The Sun. — 1844-03-01 (London, England)

WILLIS. _ _  In this case Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Carrington appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. V. Lee was counsel for the defendant.  The plaintiff, it appeared, is a young woman, now twentyone years of age, who some time previous to the 12th of December, 1842, had gone to live in the family of a Mr. Cornelius Willis and his sister, all her own near relations being either dead or settled in other parts of the country. The plaintiff, however, as Miss Willis said, was " a little of a relation, as Miss Willis's brother had married the plaintiff's great aunt ;" and partly, perhaps, on this account, and partly on the score of the plaintiff's skill in dress-making, and her readiness and ability to make herself generally useful in the family, she continued to reside with Mr. C. Willis and Miss Ann from the time when she first went to live with them up to the present period. Mr. Cornelius Willis is a draper and grocer carrying on his business at a place called Woolstone, in this county, and happens to be pretty far advanced in life. The defendant, Thomas Willis, is the brother of Cornelius, and carries on thi business of a coal-merchant at Uffington ; and it seemed that some yet unhealed differences had broken out between the two brothers, and that the defendant had taken umbrage at the plaintiff's residing in his brother's family, he having got into his head a notion that Cornelius intended to marry Miss Matilda Lovegrove (the plaintiff), who was to receive 6001. when she reached the age of twenty-one. Influenced by these feelings, the defendant thought proper to indulge himself on various occasions in remarks derogatory to the plaintiff's character for chastity; and, as some goodnatured friend is never wanting to carry an unpleasant tale, it was not long before these remarks reached Miss Matilda's ears. Accompanied by Miss Willis, the plaintiff proceeded to the house of the defendant, and, conscious of her own purity, demanded what he had to say against her. He replied, that he had nothing to say, and that he knew nothing against her; but at the same time took care to qualify the satisfaction which such a declaration was calculated to produce, by a threat that if she did not leave his premises he would thrust her head and that of her companion, his own sister, into the " guzzle," a word which, in the Berkshire dialect, signifies "gutter." The ladies accordingly beat a retreat, and the defendant, elated at the success of so vigorous a demonstration, suffered his prudence to go to sleep, and instead of keeping " on the windy side of the law," as he had carefully done during his brief interview with the slandered Miss Matilda, communicated his private opinion about her to a customer who came to his shop for coals on the 12th of December, 1842. The language in which this was expressed was so coarse as to be unfit, in part, for publication. The witness who deposed to the conversation, a Mrs. Tyler, who lived at Woolstone, said that when she went on the day in question to the defendant's coal-shed, he asked about his sister, Ann Willis, who had been very unwell for a long time, and said that she was poisoned, as Mr. Barnett, her medical attendant, had told him so—that she had taken enough mercury to poison a lion—that " them that were about her had given it to her"—and that " it was that little Matilda that gave it to her." He added " that they wanted to get his sister out of the way, in order to marry Matilda to his brother." Upon this conversation being reported to the plaintiff's friend, Miss Willis, the defendant was written to, and an apology demanded, but that not being given, an action was at once commenced by Cornelius Willis, as the next friend of the plaintiff.--Thejury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and give her 40/. as damages.  NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Carlisle, Feb. 28. (Before Mr. Jusitice CorirmAx.) Eliza Hetherington, aged 24, a person of mild and pleasing demeanour, was indicted for the wilful murder of her illegitimate child, at Carlisle, on the 11th of October last. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Ramshay, Mr. Bele, and ➢lr. Lawrie ; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Matthews. The circumstance of the prisoner having given birth to a child, and her concealment thereof, were proved : the evidence it is wholly unnecessary to detail. His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury acquitted the prisoner of the murder, but found her guilty of concealing the birth. To be imprisoned twelve calendar months.