Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

with a grown-up family. The plaintiff went on a visit to this gay Lothario for eleven months. The young lady became attached to him. They walked out together at five in the morning, and strolled together in the evening. But in this world enjoyment does not last for ever; and they must part. Hard was that parting: and again and again they promised to correspond, and hundreds of letters, in the course of two years, passed between them. Sometimes the gentleman's letters were strictly mercantile, and might be interpreted into the following:-"An arrival of gout expected shortly; pains on the rise, influenza on the decline, and hoary locks as per last."

Then he would write three sides of letter paper upon the weather. One, according to her wish, several times expressed, contained a silver lock of his hair; and at length his passion had reached such a height that he became out of his wits, for he discarded prose and became poetical. This correspondence went on for a length of time, until the old man became ill, and it was not expected he would get over it. He, however, did, and this would seem to have given the plaintiff a kind of hint that the devoted of her heart might not recover from a second attack, and therefore her sister interfered, took him to task, and endeavoured, as she stated it, to bring him to the point. This was, however, no easy matter, as the old gentleman seemed averse to marriage. The lady, as was natural, became ill, and was nervous and irritable. The whole family despaired of her being lady of the property in Poole and at Bournemouth, and of the ships at sea, and an action for damages was the result, and to prove

the case the following witnesses were called:

Mrs. Ann Rooke.-I am the mother of the plaintiff. I know the defendant. His mother and my mother were two sisters. I have seven children. The defendant has four children, and lived at Litchit. Mr. Conway is 67. He came to my house in the spring of 1839. He asked leave for the plaintiff to go and see his family in the year 1839. She remained there eleven months. I had no conversation with him on the subject of marriage for two years afterwards. I think it was at the fall of the year 1841, I spoke to him on the subject at my house. I told him I had been informed he was paying his addresses to my daughter. He said there was a correspondence. I told him he ought not to think of such a child as she was to him. She is twentyeight. He said he should like my daughter Amelia very much indeed. We were then interrupted, and nothing more was said.

Maria Louisa Rooke.-I am one of the sisters of Amelia Rooke. I live at Salisbury with my brother, and have been acquainted with Mr. Conway twelve or fourteen years. He came to our house in 1839, and took the plaintiff away with him. She stayed away many months. She returned in June, 1840. Mr. Conway paid her a visit in about a month after her return. He behaved in a very affectionate way to my sister. Our company was of no pleasure to them; we were only with them at meal times. I know the defendant's handwriting. After my sister came back she received letters from him-sometimes two in a day. I have seen my sister open the letA lock of his hair was en

ters.

closed in one of them. She had it put in a brooch. She had a letter in August, which made her unwell. My brother wrote, and defendant came to Salisbury on a Sunday, the 29th of August, 1841. She was then very poorly indeed. She saw him that evening. I asked him, what induced him to write such a letter and make her so uneasy? He said he was not aware it would make her uneasy. He asked for the letter, to look and see what he had written. He took it, and I never saw it afterwards. He afterwards brought back many letters, and told her sister he could not destroy them, because it hurt his feelings, and he did not like them to remain at home, lest his family should see them and laugh at them. Cross-examined. He was always reserved to me, because I was so much opposed to his paying attention to my sister. I did not think it a prudent thing. I was of that opinion all the time. I did not like his manner towards her, and I pointed out to them his age, children, and prospects. This was in August, 1841. I reproached him for not paying me the same attention as he did my sister; and he said, she and I are sweethearts, she is my lambkin. She sometimes read his letters to me, but if there was anything particularly sweet, she did not read it to me. Some times I assisted her to indite her letters to him. The letters are out of number. If I walked with him, he never offered me his arm. He was so artful that night, that I could not bring him to the point. My sister was leaning on his shoulder, and he was bathing her head with water. I had all the questions to myself on the Sunday night; I reproached him all the time. He appeared ashamed. I

don't know whether he blushed, for it is difficult to tell when a gentleman blushes. I repeated all in my sister's presence, and before him, because then I thought she had a witness of it. If it had been my own case, I should have written it down and got a witness.

The Judge. Had you any gentleman who offered you his arm at that time? Witness.-Walking sticks are very convenient, but I like them younger.

J. L. Rooke.-I am brother of the plaintiff. I heard a conversation between the last witness and Mr. Conway. We asked what his intentions to my sister were, and he said they were honourable. He said he had been told by his family that it was impossible for a young girl to love an old man, but he was convinced of the contrary. He said it was a sort of infatuation that came over him. We were riding out when he said this, but he added that within six months he would marry for certain.

Evidence was then given that the defendant possessed many houses at Poole and Bournemouth: that he had a vessel on the seas, and was a considerable merchant.

Mr. Crowder made a long address to the jury, contending that the conduct of the defendant was only that which might have been expected from a relation so far advanced in years, and that he never dreamt of marriage; but if the promise was proved, the loss was in truth a profit.

The learned Judge having summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff - Damages One Farthing.

TIPPERARY SUMMER

ASSIZES.

NENAGH.

James Shea, alias Smyth, was placed at the bar, charged in two counts with the wilful murder of Rody Kennedy, of Loughane, in this county, on the 21st of May last. Before a jury had been completed, the agent for the prisoner had exhausted the challenges. His lordship seemed much dissatisfied with the indiscriminate manner in which the challenges were made. He said it was an abuse that had sprung up in modern times, more out of the tenderness of law to the caprice of the prisoners than anything else. The mode of systematic challenges which had been adopted was mon

strous.

The motive which led to the perpetration of this barbarous murder may be inferred from the statement of counsel for the Crown. It appeared that the deceased (Rody Kennedy) lived in a place called Loughane, and occupied a house of considerable size and pretension for a man of his class. In this house also lived a man named Harty, with whom the prisoner was living as a servant. Deceased and Harty married two widows of the name of Kennedy, in whose right they came into possession and occupation of a farm, which they tilled in several divisions between them. Deceased's wife by her former husband had three children, two of whom were daughters. It seemed that previous to this tragical occurrence, Kennedy disapproved of an intercourse which had sprung up between the prisoner and the eldest daughter, and he threatened her that if she had anything to do

with the prisoner he would turn her out of the place. From the evidence which transpired, it appeared that the deceased, Rody Kennedy, on the morning on which he lost his life, had gone out for the purpose of repairing a gap which had been made and admitted trespass into his pasture. This was near Walker's scrub, and it appears that Walker's cattle had trespassed upon Kennedy's pasture. A gap was found in part made; some bushes were laid upon it, and some close to it cut, and when the body was found, it was in the ditch where the gap was made, and seemed to have been dragged a short way. It was found with a deep wound inflicted in the breast-apparently with a hatchet. A short distance down from the place where the body was found a hatchet was discovered. A person named Butler was going in the direction of the place where the murder was committed. He came in upon the road leading from Birr to Cloughjordan, and a little above where Harty's house is situated. After coming out, and having gone a short distance, he saw the prisoner running across the pasture field. He was at the time proceeding with a hasty step, and on turning the corner of Kennedy's field he could see him no further, for the angle intercepted his view. He walked on the road until he came opposite Loughane-house, to which a lane led. When he got there, he saw the prisoner about the spot where the gap was newly repaired. He saw him as he advanced stop there, and raise his hand as if to strike a blow, or throw something at an object before him. He then jumped into the ditch, where he was lost sight of.

Butler next saw him stoop

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. 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," 967. 12s.; "Same v. Same," 667.; "Lovekin v. Same," 1337.; "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 involved 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 967. 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

« AnteriorContinuar »