The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-23 00:00:00

that came on board at Prince's Island did not appear in
ill health. Witness could not say that Samorella
died from too hard work and want of provisions.
Witness examined the body after death. It had a
severe cut on the right hand, front which matter
came some days before Samorella died. The Spa.
niards did as much work as some of the English, and
more than others. Witness told the prisoner, when
they were put on short allowance, that it would be
impossible for the men to work unless they had more
' provisions to which he replied that he'd be d—d if
they should not have less before they had more.
Witness, on another occasion, said that if they
had not had the -Spaniards aboard, and the
crew 'had had their provisions, they would
have done better. Until four days before they
got to Santa Cruz it was not necessary to keep all
hands at the pump day and night. Witness had been
at the helm, and had seen the prisoner there and
Fisher. The vessel did not answer the helm well,
and he had known her go round.
John Gorman, cook on board the Jarrow, gave
similar.evidence to the last. witnesses as to the manner
in which Samorella was treated by the prisoner. He
believed the man died through ill-treatment, severe
flogging, and starvation.
Charles Washington Teacorrie, an American, and
a sailor who was on board the Jarrow, gave similar
testimony. On one occasion he had known the pri-
soner beat Samorella for upWards of a quarter of an
hour with a rope on the feet and legs. Samorella
appeared to be in pretty good health before this time,
but afterwards began to get ill.
This was the case for the prosecution.
(The trial wax proceeding when we went so press.)

NEW COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING TO STAB A POLICEMAN
AT A CHARTIST MEETING.— William Checketts, aged
60, described in the calendar as a sawyer, was in-
dicted for attempting to stab a police constable. There
was another count, charging him with obstructing
the constable in the execution of his duty; and an-
other count, charging him with a common assault.
Mr. Bodkin having stated the case for the prosecu-
tion, called the following witnesses :
Paul Jones—l mu a police constable. I recollect being
on duty on Aug. 22 last, at Bishop's-road, opposite,the
terminus of the Great Western Railway, at about six
o'clock. There was a great mob assembled. There
had been a meeting there. The persons there were
hooting and pelting the police with stones. I
was ordered to disperse the mob in Bishop's-road,
and in so doing I came in contact with the prisoner.
I requested the mob to disperse. A person behind me
pushed me and the prisoner down together. When
we were on the ground the prisoner opened the knife
produced with his left hand, and made a hook at me
with it. He aimed at the lower part of my body,
and said, " I am fighting for my rights ; now you or
I fall." I saw the knife, and instantly rolled myself
away. The knife was within eight or ten inches of
me when he aimed at me. I saw Jilin open it ;he cut
his finger in so doing. The k4fe had been fresh
sharpened. Another policeman then came up, and
the prisoner was taken into custody, and taken to the
station-house. Dunkrey the other policeman, struck
him on his hand with his staff, and took the knife
from him.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—I was di-
rected by the Inspector to disperse the mob in the
hollow. I had a truncheon in my hand. I struck no
blow whatever with it. When the prisoner got up
I did not observe his head bleeding. His hand was
bleeding. When we went to the station-house the
prisoner complained of his head, but I did not look to
see if there was anything the matter with it. When
he was first brought in I looked at his head and could
see nothing the matter with him. His finger was
bleeding. He showed me his finger going along. My
brother constable had his staff out also.
Thomas Dunkrey—l am in the D division of police,
and was on duty in Bishop's-road on the 22d of Aug.
I took the prisoner into custody, and took the knife
from him. He was on the ground, and Jones by the
side of him. I saw him attempt to stab Jones before
.1 took the knife from him. I struck him on the back
of the left hand with my staff, and took the knife from
him. I did not strike him any where else. I struck
him while he was making the thrust.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—I heard him
complain of his head. He said he had received a
blow, but did not know how. I did not examine his
head. When I first saw them on the ground they
were as close as they, could be, lying by the side of
each other. The prisoner had rather the advantage
of the constable.
Mr. BALLANTINE, for the defence, contended
that there was no proof that the prisoner had com-
mitted any act of violence until he came in contact
with the police-constable. It was for the Jury to say
what the nature of that contact was. Could they be-
lieve the policeman had been guilty of the inhumanity
of not looking at the prisoner's head? He (Mr. Bal-
lantine) did not believe it. He believed that they
had ascertained that the man's head had been cut, and
that they would not admit it. He did not believe the
story at all. The police-constable had no business to
come into contact with the old man at all ; and if any
one of the Jury had found himself in a similar posi-
tion to that in which the prisoner was placed, he
would not be an Englishman if he did not defend him-
self. The prisoner had acted solely to relieve him-
self from a gross act of oppression on the part of a
police-constable. By the law of the land, English-
men had a right to meet for free discussion, and as
long as they conducted themselves quietly, no one
had a right to interfere with them. If the prisoner
chose to go among the mob quietly, to see what they
were doing, he had a perfect right to do so. The
story told by the police was a doubtful one ; and
although the prisoner took out his clasp knife, he did
it only to frighten the policeman, and having done so,
did not attempt any further harm. With regard to
the expression said to have been used by the
prisoner, " I am fighting for my rights"—
The RECORDER—I have got it down, lam fighting
for my life.
Mr. BALLANTINE had no doubt but that the Re-
corder had the words down which the prisoner had
actually used. The prisoner was fighting for his life ;
he had acted merely in self-defence, and he trusted the
Jury would acquit him.
Several persons gave the prisoner an excellent chit-
racter as a quiet, steady, orderly man.
The RECORDER in summing up said—There could
be no doubt but that persons had a right to meet
quietly to discuss grievances, but whether pelting
and hooting the police could be called quietly dis-
cussing grievances, was quite another thing. With
regard to the alleged blow on the head, the prisoner
had not called a single witness to prove that he had
received any such blow, and therefore there was no
pretence for alleging that any such blow had been
given. •
The Jury having deliberated a short time, returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
The RECORDER—Do you mean to say that the
prisoner did not commit an assault ?
The Foreman—He did not mean to stab.
The RECORDER—No, but there is another count
charging him with a common assault. Do you think
he opened his knife by accident ? You had better
reconsider your verdict.
Mr. BALLANTINE attempted to interfere.
The RECORDER—I shall not permit you to say.
anything, Mr. Ballantine, until the Jury have consi-
dered their verdict, and I shall not receive the verdict
until I am convinced that the Jury thoroughly under-
stand what they are trying. Gentlemen of the Jury,
recollect that you are sworn todeliver a verdict accord-
ing to the evidence, and that this attempting to stab
or strike in law constitutes an assault, although there
may he no battery. If you disbelieve the evidence
altogether, you will do right to acquit the prisoner.
One of the Jury—l do not believe the evidence.
The Foreman—He committed the assault.
The RECORDER—YOU had better reconsider your
verdict.
The Jury having deliberated some time, turned
round to deliver their verdict.
The Clerk of the Arraigns—Gentlemen, are you
agreed upon your verdict? How say you, is the pri-
soner, William Checkets, guilty or not guilty ?
The Foreman—We find him guilty on the first
count.
Mr. BALLANTINE—No, no ; that is the count with
intent to stab.
The Foreman—Then it is on the second.
The RECORDER—You should understand the dif-
ferent counts, Gentlemen' of the Jury. The first
count charges him with intent to stab. On that
count you have acquitted him. The second count
charges him with assaulting a police-constable in the
execution of his duty, and the third count charges
him with a common assault. On which count do
you find him guilty?
The Foreman—We find him guilty of a common
assault.
The Recorder was about to pass sentence, when
Mr. BODKIN interfered, and said there was another
indictment against the prisoner, which he should wish
to proceed with.
The prisoner was then remanded, while the Court
adjourned for refreshment.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Chambers conducted the pro-
secution, and Mr. Ballantine defended the prisoner

SECRECY.—In the debate in the United States
Senate on the new British treaty, great care was
taken to have the doors closed, and to keep everything
secret. The weather being very hot, the windows
were up, and Mr. Allen, from Ohio, who has a very
shrill voice, talked so loud that any one could hear in
the public walks outside the Capitol, and as he went
over the whole ground, the details of the treaty were
common talk in Washington before it passed the
Senate. So much for secret session.
HANOVER, SEPT. 17.—His Majesty the King, re-
turned this morning, "at a 'quarter before twelve, to
this city, from Dusselorf. His Maje Sty has per-
fectly recovered from his late illness.