Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 21st April 1849, Edition 4 of 4, Page 7, „ „ _. e*ntr«J .Cvimmaiemuf.

Page 7
Page 7
7 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • „ „ _. e*ntr«J .Cvimmaiemuf.
  • Text (4)
  • 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.

      Atoit/21.-T " S40.- __ ¦" ,. : -L7'V;^ S...

      Atoit / 21 _.-t " s 40 _.- __ ¦" ,. _-l 7 'V _;^ ST AR . ' * . —* r ¦ - _** _JZ _£ r _ _- ' _T _^^^ _-T _^ _^^^ _^ _^ mwl , ri" — - __ _„ — . _„ r _. - _'" _""" _ . — . . — - _~ — _-. _ ¦ - ¦ m _^*^^ T _^ _*^ _*» _«^ -t _»^^ . _>>^»^; mv _^^^^

      „ „ _. E*Ntr«J .Cvimmaiemuf.

      „ „ _ . e _* ntr _« J _. _Cvimmaiemuf .

      F Concluded F Rom De Ei Ghth Page.) Satu...

      f Concluded f rom de Ei ghth Page . ) Saturday , _Atkil 14 . The TOOTIXC Teacedy . —The learned judges 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 jury were then brought from the London Coffee-house , where they had been during the night in the charge of Mr . Hasker , thc principal usher , and their names having been called over the trial proceeded . Keziaii Diamond , examined by 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 night , and among them the deceased , James Andrews . The next 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 on that day . Sh * F . _TffESieEn Objected to any evidence being _driven , as to the general state ofthe children . The only question was , 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 hi a very bad state . Many of them had eruptions on their bodies . The deceased had no eruption on his hody . Baron Platt 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 Sir . Drouet was generally detrimental , and that the whole ofthe children suffered from it in different ways ; Sir F . TnESiGEB objected to the reception ofthe evidence , but

      The Coert , after some argument , decided that such evidence mig ht be gone into . Thc examination of the witness was then proceeded with . She said , —The children were very sore in their bodies , and had sore feet , and there ¦ were woands on different parts of their persons . _^ 3 saw the children bclore they went to Mr . Drouct _' s , and at that time they were much stouter and healthier . They have since been examined by Mr . Grainger aad _^ Dr . Parr . There are twenty-eight of the children still remaining in the hospital . —By Sir F . Thesiger : I used to sec the children when I went occasionally into the different wards . Two of my own children were sent to 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 trentin _c 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 "iri . My two hovs wcre sent back , and they nppeared very poorly . " All my children recovered . When I visited the establishment my little girl appeared to be treated just like all the other children nnd no partialitv 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 m any respect , of course , as a mother I should have comp lained . The food appeared to me good m quantitv and quality . I only saw them at supper . 1 was never there at dinner time . I never saw the bovs fed . I onlv went into the girls * room .

      Mast Habris said : I was a nurse at the Free Hospital when the children were brought thereon thc oth 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 , I gave him some bread and milk , and he said , " Oh , nurse , what a big piece of bread this is . " He drank the milk , but he could onlv eat a portion ofthe bread . He appeared very fatigued , and I put him to hed , and I observed , as I undressed him , thathe was very thin and emaciated . He appeared to compose himsejf 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

      np directly , and I then sent for Mi * . "Whitfield , the doctor , and left the child in his charge . —By Sir F . Thesiger : I don't know how many children were sent to the Free Hospital . There were four of us nurses sent from theDolhorn Union to attend to them . I had never seen the boy Andrews before he was broughtto the hospital . I was not told he had been ill in the Tan on the way to the hospital . —By the Conrt : More ofthe children were purged , but Andrews was tbe only one who vomited . Mr , S . "Whitfield said—I am the medical officer of Ae Holborn . Union . I visited Mr . Drouet ' s _establishment on the 4 th of January , for the purpose of reporting on the state oftbe children generally . I went into the cholera ward , which consisted of several rooms , appropriated io cholera

      cases , and when I left I entered some suggestions ia the visitors' book for Mr . Drouet to adopt , and recommended the use of warmer clothing , warmer rooms , and that the diet should be changed , and more meat given to the children . I afterwards examined the sleeping apartments . Sir F . Thesiger took an objection that what had occurred after tbe breaking out of the cholera was not evidence . The deceased boy was removed on the following day , he being supposed to be healthy and Ut to be taken 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 cholera wards . —Examination continued : On the 5 th of January I made another visit and

      examined all the Holborn Union children , and according to my judgment 156 were in a condition to be removed * but many of these wcre then under thc influence of cholera and would be attacked , but still I thought they wcre in a fit state to be removed . It vas a cold snowy nig ht when thc children wcre taken away . They were carried in a van covered at the top anil 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 ofthe Gth . Abont a week afterwards I saw the whole ofthe rooms . Sir F . Thesiger objected that the evidence should be confined strictly to the room in which the deceased child actually slept . —Mr . Chambers

      contended that they were entitled to show that the Duilding was overcrowded , and pestilential in consequence of that overcrowding . —The Court expressed an opinion thatthe general state ofthe whole buildin" - was not admissable , and that the evidence ought Wbc confined to the room in which the deceased child slept . In answer to a question put hy Sh- F . Thesiger , Mr . "Whitfield said that the 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—Sir F . Thesiger : But Mr . Whitfield will soon tell us . He then put tlie 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 , hut I was not told how many children were generally accommodated in them . I observed that the children who were brought from Tootinghad swelled _liellies , and their pulses were very weak . Many 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 the attacks of such a disease as cholera . The wasting is very sudden hi cases of cholera . The child was not a bag of hones . 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 itch , and the workhouse is seldom free from that disorder . Emaciation is excessively rapid in cases of cholera . When the seeds of cholera are in the system emaciation would not commence until the discharges . The deceased died of Asiatic cholera . I believe cholera is produced from atmospheric influence , and that it is decidedly infectious ; and tbat 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 insufficiency of food . Cholera is 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 _iU-ventilatedandnnhealthy . 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 children at thc Holborn Union or at the Free Hospital when the children were broug ht hack . —By Mr . Chambers : Insufficiency of food mig ht predispose the system to be attacked by cholera . A change from warm to cold Clothes suddenly would alsohave that effect—By the

      Conrt : I was precluded irom seeing the children on the night they were brought to the hospital , as I was superseded bv 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 children . —Witness : 1 took for granted they would be attended to . Baron Platt : W as not the removal of the children on a cold night likely to predispose them to beattacked with cholera ?—Witness : Tes , it was an evil , but it could not be remedied . From the state ofthe establishment it was indispensable to bring them up that ni « ht

      Mr . Gibsox , another surgeon attached to" the Holborn Union , deposed that he examined aU the cluldreu in October , before they were sent to Toot-

      F Concluded F Rom De Ei Ghth Page.) Satu...

      ing . He did . not remember the particular case of the deceased , but , generally , he was certain he passed none of the boys if they were unhealthy . Mr . A . B . Garrod said , lam a doctor of medicine and assistant-physician to the University College Hospital , _Imadeajuos _*! mortem examination of the deceased . The body , I believe , had been buried by mistake . A difficulty here arose as to the identity of the body . ' Mr . Pbabsox was called to prove that the body which was examined was that of the deceased . He , ' however , was unable to do so . In answer to questions put by Sir F . Thesiger , he said that he was one ofthe guardians of St . Andrew ' s parish , and in

      that capacity he had examined the establishment , and in his opinion Mr . Drouet ' s conduct was characterised by kindness and humanity—By the Court : That was his character in the town of Tooting and the neighbourhood . William Phu . by , 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 . _oarrod 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 of the death having been occasioned by cholera . lam positive that the death was occasioned by cholera , and I also think that a considerable portion ofthe emaciation which the body exhibited might have been tbe result ofthe ravages ofthe disease . This would not have been the case under ordinary circumstances , but I am of opinion this was uot a healthy child I should not like to state positively thatthe child being kept in a crowded and ill-ventilated apartment , and being insufficiently fed and clothed , would have produced some ofthe

      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 . I 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 the diet is not very generous . In some cases 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 .

      Mr . W . Kite said—I am a surgeon , and 5 n the eourse 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 the sick . 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 eonsuited about the capacities of the 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 receiving children affected with itch . —Baron Platt : Did you ever hear ofthe cholera being produced by the itch ? ( A laugh . ) — Witness : Never , my lord . — Examination continued : I found it very difficult to g et rid of the itch . Mr . Drouet took in children whether affected in that way or not . The first decided case of cholera was on the 29 th of December , aud 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 and

      the 5 th of Januar * , and the moment a child was attacked by the disorder he was removed to the cholera ward . It was not my duty to so 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 children were attacked . They were not all placed in one ward , but several wards were appropriated fortheir reception . I have been iff the bedrooms ' , and in one of them there were certainly too many . —Mr . Chambers : Too many for what ? —Baron Platt : He merely says there were too many . — Mr . Chambers pressed the question . —The witness replied , that the number in the room mig ht predispose to disease . — Examination continued—I do not consider that the

      day rooms were crowded . —Sir F . Thesiger objected to the mode in wbich Mr . Chambers examined the witness . If he did not get the answer he 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 . Thc witness was produced as the witness oftruth , and there was _nothingin his demeanour , or the manner hi whieh he gave his evidence , to suppose that he was not speaking the truth . He therefore thought that such a mode of examination ou"ht 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 little overcrowded . I did not go into the little bovs' dormitories . —By Sir F . Thesiger : I first went to the establishment on the last day of October . Thc deceased child was in the sick ward from the 8 th of November , and he continued to remain there until he left the establishment , although he was not in the sick ward . While he was there lie had everything that 1 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 was " on 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 eome to the establishinenf after agreeing to do so . Mr . Drouet during this period was very active , and did all he could to alleviate thc state of things that existed in thc establishment . The children never complained to me of not having enough food : nor did I ever hear complaint from thc nurses , or any other persons . Six adult persons were attacked with cholera in the establishment , and three ofthemdiedl One of the nurses died . This nurse had the charge of the same ward in which the deceased child was placed . — By Mr . Chambers : A good many 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 , onl y about a dozen of the children were afterwards attacked bv

      cholera . Mr . H . _Wetuaxx , thc registrar of deaths for the parishes of Streatham and Tooting , produced his _rcsristcr of deaths from April , 1848 , to January , 1 S 49 , and stated that there was no entry of any death * from cholera during that period in those parishes except in Mr . Drouet ' s establishment . Mr . H . C . GRMXGERsaid—I am a member ofthe _Collesre 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 thc disease of cholera was raging in the establishment—Mr . Grainger : Certainly , my lord-Baron Platt said tbat under these circumstances he was of opinion the evidence was of no importance . —Examination continued : On a subsequent occasion , the Gth 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 they 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 ofthe boys . In my opinion , the cause of the mischief was the overcrowding of the 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 b y direction of the Boa _? d of Bealth . Then- general appearance was nnhealthv ; a great many of them had a wasting of the limbs , and some were suffering from what is commonly known as pot-belly . 31 any were also suffering from itch and other disorders . Iheir 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 fortv , or twenty , or ten . —By Mr . Chamhers ; In

      F Concluded F Rom De Ei Ghth Page.) Satu...

      my opinion the appearance of the children denoted _neglect , and tliat tliey were underfed . I did not tarie a measure of any of tho rooms , nor a note of thc number of beds in the dormitories , Di * . Arthur _FARR / themedical professor of King ' s College , deposed , that by direction of the Board of Health he examined the * condition ofthe children at the hospital , and he gave a similar description of the appearance they exhibited to that of Dr . Grainger . He expressed an op inion 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 sufceptible of receiving such a disorder as cholera , or typhus fever , or any other disorder ofa similar character . —By Sir 1 *' . " Thesiger : I did not see the children until the 20 th January , after they had been a fortni g ht at the Free Hospital . The disease of itch can in general he cured in five days . —By the Court : I think that with proper appliances all these children might have been

      cured withm a fortnight . —By Sir F . Thesiger The surgeons at the Free Hospital must havo seen that the children were afflicted with the itch . The son of Mr . Wakley , the coroner , was one of the surgeons of the hospital . Mr . T . C . _Jacusojj , resident surgeon at the Free Hospital , deposed , that he examined the children that were brought there on the Oth 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 the iteh until the confusion had a little subsided . They were quite paralysed at haviDg 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 the 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 mi ght have predisposed the children to an attack of the disease which had proved fatal to the deceased . Mr . James 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 . Mr . Chambers then said that was the case for the prosecution . Sir P . Thesioer submitted that there was no case at all to go to the 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 the deceased child , and a number of others , under a certain contract , into his charge , it become the duty of the defendant to provide

      those chudren 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 particulars , 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 Mr . 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 theattack was in any way tobe attributed to Mr . Drouet , because it had been proved that before the children were removed from Tooting , Mr . Whitfield , thc medical officer had selected those whom he 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 , now , then , was Mr .

      Drouet responsible for that visitation ? What had he done ? What omission was he guilty of which had immediately contributed to the death of the deceased ? He submitted that by the law of England even if it were possible to show that a party wai remotely and indirectly the cause of death , it was not sufficient to support a charge of manslaughter , but that there must be proof that he was distinctly and immediatel y 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 directly applied to the question now at issue . Lord Hale said that in a case where a party received a wound which was not in itself mortal , but which afterwards proved so by the neglect of the person

      who received it to take proper remedies , the act of the person who originally inflicted the wound was under such circumstances neither murder nor manslaughter , and he said the same in another case where a wound , not in itself mortal or dangerous , resulted in thc 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 which he could , vot avert . Sh * 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 case the Lords Justices , notwithstanding that the public prosecutor strongl y urged that the gunshot wound was in fact and reality the real cause ofthe deceased losing his life , decided that the prisoner was not answerable for the death under such circumstances . The present case he submitted , was exactly similar to those he had referred to , and he said that as the death had been occasioned by thc cholera , and was not proved to have resulted from any act of Mr . Drouet , there was no evidence upon which thejury could be called upon to convict him .

      Mr . Ballasting followed , and he urged that if the present indictment wero allowed to prevail , it would be a straining of the law of England which , iu his opinion , would be most dangerous , and which he felt assured their lordships would never sanction . What was the charge against the defendant ? Why , it was said that by reason of something or other the defendant had done or omitted the deceased was made liable to receive a variety of diseases—cholera , scarlet fever , typhus fever ,

      scarlatina , < fce . Kow , 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 a year and a day the deceased child had died of some other disorder , and some ingenious medical practitioner had fancied that he could discover tliat the death was occasioned by thc treatment to which he had been'subjected , the defendant might have been indicted for manslaughter . He mi ght liken the treatment of Mr . Drouet and the attack of the cholera to two

      different assaults in tho 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 bo said that A was guilty of manslaughter ? It was very similar here . Mr . Drouet mi g ht represent A , and the cholera C . It appeared to him that it could bo 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 the accident , he was unable to run fast enough across the road to get out of the way , that he was guilty of manslaughter as in tho present case . _Jtfr . Chambers , in support ofthe indictment , contended that if he satisfied thejury that by any acts

      of omission or commission oa the 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 thc same position , and what was the law as laid down with regard to the latter ? In the case of Marriott , also , tried before Mr . Justice Pattison , when the accusation was , that death had been occasioned b y want of food and proper necessaries , the learned judge who tried the case fully admitted that view of thelaw . Baron _Pxatt . —What was alleged to be the cause of death in that case ?

      _ Mr Chambers . —My Lord , I don't know exactly , but the principle appears to me exactly the same , as the death was the result of a neglect of duty . Baron Pi _/ _ati . —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 . Iho law equally applied to the cases oi masters and apprentices and

      F Concluded F Rom De Ei Ghth Page.) Satu...

      gaolers and _prisoner ,. In a case where a gaoler had confined a prisoner iu a low , damp , and unhealthy place , and thereby produced a low habit " of body which resulted m his death , it was held to be murder in tho gaoler who so acted . Again , in a case where a prisoner who had not hud tho small poxy and who gave the gaoler notice to that effect , was , notwithstanding , locked up in the same ceh with a prisoner who was suffering from that disease , and contracted it and died , there also the act was held to amount to murder . In those cases the death was remote from the original act , and , upon thoir authority , lie submitted that the present indictment hadbeen fully sustained . Mr . Clarkson also addressed the Court in support of thc indictment .

      SirF . _liiESiQEu , in reply , contended that all the cases which had been cited b y his learned friend tended to support the view ofthe case whieh he had originally ventured to submit to their lordships . In the first ease , the water on the brain was the actual result of thc state of starvation to whicli the deceased had been reduced ; the ' same was tlie case where the prisoner had been confined in a low , damp , and unhealthy dungeon . The third case , regarding the confining tlie prisoner in the same room with another who was suffering from the small pox , was still stronger , for that was iust the same as

      though the gaoler had inoculated the deceased with the fatal disease , and in every case there was a direct act tending to the death , in the present case it appaired mm there was an entire absence of evidence to make out tho 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 any jeopardy by not allowing the case to go to the jury . There was some manifestation of applause in tho Court when Sir F . Thesiger concluded his reply . The Judges then consulted together for about ten minute , when

      Mr . Baron Platt said , that -with regard to the question whether the prisoner was amenable to a charge of manslaughter by reason of liis having by bad treatment reduced the constitutional energy of tlie child so as to render him unable to resist any disease with which he might be attacked , thoy should refrain from giving any opinion * , but it appearcd'to the Court that there was another point which disposed of the case altogether . The indictment charged the prisoner with having by his improper treatment so reduced the strength and constitution of the deceased child that he 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 thc malady but for tlie treatment of the defendant . This , it appeared to the Court , was a most important omission , and one

      which mig ht easily have been supplied hy the medical testimony ; and , in the absence of such evidence , thejury would he called upon to make a leap in the dark . How wero the jury to say that the child would not equally have died of cholera , if it had not been at Tooting at all ? How wero the jury to say that the treatment adopted by the 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 the disease ? Upon this ground they considered there was no case to go to thejury , and they should therefore direct them to acquit the defendant . Tho jury , on returning a verdict of " Kot Guilty , " said th ey were unanimously of opinion that thero 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 immediately discharged from custody .

      Obtaining Goods By False Pretences.—G. P...

      Obtaining Goods by False Pretences . —G . Peacock , aged 40 , a corn dealer ,, was indicted for having , by means of a fovged order , obtained a large quantity of flour , thc property ofthe ( South Eastern Hallway Company ; and W . Crawley , a _respeetablelooking 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 he should call him as a witness , he requested , a verdict of acquittal should be taken in his case . A verdict of "Not Guilty" was accordingly returned . —John Fotherf , the superintendent of tho goods station of the outh Eastern Railway at the Bricklayers' Arms station , said , that in February last , _they had a quantitv of flour from a Mr . Fcltham , consigned to

      his agent , Mr . Empson , of London , and tho 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 : n February by means of forged orders , an inquiry was instituted , and it turned out that the flour had been fetched away by tho carts belonging to Crawley , who had signed the removal-book at the station in thc name of Roberts , for whom he had carted thc flour . Tlie prisoner at first said ho knew nothing ofthe matter ; but subsequently said lie had carted it for Peacock , a corn dealer , in St . Gcorgc ' s-road , Southwark . Crawley was thereupon given into custody , but admitted to bail by the magistrate . In tho meantime inquiries wore made , and it turned out that the flour had been sold in the

      trade by Peacock , who gave invoices with it . lie accounted for the possession of it by saying that he had bought it of somo one in the trade . His account was so unsatisfactory , that the magistrate before whom he appeared ordered him into custody , ard boththe prisoners were sent for trial , Crawley being admitted to bail , —Evidence was then given that the orders wcre forged ; and there was , strong opinion that they wcre in the handwriting of Peacock , —Crawley was then called , and proved his entire innocence of the transaction , having fetched the flour in his way of business as a carman for Peacock , who gave him the instructions , and paid him but a low price for the Job . —Mr , Ballantine , for thc prisoner , contended that it was most probable a respectable tradesman might have bought tho orders , as he had stated . —The Common Sergeant , in summing up , said , that the evidence wasnot

      strong enough to convict the prisoner of having forged tho orders , but his _sending for thc flour under an assumed name , at an early hour , telling different stories , and not being able to say where thc sacks containing the flour ( which should have been returned ) had gone to , was good evidence that he knew the orders wore forged when he 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 see any grounds for the-recommendation ; the prisoner was wealthy , and had no excuse for tlie offences . However , in consequence of that recommendation , thc sentence would be comparatively Ii » _-lit , which was , that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour eig hteen calendar months . —Crawley was then discharged , thc Common Sergeant remarking that he ought never to have been sent for trial .

      The Robbery os Board the Justitia Hulk . —lt . Lotler , who pleaded guilty onthe previous day to an indictment for having stolen the sum of £ 750 , the property of the Crown , was on Saturday brought up for sentence . Thc sentence had been postponed in order that some eireumstiinces might be stated in mitigation of punishment . No communication of the kind was made , and theprisoner , who was at one time governor of Horsham Gaol , and atthe time of committing the offence overseer of the Justitia Hulk , was , without comment , sentenced to seven years' transportation . OlJTAlMSO MOXEV UXDER FALSE PRETENCES . —E . Hardy , 17 , a clerk , and W . Mansell , 20 , a carpenter , woro indiotod , Hardy for forging an order-for tlie payment ) of £ 105 , with intent to defraud Abraham Wililay Robarts , and others , and Mansell for

      harbouring him , well knowing him to have committed the said felony . It appeared from tlie evidence of Messrs . Strutfield and Pulley , stockbrokers , of Capel-court , Bartholomew-lane , that the prisoner Har dy and his brother were clerks in their employment . On the 23 rd of March , a blank cheque , with the figure ten , was given to Hardy ' s brother to get cashed at Messrs . ltobarts , the bankers . This Hardy gave to his brother ( the prisoner ) , who having added a five to the ten , filled it up for £ 103 , and 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 .

      Monday , Aran , 16 . Ch arge of Forgery _aoainst a Solicitor . —J . _Cutts , who was stated to be a solicitor , and W . Evans , his clerk , surrendered to take their trial upon an indictment charging them with feloniously forging and uttering a receip t for £ 50 , with intent to defraud Edmund Salmon . There were four other indictments against the prisoners of a similar character , to all of which thoy pleaded " Not" Guilty . " Mr . M . Chambers , Mr , Bodkin , and Mr . Robinson appeared for the prosecution . Serjeant Wilkins and Mr . Ballantine defended Evans , and Sir F . Thesiger , Mr . Prendergast , and Mr . Clarkson defended Cutts . After hearing the evidence , the jury , without troubling tho learned Jud ge to Sum up , returned a verdict of " Not Guilty , " adding that the prisoners would leave the court with an unblemished character . Xo evidence was offered upon the other indictments , and verdicts of "Not Guilty" having been recorded , the prisoners were ordered to be immediately discharged from custody .

      The Murder in Black-friar ' _s-iioad , — William Bailey was indicted for the wilful murder of Henry Lamball , by stabbing him in the heart with a knife . Mr . W . Cooper defended tho prisoner The circumstances ofthe case have been lately reported , and it will therefore be unnecessary to repeat them . — The jury found the prisoner " Guilty" of man-

      Obtaining Goods By False Pretences.—G. P...

      slaughter and he was sentenced to be transported for . fife . . . .. .. Charge op _Ccitixo axd Worxmso , — John Pa-vies , a soldier , aged 23 , was indicted for cutting and wounding Ellen , his wife , on the 12 th of March , at the parish of Woolwich , with intent , < fcc . It appeared from the evidenoe that the prisonor who is m the Artillery , now stationed at Woolwich , is a man highly respected by the whole regiment , but that the woman wounded was of the most profligate character , and had brought him into much disgrace through hor conduct . On the day named in the indictment , lie was in his room packing up some things , when she , who was very mueh in liquor , commenced abusing him , and called him tho vilest

      of names . Thc prisoner took no notice of her for some time , but at last struck hor in the face . She still continued her abuse , when ho seized his bayonet , which lay on the table in its sheath , and drawing it mado a thrust at her , wounding her in the hack near the loins , from the elfects of wliich she was for some time in danger . Thejury found the prisoner ' * Guilty" ofa common assault . —Capt . Frceth , ofthe regiment to which the prisoner belonged , gave him a very exemplary character , and said that tho wife was the sole cause ofthe transaction , being a most abandoned and profligate

      character . —The Recorder asked if the prisoner , having only been convicted of a misdemeanour , would not be again received into the regiment ? — Captain Fiseeth 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 referring to the nature of the provocation thc prisoner 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 b y their country to the danger of her Majesty ' s subjects .

      Tuesday , April 17 . _AooiMVArED assault nv a Woman . —Eliza Waghorne , 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 .- —Mi * : Robinson examined the witnesses for the prosecution , by tho direction of . the court . — From . the evidenoe it appeared that theprisoner is a woman of bad character , and on the morning ofthe 27 th of February , she and several other women of the same class of life as herself were drinking , and the prisoner was intoxicated . A quarrel soon afterwards took place between the prisoner and a woman named Langridgc , thc result of wliich was , that the prionor rushed at the other woman with a knife , and

      the prosecutor , who was passing at thc time , accidentally received a severe wound in the throat . It Was evident that . the prisoner was actuated by no malicious fueling towards tho prosecutor , and that the injury , so far as ho was concerned , was accidentally inflicted . Thejury found tho prisonor " 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 thc manslaughter of her illegitimate child , Hannah Marsey , by unlawfully exposing it to tho cold and thc inclemency of the weather . The prisoner was originally charged with murder , but the grand jury ignored the bill . —Mr . W . Cooper , who was instructed to defend the prisoner , said , that upon carefully considering the effect of the evidence as

      disclosed in the 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 her plea of " Not Guilty , " and would plead " Guilty " to tho indictment . —The prisoner then pleaded "Guilty . "—Mr . Cooper reminded the court , prior to sentence being passed , that two of the witnesses appeared by these depositions to have represented that the prisoner had acted previously in a kind manner to the child , and nppeared 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 sliould he naturally found in the breast of a mother towards her otfsprins ; . He then sentenced her to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two

      years . . __ Manslaughter . —Peter Leith , 21 , sailor , was indicted for the manslaughter of Solomon Abrahams , upon thc high seas , and within tlie jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England . Mv . Ciavkson prosecuted , and Mr . Ballantine and Mr . Parry defended the prisoner . It appeared that the prisoner was tho chief mate of a vessel called the Indian , trading te Sew Zealand , and the occurrence which led to the present inquiry took place upon the homeward voyage of that 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 he would bo enabled to get his livelihood at that place , but failing in that expectation he was sent back to England in the Indian upon an arrangement that he was to work his passage and reccive-the nominal pay of one shilling per month . The boy was utterly ignorant of nautical employment , and he was set to work in thc ship , to assist the cook , and to look after the live stock , and ho 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 tho crew complained of the dirty habits of tho boy , and turned hiin out ofthe forecastle , and from that time he slept in the galley with the Jive stock ; and it appeared that in consequence of his dirty filthy conduct thu prisoner had flogged him on several occasions , and according to the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution , the floggings took place almost every day . There appeared no doubt from the testimony of tho witnesses for the prosecution , that a good deal of severity had beeu exercised towards the deceased ; but it also appeared that thc prisoner had principally acted upon the representations and complaints that were made to him 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 thc 5 t ; h of Peceniher ; 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 . The jury , after a short deliberation , returned a ' verdict of " Guilty , " but at the same time strongly recommended the prisonor to mercy , on account of tlieir belief that he had no malicious intention , and that the 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 the justices that he should not be put to hard labour . Tub Theft of Three Hundred Pounds . —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 Mr . Huddlosfcone prosecuted , - and Mr . Ballantine appeared for the prisoner . —The facts of this case appeared to bo theso : —Tho prisoner , who is a tall , dashing-looking woman , is au accomplice of the swell mob gang , and there is no doubt has been instrumental in and aiding thc commission of many extensive robberies . In the present instance , a p arcel , continuing the money in question , had been made up and sent on the 12 th of March to the Cross

      Keys Inn , St . John-street , to be forwarded from there to the Luton ( Bods ) branch of tho London and County Bank . The parcel in question was given to thc landlady , Mrs . Griffiths , and placed by her in the parlour , at the back of the 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 bo allowed to wait in thc private parlour until tlio arrival ofa friend , who was about accompanying her to Luton , alleging that she did not like to sit in thc coffee room where there were gentlemen . She was accordingly permitted to do so . Shortly after sho had been there a man who had been in thc _lwbit of using the house

      occasionally for some short tune previously , came in , and forced his way into the little parlour , whore ho got into conversation with tho woman . He 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 sho had in tlie parlour . The man , however , asking her for change , sho was for a moment drawn from observing them ; but , on turning round to give the change , she saw by reflection in the glass door of the parlour tho man substitute a dummy parcel for tlie real ohe , which he handed from the desk where it lay to the prisoner . Mrs . Griffiths immediately entered thc parlour and took up thc dummy parcel , accusing them of tho act , when the man forced by

      her and effected his escape . Tho prisoner then rose from her seat , and with much nonchalance said , " what is thc matter ; what is this about ; " and getting near thc 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 . The coach , however , came , but no one that know hor , and , the police being ealled in she was given in custody , and taken to the police court . When before the mag istrate her name was asked , and she said " Mary . " "Mary what , " said the ma < ristrato . "Ay , Mary Watt , if you like , she saicf and refused to g ive any other name ; and it

      was subsequently discovered that she had lodged at a coffee-shop in Southwark , in the name of Matthews The male _jwisonei * had not since been heard of . —The jury found her " Guilty . "—A police constable stated that the prisoner formed one of a "an " , and that she had visited a man now confined _fti tile hospital with a broken leg , and who stands charged with robbing St . Pancras vestry of £ 150 . — Tho prisoner asserted that she was innocent . —The Common Sergeant said there could he no question of her guilt , and as such planned robberies must be put a stop to , he should sentence her to ten vears ' transportation , —The prisoner said—I am innocent ,

      Obtaining Goods By False Pretences.—G. P...

      but had I cour . nittf'l as _lnanv _niiii _* J ,. _' : y * s Mr Broucr ., I sliould have heen acquitted . —Thc Common _isergoniit s . uJ . t _' n- . - _. i fw the g _.-i _tisfiiction ofthe iurv he might state that they weie in possession " of ' thc knowledge that _*] - _< , W ! W connected with a man who had stolon above £ 1 Q , W ( I hy systematic robberv . Assault at Ska . — _Uobei-t 0 . _Lcro- „ _lw , { icd guilty to an assault on Thomas _Legg , _hiTown son on tho high was . The charge against the prisoner was torn series ol brutal conduct to the lad whilst in the _lUlon Mary , of which prisoner was the captain , and the boy was also on hoard aa seaman ; ami from thc evidence of a black sailor , it was proved that the prisoner was a very brutal man when at sua ind extremely violent . —Mr . Bullock said that tho

      depositions disclosed acts of cruelty towards tlw boy that would scarcely allow a peWon to dare to think of , and he should advise hun aot to take the boy out again , but put him to some other master The prisoner said he would . Tho court then sentenced him to pay to the Queen a fine of £ 20 , or be imprisoned until it is paid , A Lkoaj . _BiiUAttithE . —CuvKLTY to a _Ciiico . — John and Eliza Copeland , man and wife , were indicted for cruelty towards their child , John William Cc-pc l'uid . Mr . Bodkin and Mr , Glarli prosecuted on behalf of the crown , and Mr . Prciidergast defended the prisoners . The prisoners ia this case were tried and acquitted on the first dav ofthe 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 thc grossest acts of crueltv . Tho prisonor , who is n journeyman butcher , as far back as 1840 Jived with the female , his wife , in the houso of a person named Salter , in ralacc-row , _Jfew-road , and about that time the deceased ehild came from the country to live with them ; it was then in a strong healthy state , but , it wonld appear , was disliked hy the mother , but from what cause was not clearly explained , and upon tlie occasion of hoi * having another child , her dislike to it seemed redoubled , and she would instigate the father to illuse it , wliich he did by beatiuif it dailv for nearly

      the whole period down to its death , which occurred by burning on the _27 U \ of January . Upon several occasions the poor little thing was heard screaming violently , and the male prisoner wonld he heard to heat it , and then throw it with great violence against the wainscot , and it would then be found on the following day covered with bruises and the blood starting through the skin , and it generally seemed in a _iialf-st _. arv . d state , and would eat most voraciousl y whatever was given to it , whilst tlie 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 last the child , being in a dying state , the mother took it to a doctor , who found

      ic co he in an almost starvei state , and in the last stage of consumption . He proscribed for it , but on . thc next day tho accident occurred which caused its death , and the previous ill treatment it had received , and the threats that had been held out iignmst 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 . Prciidergast having addressed thejury for the prisoners , he proceeded to call witnesses to show that the prisoners had treated the deceased with humanity-ami tenderness , when tho following extraordinary secne occurred . The learned gentleman asked one of them , a female , whether she had ever seen the child illused?—Mr . Clark said ho must object to that mode

      of putting the question . It was a leading question . —Mr . Prendergast said he certainly sliould ask the question , and he would thank Mr . Clark not to _intomipt hiin . —Mr . Clark said he should object , and he appealed to-his lordship . —Mr . Bullock said lie did not think the question could be put in that shape . It was a loading question . —Mr . Prciidergast : Then , perhaps , you will tell me , sir , 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 the child . —Mr . PrcndergftSt _* . Really 1 am absolutely astonished . After twenty-five years' experience lit the har it seems that 1 do not know how to put a question . I hope tllO _COUl't will consult some one before it persists ill refusing the Question . —Mr . Bullock : I shall consult

      no one about it . Iwill notnllow the question to be put . —Mr . Prendergast ( to witness ) : Did you ever see the child ill-used ?—Mr . Bullock ( to witness ) _** . I say you . shall not answer that question . Mr . Prendergast , you shall not ask such a question , and you must not . I sit here to decide these things . —Mr . " Prendergast : I am prevented from doing my duty to my client . I never heard of any thin ! , ' " so monstrous , — Mr . Bullock : . Sit down , Mi : _Pi-endei-gatt — -Mr . Prendergast ,: I shall not , sir . —Mr . Bullock : Then stand . —Mr . Prendergast : I shall please myself , Mr . Bullock . You do not let me discharge my duty to my clients ; and I will not bo put down in _' this way by a person who I a in sure docs not know more about these sort of things than I do myself , if so much . —Mr Bullock rose from his seatj and with some warmth said : Mr . _Prendersast , 1 do not sit

      here to be insulted hy you , and I will not allow you to make such disgraceful observations as those " you have just made . You must treat this Court with respect and decency , sir ; and whilst I am on this bench I will not submit to he tolJ that I do not know how to discharge my duty . 1 tell you , sir , I will not permit it . —Mr . ' Prendergast : _* i say , sir , that if you preclude mc from asking the question in the way I put it , I do not , candidly , know how else to ask it . Good Cod , surely I may ask the witness if she has ever seen the child ill-used , when tho prosecution is that itwas cruelly treated . —Mr . Bullock : Well , then , 1 * 11 ask the question . —The question was then put and answered in the negative . —Several other witnesses deposed that the prisoners , the female especially , h ; ul treated the child with _arir ' ectionnte kindness . — The learned Commissioner

      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 . Buuglaha-. —John and Caroline Eaton , man and wife , were indicted for burglary in thc house of John Pttvslew and stealing articles valued at £ 25 . Mr . Cooper prosecuted , and Mr . Payne defended . — Whilst the case which was of no importance , was proceeding , the female was taken ill , and Mr Macrmlrdo , the , surgeon , having been fetched , pronounced her to he in labour , and she was immediately removed to the infirmary ofthe gaol and put to bed . — Mr . Cooper under the circumstances withdrew the case as far as she was concerned . —Thc husband being convicted on that and another similar _eharge , was transported for ten years .

      Pelonious Shake _Tiiaxsactiox . —L . Stannard _, aged 28 , a wine merchant , was indicted ioi- feloniously converting to his own use certain valuable securities , to wit , 15 shares in a railway , of the value of £ 100 , the property of "William Walker . —• Mr . Bodkin and Mr . Huddlestone prosecuted ; and Mr . Ballantine defended the prisoner . The learned counsel having stated tho case to thejury called—William Walker , who said—I am a clerk , and on the _2-ith of July , in consequence of an advertisement that appeared in thc ' Times , stating that a clerk was wanted , 1 applied at 3 , Pancras-lane . The prisoner lived there , and had his name on thc door as a wine merchant : and at our first interview he stated my salary would be only £ 70 yearly , and hoped I was not married , as the salary was low . 1 told

      him that I trusted it would lead to something better ; and after some further conversation I referred him to Mr . Bucklaiid , the secretary of the Brighton I ' ailway , in the service of whicli company I had been . 1 called again , when ho said he had received a very nice letter from Mr . Btickhmd , and was quite satisfied . I then entered upon my oecu pat-ion as a clerk , having previously deposited with the prisoner fifteen shares in the Heading , lteigale , and Guildford Hailway Company , whieh were afe that time guaranteed hy the South-Western Company , and were worth £ 100 in the share market . I remained there about three weeks , during wliich time I never saw any signs of business or any stock of wines , - excepting once a few glasses of

      champagne , and at the end oi that time , upon going one morning to business , I found a van at the door , and the things about being removed in it . 1 then found that thc p risoner had left , Finally receiving a letter from thc p risoner , I went to his lodgings and also to his solicitor , where my shares bad been deposited , and ultimately agreed , if £ _* . _» , due to me for wages , and the shares , wore returned , I should not take any steps in the matter , but this not being done , and prisoner keeping out of the way , he was ultimatel y given in custody , au action having been previouslybrought , which was still pending , about thc shares . Mr . John Exley proved that the shares had been deposited with liim by way of security upon what he had advanced , £ 50 , and he was to sell them if

      not redeemed within three weeks . . The prisoner was in witness ' s debt . £ 150 , having been an insolvent , aud tho whole of the goods and things were witness s , having bought them , but let them remain there . —Josiah Mull stated that ho Lad known the prisoner for some time , and had been liis clerk ; he had defrauded him out of £ 10 , fora security , part of which he . had paid back , hut now , with wages , and . one thing or another that ho had bamboozled him out of , owed him about £ 110 . The circulars _aboua the wine trade were a complete blind , aud , 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 Mi * . Humphreys , thc solicitor , proved thc proceedings ofthe prisoner ' s _iusolveuuy , by which it appeared that he had entered business without a capital , that his debts wcre then £ 1 , 510 , and not one penny assets , aud . that in March , 1848 , he was adjudged to he discharged from custody , Mr . BaLlantine contended at some length that , the case was not one of felony . —The Common Sergeant having summed up , thejury found the prisoner" Guilty , " and he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and hard labour ; aud the shares wero restored to Mr . Walker .

      _Wednesday , ApbilIS . BunCLAUY . —William Jones , 17 , gun maker , and John Duncan , 21 , soda-water manufacturer , were

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), April 21, 1849, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns4_21041849/page/7/