The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Guildhall, May 14.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENMAN and a
Common Jury.)
MARY ANNE PHILLIPS V.:WORSELEY.
Mr. Crowder,lMr. M. Chambers, and Mr. Char-
nock appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Cockburn, Mr.
Warren, and Mr. Bovill were engaged for the defence.
The action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for tho injury which the plaintiff had sustained
by reason of the defendant having broken a promise of
marriage which he made to her. It appeared that the
plaintiff is the daughter of a person who was once the
treasurer of Covent-garden Theatre, but has more re-
cently been the landlord of some three or four public-
houses or taverns in and near the metropolis, of which
the latest was the Swan, is llungarford-market. He
became unsuccessful in this latter occupation, and was
obliged to give it up, and as he had a large family, six
daughters and one son, the plaintiff; who had become
acquainted with the duties of a barmaid, procured em-
ployment in that situation at some two or three houses
of which the latest was that of Mr. Doyle, in Chandos-
street, called the Marquis of Granby, where she became
acquainted with the defendant, who is a saddler, and a
person of some considerable property, residing in South
Audley-street. Miss Phillips had entered into some
previous engagement with a person of the name
of Ponder, which, however, was broken off before
her intimacy with the present defendant. An offer
of marriage having been made and accepted, the
parties continued to live upon the footing usual upon
such occasions, until a person called Metcalfe communi-
cated to the defendant some facts concerning the lady,
which statement the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff
herself, declaring at the same time that he believed it to
be true, and that he should put an end to the contract of
marriage accordingly. The plaintiff demanded the name
of her accuser and the particulars of the accusation, but
no distinct answer appeared to have been given to her
upon the subject. It seemed, however, that the indivi-
dual who was said to have been improperly intimate
with her was a Mr. Honey, the husband of the actress
of that name, who had died nine years before the circu-
lation of the report, and whose acquaintance with Miss
Phillips and her family existed when she was only 14
years old. The efforts of the lady to procure an oppor-
tunity of justifying her conduct were very energetic, as
were her protestations of her: own innocence. The de-
fendant, however, continued inexorable upon the subject
of the marriage, and the present action was accordingly
brought. The declaration was in the usual form. The
defendant pleaded in justification, that after making the
promise in question he discovered that the plaintiff was
a person of loose, unchaste, and immodest character and
conduct; that she had appeared upon the stage of seve-
ral theatres in male and indelicate attire, and that she
had actually had illicit intercourse with a person of the
name of Lowry upon several occasions which were spe-
cifically set forth, and had upon other occasions, and
with other persons, been guilty of improper and indecent
familiarity.
Mr. CROWDER, having stated the case of the plaintiff,
called the following witnesses:—
Charles Jay said that he was a coalmerchant at Black-
wall, and a fishmonger at Hungerford.market. He had
married an elder sister of the plaintiff, and he detailed
some of the circumstances which we have already men-
tioned about the commencement of the acquaintance
between the parties, and the footing upon which they
lived before the breaking off of the engagement. With
regard to the fact of the plaintiff having appeared upon
the boards of some two or three theatres, the witness
deposed that the defendant upon one occasion told him
that the plaintiff had acknowledged to her lover that she
had been upon the stage, and that he (the defendant)
was perfectly satisfied with her statements and explana-
tions upon that subject, and that no change in his con-
duct or deportment was at all made in consequence of
that information. The witaess himself was not aware of
the fact that the young lady had appeared upon the
stage at all. The witness stated, on cross-examination,
that two sisters of the plaintiff and of witness's own
wife were married, but he said that he did not know
whether one of the husbands was a private in the Foot
Guards, and the other a private in the Blues. It was no
business of his to know who his sisters-in-law were
married to. He did not know whether the proposed
marriage of the plaintiff and defendant was known to
the plaintiff's mother, or whether the plaintiff had the
consent of her family for going on the stage.
A person named Humphreys, and another named
Phillips, the brother of the plaintiff, deposed to some of
the facts already mentioned, and they both stated that
they took all possible pains, but without effect, upon the
part of the plaintiff, to procure from the defendant and
his attorneys the fullest information upon the nature of
the imputation and the source from which it proceeded.
The plaintiff's brother deposed that he offered to release
the defendant from all personal responsibility if he would
only furnish the name of the party by whom the infor-
mation was given.
Evidence was also given to prove that the defendant,
besides his establishment, had received more than 5,0001.
at his father's death, and had other property worth about
6001. a year.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. COCKBURN addressed the jury for the defence,
and called

George Metcalfe, who said—l am an engraver, living
in Pall-mall. I know the plaintiff and defendant. Had
known plaintiff seven or eight years. She is 27 years of
age. I have frequented the Swan Tavern, kept by her
father. I know Edward Lucas Lowry. He made a
statement to me with regard to Miss Phillips. I men-
tioned it to the defendant. I had not made any com-
municaton to him before the 7th of February last. I
know nothing of my own knowledge of any impropriety
in the conduct of Mary Anne Phillips. I never saw any
impropriety in the conduct of any person in the Swan,
where she was barmaid, and which was kept by her
father.

Cross-examined—Had been at the house several times
before Mr. Phillips gave it up. I had met Lowry there
several times. I believe he was not a friend of Worseley's.
I had been several times at Doyle's house whilst Miss
Phillips was barmaid there, and whilst the defendant was
paying his addresses to her ; and I had several opportu-
nities of observing her conduct.
Edward Lowry was then called.—He said, I am the
collector of the West Middlesex Waterworks Company.
I know Corby. He told me that Mary Anne Phillips
was going to be married, upon which I made an obser-
vation. Metcalfe afterwards called upon me upon the
subject, and I afterwards saw Mr. Worseley. I after-
wards repeated to Mr. Barlow, the defendant's attorney,
what I had stated to Metcalfe. I first knew Miss Phillips
about eight years ago, when she was barmaid at the
swan. Our acquaintance continued about a year and a
half, and, terminated about six years ago. My inti-
macy with her was of a peculiar nature. It oc-
curred at the Greyhound, at Greenwich. I was in the
habit of going into the upper bar of the Swan. I have
had intercourse with her in the Swan. The first act of in-
tercourse occurred twelve months after the commence-
ment of our acquaintance, during the continuance of which
the illicit intercourse continued afterwards. The first
act of intercourse took place at the Greyhound, at Green-
wich. I did not ask permission of her father or mother
to let her come out. I never knew them. It was be-
tween eleven and three o'clock. We were home before
six o'clock. I was articled to an architect in Vincent-
square, and am now ready to act as such. I was not
with her at Greenwich more than once. Once it oc-
curred in a room in the second floor of the Swan. I
am not aware of any other occasion. I can't recollect
if the second act was in the morning, or evening, or
middle of the day. I can't recollect whether it was light
or dark, or whether it was in summer or winter, or what
month it was, from January to December. There was
no bed in the room on the second floor of the Swan. I
don't know if there was a carpet. There were chairs
and a table. The occurrence took place upon the table.
There might have been a glass of sherry and water of
mine upon the table.
To Lord DENMAN—When I first had intercourse with
her I was of opinion that she was not a virgin. I have
known Mr. Corby seven years. My acquaintance with
Miss Phillips ceased about seven years ago. We had
something to eat and drink at the Greyhound.
Corby—l know the defendant, and Lowry, and
Metcalfe. When I heard that the plaintiff and defendant
were going to be married, I mentioned it to Lowry, who
said he was very much surprised and very sorry.
Metcalfe, re-called, stated that Lowry told him that
he (Lowry) had had connexion with Mary Anne Phil-
lips. After another communication with Lowry, I then
communicated the fact to the defendant. _

Young, an officer of Excise, near Banbury, knew
'the house whilst Miss Phillips was serving at the bar.
Saw Lowry there, and a person called Bone. I saw no
personal impropriety of behaviour upon her part, but
her freedom of behaviour with the young men who at-
tended there was not correct.

Hannah Hamlet lived with the Phillips family when
they kept the Jew's Harp, near Albany Barracks. The
house was frequented by soldiers, and two of the daugh-
ters married soldiers. The late Mr. Honey used to be
with them a great deal. Mary Anne Phillips, the wit-
ness, and the whole of the family went into mourning
when Honey was drowned. I never saw Honey's picture
with Miss Phillips. Never saw Honey take her out.
That I know. I never saw Mr. Lowry, and never had
any conversation with Miss Phillips about Lowry.
The witness proceeded to give several other answers,
which were in opposition to the anticipations of the
Learned Counsel by whom she was called. Some dis-
cussion thereupon arose as to the degree in which the
counsel for the defendant was at liberty to contradict the
testimony of his own witness from the written account
which the attorney had made of the witness's examina-
tion at his office. Lord Denman finally permitted a
cross-examination to proceed upon this
.f'ooting, and
afterwards allowed the attorney himself to enter the
box, and state from the paper all the information which
the witness had originally given him. Part of the state-
ment given to the attorney was, that the witness never
thought there was anything criminal in the conduct of
Alio Phillips.

Morris Levy swore that there was not a better family
in the kingdom than the family of the plaintiff, and that
the plaintiff went upon the stage by the desire of her
mother, the family being in bad circumstances at the
time.

Mr. Ennis, the under-prompter of the Haymarket
Theatre, deposed to the plaintiff's having played the
part of a page in the Fair One of the Golden Locks.
Her salary was 9s. a-week.
John Doyle, the landlord of the Marquis of Granby, in
Chandos-street, said that whilst the plaintiff was re-
ceiving attentions from Mr. Ponder she was taken out
once or twice by the defendant ; and that whilst she was
engaged to the defendant himself she received presents
from a Mr. Laing. The witness remonstrated with her
about such impropriety, but she said that she should take
presents from anybody; but she did not wish the de-
fendant to know of it. She also expressed a wish that
Mr. Worseley should not be informed of her having been
upon the stage. The witness when Miss Phillips left
his house told her that he should let her know what it
was to have an enemy.
Rebecca Bristow was barmaid with Mary Anne Phil-
lips at the Marquis of Granby. Saw Ponder, Crotch,
and Laing there. Cannot recollect if they paid any par-
ticular attention to her.
This was the case for the defendant.

Mr. CROWDER then replied, after which
Lord DENMAN left the case to the jury, who, after a
little consultation, found a verdict for the plaintiff—
I)amages, 4001. . . .

The case was not concluded until near ten o'clock al
night.
__ _

MAY 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HOWARD V. GOSSETT, KNT.

This morning the Court sat in banco, and proceeded to
give judgment in several cases, amongst which was the im-
portant one on the action, which a Mr. Howard had brought
against the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons for
false imprisonment ; to that action a demurrer was raised.
Mr. Justice IVIGHTmor commenced by saying that in
this case the plaintiff had brought an action for false
imprisonment, to which the defendant had demurred :
in his opinion, the plaintiff was entitled to judg-
ment on the demurrer, as the defendant had rested
his defence on the power which the House of Commons pos-
sessed to issue a warrant, and on that to detain the plaintiff
in custody ; that the warrant had been issued according to the
usage and privilege of the House of Commons. Looking at
the whole of the bearing of the present case, and considering
the power claimed by the House of Commons to be dan-
gerous to the liberty of the subject, he of was opinion that
the judgment must be entered for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said it was his opinion that the pro-
ceedings which had taken place under the Speaker's warrant
were bad, and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment.
Mr. Justice WiLuAms differed from his Learned Brethren.
A few words more in the warrant would have made it a valid
document ; the plaintiff had been guilty of a contempt
of Parliament, and unless they had the power
to enforce the attendance of a person before
them, the House of Commons would be in reality but
a shadow of a high court of law; that the House alone was
competent to decide that its perediction having been dis-
obeyed, the proceedings were legal, and, therefore, in his
opinion, the judgment ought to be entered for the defendant.
Lord DENMAN, after going through a very elaborate
opinion, in which he referred to the powers possessed by the
House of Commons, contended that the House was bound to
set forth the offence in the warrant ; and as a principle of
vital importance was involved, in which the security of the
subject was affected, he considered that the judgment of the
Court ought to be for the plaintiff.

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 15.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCTIELL.)
SCARFE v. SIR A. L. lIAY.

This was an action to recover the sum of 1301. for one
quarter's rent of a cottage at Fulham, and for damage done
to furniture therein.

The defendant had suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. OGLE stated the case—The cottage was let to the de-
fendant so far back as May, 1837, at the yearly rent of 250/.
Defendant remained in possession twelve months, and one
quarter's rent was still unpaid. On defendant leaving the
furniture was inspected by a valuer, who estimated the dila-
pidations of the furniture at 681. Is. There was no defence to
the action, but it was perhaps necessary to account for the
delay in bringing the action, by stating that Sir Andrew had
been out of England a considerable time, and they had been
unable to serve him with process, besides which, he had been
protected, being a Member of Parliament.
Mr. Samuel Lahee, house-agent, of Bond-street, proved the
terms on whick the cottage was let.
Mr. Samuel Jones deposed that he was a valuer, and in-
spected the furniture after the defendant left. It had been
beautiful, but was very much damaged. He estimated the
damage at 681. Is.
By the Jury—Did not see the furniture before defendant
took possession. Could only estimate the damage on suppo-
sition of its previous state, and from description.
The UNDER-SHERIFF-011, they always put down all the
broken windows, and all kinds of dilapidation, as having been
done during the tenancy. He then summed up, and said that
the jury must take the amount of the damage as stated by
the witness.

The jury said it did not appear to them that there was
any proof of the value of the furniture at the time the de-
fendant took possession, or what ought to be allowed for wear
and tear.

The UNDKR- SHERIFF said that it was the duty of the
defendant to adduce evidence if he had been overcharged.
The jury could only go upon the evidence, and as the witness
had positively sworn to the amount, he did not see how they
could avoid giving a veriict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed.

The jury thereupon gave a verdict for 1301. 10s.
nuTsox V. WEBB.

The plaintiff in this action is an attorney, and was brought
to recover the sum of 11/. Ils 6d. for an attorney's bill in
defending the defendant's son in an action brought against
him by a person named Chidley.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. THOMAS stated the case—When the action was brought
against defendant's son, the latter put a plea of infancy on
the record in person ; it was, however, discovered, that a de-
fendant could not plead infancy except by an attorney, and
a person named Mayston introduced him to the plaintiff. It
being, however, necessary for the proceedings that a guardian
should sign a petition to the Court, defendant was sent for,
and he accordingly did what was necessary by signing the
petition, which the Learned Counsel contended was, in fact,
the retainer.

The plaintiff's clerk was called, and proved that the work
was done and that the plea of infancy was supported. De-
fendant asked whether he would be liable to Chidley for costs,
and was told he would not as the plea could be made out,
but he did not say that he would not pay his son's costs.
Mr. HORRY addressed the jury, and contended that the
signing the petition was a matter of form, and no retainer,
and that in fact the defendant's son had been the only person
looked to by the parties, and had been first introduced to
plaintiff.
The defendant's son was then called, and he proved that
he had become liable to Messrs. Chidley for goods supplied.
He had kept a shop about twelve months, but failed. He
owed Chidley about 201., but had previously paid them 1001.
He had requested Mayston to offer 51. to settle. He had
been anxious to pay if he could. His other debts were very
small. When he went to plaintiff he paid 30s. on account
of costs. His father had never paid anything, nor was he
told he would be held responsible.
Mr. THOMAS, in reply, said that all the dispute arose
through, in the first instance, applying to one of those persons
who called themselves agents, who from their ignorance
generally involved all who depended on them in misery and
consternation, and did great injury. If Mayston had been
called he would have proved the exact agreement.
The jury then gave a verdict for the defendant.
The principal cases were postponed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
C'LERKEIVIVELL.

Edward Wilcox, of No. 3, Little Guildford• street, was
charged with the following outrageous conduct.
Julia Wright, the wife of a decent mechanic, a mo-
dest, quiet-looking young female, stated, that on the
previous night, between eleven and twelve o'clock, she was
returning home with her mother and husband, when the
latter made a momentary stop, and they walked on. At
the corner of Cromer-street, a boy was playing a barrel
organ, and they stood awaiting the return of the hus-
band. The prisoner, with five or six others, was stand-
ing at the door of a beer-shop on the other side of the
street, when Le suddenly ran over, and dragged her to
the side upon which he was standing. He then asked
her to dance—she being much terrified refused—her
mother interfered, but the prisoner knocked witness
down, and another man knocked her mother down.
Witness rose three times, but was each time prostrated
with a blow on the chest from the prisoner. The
fourth time she got upon her legs as well as she was able,
and screamed " Murder." Her husband came up, and
the prisoner ran away. She pursued him, but the pri-
soner suddenly turned round, and with a blow again
felled her. Witness had some bruises on her, and felt
great pain in her chest from the bruises inflicted there.
Herself, husband, and mother were perfectly sober.
She considered the prisoner was sober.
Mary O'Neill, the mother, gave exactly the same ac-
count of the transaction. Her daughter, the complainant,
being in the family way, she feared she would be killed,
and when the prisoner knocked her down, she threw
herself between them, and said, " Oh, for God sake,
preserve her life, she is in the family way." Witness
had hardly uttered these words when one of the pri-
soner's comrades felled her with a blow on the chest.
Police constable 216 G deposed that he saw the pri-
soner running away and strike the complainant, who
was pursuing him, a violent blow, from which she fell on
the pavement. Before he came up, he heard screams
and cries of murder.

Mrs. Williams, the housekeeper of the Court, deposed
that there were bruises on the complainant's hips, recently
inflicted.

The husband gave confirmatory evidence.
The prisoner said that when he asked the complainant
to dance, she refused, and struck bim on the eye.
Mrs. Wright positively denied this, and Waddington,
the gaolor, said there was not the slightest trace of in-
jury on his face.
Mr. GREEN WOOD said the complainant was a respect-
able woman, and had given no provocation. She was
waiting quietly for her husband when attacked and
treated in the manner described. He would fine the
prisoner 2/. 10s., or three weeks' imprisonment.
The money was paid soon after, anti the prisoner was
liberated.

Henry Bunting was charged with stealing 17s. 6d. The
prisoner, a lad about twelve, is well known to the police.
lie lodges with a poor woman named Bunting, in Stephen-
street, Maiden-lane, whose little savings lay in a box in an
upper room of the house. The prisoner is supposed to have
pilfered the money, fora bag full of buttons, which lay in the
same box, was found on the prisoner's person.
The prosecutrix, a miserable looking poor woman, iden •
tilled the buttons found on the prisoner as ber property.
The prisoner, who would give no account of the matter,
was remanded.

DEATH OP THIS CENTENARIAN COUPLE.—It is but
three or four weeks since that we gave an account of the ex-
traordinary age of Mr. and Mrs. Plaisance, then living in
Redmoor Fen, in the Isle of Ely, the husband of the age of
107, the wife 105 I—a case without parallel perhaps in Eng-
land or in the world. On Wednesday, strange to relate, after
a short affliction, both expired on the same day; their united
ages 212 I The greater part of their lives were passed when
agues were so prevalent in the Fens that very few escaped
the disorder, yet their lives were prolonged to this extraor-
dinary period; and Providence seems to have ordained that
dasivtihdeeyd.haTdhleivytasovelolettng
Otnotedtahuegr,htienr, dweto uthtyheedywwithertehenmot,
9f the age 91 14, B. Pot.

THE LATE MURDER IN
ST. GILES'S.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
TRIAL OF JOSEPH CONNOR.

On Mr. Commissioner Bullock taking his seat on the
bench, a number of prisoners were placed in the dock, and
having been arraigned, were called upon to plead to the
several offences laid to their charge, or to challenge any of
the jury by whom they were to be tried. Joseph Connor
was among the number, but he was not called upon to plead,
having gone through that formula during the last session.
He looked much cleaner and neater than whilst under exami-
nation at Bow-street, or when we last saw him in the chapel
of Newgate, on the Sunday preceding the execution of
Hocken He was very pale, and much of that moroseness
which distinguished him on the occasions to which we have
alluded had departed. He was dressed in a black frock
coat, black waistcoat, black silk neckerchief, and corduroy
trowsers. Ile paid great attention to the calling over the
names of the jury, and appeared perfectly sensible of the
awful position in which he was placed.

Neither the body of the Court nor the gallery were in-
conveniently crowded. No females were admitted.
At a few minutes after ten o'clock, Mr. Baron Alderson and
Mr. Justice Coltman entered and took their seats.

Immediately afterwards Josepli6n;;;;;T:gain placed
in the dock.

The indictment, which contained two counts, each varying
the offence, charging him with the wilful murder of Mary
Brothers, was then read.
Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Montague Chambers, and Mr. Huddle-
stone appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Ballantine and Mr.
Doane for the prisoner.
Mr. B013E1:I then proceeded to state the case against the
prisoners The deceased was one of those unhappy females
who, like many others, prostituted her body for a wretched
subsistence—that whilst engaged in the unhappy traffic she
presented herself at a house of ill-fame in Little George-
street, St. Giles's, accompanied by a ma❑ and entered a room
with him ; that shortly after a woman named Palmer heard
the cry of " Murder," and on entering the room found the
man in what she thought the act of striking the woman ;
that the man hurried from the house, and that the woman
staggered into an adjoining room with a knife sticking in her
neck—(this statement caused much sensation in the Court)
—and immediately expired. A man dressed in; a velveteen
coat, whom he should be able to prove was the prisoner at
the bar, was observed by a policeman on duty in the street to
leave the house in a hurried manner. Threats had been held
out by the prisoner against the deceased for communicating
a loathsome disease to him, which, from the examination of
the body, proved to be a false assumption. The knife found
in the body of the deceased, he should prove, was purchased
by the prisoner at the bar at the shop of Mr. Oldham, cutier,
of High.street, St. Giles's ; that between the time he pur-
chased it and the time he went to the house in question, he
had changed his dress to a velveteen coat and a sealskin cap.
At the place where he was taken into custody a velveteen
coat was found, the sleeves of which were smeared with
blood. A person who had been on intimate terms with the
prisoner, named Cochrane, who had not come forward at the
examinations, would give important testimony on behalf of
the prosecution with respect to the prisoner about eleven
o'clock on the night of the murder. After entering at length
into a statement of the facts of the case, which he said he
should subsequently substantiate by the evidence which he
should call before them, he concluded by calling upon them
dispassionately to consider th• evidence he should call before
them, and not to arrive at a conclusion which affected the
life of the prisoner without the most mature consideration.
The following witnesses were then called :
Mary Palmer, charwoman at the house No. 11, Little
George-street, said a man and woman came there at a
quarter Wore eleven o'clock on the night of Monday, the
31st of March. I never saw either of them before. The man
was dressed in a velveteen coat and a cap. I gave the woman
a light, and she went into the back parlour. I sat down on
the stairs. A few minutes after, a little better than five
minutes, I heard the woman cry " Murder !" three times. I
rose and knocked at the door of the room. I knocked twice
without receiving any answer. Not receiving any answer, I
put my back to the door and forced it open. I saw the woman
sitting on the bedstead, and the man standing over her. He
had his band at her neck. I thought he was beating her.
I said, " For God's sake, don't beat the woman." Ile turned
round and faced me. There was a glimmering light in the
room. He then left the room, and I caught hold of his coat.

Cross-examined by Mr. M. CHAMBERSI—He pushed -me
away by taking hold of my shawl, on which I afterwards
found the marks of a bloody hand. The woman got off the
bed and walked to the fire-place ; she , had her hand to her
eyes. She never spoke. She staggered and fell. The man
had left the house before I got into the passage. The land-
lady of the house and I went into the room again and found a
knife sticking in the woman's neck. She was dead. I gave
information to the police- constable Allen, who pulled the
knife out. I can't swear that.the prisoner is the man ;he
resembles him.

Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTLNE—No one has been
talking to we about the time when the man and woman came
to the house. I stated at the police-office, and at my other
examinations, that it was a quarter before eleven when they
came. I never said the time was a quarter past eleven. The
first time I saw the prisoner after the murder was at Bow-
street. I had not then heard anything about Connor, nor of
any threats he had made towards the deceased. The deceased
was a stout, tall woman. There was no blood on the bed, but
there was some on the floor and wall.

Mary Hall said I was landlady of .the house, 11, George-
street. I heard the woman Palmer cry out, and I went into
the passage. I met a man there going as fast as he could
run. He pushed me aside, and tried to knock me down. He
was coming from the room. I said, " Oh, my God ! what
have you been doing to the poor woman ?" He made no
reply, and ran out. I could not see his dress. I caught
hold of his coat, which, by the feel, I should say was vel-
veteen. I did not notice what he had on his head. I never
saw the man before.

John James Allen, Police-constable E 159—1 was on duty
in George-street on the night of Monday, the 31st of March.
About 11 o'clock I was standing at the corner of Clarke's-
.court. I was 52 feet from the house where the woman was
murdered. A little before 11 o'clock I observed a man come
from No. 11 towards me. He passed me and crossed the way
between 19 to 20 feet from me. He had on a dark coat,
which I think was velveteen, and a cap which I believe had
a peak to it. Five or six minutes after I was fetched to the
house.

By Mr. Baron ALDERSON—I did not observe any one leave
the house, the door of which creaked, from the time the man
left until Mrs. Palmer came to me, and then I went into the
house and found the deceased lying on her side, with a knife
sticking in her neck. The handle was pointing upwards. She
moved her eyes a little and smiled. She did not speak. I
pulled the knife out and ran for the surgeon. She was dead
when I came back. (The witness produced the knife.)
A person, named Brothers, identified the body as that of
his wife. I have no doubt, but I will not swear positively,
that the prisoner is the man.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—If you have no doubt, you ought
to swear positively. Witness—l have a strong belief, but I
will not swear positively.
Examination continued—l knew the prisoner for three or
four years before. I did not know where he lived. I never
spoke to him. I always took hint to be a porter. I had
been off and on that beat for four or five years.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTLNE—The width of the
street is about 26 feet. The man was running very fast.
Several were apprehended on suspicion of having committed
the murder. I gave a description of the man to Inspector
Moore. A person about 40 years of age was taken up, but
when I saw him I at once said he was not the man.
Ellen Napier—l am a woman of the town. I have gone
by the name of Scott. About a month before the murder I
saw the prisoner and had some conversation with him about
Mrs. Tape. He asked me if I had seen a stout woman,
about 40. He said she had given him a loathsome disease.
I asked if he could mention the name. He said he could not.
About three days after he asked me the same question, and
again about a week after. I mentioned the names of all the
women that walked in the neighbourhood. I mentioned the
name of Mrs. Tape, and he said " That must be her." He
said he should never get rid of the disease, and used a dis-
gusting threat. I saw the prisoner on the night of the mur-
der by the chapel in Charlotte-street, Bloomsbury, a little
before nine o'clock. He had on a short Jacket and a hat. The
jacket was not velveteen. I was walking up and down,
and be spoke to me. I said, "If you wish to see Mrs.
Tape, whom you have asked about so many times, in a few
minutes you'll see her." Mrs. Tape and a woman named
Caroline Graham came up. The prisoner said, "There you
are; that's the person I 'wish to see; you have given me the
She said, "I do not know you." He said, she did.
She repeated, " that she did not know him, and had
never seen him in her life." He said, " You ought to
know me ; if I put on my velveteen coat you would know
me better." A policeman came up, and we walked on. We
left the prisoner and Mrs. Tape (the name by which the de-
ceased was known to the wretched creatures with whom
she associated) walking away together and talking. She
soon after left him, and came towards me. He said he would
not hurt Mrs. Tape. I went away, leaving him talking to
" Biddy." In ten minutes I returned—about half-past 10. I
saw a man speaking to Mrs. Tape. Soon after I saw the
man and Mrs. Tape go into No. 11, George-street. I did not
see the man's face. He had on a velvetteen coat and a cap.
His height was about the prisoner's.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—I was not examined
at the police-office or by the coroner. I was examined by
the grand jury. I heard ,of the murder the same night. I
first communicated what I have stated to the superintendent.

Re-examined by Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS—I saw Con-
nor at Newgate, and pointed him out among a number of
persons.
Caroline Graham—On the night of the murder I was in
Charlotte-street, Bloomsbury, with the last witness. I saw
Connor there, Mrs. Tape was with me. He came up to
Mrs. Tape and said, " I have been looking for you for the
last seven weeks. Don't you recollect me?' She said she did
not know him. He told her when he saw her last, and what
was the result. He said, "I had a velveteen coat on and a cap."
She still denied all knowledge of him, and I said he must be
mistaken. Soon after a policeman came up, and I went
away. The last time I saw the prisoner was about half-past
eight. I saw the deceased go into the house with a man
about half-past ten. He had on a velveteen coat and a cap.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—Was not examined
before the magistrate or the coroner.
Bridget Ronan (known as Biddy)—l get my living by
walking the streets in the neighbourhood of St. Giles's. I
saw the prisoner on the Saturday before the murder. He
spoke about a disease he was labouring under, and said it had.
been communicated to him by Mrs. Tape. I saw Lim on
Monday night, about half-past nine o'clock, near the chapel.
He was alone. I asked him how he was? He said, " Much
the same ;" and added, " I have just been blowing the old
b— up. She denies all. If I comes up to her in these
clothes she'll know me." (He had on a fustian jacket and
a hat.) He said, " I shall go home and change my clothes,
and put on my black coat and cap, and then she won't know
me." He then left me. I saw him again about ten minutes
after. He had on a black velveteen coat and a cap with a
peak. He came close to me, and said "Do you think she'll
know me now?" I said, " yes; why shouldn't the woman
know you ?" He said before he went to change his clothes,
4, I have something at home that will pepper her." He had
frequently said before that he would serve her out. He then
went away. I was gone about three-quarters of an hour,
and when I came back there was a crowd about the house.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—I told the police
what the prisoner said. I did- not know his name nor
where he worked. I had known him for about a twelve-
month. _ .

Elizabeth Hill said— I saw the prisoner a little after nine
o'clock the night of the murder in Charlotte-street, near the
chapel. I saw him speak to Mrs. Tape. I did not hear
what he said ; but 1 heard her say, " I didn't." About a
quarter of an hour afterwards I saw him at the corner of
Vine-street. He asked me how I was ; and on my asking him
how he was, he said, " That old woman has given me the
He said he had been home to put his coat on. He gave me
2d. to get some beer, and a fourpenny piece to take him to
my place and see what was the matter with him. I had
an opportunity of noticing his dress, and he wore a velveteen
coat and a cap.

Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—That was after ten.
I live near the house where the murder was committed—
about five minutes' walk from Oldham's (the cutler's where
the knife was bought). To the best of my belief he was
not affected with a loathsome disease.

Henry Oldham, a cutler, carrying on business in High-
street, St. Giles, said—The distance from my shop to the
house in George-street is about 300 yards. Endell-street is
about the same distance. On the night of the 31st of
March I was in my shop. I sold this knife to a person.
That is the man. He came into my shop at ten minutes to
ten. He said, " What's the cheapest small carving-knife
you have ?" I said, " I will show you some directly. I
believe I have some second-hand ones." After I had done
what I was about, I went to the counter, and I took three
knives from a drawer, and placed them on the counter before
him.

By Mr. Baron ALDERSON—I was on the opposite side of
the counter to that on which he was. There are three gas-
dights in the shop.
Witness—l said they were a shilling each. He took
them all into his hand and examined each. lie made no
observation. He put down a shilling, kept one knife, and
put the other two on the counter, and was going away. I
did not like the idea of his taking the bare knife out in his
hand, and I offered to wrap it up in paper. He came back.
I set the edge on a stone, wrapped it up, and he then left the
shop. I did not notice his dress particularly. He had a
hat and a dark coat on. He was quite a stranger to me. 1
saw him on the following Friday.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALIANTINF.--He wore a coat
with tails to it. When I wasexamined before the magistrate
I had a staong belief he was the man, bat I was not quite
sure. He asked ma a question, and my belief was strength-
ened by his voice. I gave information to one of the inspectors
of the E division. I did not say I should know him by a
blotch on the side of his nose. I said nothing about it at
that time. I told the police that my daughter said she
thought the man had a blotch on the side of his nose. I had
not heard until the prisoner was taken into custody and not
until I had seen him that a young man had used threats to-
wards the deceased. I saw Inspector Pearce before I saw
the prisoner. When I saw Connor I did not know that he
was the man that had used the threats.

By Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The prisoner was in my shop
two or three minutes He bad his hat on all the time.
The only time he spoke was in stating what he wanted.
The second time I heard him speak was at Bow-street. His
voice was not set like that of a youth verging into manhood.
I also knew him by his age. One of the lights was over his
head, and threw the shade of his hat over his face. The
other light was in the window, about two yards from him,
and gave an excellent light.
Emily Elizabeth Oldham, daughter of the last witness, an
intelligent little girl, was then sworn, and having been placed
on the bench, was questioned by Mr. Baron Alderson as to
the nature and responsibility of an oath, of which she was
fully cognizant. She said, I was standing by my father's side
when the man came in. When the man was looking at the
carving-knives I stood at my father's side, and saw his face.
That is the man, said the witness, looking steadfastly, and
pointing at the prisoner.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLAIVTINE—I noticed a small
blotch on the side of his nose. It was rather red, and was
like a large pimple. It was on the left side of the nose. I was
in the shop about a minute. I saw the prisoner at the sta-
tion-house on the Friday evening. He had then no blotch on
his nose.

William Pocock, 81 F—ln consequence of information
which I received I went to 15, Endell-street, on the evening
of Friday following the murder. I found this coat there. It
was banging on a peg behind the door, with two coats hang-
ing over it. I examined it next morning. I found some
blood on the right-hand cuff, and a little on the left. The
marks are as visible now as then. There is some blood on
the inside of the right-hand pocket. I also produce a cap and
and a hat. I also found six hospital tickets. (The coat was
here shown to the Learned Judges, and was minutely exa-
mined by them.)
Nicholas Pearce, Superintendent of Police—On the after-
noon of Friday, the 4th of April, I went to No. 4, Ston
cutters-alley, Gate-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields. I went to
the door of the first-floor room. It was fastened inside. I
knocked at the door, and it was opened by a female. I found
the prisoner sitting on a chair. I asked him his name, and
he said it was Joseph Connor. I told him I was an fficer
of police. I was not in uniform. He made no answer. I
called on a policeman from the street. and when he came I
took the prisoner into the back-yard, where I told him why
I took him into custody. He said " Yes, Sir ; oh, yes !"
Adolphus Lonsdale, 110 F—l was in the cell with the pri-
soner late on the night he was taken into custody. About 4
o'clock in the morning he said, " I am sure to be tucked up
if these two women come and give evidence against me.
They saw me on Monday between 8 and 9 o'clock. I know
them both to be prostitutes."
Mr. Pearce was recalled, and cross• examined by Mr. BAL-
LANTINE—He said the prisoner was employed to turn a wheel
at a silversmith's in Panton-street (Messrs. Garrard and Co.)
Charles Waugh—l worked at Messrs. Garrard's in March
last. The prisoner worked there with me. He told me
about six weeks before the murder that he had got an in-
fectious disease from a woman, and that he would serve her
out. I said, " You had better not interfere with the woman
at all. If you strike her she will very likely take out a war-
rant against you." He said she was a young woman, fresh-
coloured, and fat. He said he should have got married to
his cousin at Easter but for this illness; and he then said he
should be married at Whitsuntide. He said her family
knew what was the matter with him. I recollect the morn-
ing after the murder. He came a little after six to work as
usual, and breakfasted with me. He went away at half-past
11 o'clock. He never came to work again. I did not know
where he lived or lodged. He used to come to work in a
hat and velveteen shooting-jacket, and changed the coat for
a jacket.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE—He had worked at
Messrs. Garrard's for about eight months. He was a very
nice young man, well conducted and civil, good-humoured
and kind to his comrades in every respect, and honest, as far
as I know. I never saw him work in his velveteen jacket.
No rouge is used in the place where he worked. He did not
polish. I have not been there all the time he was. I have
not given evidence before. It was reported by one of the
men that a woman had been murdered in St. Giles's. He had
a velveteen coat, a velveteen waistcoat, and a hat on the
morning in question.

John-Coclirane, a young man, said he was a tailor. I have
known Connor for some years. I recollect the night of
Monday, the 31st of March. I saw Connor about seven
o'clock in the Crown, in the Seven-dials. He said he was
suffering under a certain disease. He went away at eleven
o'clock the same night. I was outside the door of the
Crown. Connor came up. I think he came up Queen-
street, which leads close to George-street. A person might
have run from George -street in five minutes. He looked
flurried, as if he had been quarrelling. I went towards him.
Prisoner—Perhaps you will allow me to ask the witness a
question ?
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said he would have an opportunity
of asking the witness any question after the witness had
given his testimony, but he had better leave himself in the
hands of his Counsel.

Witness—l said, "Halloo, what's the matter with you?"
He said, " I have given her something." I did not know of
whom he spoke, and asked him who he meant. He said,
"The b— old that gave me the —." I said,
jokingly, " I dare say you have not killed her?" He said.
T don't know, but I have been home and taken off my
things, so that they should not know me." There was a
row in the Seven Dials, and I went to see it, and lost sight
of the prisoner. He had on a velveteen coat and
a cap. I heard of the murder the following morning.
I heard that a person was taken into custody on Friday. I
should not have mentioned this at all, but his father asked
me to go before the Coroner; that is a fortnight ago. I first
told this to police-constable Allen on the day the
inquest terminated. I was not examined.—[Mr. Bal-
lantine having conferred with the prisoner continued
his examination.]--I had not known Allen before.
I was summoned to prove an alibi. I had not in-
formed the prisoner's father what I knew respecting the
prisoner. I should not have gone if I had not been sum-
moned, and if Connor's father and Connor's sister had not
come to me on the morning of the inquest, and asked me
to come. I have been charged with robbing my master
three years ago. I was tried, and sentenced to
three months' imprisonment. I have been fined 7s. for an
assault since. These are the only times I have been charged
with anything. I did nut know where the prisoner lived or
where he worked. Mr. Superintendent Pearce wrote down my
statement at the station-house directly after the termination
of the inquest.
Mr. Richard Partridge, one of the surgeons at King's
College Hospital—These tickets were given to the prisoner,
and he was treated for a certain disease. He was not then
convalescent.

James Brothers, the husband of the murdered woman, said
he had seen her body; that she was his wife, and that her
name was Mary Brothers. -
Michael Connor, the prisoner's father, was next examined
—He said, my son was living at 15, Endell-street, Long-
acre, at the time of this occurrence. That coat is my son's.
The hat was never worn by him. I suppose the cloth cap
was my son's.
Cross examined by Mr. BALIANTINE —The prisoner came
home at 11 o'clock, to a minute, on the night of the murder.
I noticed nothing extraordinary in his demeanour. He slept
with me. My wife slept with my daughter in another bed
in the same room. He undressed in my presence, and laid
his clothes on a chair. I got up and left him in bed at half-
past 6in the morning. Nothing occurred during the night
to attract my attention. He was not disturbed. I have
worked for Mr. Garrard for 19 years as assistant stamper. I
went to Cochrane first by my son's desire, to obtain him as a
witness. I had never had the slightest communication with
Cochrane. My son is the best that was ever reared to a poor
man—he was kind, industrious, and civil.

Re-examined by Mr. BODKIN.—I did not go out after seven
o'clock. My son came in at half-past nine, and remained for
20 minutes. My son told me that Cochrane had seen him
late on the night of the murder, and he desired me to tell
him that I was to request him to come and prove it.
By Mr. Baron ALDERSON.—My son slept with me on Mon-
day night. lie came home late on Wednesday morning, and
slept till nine o'clock, when he went out.

Mr. Fitzgerald, surgeon, skid I was called to the house on the
night of the murder, about 11 o'clock. The woman was dead.
I made a post mortem examination by order of the Coroner.
There were sixteen wounds altogether, and one mortal, pas-
sing through the chest, entering the first and second ribs, and
penetrating the pulmonary artery.
Mr. BODKIN said that was the case for the prosecution.
The jury then retired to take some refreshments.
On the return of the jury the prisoner, who had been re-
moved during their adjournment, was again placed at the bar.
Mr. BALLANT NE then proceeded to address the jury
on behalf of the prisoner. Ile said—When he was
first called upon to defend the prisoner he had
felt that he should have been able to offer a fair
defence in his behalf, but he was wholly unprepared for
the fresh evidence that had been adduced, and he almost felt
the weight of the responsibility thus thrown upon him—
almost too great for his abilities. He called upon
them to dismiss from their minds all that they had
heard out of doors, or from the public newspapers,
in reference to the prisoner, and, as unprejudiced men, :to
arrive only at a conclusion warranted by the evidence they
had heard. He held that the motives which had been as-
signed for the commission of the crime by the prisoner were
not of a character to entitle them t ) come to an adverse de-
cision respecting him. The prisoner was hurried to Newgate
with only half of the case heard against him, and complained
that he had not been supplied with the depositions
of the witnesses who were to be examined on his trial.
Thus he had to answer evidence which he had no idea would
be brought against him. Was it possible that the prisoner,
a young man of two or three and twenty, could have had
intercourse with a woman of the age of the deceased—a
woman leading the most loathsome of all occupations, in the
most wretched and lowest district of the metropolis—a
district where, of all others, the lowest class of indi-
viduals and the lowest kind of vice was to be found?
The threats were not such as were used by persons in the
same class of life as the prisoner, and it could not reasonably
be inferred from them that he intended to destroy the
woman's life. It was unlikely that the prisoner, who was
about to be married, and whose betrothed had in no way dis-
appointed his affections, would commit so horrible a crime
as this. Then, as to the identity of the prisoner.
There was a belief that he was the individual—
a belief which might be excited by many causes, and
by the similarity of the prisoner to some other person.
Belief showed a defect of some nature—that the person using
the term was uncertain of matters in his testimony. Let

them look at what opportunities the various witnesses had of
specifying that the prisoner was the man who committed
the murder. Mary Palmer and Mrs. Hall, who had oppor •
tunity of seeing him—the one, at the very time he was
committing the murder, if he was the man—yet they
could not swear positively that the prisoner was
the person. Might they not have associated their
belief with certain descriptions which were given of
the person by whom the murder was really committed. So
much doubt was there, that men as old as 'forty or fifty were
taken up on suspicion. When Allen saw the prisoner, whom
he said was the companion et reputed thieves, run out of
the house hastily, was it not extraordinary that he did not
arrest him—why did he stand still at the corner of the street ?
The aspersion cast upon the prisoner by the police.
man was refuted by the evidence of the witness
from Messrs. Garrard's, and from the evidence of the
prisoner's father, by whom it was shown that he was
both hard-working and honest, and consequently obtaining
his livelihood in a respectable manner. Then with respect
to the evidence of Mr. Oldham. Persons were, no
doubt, continually calling at his shop to purchase
knives, and it was singular that an ordinary indi-
vidual, making such a purchase at an ordinary time,
should have been so strongly impressed on his mind.
His daughter said that the person who purchased the
knife had a blotch on the side of his nose, yet none of the
eight witnesses who saw the prisoner on the night of the
murder were asked the question by the Counsel for the
Crown. When Mr. Oldham said "That is the man," that
inference was no doubt drawn from reasoning on the proba-
bilities that the prisoner was the individual. The voice
was most fallacious, and changed more than any other
oagan by deep emotion. Was it not likely that the
prisoner's voice, speaking as he did, under deep emotion, and
under painful and trying circumstances, might have been
husky, and like the voice of a person merging from youth to
manhood. He was not positive that the prisoner was the
man who bought the knife until he heard him speak some
half-dozen words. He held that this was not a reasonable
test, and could not be entertained by the jury. The object
of the prisoner in pointing out Mrs. Tape in the street as the
person who had communicated a certain disease to him, was
for the purpose of holding her up to shame amongst her com-
panions, and not as a prelude to a dreadful and revolting
murder. Secrecy was no part of his conduct. He made no
secret of his aversion to the woman, and of the injury
he supposed he had received from her. The coat
which the policeman stated was stained with blood ought to
have been sent to some scientific person to ascertain if the
marks on it were blood or not, for surely iu the advanced
state of science there was some means of arriving at such a
result. There was nothing to show that it was not rouge, or
that it was not the result of some slight wound. If the
prisoner committed the murder, was it not likely that in-
stead of there being spots cf blood on the coat,
it would have been deluged in blood ? It was proved that the
woman was tall and stout, and it was unlikely that the pri-
soner, who was not a powerful man, could have committed
the murder without meeting with great resistance, and of
having the knife wrested from his hand by her. It was
shown that the prisoner came home as usual and went
to bed with his father, and that his parent, whose testimony
was not biased, as, from the position in which he stood
towards the prisoner, might be supposed, saw nothing differ-
ent from his ordinary conduct. Was it not likely that, if he
had committed the murder, that he would have been dis-
turbed with the consciousness that he had destroyed the life
of another? Such, however, was not the case, and this was
an additional reason why he was not the man. If,
as it was stated, that he went home a short
time before the murder, why could he not have
obtained a knife there, instead of exposing himself in the cut-
ler's shop? He conceived that Cochrane had committed per-
jury. His evidence, and the assertions contained in it, were
inconsistent with truth, and could be little more than in-
vention, in which he had been assisted by the police, who,
lie believed, had basely tampered with him. The name of
Connor had been associated with that of " the murderer,"
and many, Cochrane among the rest, no doubt
considered him guilty; his name had been mixed
up as " Connor the murderer" in litigation between
public officers, and in the newspapers—who could help con-
, sidering him guilty ?- The assertion that if the women came
forward he would be sure to be tucked up, merely denoted a
morbid state of mind, and that he was labouring under great '1
apprehension as to the threats he had used towards the un-
fortunate
woman. After referring to other matters in rela-
tion to the case, he concluded by a powerful appeal on behalf
of the prisoner.
The Learned Counsel then called the following witnesses
on behalf of the prisoner :
Mr. John Webster, gold and silver chaser, Soho, said the
prisoner was in his employment when a boy, and that he was
peaceable and well-conducted.
Mr. George Robinson, carpenter and builder, had known
the prisoner for three years, and he had borne the character
of a quiet, inoffensive young man.
Mr. John Barnett, confectioner, 10, Great Suffolk-street,
had known the prisoner six or seven years. He was quiet
and well conducted. He was in his employ for eight months
about two years ago.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON then proceeded to sum up the evi-
dence. He called upon them to dismiss from their minds all
prejudices, and to confine their attention to the evidenee they
had heard, as if they were in the presence of Almighty God,
who would have to judge them. With respect to the depo-
sitions of some of the witnesses not having been delivered to
the prisoner, he would remind them that on the second day
of the trial of Courvoisier, some important evidence was ob-
tained. It would not have been right to have dispensed with
this evidence, because it was not obtained until a late
period of the investigation. His Lordship then read over the
evidence of the witnesses, and commented as he proceeded on
the most important parts. He did not think they could rely
on the evidence of the cutler as to the prisoner's voice
strengthening his opinion that lie was the man who bought
the knife from him on the night of the murder. Considering
the position in which he was placed, it was probable that his
voice was hoarse. He would not advise them to place too
strong reliance on the evidence of his daughter, who was not
in the shop more than a minute. After referring to other
portions of the evidence, more particularly to that of Waugh,
his Lordship concluded by leaving the case in the hands of
the jury.
The jury retired at twenty minutes past six o'clock, and
did not return into Court until a quarter to ten. Their names
were then called over, and the foreman gave their verdict of
Guilty.
The moment tha verdict was pronounced the prisoner
turgid deadly pale, and appeared quite overcome.
Proclamation for silence having been made, the Learned
Judges put on their black caps, and Mr. Baron Alderson pro-
ceeded to pass sentence upon the prisoner in the
following terms :—Joseph Connor, after a very patient
and careful investigation of your case, the jury
have felt themselves compelled to pronounce that fatal
verdict of guilty, which must remove you f-om this world,
and leave only before you the world that is to come. A
more barbarous murder than that by which the unhappy
victim of your brutality lost her life, I think, can hardly be
conceived, but it at the same time shows that when a man
offends against one of God's laws, he very speedily trans-
gresses against the whole. You were at first guilty only of
an offence which you no doubt considered a very light one,
and that which you thought a very venial sin
ended in the commission of murder. No one
could tell, when once he stepped aside from God's commands,
where he should stop. I beseech you, said the Learned
Judge, to think of your present state. Your time in this
world is very short, and you must look upon it as of some •
thing passing away from you, and place all your reliance
and hope in that which is to come, and sincere repentance
and contrition may yet avail you. I have nothing now
to do, but as the minister of the law, to perform that
which I have always considered one of the most painful
and fearful duties of a judge, to pass upon you that sentence
of death which the law has affixed to the crime of which you
have been convicted. The Learned Judge then passed sen-
tence of death in the usual form.

The prisoner appeared to listen attentively to the obser-
vations of the Learned Judge, and when he had concluded he
made one or two efforts to address the Court, but seemed
unable to do so from his emotion. He at length bowed re-
spectfully, and then walked away from the bar.
The trial was not concluded until near ten o'clock.