The Press. — 1856-08-23 (London, England)

UGUST 23, 1856.  MR. ANTHONY VANBEVON, a student of the Royal Academy of Arts, was last Saturday fined SL, or in default sentenced to two months' imprisonment, by Mr. D'Eyncourt, at Clerkenwell, for insulting a respectable married woman, a Mrs. Stevens, in the Hampstead-road, at midnight on the pi evious night. Mr. Vanbevon prayed for "mercy," as, if he were sent to prison he should certainly go mad ; but Mr. D'Eyncourt was inexorable, and Mr. Vanbevon was removed. _ _  JAPES AND ANDREW BRACKEN, two brothers, were tried on Tuesday, at Liverpool, before Mr. Justice Willes, for the murder of a man named Bates, on the 28th June last. It way proved in evidence that the deceased, while looking on at a fight between the two prisoners and another man, had been brutally attacked by Andrew Bracken, who knocked him down and kicked him in the head so severely as to fracture his skull. James Bracken bad also at tacked the deceased, but had not kicked him when down. The jury found Andrew Guilty of murder, and James of manslaughter. The moment the verdict was pronounced a scene occurred in court— several women, relatives of the prisoners, shrieked and fainted, while the prisoners fell down on their knees and literally cried for mercy. The judge, however, proceeded to pass sentence, transporting James for life, and condemning Andrew to be hanged, without hope of reprieve. _ _  THE MAN COLE, who shot the girl, Emily Luker, maid-servant in Hawely-place, PeAdington, was fully committed for trial by Mr. Broughton, on Tuesday, for " wounding with intent to murder." ROBERT TELFORD, a labourer at Doncaster, one day last week was suddenly seized with a flt while in his father's house. On recovering from the flt he grasped the old man and strangled him on the spot. An inquiry has been held, and Telford committed to take his trial for manslaughter. He could not account for the impulse which led him to commit so horrible a crime.  A MR. JAMES SMART, a portrait-painter, aged for 4r six, living in lodgings in Gray's inn-lane, was found on Thursday lying dead in his room, with his head nearly cut off. He had committed suicide from starvation and misery.  THE DANGER OF THE INDISCRIMINATE SALE OF POIS3NS was exhibited at a trial for "intent to murder " this week at Liverpool, in the case of one Jane Newton, of Ashton-under-Lyne, indicted for having administered a dose of arsenic to her husband on Sunday, the 4th May last. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner, the Friday previous, under the plea of clearing the flock beds in her house of fleas, which she stated to a witness were so troublesome that her husband could not sleep, had obtained from a druggist's boy a quarter of a pound of arsenic. She asked for mercury to kill fleas with, and the boy without hesitation gave her a quarter of a pound of arsenic. On the Sunday morning following, she went out with a jug and purchased some stew for breakfast. When she returned she measured the stew out into three pots, and stirred up her husband's with a spoon. Her husband and two children soon after came downstairs to breakfast. He ate some of the stew, and in a few minutes was taken with a severe St of vomiting. The prisoner directly after took the stew away from the children, and washed out the three pots. The vomiting continued during the day. The next morning she gave her husband a basin of porridge, and he was seized with violent vomiting immediately afterwards. The vomiting continued up to Wednesday night, when, by the efforts of the medical men, it was at length subdued. The evidence against the prisoner was strong. She had pawned her husband's clothes during his illness. She was also entitled to 8/. burial fee on his death, and bad frequently expressed her belief that he would not get better. In the vomit of her husband two grains of arsenio were detected, while none could be detected in the flocks, and she had grossly prevaricated as to where she had purchased the stew. The main point, however, whether any arsenic was in the stew, and had been put there designedly by her, could not be proved. The jury " acquitted " the prisoner, at the same time remarking strongly upon the reprehensible practice of indiscriminately selling poison to any and every purchaser.