The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-23 00:00:00

SECOND DAY-FRIDAY.

The trial was resumed at ten o'clock on Friday.
Mr. Adolphus said, that, before proceeding with the trial,
he had to inform the court, that some additional evidence
had been procured yesterday, and he wished to know whether
he should state to the court what it was? Chief Justice
Tindal asked if the counsel' for the defence wished to hear it?

Mr. Phillips wished to hear nothing on the subject. He had
only heard of this evidence about a quarter of an hour ago.
The officers of police who bad examined the premises of
the late Lord William Russell, gave their testimony touch-
ing the course of the scrutiny, and the discoveries which they
had made. Each of them underwent a se/Arching cross-ex-
amination, but nothing new was brought to light. Ellis, his
lordship's former valet, was called, and he identified the
plate, the locket, and other property, and also several articles
of plate produced by Mr. Cummins, a solicitor.
By the evidence of Mr. Harrison, 'a clerk in the bank of
Messrs. Hoare and Co. of Mr. Thos. Wing, solicitor, and of
the Baroness de Clifford, the £lO note found in the prisoner's
pantry was traced to his deceased lordship's possession. Lady
Sarah Bailey repeated her former testimony respecting the
locket. Charles Ellis, the keeper of the hotel at Richmond,
where his lordship supposed he had left the lost locket, pro-
duced the letter which was written to him by Lord Russell on
the subject, and described the search that was made in conse-
quence. The watchmaker, who repaired his lordship's watch,
identified the watch found concealed in the sink as the same
that he had in hand. The next witness called was

Charlotte Piolaine : My husband's name is Louis, I live
in Leicester-place, Leicester-square. I know the prisoner at
the bar. I have known him about four years. He came to
take a place as waiter at our hotel about four years ago. We
used to call him " John." French is the language generally
spoken at the hotel. He stayed a month or five weeks. 1
never saw him afterwards until about six weeks ago. He
asked me how I was, and after remaining a short time, he
went away. He knocked at the door, and 1 said " come in,"
and he walked in. I did not recognise him at the moment,
and he said, " Don't you recollect me ? " I said" No," and
he said, " I am John, that used to live with yon in the
square." He said he was in a situation. In about a fortnight
afterwards he again called on a Sunday. He asked me how I
was. He had a parcel in his hand. It was a paper parcel.
He asked me to take care of it till the Tuesday following, and
he would call for it. I said I would do so, and he left it and
went away. I locked up the parcel in the closet. I did not
know what the parcel contained at the time. It was tied up
and sealed. I never saw him since. I heard of the murder
of Lord Wm. Russell. The parcel was left before I heard of
the murder. I took the parcel out in consequence of some-
thing I saw in a French newspaper. My cousin read it to me,
and showed it to me. I had some communication with my
cousin, and I sent for Mr. Cumming and another person be-
fore whom the parcel was opened. It had never been opened
before from the time it came into my possession. The parcel
produced is the one left with me. It contained silver spoons
and forks, and two pair of new stockings, an instrument for
for assisting hearing, and a jacket. There was tow in the
parcel, which prevented the plate being felt. We immediately
put up the parcel again, after making an inventory of the
articles, I signed the inventory before putting up the parcel.
Re-examined : There is no pretence on earth for calling
our hotel a gaming-house. The police never took any one
out of the house. I used to talk to my husband about things
that passed and forgot them. I had no idea that the person
I knew as " Jean" was Francis Benjamin Courvoisier. There
is not such a thing as a backgammon table in the house.
By the Court : The parcel was left about a week or a fort-
night before the murder.
Cross-examined : "Our house is an hotel. A billiard-table
is kept at our house. The police have not been there lately.
There was no gang of suspected persons taken out of the
house lately, I have never heard of such a thing. The house
is frequented by foreigners. The prisoner was called " John"
for convenience. I never knew him by any other name. We
take the English papers in. I very seldom read them. I
have not often heard of the murder of Lord William Russell.
My husband is in France : he is master of the hotel. He
has been in France a fortnight. Ido not recollect him speak-
ing to me of the murder. Igo to church on Sunday, but I
never saw placards of the papers as large as he who runs may
read, containing the words, • Murder of Lord William Rus-
sell." 1 heard of the murder the day after it occurred. 1
cannot recollect whether I spoke to my husband about it.
I have not time to recollect those things. I was shocked,
but I do not recollect talking about it to his partner, to my
knowledge. I did not say anything about it to anybody, that
I remember. I cannot say whether I spoke to my husband
during three weeks about the murder.
Louis Garde, an acquaintance of M. Piolaine, deposed,
that he was at the house of the latter, on a Sunday, when a
man left a parcel there. He could not say it was the pri-
soner, or that the parcel produced was the same, as, being
only a visitor, he did not give much attention to the circum-
stance. He was taken to the hotel the preceding day, by the
partner of M. Piolaine, in consequence of something which
the latter had read in a French newspaper.
It appears, that the paragraph in the French journal was
copied from an English paper, with an addition, to the effect,
that the murder being supposed to have been committed by
a foreigner, it was probable the plate might be lodged iu the
house of some foreigner.
Mr. Louis Garde further stated, that the parcel was pro-
duced in the presence of Mr. Cumming, Mr. Vincent,
Madame Piolaine, and himself, and an inventory of its con-
tents made out and signed by them all. He believed it was
shortly before the murder of Lord William Russell that he
saw the parcel delivered.
parcel
n a
client
andit
. w a ofs N
My
Richard Cumming, the gentleman who bad produced the
articles shown to Ellis, the valet, deposed as follows :—I am
a solicitor, and carry on business in Old Jewry. I saw Mr.
Gad
Mr. Vincent
aoiddh
veu. ciceedme ow,taast
wammsekeyn:ocittiooe office
the
epeshtiseonurtbdebjl areyoc.wt
together,n
ofp Piolaineapepaper.
and i
aopening
opened
Is
not
again.whose sßeforetitvidaosi.n g tfouupnld saw the
as t
the
erest o
crestn thefth
e forksß
I made a list of the articles it contained, and put it up
cre
Bedford
family, spoons, and I went to the bookseller's shop to ascertain
family, and I went to •
a magistrate and was told to come here.
I came about six o'clock, and sent a note to the solicitor for
the prosecution. I then came in madeand
to Mr. Wing and Mr. nobler. The
a communication
e parcel was wrapped in
brown paper. The spoons, forks, and plate shown to Ellis
were those found in the parcel. There has be
on the parcel. It is nearly erased. Besides the
spoonsan address
forks, there was an ear apparatus in the parcel. It
forks,
contained,ad
in all, four table spoons, four dessert spoons, two silver
tea
spoons, four silver forks, one leather box, containing an
instrument for the ears, two pairs of white stockings, one
pair of white socks with marks on each, [they are marked
'• C 4"," one flannel jacket, and a small quantity of tow.
Mr. Mortimer, a print-seller, identified the paper in which
the articles alluded to were wrapped as having been sent from
his shop. It was
his practice to put a ticket of his address
on parcels, and he had, on the 27th April, sent his lordship,
who was a customer, a parcel containing a print of " The
Vision of Ezekiel." Mr. Vincent, the person alluded to by
Mr. Cumming, corroborated the statements of the witnesses
relative to the opening of the parcel. Eleanor Brooks, who
had washed for the prisoner, examined the socks produced.
They were marked with Cin the heel. The prisoner' socks
Thomas Ds socks
were were always marked C. B. at the top.
workman in the employ of Mr. Webster, an optician,
.proved,
'
that the silver instruments for assisting hearing, produced
from the parcel, were made by his master for Lord William
Russell : and the valet, Ellis, and Sarah Mansell, the house-
maid, stated, that they had seen similar instruments in his
lordship's possession. The jacket found in the parcel was

was identified as the prisoner's by Henry Carr, a former
fellow-servant.

This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Phillips ap-
plied to have the case adjourned till the following day, which
was complied with, and the prisoner was removed from the
bar abbut eight o'clock.

THIRD DAY.—SATURDAY. •
Long before the opening of the court, the bench and every
part of the court .was crowded by well-dressed persons.
Never has there been known such an assemblage of ladies on

any preceding occasion in a criminal court. Every chair in
front of the bench had its lady occupant, and, during the

whole of the three days, the ladies have been indefatigable in
their attendance, many of them not quitting the court even
during the time of the adjournment. His Royal Highness
the Duke of Sussex was not present to-day.
Shortly after ten o'clock the judges took their seats upon
the bench, and, immediately afterwards, Francis Benjamin
Courvoisier was placed at the bar. He appeared pale, and
downcast, and anxious; but his firmness never deserted him.
C. A. Rivers, who made the model of Lord William Rus-
sell'whouse, was examined. _ . _

Mr. C. PHILLIPS then rose and addressed the jury for the
defence. After having commented, at considerable length,
on the evidence for the prosecution, the learned counsel said,
that he now came to a portion of the case of which he had
loudly to complain. Up to the evening of Thursday, not
one word was said about the missing plate. Nothing could
be more shameful than the way in which that man was
treated, in the not having, within an hour of Mr. Cum-
mings's arrival, notice of the new evidence to be produced.
They ought, at least, to have had the night to have investi-
gated the character of the witnesses to be brought against
him. He knew not who Mrs. Poilaine was, and, if she did
not tell the truth, those who came to corroborate her proved
nothing. He hoped they knew Leicester-place. Here was
a billiard-table at the Hotel de Dieppe, where any person
might go in and play. Here was this woman living with her
husband, who most conveniently goes to France, and she
swears that she never opened her Bps to her husband on the
subject of the murder, because she was too busy. Had they
ever heard anything so absurd? Was it not odd that such a
discovery should have been made in the middle of the trial,
a reward of £5O having been offered previously for the dis-
covery of the minutest portion of this plate! A French
newspaper is read to this lady that puts her in mind of the
parcel. Now, he begged their attention to this. Courvoi-
sier was never known in that house by the name of Cour-
voisier. He was known only by the name of John. How
could the French paper direct her attention to this ?
Mr. Baron PARKIL—You have no right to raise a doubt
upon the paragraph in the French paper, unless it is put in
in evidence.

Mr. C. PHILLIPS.—Did it not subject his client to any
fresh mine that might be sprung, without notice, upon him,
by calling upon them to put in fresh evidence ? The whole
depended upon the evidence of this woman. She knew so

little of Cosirvoisier that, when he first called, she did not
know him, and that, when she opened the parcel, she sends
for half-a-dozen people, who all sign a sort of round-robin
as to the articles found in the parcel. All that was consist-
ent with the woman not having received the parcel, from
Courvoisier. They attempted to identify the clothes, but
they utterly failed ; and that woman proved, if she proved
anything, that the sock was not Courvoisier's. He was sure;
if the jury could find their way out of the case consistently
with justice, without shedding that man's blood, they would
do so. Now, supposing they admitted everything connected
with the property, that it was left there by Courvoisier, was
that conclusive of the murder? He thought not.. But it
was conclusive of robbery, for which he might be convicted,
and sentenced to be transported, to suffer a lingering death
upon Norfolk Island. Here was a golden bride for them
to pass over. If they entertained a suspicion, and yet felt
themselves bound to acquit him, still he might be punished
for it ; and he mould say, if he should have been guilty of the
murder, which he hoped to find he was not, better, far bet-
ter, would it be that he should repent, in the bitterness of
such an exile, than be sent, in the dawning of his life, to an
ignominious death. This did not come so in aid of the for-
mer proof as to compel them to convict him. " Now," said
the learned advocate, " my anxious task is ended, and yours
is about to begin. • One of the attributes of the Almighty
God is now committed to ycu : the issues of life and death
are in your hands. You are to restore that man once more
to the enjoyment of existence and freedom, or to send him
to an Ignominious death, and brand upon his grave a mur-
derer's epitaph. Awful is the consideration—still more awful
the responsibility. Violate not lightly that temple which the
Lord bath made. Recollect, the word once gone forth from
you, it is irrevocable. Speak it not lightly. Speak it not
upon suspicion, however strong—upon moral conviction,
however cogent—not upon argument, not upon probability—
but upon broad, clear, irresistible noon-day conviction. I
speak this in no hostile spirit, but with a Christian feeling.
If you do this deed, do it oot light, or its consequences will
follow you like a shadow—it will accompany you in your
crowded walks—be with you in your homes—and his accus-
ing spirit will hover over your deathbed, and confront and
condemn you at the judgment-seat of your God. Beware
what you do !"
The address of the learned counsel was listened to with
breathless interest by the most crowded court we ever wit-
nessed, and at the conclusion of it many of the people present
were affected even to teers.
Several witnesses were then called to character, and ex-
mined by Mr. Clarksor.
All the witnesses to character having been examined, the
Court adjourned for refreshment previous to the summing up:
The Court reassembled at half-past one o'clock, and the
jury having answered to their names,
The Lord Chief Justice TIND AL commenced the summing

up. He desired the jury to discharge from their minds all
they might have heard previous to being sworn, and calmly
to consider the evidence they had heard, and consider whe-
ther it was sufficient to bring home to their minds that the
prisoner was guilty. If they entertained any doubt on the
subject, they were bound to give the prisoner the benefit of
it ; but, if they came to the conclusion, that it was by the pri-
soner's hand that Lord William Russell died, then, however
painful it might be, they were bound to convict him. The
ease was one of circumstantial evidence, and, if circumstan-

tial evidence were to be always rejected, crime would almost
always go unpunished, because it was very seldom that per-
sons committed atrocious crimes in the presence of witnesses.
But it would not be enough for them to be satisfied that such
and such circumstances were consistent with the guilt of the
poisoner, but that they were utterly inconsistent with any
other supposition than that the prisoner was the person who
committed the crime. He would first offer• some general
observations on the case and then read the evidence. It was
beyond a doubt, that Lord W. Russell was murdered in the
night between Tuesday, the sth, and Wednesday, the 6th of
May. There was no possibility of saying that he had com-
mitted suicide. It was also perfectly clear, that, in the course
of that night a robbery was committed. Various valtiables
were taken away, all of which were afterwards found con-
cealed in some other part of the house. It was for them to
determine whether it was within the reach of human possi-
bility that that robbery was unconnected with the murder.
Whether there could have been a robbery by one set of peo-
ple, and a murder by another, in the same house on the same
night, was a most important point for them to consider—
whether that robbery was committed by persons breaking into
the house, or by the inmates residing in it. At 7 o'clock in
the morning it was fount' that the front area door was fas-
tened, the front door open, the back door fastened, the back
area door open, and a cloak was found folded up, with a nan-
kin lying upon it, in the hall, near the front door. Upon the
first impression, therefore, the natural inference would be,
that some person had entered by the back area door, which
bore marks of violence, had robbed the house, murdered
Lord William Russell, and afterwards made his escape by
the front door, leaving his booty behind him. But were
there any circumstances leading us to suppose that this was
merely a contrivance, for the purpose of avoiding detection
by the real perpetrator ? Now, it appeared, that no articles
were really taken away, and that many articles easily port-
able were left behind, and they were to consider whether a
real thief would have left such articles behind him, some con-
cealed with great care, and others left close to the door, when
the thief might have taken them away with him on his per-
son without exciting suspicion. Then, with regard the door,
they would have to say whether they were marks produced
by a person breaking into the house, or made by a person
after the door had been opened. He should wish them not to
place any great reliance on the expressions made use of by
the prisoner, or on his agitation, as the conduct of a person
under such circumstances depended so much upon his tem-
perament and education, that it would he harsh to draw any
inference from them. Neither should they suffer some of the
observations of the learned counsel for the defence to pro-
duce too great an effect upon them. They were placed to
administer not mercy, but justice, and to give their verdict
accordingly. They were bound to put the most favourable
construction they could on the circumstances, and, having
come to a conclusion, they were to recollect, that they were
under the obligation of an oath to administer justice, and
they must find their verdict accordingly, regardless of the
consequences. The learned Judge then proceeded to read
the evidence, assisted by Mr. Baron Parke. On reading the
evidence of the cook, his lordship said, that it had been com-
mented on, that the housemaid said the cook was asleep,
while she (the housemaid) was getting up, and the cook said
she was awake. He did not think this was an important
discrepancy, as, if the cook aid not speak, it might have been
natural to suppose that she was asleep. With regard to the'
warming-pan having been left on the stairs, he did not think
that a circumstance of any importance one way or the other.
With regard to the observations which had been made upon
the expressions used by the housemaid, " Let us go and see
where his lordship is," he thought it was merely a natural
expression of anxiety for his lordship's safety under the
circumstances. With regard to her preventing the prisoner
sending to Mr. Russell, by a labouring man passing by,
her idea might have been that a man of that de-
scription, sent to such a distance as Belgrave-square,
might have loitered by the way, or, perhaps, not have
gone at all : however, they had heard the observations of
the counsel upon it, and it was a question entirely for them
to determine. With regard to the expression used by the
prisoner, " Old Billy was a rum old chap, and had money,"
he thought the Jury must not lay too much stress upon ex-
pressions used by pers.:ins in the prisoner's class of life when
discoursing with their fellow-servants : all the inference that
could be drawn from the expression was, that the prisoner
thought Lord William Russell was a rich man. With regard
to what had been said to the counsel about the seeming con-
tradiction' in evidence given by the housemaid in the court
and before the coroner, he ought to have had the evidence
given before the coroner read, and to have given her an op-
portunity of explaining it : as it was, her evidence was un-
contradicted ; and, even admitting all that the learned coun-
sel had said, he really did not think it was a discrepancy of
any importance whatever. With regard to the breaking into
the house, the JuiY, before they came to any decision as to
the prisoner's guilt or innocence, must make up their minds
as to whether it was a real breaking in for the purpose of
robbing the house, or merely a simulated breaking in for the
purpose of directing suspicion and inquiry away from the real
perpetrator of the crime. With regard to the evidence of
Baldwin, it did not appear to him (the Judge) that he gave
his evidence in such a way as entitled him to full credit. Yet,
the prevarication of which he had been undoubtedly guilty
could not alter facts, and, as all the material facts to which
he deposed were also deposed to by Rose, on whose character
no such imputation rests, he should read Rose's evidence to
the Jury, omitting altogether that of Baldwin. With
respect to the glass door being undisturbed, it was very
remarkable that any housebreaker should have neglected
the comparatively easy method of getting into the house by
removing a pane of glass from this window, and have gone
down a story lower, for the purpose of getting into the
house by the back area door. Some strong observations had
been made upon the fact of the gloves having been found in
the prisoner's trunk upon the second examination, and not
upon the first ; and it had been insinuated, that they had
been placed there by some one for the purpose of getting up
a case against the prisoner. Now it was for the jury to de-
termine whether it was not possible for the gloves to have
escaped observation on the first examination, when the shirts
were merely unfolded, and yet to have fallen out of one of
them on the second examination, when the shirts were
shaken. They had seen the police-officers who had been
examined before them, and it was for them to determine
whether they thought those persons would have been wicked
enough to have got up evidence against the prisoner in that
manner ; and, if they had been so wicked as to make evidence
against the prisoner in the manner charged, would they not
have invented some circumstance of infinitely more import-
ance than the finding of a pair of white gloves, so lightly.
stained with blood as to render it almost impossible they
could have been worn by a person when engaged in such a
horrible transaction as this murder? Very strong observa-
tions had been made on the conduct of Pearce : now, nothing
could be more proper than to show any things which might
be found to a prisoner and to ask him any proper question :
at the same time, it 'was exceedingly improper in a minister
of justice to attempt to entrap a person into a confession of
guilt, and it was for the jury to determine what was to be

the effect likely to 19e produced by tile conduct of Pearce in
the present instance. No blame, he thought, could be at-
tached to Mr. Maine. notwithstanding the observation of
the learned counsel on his conduct. With regard to the re-
ward, crime would very often go undetected, persons, perhaps,
would not use their utmost diligence unless they were stimu-
lated by the hopes of areward, and the remarks of the learned
counsel would apply equally to every case in which a reward
was offered. If a witness were influenced by the hope of re-
ward, it would certainly go to diminish- the credit due to his
testimony, but that was a question entirely far the considera-
tion of the jury. With regard to the discovery of the hand-.
kerchiefs and the shirt-front, the same observations would
apply to them as to the gloves, except that Shaw said he had
seen the front on searching the box on the former occasion,
although he did not recollect that he had seen the handker-
chiefs. They now came to the evidence as to the missing
property,—evidence which had been discovered since the
prosecution had commenced. Had the case remained with.
out this evidence, there might have been some strong
observations made upon the circumstance of the property
being missing, and of the probability of a person having
entered the house by the back, and left it by the front,
taking with him the property that was missing; although he
might have left a quantity behind him ; but if it were proved,
that the property had been removed by the prisoner himseif
before the murder took place, then he would be deprived of
the advantage of that conjecture ; and he supposed, it was
with that view that the evidence had been adduced, because
they were not there to try the prisoner for robbing his master
but the murder. The learned judge then read the evidence of
Mrs. Piolaine, and said that observations had been made on
the improbability of her having seen an account in the French
paper calculated to excite her suspicions. Now, in justice
to the prosecutors, it must be said, that they could not make
this paper evidence, but that the counsel for, the prisoner
might have cross-examined her on the subject, if he had
thought fit, and might have put in the paper to contradict her.
It was certain something must have happened to direct her at-
tention to the parcel which had been left with her. With re-
gard to the conduct of Mr. Cummins, he thought it exceed-
ingly proper, as it was the duty of every good subject to assist
in the administration of justice, and to bring forward every
fact which may come to his knowledge, whether it be for the
prisoner or against him. There was considerable difficulty
in coming to the conclusion which the counsel for the prisoner
wished them to come to,—that the various articles were con-
cealed in the pantry by the police, for the purpose of convict-
ing the prisoner. These articles were missing on the morn-
ing of the discovery of the murder, and had been in their
places the night before. Where could the police have found
them, or could they have had any opportunity of placing
them there ? They would have to consider all these things,
before they could come to the conclusion to which the
learned counsel would lead them. With respect to the
evidence as to character, it was to be observed, that all
cases were to be tried by the direct evidence adduced. Evi-
dence as to character was merely of a secondary nature, not
to be weighed against the direct testimony of the case, and if
the circumstances of the case were so strong, although he
did not say it was so in this case, that being for the Jury to
determine, as to leave no doubt on the subject; then the evi-
dence as to character would be of no avail ; but where the
scales of justice were evenly balanced, there, character would
be of avail in determining as to the probability of the inno-
cence or guilt of the party. In this case it was their duty to
weigh well and consider every circumstance of the case, and
to draw their inferences. They were to give the case their
best consideration, and to say whether the prisoner was in-
nocent or guilty, if they thought that there could be any
doubt, taking all the circumstances into their consideration,
that the prisoner was guilty, then they were to give him the
benefit of that doubt ; but if they felt that, taking all the cir-
cumstances into their consideration, there could be no doubt
as to his guilt, then, however painful it might be to them, it
was their bounden duty to pronounce him guilty. It was
for them, however, to exercise their deliberate judgment upon
the case, to weigh well every circumstance, and to pronounce
their verdict accordingly. His lordship finished his summing
up at five o'clock, and
The Jury then retired to deliberate on their verdict. And,
after an absence of an hour and twenty-five minutes, they re-
turned, and delivered a verdict of guilty.
The prisoner seemed to be unmoved by the delivery of the
verdict.

Lord Chief Justice TINDAL, in passing sentence of death
upon the prisoner, said,—You have been convicted, by the
verdict of an intelligent and impartial Jury, of the crime of
wilfurmurder. That can be proved, not by the testimony of
eyewitnesses, but by circumstances which have proved it.
It has been demonstrated in this instance by the Providence
of God in no ordinary manner, that the crime committed in
the darkness should be brought to light. The crime of
murder is, without exception, the deepest that can be com-
mitted, coming before us in this instance under circumstances
of peculiar aggravation. The age of your victim, his situation
of master to you, all had no effect upon you. To atone to
society, which has received a shock by your crime, and to
prevent the recurrence of it, you must suffer a speedy and
an ignominious death. What may have been your precise
or actual motive it is impossible to state. I fear it has been
lust-of filthy lucre, and I beseech you to make use of the
short time which remains to you, in endeavouring to make
your peace with your Creator. The learned Judge then
passed sentence in the usual manner. He was dreadfully
affected, so that at times his utterance was choked.
The prisoner was pale, but quite unmoved.