The Sun. — 1859-12-15 (London, England)

LIVERPOOL, DEC. 13. (Before Mr. Baron Martin.) Edward Tattersall was indicted for a burglary in the house of Edward Logan, and stealing tLerein a cap, waistcoat, and shirt. Mr. Albany Fonblanque was for the prosecution ; Mr. Charles Hopwood for the defence. The facts were very simple but singular. It appeared the prisoner had been a sailor on board her Majesty's ship Hastings, now lying in the Mersey, and had been arrested a week before (by the same constable who took him on this charge) as a deserter, and conveyed back to the ship, He, however, escaped from his guard, and returned to Manchester. The constable again saw him in the street, and laid plans for capturing him. He went at 2 o'clock in the morning of the 24th of August to the prisoner's lodgings, who, disturbed by the coming of the officer, left his bed and escaped on to the roof in his shirt, trousers, and stockings, but without clogs, cap, or coat. The policeman remained on the watch, but the prisoner escaped from the roof, and got into the prosecutor's house, where he took the articles in question, as he said, to disguise himself, and aid his escape from the police. The prosecutor said he had not desired to prosecute the man. Mr. Hopwood put it to the jury that if they believed the prisoner's account of the matter, it was no stealing. Mr. Baron Martin thought it a very clear case that it was stealing, even though his only purpose was, as he said, to disguise himself. It was a taking lucri eansa. Mr. Hopwood submitted that here the prisoner Sought only a benefit and not a gain. The learned Judge did not think there was any distinctina between the two. The learned counsel concluded his address to the jury, insisting on the absence of any felonious intent and also contending that the evidence of the fastening up of the house was so doubtful as not to be relied on.  The Judge summed up in accordance with the ruling he had intimated he should give, The jury considered some time, and then said not guilty of a felonious intent. The Judge again addressed them, when A juror said he did not agree with that verdict. Mr. Baron Martin went into the matter again, asking what doubt the jury had. The breaking and entering was to his lnind proved. Then, if they believed he took the things, it was clearly a stealing. The jury then found the prisoner guilty. The Judge declined to reserve the case for further consideration by the judges: He asked if the authorities would take back the prisoner as a sailor ? He had no doubt himself the things were taken to assist the prisoner in his escape. Inquiry must be made at the ship. A petty officer in the afternoon arrived from the ship Hastings, and announced the readiness of the authorities to receive the prisoner back. The Judge then addressed the -prisoner, requiring him to enter into his own recognisances in £5O to appear if called upon to receive judgment; but told him if he remained with the ship he would hear nettling more of it. He was then given up to his officer. Susan Trotter was indicted for the murder of her husband.  Mr. Aspinall prosecuted, and Mr. Pope defended the prisoner. This was a melancholy case of quarrels between husband and wife. Threats and violence had been used towards her by her husband, who, as well as age, was intoxicated at the time of the fatal occurrence. She had stabbed him with a table knife in the neck, and in so doing had divided the artery to the arm, and so caused his death. Her contrition afterwards was most touching. The jury found her Guilty of manslaughter. The learned Judge most feelingly addressed the prisoner, commenting upon this sad result of intemperance, which had made her by her own act a widow, and deprived her of the support of a man, for whom it appeared, though too late, she had a strong affection. He sentenced her to three months imprisonment.