and Joze Antonio, aged IS, no education. The
charge against them was for having, on the 3d day of March
last, on the high seas off Lagos, in the Bay of Benin, on the
west coast of Africa, wilfully murdered Thomas Palmer, mid-
shipman of her ajesty's ship Wasp, and James Mullins,
George Goddin, Thomas Barfoot, James Mitchell, Thomas
Gould, James Beynon, and Edward Marshall, able and ordi-
nary seamen of the same ship. They were further charged with
piracy on the high seas.
Majavil, the alleged and actual murderer of Mr. Palmer, was
placed next the jury. Though cook of the vessel, he had
rather a romantic air, and was decidedly the most prepossessing
man of the party—he might have passed for an every-day copy
of one of Byron's sea ruffian heroes. Next to him stood Serva,
the projector of the bloody tragedy, according to the testimony
of Cuqueira. Majaval had on him the attire of his vessel.
Serva's doubloons had enabled him to array himself in English
clothing. A new black coat, a clean white shirt, and superior
new clothing generally, marked his station as skipper of the
gang, even in the dock. There was something inexpressibly
sinister in his countenance, especially when he turned down his
face and appeared to be endeavouring to look placid and re-
signed to those evils which good men in this world are doomed
to encounter. If scoundrel and hypocrite, ruffian and sneak,
were not written in his visage, foul passions and foul feelings
were never yet depicted in the human face divine.
The other prisoners were a motley group—more or less
tanned by the African sun, or skin-dyed by the African blood
which, not unmingled with European, flowed in their veins.
They were roughly clad in wild sailor fashin—wild anti lawless
enough of aspect; but their countenances did not betray that
ferocity which might have been expected from their bloody
outburst.
At nine o'clock precisely Mr. Baron PLATT entered the
Court, and the proceedings immediately commenced. The pri-
soners were then placed at the bar.
The case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr. Godson,
Q. C., Mr. Cockburn, Q. C., Mr. A. Heyward, Q. C, and
Mr. Poulden ; attorney, Mr. Eastlake, solicitor to the Ad-
miralty, Plymouth.
The defence was conducted by Mr. Sergeant Manning and
Mr. Collier ; attorney, Mr. Edmonds, of Plymouth.
About a quarter to nine the counsel and attorneys engaged
in the case entered the Court, and about the same time J. C.
Sercombe, Esq., the Spanish Consul for this city, and F.
Hirtzel, Esq., the Portuguese Consul, Captain Martin, of Ply-
mouth, who was to act as interpreter for the prisoners—followed
by Mr. Bellamy, of Plymouth, clerk in the mercantile house of
Fox, Sons, and Co., of Plymouth, who appeared to act as inter-
preter to the Crown. It was expected that one or both of the
Consuls-General for Spain and Portugal would have come from
London to be present ; but neither of them was in Court.
Copies of the jury panel were handed to the attorneys for the
prosecution and defence, by Mr. Horne, that they might be
prepared to challenge when the jury came to be sworn.
Mr. Serjeant IVAN/sirs° demanded a mixed jury on behalf
of the prisoners, for which the Under .sheriff had made provi-
sion, by summoning the various foreign residents of the neigh-
bourhood.
Mr. Bellamy was now sworn as interpreter for the Crown.
The Clerk of the Arraigns—Now, interpreter, tell them that
they stand indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Palmer,
on the high seas, on board a vessel called the Felicidade, on the
2d of March last, by Janees Majaval striking him and stabbing
him with a knife, giving him a mortal wound upon the belly;
that the other prisoners ( who were named) were present at the
time. The second count charged them with causing his death
by drowning.
The charge against the prisoners was interpreted to them as
it was read by Mr. Horne. On the first count being read and
interpreted, Mr. Horne inquired if that was sufficient ; but Mr.
Sergeant Manning, for the prisoners, required that the second
count should be gone through, which was formally done.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING—Before these prisoners plead to
this indictment, it is necessary for me to say, your Lordship,
that I consider the indictment is bad in point of form, and that,
under advice, they have demurred to the indictment.
The JUDGE-DO the counsel for the prosecution join in the
demurrer ? These having replied in the negative,
Tiie JunGE—The proper time to take the objection would
have been after conviction ; but, in this case, you must take it
before the plea.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING then cited a case from 3 Carrington
and Payne's Reports, p. 425, to show the course of proceeding.
In the case he cited—it being questioned whether a particular
count in an indictment for felony was not bad, upon demurrer
upon an objection, the Learned Judge, in the case referred to,
directed, to save the public time, that the case should be pro-
ceeded with, and, in the case of conviction, the prisoner shouid
have the benefit of arguing the point afterwards.
The JUDGE—For what purpose do you cite this, Sergeant
Manning? You have already demurred. lam ready to hear
Your argument ; I do not want a case to tell me that I should
do so.

Mr. Sergeant MANNING—Very well, my Lord. The ob-
jection is this. The verdict states--." That the prisoners, with
force and arms, upon the high seas, in and upon one Thomas
Palmer, in the peace of God and our Lady the Queen, then
being in a certain vesrel, known as the Felicidade, did feloni-
ously and wilfully make an assault." Now, this being a statu-
table offence, I submit that this indictment should have con-
cluded contra formam statutis.
The JUDGE—What is the statute that makes murder upon
the high seas a statutable offence ?
Mr. Sergeant MANNING—The statute of Henry VIII.
The JUDGE—The statute of Henry VIII. 1 They used to
treat murder as a statutable offence before tho ♦;,.. of
I/or.y-

Mr. Sergeant MANNING—Yes, but it was cogni,ebie 1,7 th.
Civil Court prior to that; and not now being a cognisable
offence at common law, it is incumbent on the prosecutor to
allege that this offence was committed against the form of the
statute.

Mr. COLLIER—The definition, my Lord, is that the offence
is committed in some county in this realm, in rerum natures
within the peace. Then, not being committed in any county,
it is clear that if it is cognisable it is cognisable by some statute;
and if by any statute, it is necessary to aver that the offence was
against the statute.
The JuncE—lt appears to me that this crime of murder
upon the high seas was cognisable by the Lord High Admiral
before the statute of Henry VIII. The statute of Henry
VIII. was passed for the purpose of amending the law, and
declaring that the mode of trial should be according to the
common law of this realm, by which means, those who were
to be tried should be entitled to a jury. Since that time an
Act of Parliament has been passed for the purpose of directing
where the Lord High Admiral should hold his sessions. The
trial is, therefore, to be taken before a jury. The crime re-
mains the same, and is not touched by any statute.
The interpreter now put the question to Majaval.
Interpreter—He says he is not guilty of anything of the
kind.

The fourth prisoner said that the magistrates and the bench
must decide whether he was guilty or not.
Clerk of Arraigns—Tell him he must answer.
Mr. COLLIER (prisoner's counsel)—This interpreter speaks
Spanish—they don't understand him, for they are Portuguese.
The interpreter told them all to rise, and they did so. He
said, " You see, my Lord, they all understand me."
JUDGE—They do not make any difficulty about it.
All the prisoners now pleaded Not Guilty.
The following were now called on the
PETTY JURY—Richard Veale, James Gill, William New-
ton, tun., Henry Manley, Thomas Tout, William Rendle. Fo-
reigners—Francis Duval, Francis Adolphe Aleschisker, Joseph
Viviani, Paul Courti, Anselm Speigelhader, Matthias Brown.
They were then severally sworn to try the prisoners on the
charge for the mstrder of Thomas Palmer, Janees Majaval, as
principal, and the others aiding and abetting.
Jar. Godson addressed the jury for the prosecution.
The same witnesses who were examined at Plymouth were
then called, and repeated the evidence which they gave on that
occasion, and which has recently appeared in exteoso in the co-
lutnns of The Sun. The trial *lasted over the whole of Thurs-
day and Friday.
The Counsel for the prisoners having severally addressed the
jury—
'fhe Learned JUDGE summed up. He commenced by
stating that the ten prisoners stood charged with a very
heinous offence, and which required their patient attention.
He was clearly of opinion the prisoners must be treated as
Brazilians, because sailing under the Brazilian flag; if this was
not the case, then an American crew might navigate a Brazilian
slaver, and carry on in her that trade which had been de-
clared piracy, and be irresponsible. The Felicitade was a
piratical vessel, and liable to be boarded by her Majesty's
cruisers, and the crew treated as pirates. The vessel having
been so taken, ceased to be a Brazilian vessel, and must be
considered as one of the boats of the Wasp. As such she had
taken another vessel, the Echo, as a piratical vessel, and he was
bound to tell them that that too was a legal capture, and the
captors were legally on hoard of her, and within the
peace of the Queen. The vessel was then the do-
minion of her Majesty, and if during that period any English-
man had murdered a foreigner on board of her, he would be
liable to be hanged, according to the EnOish laws. His Lord-
ship concluded a very impressive charge, which lased upwards
of two hours, by solemnly imploring the jury to do their duty,
however painful it might be, and regardless of the consequence.
They held the scales of justice, in a matter of life and death,
and they must exercise it calmly and dispassionately.
The jury, after a short consultation, asked to retire. After
an absence of three-quarters of an hour the jury returned, the
prisoners were then brought in, and the Learned Judge having
take, his seat—
The Clerk of Arraigns—Gentlemen of the jury, are you all
agreed in your verdict?
The Foreman—Yes.
Do you find Janees Majaval Guilty or Not Guilty ?
The Foreman—Guilty.
The same question and answer was put and given with re-
spect to Francisco Serva, Maria Jose Alves, Fiorenco Ribeira,
Juan Francisco, Jose Maria Martino., and Antonia Joaquim,
who were all severally Pronounced Guilty. Manuel Antonio,
Joze Antonio, and Sebastian De Santos were each pronounced
Not Guilty ; an intense interest reigned throughout the
Court.

In reply to a question through Sergeant Manning, the Jury
said they convicted on the third count, for drowning, Ste.
The Clerk of the Arraigns—Have you anything to say why
the Court should not award judgment?
Majaval (through the interpreter)—I have nothing to say
more than one thing, that all they have sworn to is false. The
others, with the exception of Jose Francisco and Alves, said
nothing.
The Learned JUDGE then proceeded to pass sentence of
death. You have been all found guilty, after a most careful
trial, by a verdict of the jury—a jury who have exhibited feel-
inga
which do them high honour—who, notwithstanding the
bloody deed out of which this investigation prises, have dealt
with every mercy and considerate attention for you: protection.
They have sifted the evidence and the testimony of the wit-
nesses with that care which their duty called for, and which
have been pre-eminently exhibited upon this melancholy occa-
sion. Although none of you shed a tear for yourselves, they
shed tears over your misfortunes. ( Majay.d shook his head in-
c •edulously. ) They are tears which are honourable to their
Chri.;tian feelings, but this is not a case for tears;
the justice of the Country must be vindicated with
all its severity, although it will extend to you
more time for preparation than you gave to +hose
unfortunate men to meet their end, You were engaged
in sn odious traffic, iennthr;.+l by all the Christian
powers of Euroi.e. You were engaged in bfeaking the law,
which had been passed between your own nation and this coun-
try ; and in order to extricates yourselves from the consequences
of that wicked course, you did not flinch from elding Chris-
-044 Wind. " Wilosq sheddinil TOW. blood, bil an shall 114

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 deinands
that the ministers of justice should visit your offence 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.
Serva 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 CIRCUIT—Nottingham, July 26.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Lord Chief Baron POLLocx-. )
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 toad.
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 MAur.r. )
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 the shop of the
prosecutor was opened by the door being bored by a bracebit,
and property was carried off to the amount of between 401. and
50/. According to the statoment 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 found 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 ClRCUlT.—Durkarn, July 25.
Mr. Baron Rolfe arrived in Durham last evening, and the
assizes have commenced here this day. 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 throwing
boiling 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 for 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 Goule, 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
thin, in the calendar of other counties—that the great mass of
mailers are tnose woo nave reeeiveu no enucatioxf ai an, 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 that 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
Goule, 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 with pistols would ibe 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 he
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 apaears 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 11. 7s. 2d., a knife, and
other articles, his property.
Mr.
defended Fethenwick
prison appe rseared for the prosecution, and Mr. Granger
.
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 Anderson. The three prisoners, with
owthhoe r ss,e
ewme
er ed
a sittinglso
to drinking
biibnedthteo hs
oo
mu see ,
eaxnt de n tth, ea
fpt
er or ssetcauytionrg,
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 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
iiy 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 be
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 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 15 years.

---
Viscount Canning left town on Saturday fbr Panshanger,
Herts, the seat of Earl Cowper.