after he jumped down, and strike something, but he could not see what from the place where he was. He afterwards saw him coming out over the bank of the pasture field, and after proceeding slowly, the prisoner crossed the ditch and passed into the scrub. Just at this moment, another person was upon the side of Walker's pasture this was a woman, a sister of Walker, going to get milk by stealth; she said she saw Shea go up at the scrub side, not far from the body; she saw him go out of the spot where the hatchet of the deceased was found. The evidence was altogether very conclusive as to the guilt of the pri soner. Mr. Hassard addressed the jury for the defence, but called no wit nesses. The Judge charged the jury, briefly recapitulating the evidence, and commenting upon it. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty. On James Shea, alias Smyth, being placed in front of the dock, the Clerk of the Crown said,James Shea, what have you to say why sentence of death and execution should not be pronounced against you?-Prisoner.-I protest to the Blessed Virgin that I had no hand in it. Oh, my Lord! spare my life. (Here the prisoner wept most piteously, and implored the crowded court to pray for his soul.) The learned Judge, addressing the unhappy culprit, said, "James Shea, otherwise Smyth, I most sincerely join in the prayer that the Lord may have mercy on your soul. The exhibition which you made the first day, when you pulled the gospel of God out of your pocket, and swore upon it as to your innocence, was truly aw ful. I sincerely hope the short time which is left you to remain in this world, will be devoted to that God whom you have offended, and that Gospel which you have insulted. You unhappy man, you have abundance to answer for without invoking His name; a more savage and barbarous murder was never committed than the one which you have been convicted of having perpetrated; and through God alone, who knows the secrets of all human hearts, can you expiate the guilty crime you committed on that unfortunate old man, slaughtered I may say butchered-by you, in the most inhuman manner. You had your choice in the selection of your jury, and you were allowed every privilege which it was possible to allow a person in your situation. Unhappy man, this is a dreadful crime you have to purge yourself of. I know not that individual, be he ever so pure or be his life ever so well spent, that should not be prepared to meet that awful Judge. You sent that man to his great account; and the blood of that man, like that of the first victim, cried unto heaven for vengeance. May I now beg of you, unhappy man, to forget this world, for your days are numbered; you must turn to Him to whom alone we must all look for mercy. With guilt so enormous, and proof so clear, I should not be performing my duty were I to hold out any hope to you of mercy in this world, and may God soften your heart to meet that dreadful fate." His lordship then sentenced the prisoner to be executed. SURREY SESSIONS-HOUSE. September 23. ASHWORTH AND OTHERS V. THE EARL OF Uxbridge. Mr. Abbott, the under sheriff for the county of Surrey, sat at the Sessions House, Newington Causeway, for the purpose of trying seven actions against the Earl of Uxbridge, for the recovery of sums payable under annuity deeds for annuities to the several plaintiffs. The following is a list of the names of the plaintiffs and of the amounts claimed: "The Rev. Peter Ashworth (as executor of Thomas Ashworth) v. The Earl of Uxbridge," 961. 12s.; "Same v. Same," 667.; "Lovekin v. Same," 1331.; "Foster v. Same," 60%. ; "Cooper v. Same," 2391.; "Cousins v. Same," 1327.;" "Swindall v. Same," 661. Each of the above sums was the amount of one year's annuity. It was agreed that the verdict in the first case should decide the others, the question in volved being the same. Mr. James, barrister, appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Chambers for the defendant. The jury having been sworn, the first case was taken. Mr. James said, that it was with reluctance the plaintiff had been compelled to proceed against the noble Earl, but he had hitherto been unable to obtain from him payment of the amount due on the annuity. In some of the other cases the plaintiffs were persons in a humble station of life, who had advanced these sums to the Earl of Uxbridge, but were now unable to obtain payment. The annuity in the case now before the court amounted to the sum of 967. 12s., the consideration for which was the payment of a sum of 6901. That annuity, as well as the others, was negociated by Mr. Whitehead, VOL LXXXIV. who acted as a conveyancer, and who had completed the transaction on the full assurance that the Earl of Uxbridge would punctually pay the annuities, and that no arrears would accrue. As, however, the money had not been paid, the several plaintiffs had been compelled to take their present course, though they did not know whether the verdict of the jury would produce any fruits to them or not, as the defendant, by his position as a peer-having been called to the Upper House in 1832 as Baron Paget was protected from the consequences of such verdict, as far as his personal liberty was concerned. The Earl was heir to the Marquisate of Anglesea, but had been called to the Upper House during the lifetime of his father, a somewhat unusual course, which might leave a doubt upon the minds of the jury whether the defendant had been so raised to the peerage, in order that, as a legislator, he might benefit his country, or that he might himself enjoy the privilege of freedom from arrest. The deed of annuity, dated the 8th of August, 1838, by which an annual sum of 961. 12s. was granted to Thomas Ashworth, in consideration of the payment of the sum of 6901., was then put in. Mr. Thomas French, clerk to Mr. Columbine, the plaintiff's attorney, stated that up to the date of the commencement of the action there were four quarters' annuity due. The interest upon the unpaid annuity, calculated from the expiration of each quarter to the date of the commencement of the action, amounted to 31. 11s. 9d. The plaintiff could have entered up judgment for the amount of the annuity unpaid, but not for the interest accruing upon that Ꮓ sum. On his cross-examination, the witness said that a summons was taken out before a judge to stay proceedings on payment of the amount due. Witness then said before the judge, that the plaintiff claimed the interest as well. The judge made no order. The summons was for the purpose of stopping the proceedings. Mr. James then called the Marquess of Anglesey, who came into court, and was sworn. He was accommodated with a seat on the Bench. Mr. James: I believe, my Lord, you are the father of the Earl of Uxbridge?-The Marquess: I believe so. (A laugh.) Now, in 1838, where was the Earl of Uxbridge residing?-Upon my life, I'm sure I can't say. Had he a house and establishment of his own ?Yes, he had a house in Bruton-street. Had he any establishment of his own there? Yes, I believe so. Has he any house or establishment now?-He has quitted that house, and, I am told, he has taken a house in Hertfordshire. What his establishment is I have not the slightest knowledge. Now, can you tell me, my Lord -excuse me for putting the question what property he has? Mr. Chambers here interposed, and objected to the question. It was wholly foreign to the object of the inquiry. Were they assembled under a writ of extent to ascertain the amount of his Lordship's property, the case would be quite different. Mr. James maintained that his question was quite a legitimate one; but the Under Sheriff held that Mr. Chambers's objection was good, and the examination was not proceeded with. The Mar quess of Anglesey then left the court. Mr. Chambers addressed the jury for the defence, contending that the several annuities were much too large for the sums lent, and that the transactions were usurious. The Under Sheriff having left the question of amount to the jury, they immediately returned a verdict for 1007. 3s. 9d.; 967. 12s. being the amount claimed, and 31. 11s. 9d. interest upon it. Verdicts were then taken in the other six cases for the amount demanded, and interest upon it, calculated in the same way. The vessel sailed. On the 1st of December they were off Holyhead, and at that time the deceased was, very unwell, and had been so for some days. He was in his berth. Early in the morning of Thursday, the 1st, Reynolds went below into the deceased's birth, and told him to prepare breakfast. deceased said he was very ill and was unable to get up; to which Reynolds replied, "You skulking there is nothing the matter with you." To that the deceased answered, "Really, Sir, you do not know my feelings." Reynolds then said, "You lazy fellow, if you don't attend to my orders I will send down some tackle and bouse you up." He then went away. At that time witness was in his bed in the forecastle. The prisoners, Barnes and Sole, were also there. After Reynolds went away the deceased was groaning, and he (witness) heard Barnes say, "If you don't hold your noise, I'll put a rope's end round your neck." To which Sole and Deane replied, "If you put the rope round his neck we will haul the up." A rope's end was then put down into the forecastle, upon which Barnes laid hold of it and put it round the deceased's neck. He was at that time lying at full length in his bed. The rope was then pulled tight round his neck, and some persons on deck pulled him forcibly from his berth. As soon as the rope was put round the deceased's neck, Deane, who was in the forecastle at the time, said he would go on deck and haul him up, and it was after he left the forecastle that the deceased was pulled up. The carpenter, who was also in the forecastle, called out, "Avast, hold the rope, you'll strangle the man," and jumped out of his berth, seized the rope, and took it from the deceased's neck. He then placed it round his chest, upon which Sole called out, "Now haul up." They then began to haul the man up, and in doing so struck his head against the scuttle. The deceased was hauled upon deck, and about 20 minutes afterwards was brought down into the forecastle by the prisoners, Sole and Deane, and placed in his berth. Shortly afterwards witness went to look at him, and found him quite dead. His eyes were closed and his mouth open. He thought the deceased was dead when they brought him down. Cross-examined. The deceased had for two or three days previous to his death complained of violent pains in his stomach. Witness's berth was immediately under the deceased's. The occurrence took place between 6 and 7 o'clock. It was getting light. By Mr. Baron Alderson.-The deceased had on only a worsted shirt, a pair of stockings and short drawers, drawers, when pulled from his bed. Henry Nieumann, carpenter on board the Clydesdale, gave similar testimony. Joseph Bull, a seaman, stated that on the morning in question he was in his berth, when he was disturbed by Reynolds endeavouring to arouse the deceased, who replied, "You do not know my feelings-you may bouse me up if you like." Shortly afterwards he saw the deceased pulled out of his berth by a rope which was tied round his neck. When pulled out of bed he fell with his body upon the chest, and his head upon the hatchway-door. The carpenter removed the rope from his neck, and witness afterwards saw the deceased when he was lying upon the deck; he was not dead, but was in a stagnant state. When he first saw him he had no covering upon him. Other evidence was given tending to shew that the deceased had received very rough usage. Mr. George Woods, a surgeon at Liverpool, stated, that he examined the body of the deceased on the evening of the 2nd Dec., and from the appearances observed he had no doubt that death was caused from suffocation. Cross-examined.-Had no doubt that death was caused by suffocation, but by what means produced he could not say. There were no appearances to account for death in an ordinary manner. It was possible, but not at all probable, that all the symptoms he had described might have resulted from exposure to cold. There were no external marks of violence; the only symptom of illness which appeared likely to incapacitate the deceased from attending to his duty, was a slight overloading of the bowels; that, however, might have been removed by medicine. Constipation might have produced congestion of the brain; and constipation might have been produced by exposure to cold. It was possible, but not at all probable, that all the symptoms he had described might have been produced by exposure to cold. Re-examined. Presuming all the facts, as stated by the witnesses, to be correct, the usage the deceased had received, the condition he was in whilst lying upon deck, with only a worsted shirt, a pair of drawers, and stockings on, the mere exposure to extreme cold under such circumstances might have produced all the appearances he had described; the mere exposure to cold alone, considering the previous illness of the deceased, possibly might have produced all the symptoms. He was, however, still of opinion, that the death of the deceased was caused by suffocation; although there were no marks of violence about the neck, either internally or externally, still death might have been produced by suffocation. By Mr. Baron Alderson.-Was of opinion that the mere pressure of the rope upon the deceased's neck, which would be caused by drawing him from his berth on to the chest, would not be sufficient to produce all the appearances he observed on making the post mortem examination. Mr. Bacon Alderson here intimated that in his opinion, the evidence did not support the allegations in the indictment. The death of the deceased was alleged to have been caused by strangulation and suffocation; but he could not help thinking, after the evidence just adduced, that in all probability death was caused by the brutal exposure to the incle mency of the weather. The indictment ought to have contained a count charging the death to have taken place under such circumstances; it was much to be regretted that the prisoners should have the chance of escaping through a technical defect in the indictment. The present charge could not be sustained against the prisoners; but at the same time their conduct had been extremely bad: they had been guilty of a very grievous brutality, for which they ought to be sorry for the rest of their lives. The jury, therefore, under his Lordship's directions, acquitted all the prisoners. |