The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-20 00:00:00

THE SITN, LO N DON, WEDNESDA EV ENING, AUGUST 20, 1A45

pating that his judgment might be disputed. He should
feel himself ruled by the judgment of the courts above,
but, in the case quoted, two of the Learned Judges out
of the four had considered the case of "suicide," though
the two others had not ; in that case the words, " dying
by his own act," were of different meaning from those
here discussed, and no doubt if the language in that case
had been the same as in this, the decision would have been
in favour of the plaintiff. The Lord Chief Justice had
said, in " Borradaile v. Hunter," that " suicide" must
mean a " felonious suicide." His own opinion was,
that the party must have been a moral agent at the
time, in order to make the policy void. It had been
argued, that a decision in the plaintiff's favour would
give encouragement to suicide, if provision could in this
way be insured to a family ; but no other evidence at
all had been given as to the circumstances of Mr.
Schwabe, nor as to whether the family would be bene-
fited by a verdict for the plaintiff.
Upon his. Lordship's concluding his direction to
the jury,
The ;-"iOLICITOR-GENERAL rose and tendered his Lord-
ship a bill of exceptions.
Learned JUDGE perused it, and then said that the
words which it attributed to him were not correct.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then said that he was de-
sirous of having them correctly put down, and would
endeavour to quote what his Lordship had said with
exactness.

Ilis LORDSHIP then said that his ruling was that the
jury, to find for the defendant, must find that the de-
ceased was in a state of mind to be capable of distinguish-
ing right from wrong. At the same time, although the
burden of proof was upon the defendant, as to the fact
of the party having voluntarily taken away his own life,
the jury must assume that the deceased was a capable
moral agent, unless the plaintiff proved the contrary.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

THE PAS DE DEUX!—James Ackland, aged 39, a
labourer, was indicted for an assault, &c., on the person
of Sarah Collins, at Isleworth.

Mr. Ballantine was retained for the prisoner.
The fair prosecutrix having stated her " moving
story," was Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE.
You are a dancer, I believe, in a travelling theatre?—
Yes.

And do the Highland fling in character?—No, I don't;
I dances the pas de deux.—(Great laughter.)
Oh, we are coming to that.—(Continued laughter.)
Yon dc, exhibit outside the booth for the purpose of
" taking strangers in," and then you show off the second
don't you?—Pr'aps I may.—(Laughter.)
Well, what did you when you found the prisoner be-
side you ?—I wakened my companion.
Oh, who is she ?—The singer of our company.
And her name ?—Eliza Campbell.
What did the prisoner do ?-1-le left the room and re-
turned with tea.--(Great laughter.)
The witness was cross-examined at great length, to
show that she had, some time after the alleged assault
had been committed, been sitting on the prisoner's knee
and drinking in the parlour.
Miss Campbell was called to corroborate the evidence.
After an amusingly clever speech from Mr. BAL-
LANTINE,

Thomas Henderson, landlord of the lodging-house,
as called.

Mr. BALLANTINE —Did you see the prisoner in com-
pany with the prosecutor in your house on the evening
previous to this transaction ?—Yes, she was showing
her steps.—(Great laughter.)
In what way ?—Oh, she threw her legs about, same
as in the theatre. _

Was she a sylph at the time ?—No ; she were my
lodger.—(Continued laughter.)
Did you see them together next morning ?—Yes ;
a-sitting on his lap in the front parlour, and a-kissing of
him.—(Roars of laughter.)
Another witness was examined, who fully bore out
this evidence.

The Learned C031310N SERGEANT summed up with
his characteristic brevity—" Gentlemen of the jury,
you understand these things better than I do—(Laugh-
ter)—l leave the case in your hands."
The prisoner was at once acquitted.
John Hutchinson, 25, cabinet-maker, was iniicted for
stealing a writing-desk, a number of silver spoons, and
other articles, the property of James Lombard.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy,
and in answer to questions put to him by the Court, he
stated that the prisoner obtained admission to his house
as a suitor to his daughter, and he took advantage of the
opportunity thus afforded him to remove the property in
question, which was, however, restored the next day.
The prisoner was sentenced to one year's imprison-
ment and hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Yesterday Henry Richardson and Peter M‘Shane, who
were both dressed in seamen's clothes, were brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having committed
a fraud.

Catherine Cafe, one of the servants at the Shades
Tavern, in Mark-lane, stated that the prisoners called a
few days ago, and producing a dress, said it was a con-
traband article, and that it was worth 51. in the foreign
country from which it had been conveyed. The witness
gave them a pound for the dress, and was told by them
that it consisted of 14 yards, at the same time that they
advised her to put it by at once for fear of accidents and
without measuring it. She accordingly laid it aside, and
after the men had gone opened and measured it, and'
instead of finding that she was possessed of 14 yards,
ascertained that she had no more than six. Yesterday
they called again calculating, no doubt, that the transac-
tion was forgotten, and exhibited a shawl which witness
consented to take, but when she got it into her posses-
sion she determined to keep it if the fellows refused t')
return her sovereign to her and take back her dress.
They endeavoured to prevail upon her to restore the shawl,
but she persevered, notwithstanding their annoying soli-
citations, and they were at last placed under the care of
a policeman.
The LORD MAYOR said that the defendants had made
themselves liable to heavy penalties for having sold what
they called . contraband goods.

One of the defencllnt's' said =that the dress was well
worth the pound, and that he had himself purchased it'
at a first-rate house for the sum of 16s. 6d.

The LORD MAYOR said the defendants had got them-
sAvcs into a much greater hobble than they supposed,
and that he should remand them and represent the case
to the officer of the Customs who would no doubt put
their responsibility to the test.
The defendants hoped that his Lordship would blend
a little mercy with justice in the case. They declared
that they never had passed off the goods as foreign and
that the dress was purely English.
The LORD MAYOR informed the defendants that they
should have a full measure of justice and that there
existed no doubt of the intention to defrau I._ _

The defendants hoped at all events that his Lordship
would accept of bail for their appearance as they would
be greatly inconvenienced by a visit to the Compter.
The LORD MAYOR refused to take bail and remanded
the defendants until this day, when the Custom-house
officers will be in attendance.

Michael Murphy was charged with having threatened
to do some desperate mischief to Mrs. Reeny, the land-
lady of a pablic-house in Petticoat-lane. The poor
woman had been some time ago blown up by a gas ex-
plosion which took place in her parlour, caused by the
mischievous pranks of some evil-minded ruffians in the
neighbourhood. In consequence of the prosecution of
two persons who were believed to be the planners of
the explosion, Mrs. Reeny had been subjected to great
annoyance from the low Irish, and the defendant had
been particularly offensive in his language and conduct.
The LORD MAYOR ordered the defendant to pay forty
shillings for having maliciously broken a glass in the
house, and said that he must find good bail to the
amount of 40/. to keep the peace for six months,
A buy named Owen Keefe was charged with having
stolen a quantity of ice. It appears that there is a ready
sale for ice in the neighbourhood of Billingsgate-market,
the article having got into almost universal use in the
City, and the prisoner was seen helping himself to a
basket of it. Lie was sent to prison for a month.

well dressed, was charged with being concerned in rob-
bing Mr. Jeffries, of the Prince of Wales, Sudeley-street,
Islington, of 641. in gold and silver money.
On the 19th tilt., about the middle of the day, a de-
cently-dressed man walked into the parlour of the Prince
of Wales, and called for a glass of ale and the news-
paper, with both of which he was served. In a few
minutes after, the prisoner and another smartly-dressed
man walked in and called for a pint of porter at the
bar. One of them immediately said that he wished to
see the newspaper, whereupon Mrs. Pearson, the land-
lady, said a gentleman was reading it in the parlour, and
that they might ask him for it. They declined, saying
they did not like to ask, but if the landlady would
have the kindness to do so they would feel obliged.
The landlady went in as requested, but she had hardly
got into the parlour, when the door was closed, and
when she attempted to get out it was held fast on the
outside. After a short time the grasp was relaxed, and
incensed at having been so treated, she upbraided the
prisoners with their misconduct. When she came out
they were near the door, and in reply to her accusation,
laughed, and without waiting to look at the newspaper,
walked out. Tney had scarcely left the place, when the
landlady missed from the shelf behind the bar the tin
box which stood there. She immediately went to the
door and raised the cry of stop thief. The prisoner and
his companion, who had the cash-box under his arm,
were hotly pursued by a mob, and the man with the
cash baffled his pursuers, but the prisoner ran into a
fruit-shop near Sadler's Wells Theatre, and attempted
to hide himself behind the counter, but wan soon after
apprehended.—Remanded.
QUEEN 'SQUARE.

Mr. T. Couchtnan, the proprietor of the Winds )r
Castle, Vauxhall-bridge-road, was charged on a sum•
mons with assaulting his potman, John Webber.
It appeared from complainant's statement, that on the
evening of Monday week Mrs. Couchman desired him
to take some beer to a customer, when he refused to do
so, alleging that it was not on his round-, and that he
could -not be in two places at once. His mistress ob-
served, that if he would not take it she must get some
one else who would, when he replied that he would take
out no more beer for her at all, and positively refused to
go with the supper beer to those customers whom he
had been .in the habit of supplying. Mrs. Coucbtnan
then called her husband, who immediately collared and
struck him, insisting on his taking the beer or leaving
the house. Complainant had occasion to go into the
tup-room, when his master followed him, dragged him
out, and struck him repeatedly, and attempted to throw
him out of the house.

In answer to an inquiry from the magistrate, com
plainant admitted that he was under the influenca of
liquor at the time, but considered that he was sober
enough to do his work.
. .

Mr. Couchmau put some questions to complainant, by
which it was clearly shown that he had a very excellent
situation, and was treated with liberality and kindness,
awl that it was his duty to carry out beer and make
himself generally useful.
Two coalhcavers were called as witnesses to prove the
as3ault.

Mr. Couchman's answer to the case was, that com-
plainant refused to take the supper beer to customers
who were waiting for it, and made use of a filthy ex-
pression to his mistress. Hearing a noise, he (Mr.
Couchman) came out of the parlour, and upon defendant,
who was drunk, making use of blackguard and insulting
language to him, and repeating his refusal to supply the
customers, he desired him to leave the house, which
complainant positively refused to do, and immediately
seized him (defendant) by the collar, and swore he
would stick to_ him like a leech. He repeatedly told
•complainant to let go, and on his refusal to do so, which
was accompanied by bad language, he certainly struck
him, and endeavoured to put him out.
Witnesses having been called in support of the defence,
Mr. BOND expreised his opinion that a drunken
servant was of very little service to a master, and con-
sidering that the defendant was perfectly justified, in
consequence of the misconduct of the complainant, in
putting him out of the house, would not inflict any
penalty on the master, but as he had used more violence
than was absolutely necessary to eject him, called upon
the defendant to pay two shillings, the costs of the
summons.

Elizabeth Fletcher, a powerful woman, was charged
with assaulting William Hawes, a Norwich constable, in
the execution of his duty.
Complainant, who was in search of a man named An-
derson, for felony, was standing opposite defendant's
house, in Causton-street, Westminster, on Saturday even-
ing, when she came out and wanted to know what he
and two other constables, who accompanied him, were
watching her house for, and said if they wanted Ander-
son, they must go and find him. Complainant replied,
he should go and find him in her house, and, having en-
tered it, showed her a warrant for his apprehension, and
took a candle in order to go up stairs. Defendant im-
mediately blew out the light, and on the officers attempt-
ing to go up stairs, obstructed their progress. On ar-
.riving .a, poem on.the first floor she stood with her back
to.the,49or, and swore that they • should not go in there,
arid the officers found it necessary to hold her. She,
however, broke away from them, and struck the com-
plainant a desperate blow in the eye. The door of the
room was found open, and Anderson's wife was found
there ; but it was supposed, in consequence of the delay
they had met with, that he had escaped by the window.
Defendant denied the assault, and alleged thatshe had
been roughly used by the officers, who did not show any
authority, as she declared, for entering her house.
It having been stated that her husband was a very
quiet, hard-working, respectable man,
Mr. BOND, in consideration that the penalty would fall
upon her husband, after admonishing her in very strong
terms, finwther 3L, orin default, six weeks'-imprisonment.

Henry) thought it was a case in which the parish should
prosecute for perjury.
The clerk to the guardians replied that there were no
funds in the parish to defray the expenses of such a
prosecution.
Mr. HENRY observed that this was the answer he in-
variably received in cases where he recommended a
prosecution, and where a prosecution should take place.
In his opinion, in a case like the present, the expenses
of a prosecution should be allowed in the passing of the
accounts.—Here the matter dropped.
John Fitzgerald was summoned by the Animals' Friend
Society, of 18, Strand, for wilfully shooting a cat, the
property of Mrs. Fitzgerald.
Ntr. HENRY remarked, that people were not allowed
to take the law into their, hands entirely ; if they do,
they must run the consequences. The defendant was
ordered to pay 10s. the value of the cat, and 2s. summons.

The evidence has been already published. The de-
ceased and others were wantonly attacked in Bow, Mid
dlesex, on the night of Saturday, the 9th inst., and the
deceased, who had given no provocation whatever, was
struck on the head with a poker, by the prisoner Car-
roll, and died of the wounds he received a few hours
afterwards.

Cockerell, a police-constable, No. 260 K, stated that
since the last examination a Coroner's inquest had been
held on the body of the deceased, and a verdict or man-
slaughter was returnee! against Carroll, but the other
prisoners were not affected by the verdict.
Mr. BRODERIP said, that on a former occasion there
was so much doubt whether the two Keenans, Foley,
and Banim were actually aiding and abetting Carroll in
the death of the unfortunate man, that he had offered
to accept of bail for them. As the verdict of the jury
had not implicated them he should now discharge them,
and the case against Carroll would be proceeded with.
The four prisoners having left the dock, Inspector
Watts, who conducted the case, said there was only one
more witness to be examined. _ _ .

Mr. Henry Vincent Gar Man, of No. 1, Coburg-ter-
race, Bow-road, stated that on the afternoon of Sunday,
the 10th inst., he was called upon to see the body of the
deceased at the request of his mother and father-in-law,
and upon examining the head he discovered two wounds;
the lesser one was on the upper part of the right side of
the frontal hone. The larger and more important wound
was on the right temporal muscle, and he hsd no doubt
that was the cause of death. In answer to a question by
Mr. Broderip, the witness said the poker was a very likely
instrument to inflict such a wound. _ _

Mr. Dawes, a solicitor, who appeared for Carroll,
asked the witness if the wound over the right temple
would have caused death, if the unfortunate deceased
had received earlier medical attention 7—Mr. Garman
said that was a very difficult question to answer. He
had no doubt the wound did cruse death, but very early
medical treatment might have prolonged life, or miti-
gated the unfavourable symptoms.
Mr. BrtoDEaIP said if a person inflicted a wound upon
another, he had no right whatever to calculate on the
strength of the man's constitution to endure pain, and if
death ensued, he was answerable for the consequences.
Inspector Watts said the friends of the deceased wished
a police-constable who assisted Bristow to his home to
be examined.

Mr. BRODERIP —What can he prove ?—lnspector
Watts said the deceased informed the policeman, while
he was leading him home, that prisoner struck him twice
with the poker.
Mr. BRODERIP said that would not be evid.•nce, be-
cause the deceased, at the time he made the communi-
cation, was not conscious that he was near death, or that
the injuries he received would prove fatal. If the state-
ment had been made while the deceased was in ay ticulo
mortis, it could have been received. The worthy Magis-
trate then asked the prisoner if he wished to make any
further statement ?—The prisoner replied that he had
nothing to add to his former statement.
Mr. BRODERIP said it was his duty to commit the pri-
soner for trial for killing and slaying James Bristow,
and he bound over the witnesses to prosecute.
They immediately proceeded to the Old Bailey, for
the purpose of going before the grand jury.