On this page

• Departments (1)
  • 
• Text (5)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    T Aran. 21, 1849. ' THE N'ORTHEBN STAR. ...

  • 

    ©nttral <£rimroal €ourt

  • 

    (Concluded from ihe Fi ghtli Pagc.) SATU...

  • 

    Obtaining Goods bv False Pretesces.—G. P...

  • 

    s \V * * X f* ' v* It

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    T Aran. 21, 1849. ' The N'Orthebn Star. ...

    T Aran . 21 , 1849 . ' THE _N'ORTHEBN STAR . _,

    ©Nttral ≪£Rimroal €Ourt

    _© nttral < £ _rimroal _€ _ourt

    (Concluded From Ihe Fi Ghtli Pagc.) Satu...

    ( Concluded from ihe Fi _ghtli _Pagc . ) SATURDAY , Amul 14 . The Tooting Tragedy . —The learned iudges took their seats on the bench at ten o ' clock , and the defendant who had been released upon bail , surrendered , and took his place in the dock . Thc fury were then brought from the London Coffee-house , where they had been during the night in the charge of Mr . Hasker , the principal usher , and their names having been called over the trial proceeded . _Sszuh Dimioxd , examined hy Mr . Chambers . — I am deputy-matron of the Holborn Union Workhouse , and used to attend to the children in that establishment . I went to the Free Hospital on the 5 th of January to receive the children that were

    coming from Tooting . One hundred and fifty-seven children arrived there on that ni ght , and among them the deceased , James Andrews . The nest day I heard that he was ill , and I found him in bed , and Mr . Whitfield , the medical gentleman , prescribing for him . I attended upon him until he died , which was about half-past eleven on the 6 th . I examined the children that had come from the Tooting establishment ou that day . Sir F . Thesiger objected to any evidence being given , as to the general state ofthe children . The only question wa 3 _, what the condition of James Andrews was . It might be that James Andrews was treated quite differently from the other children .

    The Court expressed an opinion that the evidence was admissable _. Examination continued : I found thc children in a very bad state . Many of them bad eruptions on their bodies . The deceased had no eruption on his tody . Baron Piatt inquired how it was proposed to apply this evidence . Mr . Chambers said he should submit that it ¦ was important , as tending to show that the treatment adopted by Mr . Drouet was generally detrimental , and that the whole ofthe children suffered from it in different ways . Sir F . Tbesigeb objected to the reception ofthe evidence , but

    The Court , after some argument , decided that such evidence might be gone into . The examination of the witness was then proceeded with . She said , —The children were very gore in their bodies , and had sore feet , and there tvere wounds on different parts of their persons . I saw the children before they went to Mr . Drouet ' s , and at that time they were much stouter and healthier . They have since been examined by Mr . Grainger and Dr . Parr . There are twenty-eight ofthe children still remaining in thc hospitnl . _~ -By Sir F . Thesiger : I used to see the children when I ¦ went occasionally into the different wards . Two of my own children were sent io Mr . Drouet ' s , and they remained there fourteen months , and I believe Mr . Drouet treated them very well , and

    • was kind to them , and I have thanked him for treating them so well . —By the Court : My children were a portion of the 150 that were sent . One of them was attacked by the cholera . That was a little girl . My two boys were sent back , and they appeared verypoorly . All my children recovered . When I visited the establishment my little girl appeared to be treated just like all the other children and no partiality whatever was shown her . I saw her four times at her meals . If I had seen any insufficiency in the food , or that it was improper in any respect , of course , as a mother I should haye complained . Tlie food appeared to me good in quantity and quality . I only saw them at supper . 1 was never there at dinner time . I never saw the bovsfed . I onlv went into thc * irls' room .

    Mary Harris said : I was a nurse at the Free Hospital when the children were brought there on the 5 th of January . I saw the deceased James Andrews on that night . He seemed very tired , and I set him by the fire , and gave him some supper , 1 gave him some bread and milk , and he said , " Oh , nurse , what a big piece of bread ting is . " He drank the mUk , but he could only eat a portion ofthe bread . He appeared very fatigued , and I put him to bed , and 1 observed , as I undressed him , that he was very thin and emaciated . Tie appeared to compose himself on his bed , and soon went to sleep , and about half-past six o ' clock the next morning he began to purge and vomit . I save him some milk , and he brought it

    up directly , and I then sent for Mr . Whitfield , the doctor , and left tho child in his charge . —By Sir F . Thesiger : I don ' t know bow many children were sent to the Free Hosp ital . There were four of us nurses sent from the Holborn Union to attend to them . I had never seen the boy Andrews before he was brought to the hospital . I was not told he had been ill in the van on the way to the hospital . —By thc Court : More ofthe children were purged , but Andrews was tbe ouly one who vomited . Mr . S . _WiniFiELD said—I am the medical officer ofthe Holborn Union . I visited Mr . Drouet ' s establishment on the 4 th of January , for the purpo se of reporting on the state of the children generally . I went into the cholera ward , which consisted of several rooms , appropriated to cholera

    cases , and when I left I entered some suggestions in the visitors' book for Mr . Drouet io adopt , and reeonmiended the use of warmer cloibing _, warmer rooms , and that the diet should be changed , and more meat g iven to the children . I afterwards examined the sleeping apartments . Sir F . TnEsiGER took an objection that what had occurred after the breaking out of the cholera was not evidence . The deceased boy was removed on the _following day , he being supposed to be healthy and fit to betaken away . —The Court ruled that the evidence should only be given as to the condition of the other sleeping apartments , and not with regard to the eholora wards . —Examination continued : On the 5 th of January I made another visit and

    examined all the Holbom Union children , and according to my judgment 156 were in a condition to be removed ) but many of these were then under the influence of cholera and would be attacked , but still I thought they were in a St state to be removed . It was a cold snowy night when the children were taken away . They were carried in a van _coverecfat the top and with curtains at the sides . I attended upon the deceased child afterwards at the hospital until he died , which was about eleven o ' clock in the morning of the Cth . About a week afterwards I saw the -whole ofthe rooms . Sir F . Thesiger objected that ike evidence should be confined strictly to the room in which thc deceased child actually slept . —Mr . Chambers .

    contended that they were entitled to show that the building was overcrowded , and pestilential in consequence of that overcrowding . —Thc Court expressed an opinion that the general state ofthe whole building was not admissable , and that the evidence ought to be confined to the room in which the deceased child slept In answer to a question put by Sir F . Thesiger , Mr . Whitfield said that ihe establishment consisted of several separate buildings . —SirF . Thesiger : And one part of the building is a quarter of a mile from another . —Mr . Chambers : There is no evidence of that . —SirF . Thesiger : But Mr . Whitfield will soon tell us . Ue then put the question , and Mr . Whitfield said that some of the buildings were several

    hundred yards apart from each other . The examination of Mr . Whitfield was then continued . He said , I went into all the dining halls , but I was not told how many children were generally accommodated in them . I observed that the children who were broughtfromTootinghad swelled bellies , and then- pulses were very weak . 3 Iany of them were also suffering from itch . The appearances I observed were an indication to me that the children had not had sufficient food , and this would no doubt render them more liable to thc attacks of such a disease as cholera . The wasting is very sudden incases of cholera . The child was not a bag of bones . This is an exaggeration . —By Sir F . Thesiger : Workhouse children are not the best

    description of children to be found . They very frequently come in with itcb , and tbe workhouse is seldom free from that disorder . Emaciation is excessively rapid in eases of cholera . When the seeds of cholera are in the system emaciation would not commence until the discbarges . The deceased died of Asiatic cholera . I believe cholera is produced from atmospheric influence , and that it is decidedly infectious ; and that an infected subject increases the poisonous state of the atmosphere . I do not believe that cholera is contagious . In my opinion cholera is not generated by marsh miasma ; nor is it generated by nisnfficiency of food . Cholera ia generally very capricious in its attacks , and I have heard of cases -where it has attacked one side of a ship and one side

    ofa street , and spared the other ; and there are instances where it has attacked healthy spots , and spared others in the same neighbourhood which were ill-ventilated and unhealthy . I am aware that the cholera broke out with great virulence at Wandsworth , which is in the neighbourhood of Tooting . I think that cold is a great predisposing cause of cholera . I did not attend the ehildren at the Holborn Union or at the Free Hospital when the children were brought back . —By Mr . Chambers : InsufSciency of food might predispose tbe system to be attacked by cholera . A change from warm to cold clothes suddenly would also have that effect . —By the Court : I was precluded irom seeing the children on

    the night thev were brought to the hospital , as I was superseded by the medical gentleman belonging to it . —Baron Platt : Surely you ought to have given some intimation to the medical gentleman that incipient cholera existed among the chddren .--w r _tness : I took for granted they would be attended to . Baron Platt : Was not the removal of the chddrcn on a cold night likely to predispose them to be attacked with cholera?—Witness : Tes , it was an evil , but it could not he remedied . From the state ofthe establishment it was indispensable to bring them up that night . Mr . Gibso >; another surgeon attached to" the nolborn Union , deposed that he examined all the children in October , before they were sent to Toot-

    (Concluded From Ihe Fi Ghtli Pagc.) Satu...

    ing . He did not remember the particular case of the deceased , but , generalh-, he was certain hc passed none ofthe boys if they were unhealthy . Mr . A . B . _Garrod said , I am a doctor of medicine and assistant-physician to the University College Hospital , I made a post mortem examination of the deceased . The body , I believe , had been buried by mistake . A difficulty here arose as to the identit y of thc body . Mr . Pearson was called to prove that the body which was examined was that ofthe deceased . He ' however , was unable to do so . In answer to questions put by Sir F . Thesi ger , he said that he was one or the guardians of St . Andrew ' s parishand in

    , that capacity he had examined the establishment , and in his opinion Mr . Drouet ' s conduct was characterised by kindness and humanit y—By the Court : That was his character in the town of Tooting and the nei ghbourhood . William Philby , the gravedigger of St . Andrew ' s parish , proved that he knew the deceased , and that he was in good health before he was sent to Tooting . He likewise stated that the body examined by Mr . Garrod was that of James Andrews . Dr . Garrod was then recalled . He said—In my judgment the deceased died of malignant cholera . The body of the child was very much emaciated , and the appearance of the teeth denoted that he was a child of infirm constitution , and that he had

    not arrived at proper maturity . There was a total absence of fat even on those parts where it was generally thickest . The lungs were slightly congested . There were also all the usual indications ofthe death having been occasioned b y cholera . lam positive that the death was occasioned b y cholera , and I also think that a considerable portion of the emaciation which tbe body exhibited mi ght have been the result ofthe ravages ofthe disease . This would not Live been the case under ordinary circumstances , but lam of opinion this was hot a healthy child I should not like to state positively that tlie child being kept in a crowded and ill-ventilated apartment , and being insufficiently fed and clothed , would have produced some of the

    appearances which were exhibited . It is my opinion that a child of weak constitution would be more likely from such treatment to be affected by such a disease as cholera . —By Sir F . Thesiger : I believe that the cholera cannot be generated in England , but that it travels to us with the atmosphere . 1 also think it may be communicated by infection , but nothing positive is known upon the subject . It is rather a capricious disease , but generally selects prisons , workhouses , and other places where thc diet is not very generous . In some case 3 it attacks healthy persons , and those who are strong as well as those who are weak . —By the Court : I do not believe bad air , bad food , and bad clothing would produce the cholera , unless it existed in the same neighbourhood .

    I Mr . W . Kite said—I am a surgeon , and in the course of last year I was engaged by Mr . Drouet . I went there on the last day of October , 1848 , and my duty was to attend to tho siek . There were between 1 , 100 and 1 , 200 children in the establishment . I saw no surgical book at the time I entered the house , but I afterwards kept one of my own . Towards the end of December 200 more children were admitted from St . Pancras parish . Was never consulted about the capacities ofthe establishment before more children were admitted . Was never consulted about the ventilation , the clothing , or the food . There was an infirmary when I came to the establishment . It was connected with those parts of the establishment where the healthy children were kept . In three or four weeks after I came another sick ward was added . Some children affected with

    ophthalmia were in the infirmary when I arrived . There were also some there affected with itch . There was no separate ward for those affected with itch . It was difficult to get rid of the itch in the establishment . Mr . Drouet did not object to receiv ing children affected with itch . —Baron Platt : Did you ever hear ofthe cholera being produced hy the itch ? ( A laugh . ) — Witness : Sever , my lord . — Examination continued : I found it very difficult to get rid ofthe itch . Mr . Drouet took in children whether affected in that way or not . The . _fivsl decided case of cholera was on the 29 th of December , and between that day and the 13 th of January 139 children died of that disorder . There was a great number of cases between the 29 th of December nnd

    theothof Januarv , and the moment a child was attacked by the disorder he was removed to the cholera ward . It was not my duty to go through the sleeping attics , and I don ' t know how many children slept in each bed . The disease increased very rapidly , and altogether as many as 200 ehildren wore attacked . They wero not all placed in one ward , but several wards were appropriated for their reception . I have been in the bedrooms , and in one of themthere were certainly too many . —Mr . Chambers : Too many for what ? — Baron Platt : Hc merely says there were too many . —Mr . Chambers pressed tbe question . —The witness replied , that the number in the room might predispose to disease . — Examination continued—I do not consider that the

    day rooms were crowded . —Sir F . Thesiger objected to the mode in which Mr . Chambers examined the witness . If he did not get the answer hc wished he immediately treated him as a hostile witness . —Mr . Chambers said the witness came from Mr . Drouet ' s establishment . —Baron Platt said that did not signify . The witness was produced as the witness of truth , and there was nothingin his demeanour , or the manner in which he gave his evidence , to suppose that he was not speaking the truth . He therefore thought that such a mode of examination ought not to be persevered in . — Examination continued—The overcrowding of children together would no doubt predispose them to disease . It was one of the bigger boys dormitories which I

    considered a _litthfovercrbwded . I did not go into the little boys' dormitories . —By Sir F . Thesiger : I first went to the establishment on the last day of October . The deceased child was in the sick ward from the Sth of _November , and he continued to remain there until he left the establishment , although he was not in thc siek ward . While he was there he had everything that I ordered , wine , or porter , or any other thing that I directed him to have . The establishment prior to December was generally healthy , and there were very few cases of sickness , compared with the extent of the establishment . Many children were sent to the establishment with the disease of itch upon them , and he did all that lay in his power to get rid of it . The first appearance of cholera _wason the 29 th of December , and it broke out quite suddenly , and without any premonitory symptoms . It consequently became necessary to suddenly separate those who were attacked with the disease from the others , and this

    naturally created _great confusion in the establishment . There was a difficulty in procuring nurses , as a great many refused to come to the cstablishmentafteragreeing to do so . Mr . Drouot during this period was very active , and did all he could to alleviate the state of things that existed in the establishment . The children never complained to me of not having enough food ; nor did I ever hear complaint from the nurses , or any other persons . Six adult persons were attacked with __ cholera in the establishment , and three of them died . One of the nurses died . This nurse had the charge of the same ward in which the deceased child was placed . — By Mi-. Chambers : A good niaijy of the children were suffering from diarrhoea . I do not consider that disease as a premonitory symptom of cholera _. It certainly was not so at Tooting , as , out of fifty or sixty cases of diarrhoea , only about a dozen of tbe children were afterwards attacked by cholera .

    ilr . H . Wethall , the registrar of deaths for the parishes of Streatham and Tooting , produced his register of deaths from April , ISIS , to January , 1849 , and stated that there was no entry of any death from cholera during that period in those p arishes except in Mr . Drouet ' s establishment . Mr . R . C Grainger said—I am a member of tbe College of Surgeons , and have been a member of the profession for twenty-five years . I hold the office of superintendent medical inspector to the Board of Health . On the 5 th of January I went to the establishment of Mr . Drouet , for the purpose of inspecting it . On that day my attention was particularly attracted to the cholera ward , and I also went into the school-room . After I had done

    this I had a conversation with Mr . Drouet , and gave him some recommendations respecting his establishment . After seeing the state of the cholera patients , I told Mr . Drouet I thought there was not sufficient medical attendance , and that he ought to have three more medical attendants and a physician of eminence . I also recommended that more nurses should be employed . —Baron Platt Those recommendations had reference to a period when the disease of cholera was raging in the establishment—Mr . Grainger : Certainly , my lord-Baron Platt said that under these circumstances he was of opinion the evidence was of no importance . —Examination continued : On a subsequent occasion , the Cth of January , I made another examination of the establishment , and found there were too many beds in the sleeping rooms , and they were too near each other . —Baron Platt : It is generally the case , if there are too many beds in a

    a room , that thev are too close to each other , is it not?—Witness - . " Certainly , my lord . —Examination resumed : If there had been more ventilation , I do not think there were too many beds in the room , but the want of ventilation made the overcrowding dangerous to the health of the boys . In my opinion , the cause of the mischief was the overcrowding of tbe children , and that this had occasioned the disease . I saw the children at the Free Hospital who had been brought from Tooting , and I examined them by direction of the Board of Bealth . Their general appearance was unhealthy ; a great many of them had a wasting ofthe limbs , and some were suffering from what is commonly known as pot-belly . Many were also suffering from itch and other disorders . Their pulses were _verv weak , and there was every indication of a feeble system of body . —By the Court : I cannot say how many of the children had a feeble pulse ; -whether it was ! forty , or twenty , or ten .-By Mr , Chambers ; la

    (Concluded From Ihe Fi Ghtli Pagc.) Satu...

    my Opinion the appearance ofthe children denoted neglect , and that they were underfed . I did not take a measure of any of the rooms , nor a note of the number of beds in the dormitories . Dr . Arthur Park , themedicnl professor of Ring ' s College , deposed , that by direction of thc Board of Health he examined the condition of the children at the hospital , and hc gave a similar description of the appearance they exhibited to that of Dr . Grainger . He expressed an opinion that the children presented a remarkable contrast to the general appearance of workhouse children , and that there ' was a much larger proportion afflicted with itch than was usual in workhouses . He also stated that the children presented the appearance of having

    subsisted upon too much fluid diet and too little solid food , and that in his opinion if the children had had a proper diet , both as to quantity and quality , they would not have presented the appearance which he observed . The skin disease he attributed in a very great measure to the want of cleanliness . The condition of those children , no doubt , rendered them particularly _susceptible of receiving such a disorder as cholera , or typhus fever , or any other disorder of a similar character . —By Sir F . Thesiger : I did not _soe the children until the 20 th January , after they had been a fortnight at the Free Hospital . The disease of itch can in general be cured in five days . —By the Court : I think that with proper appliances all these children mi ght have been cured within a fortnight . —Bv Sir F . Thesiger '

    The surgeons at the Free Hospital must have seen that the children were afflicted with thc itch . The son of Mr . Wakley , the coroner , was one of tho surgeons of the hospital . Mr . T . C . Jackson , resident surgeon at the Free Hospital , deposed , that he examined thc children that were brought there on the 6 th of January , and he corroborated the preceding testimony with regard to their condition . The children were treated medically , and Mr . Wakley , who was surgeon to the hospital , had nothing to do with them . —Mr . Ballantine ; The children were not treated for tho itch until the confusion had a little subsided . They were quite paralysed at having so many children suddenly brought to their hospital in a state of

    illness . —By Mr . Chambers : Eighty-seven children altogether were attacked with cholera , and the means ofthe hospital did not enable them to treat them forthe itch at the same time . —By the Court The van seemed a proper vehicle to _^ convey thc children from Tooting . It was closed all round . — Mr . Chambers said , that Mr . James , thc clerk to the guardians , could give the court information with regard to the actual character of the vehicle . —Baron Platt thought it was important , where there was evidence that exposure to cold might have predisposed the children to an attack of the disease which had proved fatal to the deceased . Mr . Jambs was accordingly examined , and he stated that the van was completely covered in with

    tarpaulin , besides which rugs and cloaks were sent for the children to wrap themselves in . Mi' . Chambers then said that was the case for the prosecution . Sir F . Thesiger submitted that there was no case at all to go to thc jury . This was the very first time that an attempt had been made to establish a charge of manslaughter under such extraordinary circumstances , and it appeared to him that the evidence totally failed to support the indictment . It was alleged that , being the owner of an establishment for the reception of poor children , and having received thc deceased child , and a number of others , under a certain contract , into his charge , it become the duty of the defendant to provide those children with proper food and necessaries ,

    and that , having neglected that duty , the consequence was , that thc deceased child became mortally sick and distempered , and died . Now , he would admit , for the sake of his argument , that it was the duty of the defendant , under the contract , to take care that James Andrews ( the deceased ) was properly fed , clothed , and lodged ; and that if , by reason of his negligence or carelessness in those par ticulars , death ensued , he would have been subject to a charge of manslaughter ; but here it was perfectly clear , from the evidence , that this poor boy ' s death did not arise from any direct act of negligence or unconcern on the part of Mr . Drouet , but that he died in consequence of the cholera , and that the cholera alone was the cause of death , and that Mi-. Drouet had done no act which in any way

    contributed to that event . He thought that he was entitled to say there was an entire absence of evidence that even the predisposing cause of the attack was in any way to be attributed to Mi ' . Drouet , because it had been proved that before tho children were removed from Tooting , Mr . Whitfield , the medical officer , had selected those whom hc considered most healthy , and the most proper , on that account , to be taken away , and that the deceased was among them . The fatal attack occurred afterwards , and under those circumstances he thought he was fairly entitled to say that the actual cause of death was Asiatic cholera . How , then , was Mr . Drouet responsible for that visitation f What had he done ? What omission was he guilty of which had immediatel y contributed to tho death of the

    deceased ? He submitted that by thc law of England even if it were possible to show that a party was remotely and indirectly tho cause of death , it was not sufficient to support a charge of manslaughter , but that there must be proof that he was distinctly and immediately the cause of the death by some act committed by him . In Lord Hale ' s " Pleas of the Crown , " vol , 1 , page 448 , some cases were stated which directl y applied to the question now at issue . Lord Hale said that iu a case \ v hove a party received

    a wound which was not in itself mortal , but which afterwards proved so by the neglect of tho person who received it to take proper remedies , the act of the person who originally inflicted thc wound was under such circumstances neither murder nor manslaughter , and he said tho same in another case where a wound , not in itself mortal or dangerous , resulted iii the loss of life by reason of the use of poisonous salves and other ingredients . In order still more to illustrate the point of his argument , he would admit that Mr . Drouet had weakened the

    constitution and strength of the deceased child by his treatment , still it was not by any means a necessary consequence that the cholera should arrive and attack the child he had so reduced , and on that ground Mr . Drouet could not be held responsible for that wliich he could rot avert . Sir F . Thesiger then referred to a case mentioned by Mr . Allison in his " Report on the Law of Scotland , " in which a g amekeeper who had been shot and slightly injured by a poacher afterwards died of erysipelas , in consequence of being placed in a bed where a person had died of that disorder , and said that in that caso thc Lords Justices , notwithstanding that the public prosecutor strongl y urged that the gunshot wound was in fact and reality the real cause of the deceased

    losiug his life , decided that the prisoner was not answerable for thc death under such circumstances . The present case he submitted , was exactly similar to those he had referred to , and hc said that as the death had been occasioned by the cholera , and was not proved to have resulted from any act of Mr . Drouet , there was no evidence upon which the jury could bo called upon to convict him . Mr , _Ballastisi * followed , and he urged that if the present indictment were allowed to prevail , it would be a straining of the law of England which , in his opinion , would bo most dangerous , and which he felt assured their lordships wouhl never sanction . What Avas the charge against tho defendant ? Why . it was said that by reason of _something or

    other the defendant had done or omitted thc deceased" was made liable to receive a variety of diseases—cholera , scarlet fever , typhus fever , scarlatina , & e . Now , what would be the effect of allowing such an indictment as this to prevail ? Why , the effect would be that , according to the law of manslaughter , if within n year and a day the deceased child had died of some other disorder , and some ingenious medical practitioner had fancied that he could discover that the death was occasioned by the treatment to which he had boon subjected , the defendant might have been indicted for manslaughter . Ho might liken the treatment of Mr . Drouet and the attack of the cholera to two different assaults in the following manner .-

    —Suppose A was to strike B a violent blow , which might for a time make him very susceptible of injury , and while in this state C was to inflict another ' blow upon B , which , added to the blow of A , inflicted some time before , caused death , was it to be said that A was guilty of manslaughter ? It was very similar here . Mr . Drouet might represent A , and the cholera 0 . It appeared to him that it could be just as well said in a case where a party had broken the leg of another who was run over by an omnibus six months afterwards , because , by reason of tho accident , hc was unable to run fast enough across the road to get out of the way , that he was . guilty of manslaughter as in the present case . Mr . Chambers , in support ofthe indictment , contended that if he satisfied the jury that by any acts

    of omission or commission on tlie part of the defendant he had reduced the child to such a state that he was unable to resist the attack of any disease to which human nature was liable , that in that case he was amenable to the charge of manslaughter , because , but for such treatment , the constitution of the child would have been able to have resisted the disease . Reasoning by analogy , it appeared to him that the prisoner and a gaoler stood in exactly the same position , and what was the law as laid down with regard to the latter ? In the caso of Marriott , also , tried before Mr . Justice Pattison , when the accusation was , that death had been occasioned by want of food and proper necessaries , the learned judge who tried the case fully admitted that view of _thelaw . Baron Platt . —What was alleged to be the cause of de 3 th in that case ?

    Mr . Chambers . —My Lord , I don ' t know exactly , but the princi p le appears to me exactly the same , as the dcatn was thc result ofa neglect of duty . Baron Platt . —Did it not appear in that case that the death arose from water on the brain , clearly proved to be the result of starvation ? Mr Chambers proceeded . Tho law equally applied to the cases of masters and apprentices and

    (Concluded From Ihe Fi Ghtli Pagc.) Satu...

    gaolers and prisoners . In a case where a gaoler had confined a prisoner In a low , damp , and unhealthy place , and thereb y produced a low habit of body which resulted in his death , it wag held to be murder in the gaoler who so acted . Agsin , in a case where a prisoner who had not had the small oox , and who g ave the gaoler notice to that effect , was , notwithstanding , locked up _jn the same cell with a prisoner who was suffering from that disease , and contracted it and died , there also thc act was held to amount to murder . In these cases the death was remote from the original act , and , upon their authority , lie submitted that the present indictment had been fully sustained . '

    Mr . Clarkson also addressed tho Court in support of the indictment . Sir F . TiiEsiGBn , in reply , contended that all the cases which had been cited by his learned friend tended to support the view of the case which he had orig inally ventured to submit to their lordshi ps . In the first case , thc water on the brain was the actual result of the state of starvation to which the deceased had been reduced ; the same was the case where the prisoner had been confined in a low , damp , and unhealthy dungeon . The third case , regarding the confining the prisoner in the same room with another who was suffering from the small pox , was still stronger , for that was just the same as though the gaoler had inoculated tie deceased with the fatal disease , and in every case there was a direct

    act tending to the death . In the present case it appeared to him there was an entire absence of evidence to make out the charge of manslaughter , and he therefore earnestly called upon their Lordships to discharge Mr . Drouet from the accusation , and to exercise the power which the law reposed in them by protecting him from being placed in anv jeopard y by not allowing the caso to go to thc jury . There was some manifestation of applause in the Court when Sir F . Thesi ger concluded his replv . The Judges then consulted together for about ten minute , when Mr . Baron Platt said , that with regard to tho question whether the prisoner was amenable to a charge of manslaughter by reason of his having by bad treatment reduced thc constitutional energy of

    the child so as to render him unable to resist any disease with which he might be attacked , they should refrain from giving any opinion but it appeared to the Court that there was another point which disposed of tho case altogether . The indictment charged the prisoner with having by bis improper treatment so reduced the strength and constitution of the deceased child that ho was unable to resist the attack of which he afterwards died , but there had been no evidence whatever adduced to show that the deceased ever was in such a state of health as to have rendered it probable that he would have recovered from the malad y but for the treatment of the defendant . This , it appeared to thc Court , was a most important omission , and one which might easily havo been supplied by the

    medical testimony ; and , in the absence of such evidence , the jury would be called upon to make a leap in the dark . How were the jury to say that the child would not equally have died of cholera , if it had not been at Tooting at all ? How were the jury to say that tho treatment adopted by thc defendant occasioned the death , when there was no evidence to show them that , independent of that treatment , the child possessed sufficient constitutional energy to have resisted thc disease ? Upon this ground they considered there was no case to go to thc jury , and they should therefore direct then ') to acquit the defendant . The jury , on returning a verdict of ' Not Guilty , " said they were unanimously of opinion that there was no evidence to support the charge . There was a burst of applause when the verdict was delivered , which was with difficulty repressed .

    A verdict of "Not Guilty" was then recorded upon all the other indictments and inquisitions , and the defendant was ordered to be immediatel y discharged from custody .

    Obtaining Goods Bv False Pretesces.—G. P...

    _Obtaining Goods bv False _Pretesces . —G . Peacock , aged 40 , a corn dealer , was indicted for having , by moans of a forged order , obtained a large quantity of flour , the property of the South Eastern llailway Company ; and W . Crawley , a respectablelooking man , who surrendered to take his trial , was indicted for assisting in the commission of the offence . —Mr . Bodkin said , there was virtually no evidence against Crawley ; and , as ho should call him as a witness , he requested a verdict of acquittal should be taken in his case . A verdict of * ' _JTot Guilty" was accordingly returned . —John Fothergill , the superintendent of the goods station ofthe South Eastern Railway at the Bricklayers' Arms station , said , that in February last , they had a Quantity offlouv from a Mr . Feltham , consigned to

    his agent , Mr . Empson , of London , and thc usual practice was to deliver up the flour to any one producing tho agent ' s order . A _large quantity , amounting to nearly forty sacks having been obtained early hi February by means of forged orders , an inquiry was instituted , and it turned out that the flour had heen fetched away by tho carts belonging to Crawley , who had signed tho removal-book at tho station in the name of Roberts , for whom he had carted thc flour . The prisoner at first , said he knew nothing ofthe matter ; but subsequently said hc had carted it for Peacock , a corn dealer , in St . Gcorge ' s-road , Souchwark . Crawley was thereupon given into custody , but admitted to bail by the magistrate . In the meantime inquiries were made , and it turned out that the flour had been sold in the

    trade by Peacock , who gave invoices with it . He accounted for the possession of it by saying that he had bought it of some one in thc tvado . His account was so unsatisfactory , that thc magistrate before whom he appeared ordered him into custody , and both the prisoners were sent for trial , Crawley being admitted to bail . —Evidence was then given that the orders were forged , * and there was strong opinion that they were in the handwriting of Peacock . —Crawley was then called , and proved his entiro innocence of the transaction , having fetched thc flour in his way of business as a carman for Peacock , who gave him the instructions , and paid him but a low price for tho job . —Mr . Ballantine , for the prisoner , contended that it was most probable a respectable tradesman might have bought the orders , as he had stated . —Thc Common Sergeant , in summing up , said , that thc evidence was not

    _strong enough to convict the prisoner of having forged thc orders , but his sending for the flour under an assumed name , aj an early hour , tolling different stories , and not being able to say where tho sacks containing the flour ( which should have been returned ) had gone to , was good evidence that ho knew the orders were forged when lie uttered them . —The jury found him " Guilty , " but recommended him to mercy on account of his previous good character . —Tho Common Sergeant said , he did not sec any grounds for the recommendation the prisoner was wealthy , and had no excuse for tho offences . However , in consequence of that recommendation , the sentence would be comparatively light , which was , that he bo imprisoned and kept to hard . labour eighteen calendar months . —Crawley was then discharged , tho Common Sergeant remarking that he ought never to have been sent for trial .

    The Robrery ox Board the Justitu Hulk . —R . Lodcr , who p leaded guilty on thc previous day to an indictment tor having stolen the sum of £ 750 , thc property of the Crown , was on Saturday brought up for sentence . Thc sentence had been postponed in order that some circumstances might be stated in mitigation of punishment . No communication of the kind was made , and thc prisoner , who was at one time governor of Horsham Gaol , and at the time of committing the offence overseer of the Justitia Hulk , was , without comment , sentenced to seven years' transportation . _Obtai . vixo Moxev TJxder False Pretences . —E . Hardy , 17 , a clerk , and W . Manscll , 20 , a carpenter , were indicted , Hardy for forging an order tor the payment of £ 105 , with intent to defraud Abraham Wilday Robarts , and others , and Manscll for

    harbouring him , well knowing him to have committed the said felony . It appeared from the evidence of Messrs . Strutfield and Pulley , stockbrokers , of Capel-court , Bartholomew-lane , that tho prisoner Hardy and his brother were clerks in their employment . ' On the 23 rd of March , a blank cheque , with the figuro ten , was given to Hardy ' s brother to got cashed at Messrs . Robarts , the bankers . This Hardy gave to his brother ( the prisoner ) , who having added a five to tho ten , filled it up for £ 105 , nnd having got it cashed at once absconded with the money . The facts of the case being established against the prisoners , they were both found " Guilty . " Evidence , however , having been given that they had previously borne good characters , the jury recommended them to mercy . —Sentence deferred .

    Momday , April 16 . Charge of Forgery against a Solicitor . —J . Cutts , who was stated to be a solicitor , and W . Evans , hia clerk , surrendered to take their trial upon an indictment charging them with feloniously i ' OVging and uttering a recei pt for £ 50 , with intent to defraud Edmund Salmon . There were four other indictments against the prisoners of a similar character , to all of which they p leaded " Not Guilty . " Mr . M . Chambers , Mr . Bodkin , and Mr . Robinson appeared for the prosecution . Serjeant Wilkins and _Jlr . Ballantine defended Evans , and Sir F . Thesiger , Mr . Prendergast , and Mr . Clarkson defended Cutts . After _hcarinir the evidence , the jury , without

    troubling the learned Judge to sum up , returned a verdict of " Not Guilty , '' adding that the prisoners would leave the court with an unblemished character . No evidence was offered upon the Other indictments , and verdicts of " Not Guilty " having been recorded , tho prisoners were ordered to be immediately discharged from custody . _Tns Murder in Blackfriar ' s-road . — William Bailey was indicted for the wilful murder of Henry Lamball , by stabbing him in the heart with a knife . Mr . W . Cooper defended the prisoner The circumstances of tho case have been lately reported , and it will therefore bo unnecessary to repeat them . — The jury found the prisoner Guilty" of man

    Obtaining Goods Bv False Pretesces.—G. P...

    slaughter , and hc _t _fns sent enced to be transported for life . Charge of _Cerrixo axd Wocvnixo , — John Davies , a soldier , aged 23 , was indicted for cutting and wounding Ellen , his wife , on the 12 th of March , at thc parish " of Woolwich , with intent , & c . It appeared from thc evidence that the prisoner who is in the Artillery , now stationed at Woolwich , is a man hig hly respected by the whole regiment , but that the woman wounded was of th * most profligate character , and had brought him into much disgrace through her conduct . On the day named in the indictment , he was in his room _pricking up some things , when she , who was very m . 'ich in liquor , commenced abusing him , and called him the vilest of names . The prisoner took no not'ice of her for some time , but at last struck her in the face . She still continued her abuse , when he seized his bayonet , which lay on the table in its s . heath , and

    drawing it made a thrust at her , wound . _'ng her in the back near the loins , from the effects of which she was for some time in danger . Thejui 7 found the prisoner " Guilty" ofa common assault .- -Capt . Freeth , of the regiment to which the _prisoner _belonged , gave him a very exemplary character ,- and said that the wife was thc sole cause of the tran snetion , being a most abandoned and profligate c baracter . —The Recorder asked if the prisoner , havi . _ig only been convicted ofa misdemeanour , would _no't be again received into tho regiment ? — Captain Freeth said he would . — The Recorder said if there was a discretionary power , this case was a fit one for it to be exercised in . —His lordship , after refer-1 ring to the nature of the provocation thc prisoner j had received , sentenced him to one month's imprisonment in Newgate , stating that it was solely on those grounds that the sentence was so light , and that soldiers must learn not to draw the arms that '

    were entrusted to them by their country to the danger of her Majesty ' s subjects .

    Tuesday , April 17 . Aggravated Assault bv a Wo . max . —Eliza Waghornc , 25 , alias Dark Sail , was indicted for feloniously cutting and wounding Charles Gibson , with intent to murder or to do him some grievous bodily harm . —Mr . Robinson examined the witnesses for the prosecution , by the direction of the court . — Fromthe cvidcncc _' it appeared that the prisoner is a woman of bad character , and on thc morning ofthe 27 th of February , she and several other women of tho same class of life as herself were drinking , and

    tho prisoner was intoxicated . A quarrel soon afterwards took place between the prisoner and a woman named Langridge , thc result of which was , that thc prioner rushed at the other woman with a knife , and the prosecutor , who was passing at the time , accidentall y received a severe wound in the throat . It was evident that the prisoner was actuated by no malicious feeling towards the prosecutor , and that the injury , so far as he was concerned , was accidentally inflicted . The jury found the prisoner " Guilty of an aggravated assault , " and she was sentenced to bo kept to hard labour for two years .

    Child Murder . —Eliza Mitchell , 21 , was indicted for the manslaughter of her illegitimate child , Hannah Marsey , by unlawfully exposing it to the cold and the inclemency of the weather . Thc prisoner was originally charged with murder , but the grand jury ignored the bill . —Mr . W . Cooper , who was instructed to defend tho prisoner , said , that upon _carefully considering the effect of thc evidence as disclosed in thc depositions , he felt that he could not hope to save the prisoner from conviction of the crime of manslaughter . She would , therefore , with his lordship ' s permission , retract hcv pica of " Not Guilty , " and would plead " Guilty " to the

    indictment . —The prisoner then pleaded "Guilty . —Mr . Cooper reminded thc court , prior to sentence being passed , that two of the witnesses appeared by those depositions to have represented that the prisoner had acted previously in a kind manner to the child , and ' appeared fond of it . —The Recorder said he would give effect to this evidence , but it was a very serious offence , and the prisoner appeared to have exhibited an entire absence of that feeling which should ho naturally found in the breast ofa mother towards her offspring . He then sentenced her to bo imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years .

    Manslaughter . —Peter Leith , 21 , sailor , was indicted for thc manslaughter of Solomon Abrahams , upon the high seas , aud within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England . Mr . Clarkson prosecuted , and Mr . Ballantine and Mr . Parry defended the prisoner . It appeared that tho prisoner was the chief mate ofa vessel called the Indian , trading to New Zealand , and the occurrence which led to tho present inquiry took place upon thc homeward voyage ofthat vessel from Auckland in October last . The deceased was a poor Jew boy , who it seemed had been sent out to Auckland by his friends in the expectation that hc would be enabled to get his livelihood at that place , but failing-in that expectation ho was sent back to England in thc Indian , upon an

    arrangement that he was to work his passage and receive the nominal pay of one shilling per month . The boy was utterly ignorant of nautical employment , and he was set to work in the ship , to assist the cook , and to look after the __ live stock , and he continued to do so for three weeks after the vessel sailed , and during that period nothing particular occurred . After that time , however , it seemed that the crew complained of the dirty habits of the boy , and turned him out ofthe forecastle , and from that time he slept in thc galley with thc live stock ; and it appeared that in consequence of his dirty filthy conduct the prisoner had flogged him on several occasions , and according to the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution , tho floggings took

    place almost every day . There appeared no doubt from the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution , that a good deal of severity had been exercised towards the deceased ; but it also appeared that tlio prisoner had principally acted upon the representations and complaints that were made to hiin by the other members of the crew ; and the witnesses for the prosecution admitted that he was a good seaman and behaved very well to every body else who was under his command . The deceased boy at length became exceedingly ill and delirious , and he died on the 5 th of December ; and according to the medical testimony that was adduced , the treatment he

    received , added to an ill state of body , had occasioned his death . —Mr . Ballantine having addressed the jury for the prisoner , the Recorder summed up the case very carefully . Tho jury , after a short deliberation , returned a verdict of " Guilty , " but at the same time strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy , on account of their belief that ho had no malicious intention , and that thc melancholy occurrence was the result of indiscretion with regard to the amount of punishment . The prisoner was sentenced to three months' confinement in Westminster Bridewell , with a recommendation to thc justices that he should not be put to hard labour .

    The Theft of Three II two red Povsds . —Mary Watt , alias Jane Matthews , was indicted for stealing , in tho dwelling-house of Mary Ann Griffiths a parcel containing £ 300 in gold and silver , the property of Henry Seward and others . —Mr . Bodkin and IWr . Huddlestone prosecuted ; and Mr . Ballantine appeared for the prisoner . —The facts of this case appeared to be these . - —The prisoner , who is a tall , dashing-looking woman , is an accomplice of the swell mob gang , and there is no doubt has been instrumental in and aiding the commission of many extensive robberies . In thc present instance , a parcel , containing the money in question , had been made up and sent on thc 12 th of March to the Cross Keys Inn , St . John-street , to bo forwarded from

    there to the * Luton _( BeiVs ) branch of thc London and County Bank . The parcel in question was given to the landlady , Mrs . Griffiths , and placed by her in the parlour , at the back of thc bar , to be given by her to the coachman of the Luton coach . Shortly after it had been placed there , the prisoner , whom the prosecutrix had not seen before , came into the bar , and asked permission to be allowed to wait in the private parlour until the arrival ofa friend , who was about accompanying her to Luton , a / lcging that she did not like to sit in the coffee room where there were gentlemen . She was accordingly permitted to do so . Shortly after she had been there , a man who had been in the habit of using the house occasionally for some short time previously , camo in ,

    and forced his way into the little parlour , where he got into conversation with the woman , lie then called for a glass of sherry , which the landlady requested her niece to serve , not feeling quite confident of the character of the two customers whom she had in the parlour . The man , however , asking her for change , sho was for a moment drawn from observing them ; but , on turning round to give thc change , she saw by reflection in the glass door of the parlour the man substitute a dummy parcel for the real one , which he handed from the desk where it lay to the prisoner . Mrs . Griffiths immediately entered the parlour and took up the dummy parcel , accusing them of the act , when the man forced by her and effected'his escape . The prisoner then rose from her seat , and with much nonchalance said , " what is the matter ; what is this about ;" . and getting near tlie desk let the real parcel slip from her dress near to the desk where it had been taken

    from . She still persisted in her innocence , and said she was waiting for a lady with whom she was going to Luton . Tho coach , however , came , hut no one that know her ; and , the police being called in she was given in custody , and taken to the police court . When before the magistrate her name was asked , and she said " Mary . " " Maiywhat , " said tbe magistrate . "Ay , Mary Watt , if you like , she said , and refused to give any other name ; and it was subsequently discovered that sho had lodged at a _cotfee-shop in Southwark , in thc name ot Matthews The malo prisoner had not since boon heard of . —The jury found her " Guilty . " --A police constable stated that the prisoner formed ono of a gang and that she had visited a man now confined in tne hospital with a broken leg , and who stands charged with robbing St . Pancras vestry of £ 150 . — | The prisoner asserted that she was innocent . —The Common Sergeant said there could bo no question of her guilt , and as such planned robberies must be put a stop to , he should sentence her to ten years ' transportation *—The prisoner , said- * - ! saa _inaoeont

    Obtaining Goods Bv False Pretesces.—G. P...

    hut had I committed as many murder * as Mr Drouet , I should have been acquitted , —The Common _isevgoanl said that for the satisfaction of the jurv he might state that they were in possession of ' the knowledge tli . it she was connected with a man who had stolen above £ 40 , 000 by systematic robbery . Assault at Sua . — Robert O . Lvee pleaded _Khf-h-M _^ f 7 _« " _»*"•*» MS ™ son on the high seas . The charge against the prisoner was _MenMirl ° nf _' ! _, _COna _- UCt t 0 thc kd _wK * £ Ellen Mary , of which prisoner Was the captain nnd he boy was also on board as seaman ; and from he evidence of a black sailor , it was ' proved hat the prisoner was a very brutal man when at sea and extremely violcnt , -Mr . Bullock-mid that tho depositions disclosed acts of cruelty towards the boy that would scarcely allow a person to dare to think of , and he should advise him not to take tho boy out again , but put him to some other master The prisoner said lie would . The court _tlieu sentenced him to pay to the Queen a fine of £ 20 , or be imprisoned until it is paid .

    A Legal Squabble . —CituEi . Tr to a Child . — John and Eliza Copehvnd , man and wife , were indicted for cruelty towards their child , John William Copeland . Mr . Bodkin and Mr . Clark prosecuted on behalf of thc crown , and Mr . Prendergast defended the prisoners . The prisoners in this ease were tried and acquitted on the first day of the session for the murder of the child in question , but the evidence not sustaining the graver charge , they were now indicted for the misdemeanour . The evidence for the _prosecution disclosed the grossest acts of cruelty . T . be prisoner , who is a journeyman butcher , as far _baidi as 1 S _46 lived with the female , his wife , in tho house of a person named Salter , in Palace-row , New-road , and about that time the deceased child

    came from the country to live with them ; it was then in a strong healthy state , but , it would appear , was _dislfcd b y the mother , hut from what cause was _U 05 dearly explained , and upon the occasion of her having : another child , lier dislike to it seemed redoubled , and she would insti gate the father to illuse it , which he did by beating it dail y for nearly the whole _pesii & d down to it * death , which occurred by burning on the 27 th of January . Upon several occasions the poor little thing was heard screaming violently , and the male prisoner would be heard tobeat it , and then throw it with great violence against the wainscot , andi it would then be found on the following day covered with bruises and tbe blood starting through the skiny and it generally seemed in a

    nall-starwd state , aud would eat most voraciously whatever was given to it , whilst thc other child seemed healthy and well fed . On one occasion tho female was seen to hold its head in cold water , and submerge it in the water several times , until it was almost suffocated . At hist the child , being in a dying state , tho mother took it to a doctor , who found it to be in an almost starved state , and in the last stage of consumption . He prescribed for it , but on tho next day the accident occurred whieh caused its death , and the previous ill treatment it had received , and the threats that had bten held out against its life , gave rise to tho supposition that it had been wilfully set on fire , and the coroner ' s jury returned a verdict of " Wilful Murder . "—Mr ! Prendcrsrnst

    having addressed thc jury for tho prisoners , he proceeded to call witnesses to show that the prisoners had treated the deceased Tfith humanity and tenderness , when the following extraordinary scene occurred . The learned gentleman asked one of them , a female , whether she had ever seen the child illused?—Mr . Clark said he must object to that mode of putting the question . It was a leading question . —Mr . Prendergast said he certainl y should ask tho question , and he would thank Mr . Chirk not to interrupt him . —air . Clark said he should object , and he appealed to his lordship . —Mr . Bullock said he did not think the question could bo put in that shape . It was a leading question . —Mr . Prendergast : Then , perhaps , you _ivill tell me , sii , how I

    can shape the question . I say I ask it properly . — Mr . Bullock : You did not . You should ask in what way the prisoners treated thc child . —Mr . Prendergast : llcall y I . am absolutely astonished . After twenty-five rears' experience at the liar it seems that I do not know how to put a question . I hope the court will consult some one before it persists in refusing the question . —Mr . Bullock ; 1 shall consult no ono about it . I will not allow the question to he put . —Mr . Prendergast ( to witness ) : Did you ever sec the child ill-used ?—Mr . Bullock ( to witness ) : I say you shall riot answer that question . Mr . Prendergast , you shall not ask such a question , and you must not . I sit here to decide these tiling ? . —Mr . Prendergast * . I am prevented from doing my duty to my client . I never heard of anything so monstrous . —

    Mr . Bullock ; Sit down , Mr . Prendergast —Mr . Prendergast : I shall not , sir . —Mr . Bullock : Then stand . —Mr . Prendergast : I shall please myself , Mr . Bullock . You do not let mc discharge my duty to my clients ; and I will not bo put down in this way by a person who I atn sure does not know more about these sort of things _th-in I do myself , if so much . —Mr Bullock rose from his seat , and with some warmth said ; Mr , Prendergast , I do not sit here to be insulted by you , and I will not allow you to make such disgraceful observations as those you have just uuvde . You must treat this Court with respect and decency , sir ; and whilst I am Oil this _belief I will not submit to be told that I do not know how to discharge my duty . I tell you , sir . I

    will not permit it . —Mr . " Prendergast : I say , sir , that if you preclude me from asking the question in tho way I put it , I do not , candidl y , know how else to ask it . Good G ' od , surely I may ask the witness if she has ever seen the child ill-used , when the prosecution is that it was cruell y treated . —Mr . Bullock _: Well , then , I'll ask the question . —Tho question was then put and answered in the negative . —Several other witnesses deposed that the prisoners , the female especially , had tre . ited the child with affectionate kindness . — Tho learned _Connnisi-ioncr shortly summed up , and the jury convicted the prisoners of a common assault . ' The learned Commissioner then sentenced each of them to imprisonment for six calendar months .

    Bui'glauy . —John and Caroline Eaton , man and wife , were indicted for burglary in the house of John _Purslow and stealing articles valued at . £ 25 . Mr . Cooper prosecuted , and Mr . Payne defended . — Whilst thc case which was of no importance , was proceeding , thc female was taken ill , ami Mr Macmurdo , tlie surgeon , bavingbcen fetched , pronounced her to be in l _. _ibour , and she was immediatel y removed to tho infirmary ofthe gaol and put to bed . —> Mr . Cooper under the circumstances withdrew thc case as far as she was concerned . —The husband being convicted on that and another similar charge , was transported for ten years .

    Feloxious _Sium-: _Thaxsaction . — E . Stannard , aged 28 , a wine merchant , was indicted for feloniously converting to his own use certain valuable securities , to wit , 13 shares in a railway , <» f the value of £ 100 , the property of AVilliam Walker . — Mr . Bodkin and Mr . Huddlestone prosecuted ; and Mr . Ballantine defended tho prisoner . The learned counsel having stated tho case to the jury called—William Walker , who said—I am a clerk , and on the 2-lth of July , in consequence of an advertisement that appeared in the Times , stating that a clerk was wanted , 1 applied at 3 , Pancras-huie . Thc prisoner lived there , and had his name on the door as a wine merchant : and at our first interview he stated my salary would be only £ 70 yearly , and hoped was not imirriod , as tho salary wis low , I told

    him that I trusted it would lead to _something better ; and after some further conversation 1 refci _? red him to Mr . Buckland , the secretary of the Brig hton Hailway , in the service of whieh compnn y I had been . I called again , when he sniil ho had received a very nice-letter from Mr . Buckland , and was quite satisfied . 1 then entered upon my oeeu patiou as a clerk , having previously deposited with the prisoner fifteen shares in the Heading , lleig . ite , and Guildford Kailway Company , which were at that time guaranteed hy thc South-Western Company , and _WOl'C WOl'tll £ 11 ) 0 in the share market . I remained there about three weeks , during which time I never saw any signs of business or any stock of wines , excepting once a few glasses of

    champagne , and at the end ot that time , upon going one morning to business , I found a van at t . ' ic door , and the things about being removed in it . I then found that the prisoner had left . Finally receiving a letter from the prisoner , I went to his lodgings and also to his solicitor , where my shares had been deposited , and ultimately agreed , if £ 9 , due to me for wages , and the shares , were returned , I should not take any steps in the matter , but this not being done , and prisoner keeping out ofthe way , he was ultimately given in custody , an action having been previously brought , which was still pending , about the shares . Air . John Exley proved that _tlTe shares had been deposited with him by way of security upon what he had advanced , £ 50 , and ht > was to sell them if

    not redeemed within three weeks . The prisoner was in witness ' s debt £ 150 , having been an insolvent , and the whole of the goods- _r . nd things were witness's , having bought them , but let them remain there . —Josiah Mull stated that he had known the prisoner for some time * and had been his clerk ; lie had defrauded him oui . of £ 10 , for a security , part of which he had paid back ,, but now , with wages , and one thing or another , that hc had bamboozled him out of , owed him about £ 140 . The circulars about the wine trade _twji-g a complete blind , and , to use the witness ' s own words , the whole affair was a

    clean and neat swindle , the prisoner having been an insolvent for a long time . —Mr . Jarman , clerk to Mr . _Humphreys , the solicitor ,, proved the proceedings of tho prisoner ' s insolvency , by which it appeared that hc had entered business without a capitalj that his debts were then £ 1 , 510 , and not one penny assets , and that in March , 1 S 48 , he was adjudged to be discharged from custody . Mr . Ballantine contended at some length that " the case was not one of felony . —Thc Common Sergeant having summed up , tho jury found the prisoner " Guilty , and he -was _sentenoed to ei ghteen months' imprisonment and hard labour * , and the shares were rei stored to Mr , "Walker .

    " VVedsesdat , _Apmi . 18 . Burglary . —William Jones , 17 , gun maker , and John , Duncan , 21 , soda-water manufacturer , were

    S \V * * X F* ' V* It

    _s \ V * * X ' v _* It

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), April 21, 1849, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns3_21041849/page/7/