Chapter XXXIV: Part 34

Henry Moss, the approver, was then called, and his evidence showed that a design, such as that which was at length completed, had long been in contemplation by the two Caspars, but that a favourable opportunity for putting it into execution did not occur until the month of March 1839. He stated that he had been acquainted with the elder Caspar, who was a watchmaker living on Finsbury Pavement, for about sixteen years, having for some time acted as his foreman. Young Caspar learned the business of a watchmaker from him; but subsequently he ascertained that he had procured employment as a clerk in the service of the Irish Steam Packet Company. He had been frequently in the habit of seeing the two prisoners during the last sixteen or eighteen months before the robbery; and in October 1838, at the invitation of Ellis Caspar, he called upon them at their house. He was subsequently frequently requested to visit them, but he did not avail himself of the invitations; and at length the cause of their apparent friendly disposition was exhibited by old Caspar saying that he wanted him "to do him a favour." He said that he was willing to do what he could for him; and then he desired him to meet him at Williams' Coffee-house, St. Martin's-le-grand, where a person would join them, who would explain the business to him. He went there and met old Caspar, but he took him away from the house; and having entered a cab with him, they drove to Charing-cross, where he said they should meet the person he had spoken of. They went into a coffee-house, and there they saw Lewin Caspar; but as the room was crowded the subject was not then broached, and they all walked out into the park. Here old Caspar desired his son to explain what he wanted done, and after some preliminary observations he began. He said that he wanted the witness to carry a letter for him to Crutched-friars, and to take away some boxes, which he was to deliver to his father. Old Caspar would give him the letter on the day when he was to carry it; and he (young Caspar) would give him the boxes. He added that if he would do them this service, they would amply recompense him, and that they employed him in preference to a ticket-porter, who could do the business as well as he, because the matter required secrecy, as his father must not be seen in it. The letter which he referred to was to be carried on the next morning; and he was to meet old Caspar at a coffee-house near Monument-yard. He went to the specified spot, and presently saw old Caspar; but he said that he had not yet seen his son, from whom he was to obtain the letter. He went out, but returned in about a quarter of an hour, accompanied by his son, who had in his hand what appeared to be a letter. Lewin Caspar then said that the box which he was to fetch was to come by a ship which had not yet arrived, and that they must all meet again in the afternoon; but on their second assemblage at the same place, he declared that an accident had occurred in two ships having run foul of each other, in consequence of which the delivery of the box, which was at the bottom of the cargo, would be delayed until the next day. On that day they met again; but then Lewin Caspar said that the box would be too heavy for him to carry, and having given him ten shillings, they dismissed him with an intimation that they should require his aid on some other occasion, and that they would write to him. He subsequently received several notes from them, and met them according to appointment, and he was then employed in copying various letters, which from his description of them, appeared to have had the same object of plunder, as that on which, in the present instance, the gold-dust had been delivered. At length, on the 24th of March, he met the two Caspars in Turner-street, Commercial-road. They went with him to his house in New-street, and then they told him that they should want him on the next morning, and they desired him to meet them at the corner of Mark-lane. He went there at half-past ten o'clock, and saw them together; but Lewin quitted his father, and the latter then came up to him, and said that he had something to give to him, but did not like to do so in the street. They, in consequence, went to a Coffee-house in Mark-lane, and there old Caspar handed a letter and a blue bag to him. He was desired to take a cab and go to Lewin Caspar, at his office, and he was told that he would there receive something which he was to carry to Wood-street, Cheapside. He accordingly proceeded to the office of Messrs. Hartley, in John-street, Crutched-friars, and having sent in the letter Lewin Caspar came to him. He compared the letter which he (Moss) had delivered, with another which he held in his hand, and then he said that he must go into the office. In a few minutes he gave him an order on the back of the letter, with instructions that he should present it at the Dublin Steam-wharf, Iron-gate Stairs, adding that he should be there as soon as he. The witness, before he proceeded to the wharf, delivered some articles for his master, and he also took a fresh cab in Cheapside, having left that in which he had before ridden in King William-street. On his reaching the wharf he presented the order, and two boxes were delivered to him by Mr. Bristoll, the foreman, which he put into the cab. He gave a receipt for them, signed in the name of Dunn; and he ordered the cabman to drive him to the Cross Keys, Wood-street. Ellis Caspar was not there, and the boxes were carried into the office, but in a few minutes he got another cab, and drove to the London Hospital. He took one of the boxes and carried it to his own house, where he deposited it in a cupboard, in his bed-room, and he was returning for the other, when he met Ellis Caspar. He told him that he had acted imprudently, in going so near home with the cab, and desired him to drive about for an hour before he took away the other box, and then to take it out at a distance from New-street, and carry it home. He accordingly did so, and having at length quitted the cab at the Iron Bridge, Commercial-road, he entered an omnibus with the box, from which he took it to his own house. There he found Caspar waiting for him, apparently in a great state of trepidation. He told him to send his servant out of the way, and that he must get rid of the boxes as soon as possible; but he (Moss) declared, that having received an assurance that he should suffer no harm from what he had done, he was not afraid. Caspar said that the officers were already on the look out, and that he must quit his house immediately; but he answered that he could not do so, as he had not given notice to his landlord. To this Caspar replied that he must sacrifice every thing, and directed him to meet him on the next evening, when he would pay him whatever he required. At eleven o'clock the boxes were taken into the back parlour, Ellis Caspar, Mrs. Moss, and the witness then only being present. The boxes were opened, as Caspar said, in order that their contents might be divided, to be carried away; but inside there appeared to be tin cases; and as these were small, it was decided that they should not be broken, but that they should be divided among them, and carried off. Caspar then went away; and after he had retired, the witness and his wife set about burning the boxes. It was daylight before they went to bed. On the next morning the witness opened one of the tin cases, and found it to contain gold ore. He wrapped all the boxes in paper, and put each into a separate trunk, and they were on that afternoon carried to Mansell-street, in a truck. On the same evening the witness met Ellis Caspar at the Horse Guards, and he told him that the boxes must be again removed. The witness wished him to remove them, but he refused, saying, that his son was already suspected, and he expected that his house would be searched. He advised him then to get his sister, Mrs. Levy, to take a lodging, and to carry away the gold in trunks to her. They were then to be sent down to Bath, to a direction which he gave, and the two Caspars were afterwards to go and fetch them. This plan, however, was subsequently abandoned, and by the desire of Caspar the witness went out of the way, because it was said that the officers were in search of him. He went to the house of his father-in-law Davis, in Coventry-court, and the gold was brought there to him. He kept it for some time in a cupboard, but then Davis would not let it remain there any longer, saying, that his (witness) house had been searched, and Davis and Mrs. Abrahams carried it away in small portions. Mrs. Abrahams subsequently told him that it had been sold to Solomons, for 2000_l._; but he complained that this was short of the actual value, and she declared that she had taken all she could get. She then handed over to him an I O U for 1807_l._, signed "H. S.", and money and bank-notes, which raised the sum to 2000_l._ The witness subsequently went out of the way to Peckham, and other places; but at length disclosed his knowledge of the transaction, and surrendered himself into custody.

It may be mentioned here as a singular circumstance in the case, that the witness was induced to give information of what had occurred in consequence of an apparent disposition on the part of Solomons to deprive him of the fair price of the gold. So far, too, did all the parties carry their schemes of mutual plunder, that Mrs. Abrahams "welled" 13_l._ which she procured for the shakings of her pockets in which she had carried the gold-dust, of which she gave no account to her father or any of the other parties to the transaction.

The evidence of Solomons distinctly implicated both Moses and his daughter. He stated that on Easter Tuesday the former entered his shop and intimated a desire to speak to him privately. They went to his sitting-room, and then Moses informed him that he had a quantity of gold-dust for sale. He agreed to purchase as much as fifty ounces, at 3_l._ per ounce, and Moses went away, saying he would send his daughter with some of the gold, and adding, "Mind, you don't know me, nor I don't know you." In a short time Mrs. Abrahams entered the shop and said, that she had brought what her father had spoken about, and she directly went with witness to his melting-room, which was on the ground-floor, at the back of his house. He put a crucible on the furnace, and she produced from her bosom and other parts of her dress a large quantity of gold. He melted it and then placed it in skillets, in which he took it into the shop and weighed it. There were one hundred and two ounces. He was alarmed and agitated; and Mrs. Abrahams perceiving his terror, took his hand and swore a Hebrew oath that she would never disclose what she knew. Before she went away, he gave her a memorandum of the weight of the gold, and paid her 350_l._ in notes and sovereigns for it. In about three-quarters of an hour she brought more, and she subsequently went and came six times, producing gold upon every occasion. The witness had to send to the city for money, and at the end of the transaction he was still in her debt to the amount of about 2500_l._ He gave an I O U for the amount, but that was returned to him, and then he gave her another for 1807_l._ He also paid her 13_l._ for some gold which she produced, and which she said were the shakings of the bag. The witness went into the minutiæ of the transaction between him and Mrs. Abrahams, and admitted that he for some time refused to pay his I O U, on the ground that there had been a great stir made about the gold, and that after his examination at Lambeth-street he had exerted himself to procure the notes which he had paid to her cashed. He had sold a part of the gold to Messrs. Bull and Co., and a part to Messrs. Cock and Johnson, and he had made "good profit" of the transaction. The total amount which he was to pay Mrs. Abrahams was 3700_l._

Both Moss and Solomons underwent long and searching cross-examinations by the counsel for the prisoners. Each admitted his knowledge of the felonious nature of the proceedings in which he was engaged, and neither attempted to deny the feelings which had actuated them throughout the transaction. A disposition had been shown to put off Moss with the paltry amount which he had received beyond the I O U for his share in the transaction. He sought to appropriate to himself the whole of the proceeds of the robbery in preference to handing it over to the Caspars: Mrs. Abrahams and her father, Money Moses, cheated Moss, by declaring that they were to receive much less for the gold than had been actually agreed to be paid: Mrs. Abrahams, again, cheated her father, by appropriating to herself the 13_l._ for the shakings; and Solomons sought to "Jew" the whole party, by retaining in his possession 1800_l._ worth of gold, for which he gave only his I O U, and for which he refused to pay, in consequence of the stir which was made about the robbery.

On Monday, the first of July, a variety of legal objections were taken by Mr. Serjeant Bompas and Mr. C. Phillips on the part of the prisoners to the indictment, the most prominent of which was, that until, by the conviction of the thief, the robbery had been proved, the receivers could not be found guilty. On the part of Lewin Caspar, however, it was also urged, that the indictment was bad, as alleging him to be an accessory before the robbery, which was stated to have been committed by an evil-disposed person, whose name was not mentioned.

These objections were overruled by the learned judge as being unfounded; but, upon the application of counsel, they were reserved for discussion in the Court of Error, and on Tuesday, 2nd July, the case was left to the jury. His lordship's charge occupied a period of eight hours, and at its conclusion the jury retired.

In about an hour, however, they again came into court, and delivered a verdict, declaring Lewin Caspar "Guilty of inciting Moss to commit the felony, and the whole of the other prisoners guilty of the offence of receiving the gold-dust, knowing it to have been stolen." Ellis Caspar was declared to have been an accessory both before and after the robbery, and Alice Abrahams was recommended to mercy, on the ground that she had acted under the advice and influence of her father.

On the 10th of November in the same year, the objections which had been raised on the trial were argued before the judges in the Exchequer Chamber. Their decision was not immediately made known, but on the 6th February 1840, the prisoners were ordered to be placed at the bar.

Mr. Justice Williams then addressed them, and said that, after a full inquiry into the objections raised in their behalf, the judges had come to the conclusion that the judgment upon Lewin Caspar must be arrested, and that with regard to the other prisoners, they had been properly convicted. The learned judge then sentenced Ellis Caspar, and Emanuel Moses to be transported for fourteen years, and Alice Abrahams to four months' imprisonment.

Upon the application of Mr. Clarkson, Lewin Caspar was ordered to be detained.

On the 6th of March 1840, Lewin Caspar was again placed at the bar, to plead to another indictment which had been preferred against him, in which the error which had been discovered in that on which he had been already tried was corrected by the "evil-disposed person" by whom the robbery was committed being stated to be Henry Moss. The indictment alleged that he had incited and moved Moss to commit the felony, and Moss was also charged as the principal. Caspar pleaded "Not guilty," but Moss, on being brought up, confessed himself "Guilty."

Mr. Clarkson intimated, that the prosecutors were not desirous of proceeding against Moss, in consequence of his having assisted the due administration of justice, by disclosing all he knew in reference to the transaction, and he was sentenced to twenty-four hours' imprisonment in Newgate.

On the following day Caspar was arraigned upon the indictment against him, which still remained to be tried.

The same evidence which had been before detailed was now again produced, Moss being the principal witness in the case, and the prisoner was found "Guilty."

The learned Judge, in sentencing him to be transported for seven years, expressed his sincere regret that he had not the power to inflict upon him a more severe punishment. The prisoner was then removed from the bar, and was sent abroad, in obedience to the judgment pronounced upon him.

The positions and rank of all the persons connected with this extraordinary transaction have been referred to in the course of the details which we have laid before our readers, with the exception of Emanuel Moses. There were few persons well acquainted with the vicinity of Covent-garden to whom the person of this man was not familiar, although his particular character and practices may not have been so well known. He was, as we have already intimated, of the Jewish persuasion, and he resided in the midst of a neighbourhood in which the fullest opportunities were afforded for his carrying on a system, the nature of which may be pretty well guessed from the circumstances disclosed in the case which we have just related. The landlord of "The Black Lion" public-house, in Vinegar-yard, Drury-lane--it was pretty generally known that he was one of the most daring and successful "fences," or receivers of stolen goods in the metropolis. The ramifications of his business were well ascertained to extend to every species of roguery which existed in London, and it cannot but be matter of surprise, that a person whose reputation was so universally known should have so long continued, in the very teeth of the authorities, to pursue his trade of plunder. Such an event as the conviction of "Money Moses," almost the father of his particular line of trade, produced an amazing consternation among his fellows; but the metropolis is to be congratulated, that a person whose character was so notoriously mischievous, should have been thus removed from the scene of his operations. During the period of Moses's imprisonment in Newgate, a striking change took place in his appearance. Originally exhibiting upon his person all the signs of indulgent living, his confinement reduced him to the shadow only of his former self; and there were to be heard amongst his friends, at the time of his receiving sentence, regrets at his faded aspect, and apprehensions that the voyage to Australia would complete the work which the air of a prison had commenced.

It will have been observed, that the manner in which the whole of the lost property was discovered has been disclosed in the course of our recital of the extraordinary circumstances of this inquiry. Messrs. Hartley and Co., upon whom the loss would have fallen in case of the non-recovery of the gold, suffered comparatively small damage. A very considerable portion of the gold itself was produced; and, for that which was not actually forthcoming, we believe there is good reason to suppose that an equivalent was eventually paid.

JACOB FREDERICK EHLERT.

EXECUTED FOR MURDER.

This diabolical murder was committed by Ehlert, the mate of the Norwegian brigantine Phoenix, upon John Frederick Berkhalt, captain of the vessel, while she lay in the river at Sunderland. The atrocious transaction was first brought to light by the discovery of the murdered remains of Berkhalt in the river at Sunderland, on Friday the 14th of June 1839, with such appearances upon his body as left no doubt that his life had been taken away by violent means; and suspicion at once attached to the crew of his vessel. They were all secured, protesting their ignorance of the murder, and alleging that the captain had gone ashore on the night of the previous Tuesday, since which they had seen nothing of him; but the discovery of marks of blood in his cabin left little doubt of his having been murdered on board the Phoenix, and then thrown into the river, in order that his death might be concealed. This belief was speedily confirmed by the confession of a boy named Daniel Frederick Muller, aged nineteen, who was employed in the ship, and who now voluntarily disclosed the whole of the circumstances of the horrible crime, implicating Ehlert the mate.

His statement was to the following effect:--On the night of Tuesday the 11th of June, he had the twelve-o'clock watch, and at about half-past one Ehlert came on deck and called him below. He asked what he was wanted for, but he was desired to ask no questions, but to follow whither he was led. The mate had a hammer and a lantern in his hand, and he went into the captain's cabin. When there he gave the lantern to Muller and desired him to hold it, and then he directly raised his hammer and dealt three tremendous blows on the head of Berkhalt as he lay asleep. The unfortunate man scarcely moved; but Muller, terrified beyond measure, exclaimed, "Mate, what are you doing?" and tried to run away. In this, however, the mate prevented his succeeding, and seizing him by his arm, he said that he must remain. The mate then took the body from the bed and slung a rope round the neck, and he partially clothed it in a pair of stockings and trousers, and then drew a canvas bag over it. The boy now again attempted to escape, but the mate threatened to murder him if he went away, and drew a clasp-knife from his pocket, as if to put his threat into execution; but he told him that if he remained he would give him 300_l._, for that there was plenty of money in the captain's cabin. The boy soon after went on deck and wept bitterly, and while he was there the mate came to him and took the skylight off the captain's cabin. He then cut a long cord off the gear, and going below again he tied it round the body, so that he could raise it by that means through the skylight. On his again reaching the deck, he ordered Muller to bring the boat round to the side, and while he was doing so, the boy saw him throw the body over the stern. Both then entered the boat, the mate holding the rope which was attached to the body of the deceased, and they rowed away to the opposite side of the river. The mate there picked up a large stone, and they pulled some distance up against the tide. As they went along the trousers and bag slipped from the body. At length they stopped, and then the mate fixing the stone upon the body let it go, and it sank to the bottom. They now returned to the ship, and Ehlert having called the next watch retired to rest, telling the boy that at four o'clock, the conclusion of the present watch, he would call him up as if to take the captain ashore, so that the crew might suppose that he did so. This was done, and he rowed away the boat as if he had the captain in her. The night of the murder was dark and rainy. The boy added, that he had done nothing himself in the way of assisting in the murder, but that he had tried very much to get away. The mate had, however, threatened him a great deal so as to prevent his escape, and having compelled him to aid him in the transaction, had given him instructions what to say in the event of his being questioned.

Upon this statement, Ehlert was committed to take his trial; and the boy was also detained in jail to ensure his attendance as a witness.

On Saturday the 27th of July, the prisoner Ehlert was put upon his trial at the assizes. The evidence of the boy was corroborated by that of other witnesses in many material particulars, and a verdict of "Guilty" was returned by the jury.

Sentence of death was instantly passed, amidst the unavailing protestations of the wretched convict of his innocence. Between this period and the day of his execution, Ehlert continued firm in his denial of his participation in the murder, and imputed the whole guilt of the transaction to Muller, who he said had destroyed the captain under the very circumstances which he had detailed, as having been those under which he had committed the foul crime. He said he had discovered the completion of the deed, and out of compassion for the boy had omitted to give him up to justice. Muller, however, persisted in the truth of his tale, and on the 16th of August the miserable convict was executed.

GEORGE CANT.

CONVICTED OF RAPE.

The case of this individual presents circumstances of so remarkable a character to our notice, that we should be guilty of a neglect of our duty if we omitted their recital.

At the Central Criminal Court on Thursday the 31st of October 1839, George Cant, a publican, aged forty years, was indicted for a rape upon Jane Bolland; and in order that the course which the case took may be understood, we shall repeat the evidence which was given by the witnesses at the trial, in preference to a general narrative of the proceedings.

Jane Bolland deposed that she resided with her brother in Solomon-terrace, St. George's-in-the-East. On the 30th of September she went to live as bar-maid at the Windsor-castle, public-house, Holborn, kept by the prisoner. She slept in one of the attics, and the prisoner and his wife slept in the room underneath. The prisoner called her on the morning of Thursday, the 3d of October; when she came down to the bar the prisoner patted her on the cheek with something; he laid his hand upon her breast, and insisted upon kissing her. She threatened to inform Mrs. Cant of his conduct, and he said, "What the eye did not see the heart would not believe." He then wished her to leave the door of her room open that he might come in when he came to call her in the morning; but she told him that she was not the sort of person he imagined her to be, and left the parlour. In the course of the day her brother and a person named Balfour called upon her, and she communicated to them what the prisoner had said and done to her. Mr. Balfour said, that after what had passed he did not think the prisoner would again attempt to use indecent liberties with her, and her brother, at the suggestion of Mr. Balfour, advised her not to leave her situation. Subsequently on that day she became unwell, and about eight o'clock in the evening she was conveyed up stairs to bed, but she was then so ill that she could not recollect who went up to her room with her. She was insensible when she reached her bed, but during the night she partially recovered, and then she found the prisoner at the bedside. He placed one of his hands upon her mouth to prevent her calling out, and a struggle took place and she fainted. There was a candle on the table in the room. About six o'clock in the morning she recovered her senses, and found her clothes, which had not been taken off, in disorder, and the bone of her stays broken. The offence charged in the indictment had been committed when she was in a state of insensibility. The prisoner was then standing at the door of her room, and she cried out to him, "You villain, you shall not come in." He answered, that she was a drunkard and should not again enter his bar. She went down stairs to inform Mrs. Cant of what the prisoner had done; but when she told that person that her husband had used indecent liberties with her, Mrs. Cant said, "I will not hear you, you drunken hussy." She immediately left the house, and went to her brother's, where she told what had happened to her. On the Saturday following she was examined by a medical gentleman.

On her cross-examination by Mr. C. Phillips, who appeared for the prisoner, she stated that a young man named Joseph Edwards had slept at her master's house on the night of the 3d of October, and that he accompanied her home on the next day. He was a friend of Mr. Cant's, and she had observed him in attendance at the Court. She was subject to a swimming in the head, and was suffering from this complaint when she went to bed on the evening in question. She was not intoxicated, and had taken nothing during the whole day, with the exception of one glass of half-and-half.

The brother of the prosecutrix and Mr. Balfour, a wine-merchant's clerk, corroborated that part of the evidence of the witness, which referred to her conversation with them; and Bolland further deposed, that his sister had some years previously suffered from a severe attack of erisypelas in her head, from the effects of which she had been for some time insane. She was still occasionally subject to determination of blood to the head.

The wife of Bolland, and the medical man referred to, both gave evidence which left no doubt that the offence which was complained of by the prosecutrix had been committed upon her person; and Mrs. Bolland declared that her sister-in-law, when she saw her on the Friday, exhibited all the agitation which might be supposed to be incident to such an occurrence.

The prisoner was proved to have been taken into custody by a constable named Wells, when he said that he had "only kissed the girl;" and this closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Phillips then addressed the jury for the prisoner, and disclosed a most extraordinary defence on his behalf. He disclaimed all intention of impeaching the young woman's character, and was happy that he had no reason for making even an insinuation against her in regard to her conduct previous to this occasion. That she was deeply to be commiserated he owned; and that she had come here to tell what she believed to be the truth, he had not the least doubt. He was sure, however, that both reason and a sense of justice would compel the jury (if the witnesses he intended to call for the prisoner should speak the truth) to say that they could not see their way through the case, and that such doubt was created in their minds, as would warrant them in acquitting the man at the bar. He approached the defence of the prisoner with the greatest anxiety of mind, because, if the evidence he intended to adduce should be discredited, the consequences to the prisoner would be truly awful. The giddiness in the head had induced those who had only been acquainted with the girl for four or five days to believe that she was intoxicated; and it was most natural, for the swimming in the head would produce all the appearances of intoxication. She was taken up stairs by a servant of the prisoner, who would describe her appearance at the time, and she would also state, that the young man Edwards came to the door with her. That she had been violated there was not the least doubt, but that the prisoner had committed the offence was by no means clear; and it would be his duty to call the young man, Edwards, who, if he (Mr. Phillips) was rightly informed, would state that he was the guilty party. The young woman had given her evidence very fairly, however, and had doubtless stated only what she considered to be truth. After Mr. Cant had been committed, Edwards had called at the office of Mr. Williams, the solicitor for the prisoner, and made a disclosure which left no doubt of the innocence of the man at the bar. He did not mean for an instant to justify the conduct of Edwards, and it was a pity that he did not make all the amends in his power to the young woman. He was a young unmarried man, and might have done so. It was unlikely the prisoner committed the offence, for, if he had been guilty, it was not probable that he would have conducted himself towards the young woman as she had stated he had done in the morning after she had recovered from her illness. He (Mr. Phillips) believed he had been a foolish man in using even the liberty he himself confessed he had done with the girl; and it would be a warning to others to beware of the consequences of the smallest deviation from a virtuous line of conduct. The liberty he had used in the morning had induced the girl to suppose that he had committed the capital offence upon her during the night. Unfortunately there were many cases in which the innocent suffered for the guilty, but there was no instance in which the innocent had actually come forward to place himself in the situation of the guilty. It was very unlikely that an individual, entirely innocent of a capital charge like the present, would come forward and put a rope about his neck, in order to free the man who had actually committed the crime. He could not, therefore, see any reason to throw doubt on the testimony of Edwards.

Jane Hollier was then called, and on being sworn stated, that she was at the Windsor Castle public-house, when this transaction was stated to have occurred; and at about eight o'clock she assisted the prosecutrix to bed. Witness thought she was in a state of intoxication at the time. About twelve o'clock witness again went up to the bed-room of the prosecutrix, accompanied by Joseph Edwards. Edwards remained at the door while she went in. She asked him to come up with her, as there was only one candle. The poor girl was lying on the bed, with her clothes on, asleep; witness covered her with blankets. Witness was in the room about five minutes, and the door was closed during that time. When she came out she found Edwards at the door, and she gave him the light, and he went towards his bed-room. She neither saw the prosecutrix nor Edwards again that night.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus: The prosecutrix was not able to speak on her way up stairs. She heard the prosecutrix say to the prisoner, "You took liberties with me, you villain."

Mr. George Williams, the attorney for the prisoner, stated that he knew Joseph Edwards; that person came to his office after Cant was committed, and made a communication to him. The communication was made after the prisoner had been admitted to bail.

Thomas Shipton, pot-boy at the Windsor Castle, stated that the prosecutrix appeared to be intoxicated on the day in question. He saw her before she went up stairs, and she then presented the appearance of a person who had taken liquor.

Mrs. Sarah Goodchild, a washerwoman, stated that she was employed by Mr. Cant. She went up to the bed-room of the prosecutrix about nine o'clock on the night in question, accompanied by the prisoner and his wife. The girl was then lying across the bed, and witness, assisted by Mr. Cant, placed her straight upon the bed. They all left the room together. No light was left in the room.

Joseph Edwards was called and examined by Mr. Phillips: He was a boot-maker, and formerly slept at the house of the prisoner. He now resided at No. 2, Fenton's-buildings. He was in the habit of visiting the prisoner's family occasionally, and he slept there on the 3rd of October, when the girl Bolland was there. She went up stairs, he believed, between nine and ten o'clock. She appeared then to be intoxicated. He saw her the next morning about half-past six o'clock, and went to her brother's house with her. They went down Chancery-lane, along Fleet-street, and over Blackfriars Bridge. He told her that was the way to the Commercial-road, believing that she lived near the Commercial-road Lambeth; but it appeared that it was Commercial-road East, she wished to go to. After the prisoner was committed, he called at the office of Mr. Williams, and made a communication to that gentleman, which was true. He made a similar communication to a friend of the name of Murphy. He went into prosecutor's room about eleven o'clock on the night of the 23rd of October. He had no light with him. She was in bed. Edwards proceeded to state that he had criminal intercourse with the girl, and he felt it his duty, when the prisoner was committed, to inform Mr. Williams of what he had done.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus: Witness was out of employment at the time of this transaction. He knew Mr. Cant, and the first time he slept at the Windsor Castle was on the 3rd of October. He had known Cant for four or five years. He had lodgings at Bartholomew-close on the 3rd of October. When he staid at the Windsor Castle late, he was asked to sleep there. The girl did not appear at all unwilling to submit to the intercourse; but on the contrary, appeared quite willing. He had not gone to bed before. She was not covered with blankets. He heard all that had been stated that day, when the prisoner was examined before the justices, but he did not then mention a word of what he had now said. On the way home on Friday, the prosecutrix said that Mr. Cant had called her a drunkard, and she would fix him for it. She then seemed happy enough.

Murphy corroborated this statement by declaring that the witness had told him of what he had done, after the time at which the communication had been made to Mr. Williams.

A number of witnesses were then called, who gave the prisoner an excellent character, and

Mr. Adolphus proceeded to reply. He rejoiced that Mr. Phillips had not attempted to cast any aspersion upon the character of the prosecutrix, and declared his belief that no attempt could be successfully made to show that she was unworthy of belief. The case depended entirely now upon the testimony of Edwards, and the simple question was, whether the jury would credit his statement in preference to that of the girl Bolland. No attempt was made to deny the advances which Cant had made to the girl on the morning of the 23rd of October; and he asked the jury first, whether having made those advances, it was improbable that he should have followed them up; and secondly, whether they could believe a person who came forward and told such an improbable tale as Edwards. The testimony of the prosecutrix was materially sustained in many particulars--that of Edwards received no important confirmation. True, he had gone to two persons to relate his story before he told it here, but at that time the prisoner was at large on bail; and it was to be observed that he might have done so for the express purpose of propping up an improbable story. He had said nothing about it at the police-office, although he had heard the prosecutrix examined there; and the whole relation bore so much of the impress of fiction, that the jury, he was sure, would attach no credit to his declaration.

The learned judge (Mr. Baron Gurney) in summing up contrasted the statements of the prosecutrix and Edwards with great force, and having instructed the jury upon the law affecting the case, informing them that the offence of rape might have been committed upon the prosecutrix while she was in a state of insensibility, although no resistance had been made by her, left the whole case to them for decision.

After about two hours' consideration, a verdict of "Guilty" was returned. The prisoner appeared somewhat astonished at this conclusion of the case, and loudly declared his innocence. Judgment of death was, however, recorded against him, and he was removed from the bar.

The very peculiar circumstances of this case attracted a large share of public attention; and a feeling was commonly entertained that the verdict was founded upon an erroneous view of the facts of the case. The persons who adopted this impression lost no time in conveying their opinion to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but in spite of their most strenuous exertions in favour of Mr. Cant, the Government declined to give a decision in opposition to that which had been arrived at by the jury, although it was resolved that the sentence of death should be changed for a punishment of transportation for life.

In obedience to this determination Mr. Cant was subsequently sent out of the country.

WILLIAM LEES.

EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE.

This melancholy affair was the result of an unfortunate excessive indulgence on the part of the convict in intoxicating liquors. William Lees was a hair-dresser, living at No. 1, Lower Chapman-street, St. George's-in-the-East, where, with his wife, he occupied a small house, the lower part of which he used in the way of his trade. Lees at the time of the dreadful occurrence was thirty-five years of age, and his wife was five years younger. They had been married a period of five years, but they had been known to quarrel frequently.

On Tuesday the 19th of November 1839, between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, Lees was observed to close his shop, and quit his house. He went directly to the residence of some relatives at Islington, apparently in a state of great perturbation; and after a few minutes' conversation, he disclosed to them the appalling fact, that he had murdered his wife on that afternoon, by cutting her throat with a razor. This was found upon investigation to be unhappily true. The body of the wretched woman was discovered extended at full length on the floor of her husband's shop; her throat being so dreadfully cut, as that her head was nearly off; her face being fearfully gashed and wounded, as if in the efforts of the murderer before he could effectually complete his design.

Information was immediately given to the police authorities, and Lees was taken into custody, and conveyed to the station-house in Ratcliffe-highway. He made no effort to deny his guilt, but stated that the horrid deed had been done while he was intoxicated, and in the midst of a quarrel when he was highly excited.

On Friday, the 28th of November, the miserable man was indicted for the murder at the Central Criminal Court. There could be no doubt of his guilt, and a verdict of conviction was returned.

The learned judge, in passing upon him the sentence of death, remarked, that the only supposed palliative circumstance in the case was that of his having been intoxicated at the time of the murder. As a warning to others, he thought it should be understood that this afforded no possible excuse. He then passed the usual judgment on the culprit, and he was removed from the bar. On the 16th of December 1839, the unfortunate man was executed at the Old Bailey, in obedience to his sentence.

THE REV. J. R. STEVENS.

CONVICTED OF SEDITION.

Mr. James Rayner Stevens was one of the most violent political preachers of his day. Originally a member of the body of the Wesleyan Methodists, and a minister of the particular creed which that respectable sect professes, he was excluded their church by reason of his interference with political subjects, in a manner which was deemed unbecoming his character as one of their clergymen. Already highly popular among the people of the district in which he resided, for his uniform opposition to those measures which they deemed harsh and hurtful to their interests, as well as for a mild and amiable disposition which, it appears, amidst all his violence on political subjects, he possessed, they were determined that he should not be without an arena in which he might display his acknowledged but dangerous powers of eloquence. The manufacturing inhabitants of Ashton, Dunkenfield, and Staley Bridge therefore quickly erected for him chapels in each of their respective districts, and here he continued to exercise his functions as a preacher, up to the period of his apprehension. As we have already said, mild, amiable, and charitable in private life, he was a universal favourite amongst his flock; but he unfortunately sought to gratify their tastes, at the same time that he obeyed the dictates of his own feelings, in disseminating doctrines opposed to the maintenance of the existing law, and subversive of the interests of society. The New Poor Law was his favourite topic of abuse; and in this he found a ready echo in the breasts of those who heard him. But from a subject which might be so easily made calculated to excite dislike towards the Ministers by whom the law was introduced, he turned to others of a more general character; and in his discourses in reference to these as well as the first object of his professed hatred, he was guilty of making assertions and employing arguments which eventually procured his indictment and imprisonment on a charge of sedition.

In his sermons Mr. Stevens boldly maintained his principles, and sought openly to make them known; he contended, not perhaps for their legality, but that they were such as he had a right to hold and proclaim; and he frequently loudly called upon the authorities, "if they dared," to impeach him of his political offences in this respect. This invitation was given once too often; and at length, on Thursday, the 28th of December 1838, he was apprehended at Ashton by Goddard and Shackell, Bow-street officers, on a warrant which had been issued by two magistrates of Lancashire, and placed in their hands for execution. Mr. Stevens made no effort to resist the law, and he was immediately taken to Manchester to be examined by the magistrates there, escorted by a company of the Queen's Bays. He was lodged in the New Bailey for that night; but on the next day a public investigation took place.

The charge made against him in the warrant was, that he did, on the 13th of November, at the market-place at Leigh--for his speech-making was not confined to his pulpit--with a great number of evil-disposed and disorderly persons, assemble together in a tumultuous manner with banners, flags, and ensigns, and that then and there, by loud shouts, and by the discharge of fire-arms, they terrified the inhabitants of Leigh; and that he did, by violent and inflammatory language, endeavour to excite the people so assembled to violence against the persons and property of divers of her Majesty's liege subjects in Leigh and its vicinity. This charge was sought to be substantiated by various witnesses, who, being inhabitants of Leigh, had heard his speech, and were able to give a general account of its tendency.

Mr. James Johnson, a linendraper, proved that on the day in question a meeting was held at the market-place in Leigh of between two and three thousand persons, at which the prisoner was present and made a speech. He described the general effect of the speech. The prisoner, he said, referred principally to the factories and the existing poor laws. He condemned the practices in the factories, and advised the people to arm themselves, and to get guns and pikes and hang them over their chimney-pieces; they were to have them ready, and then he would come over, and they should appoint him their leader, and he would tell them what they were to do. When the grand attack was made, they were to go to the factories with a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other. He referred to a particular instance of the alleged mal-treatment of a boy at the factory of Mr. Jones, and he talked of tarring and feathering Mr. Jones, and sending him as a present to the commissioners. During the meeting pistols were fired, and the people shouted. Mr. Stevens checked the firing of pistols, saying that there was too much cracking. He said that he had not done "cracking" yet, and that they might crack again by and by. The witness added, that he saw as many as twenty pistols among the crowd; and he also observed a person walking about with a pike, upon which a loaf and a herring were impaled.

William Coward, a constable of Leigh, gave a longer account of the speech than Mr. Johnson. He said that when he first went to the spot, Mr. Stevens was addressing the meeting on the condescension of our Lord in this world. He subsequently quitted this point and went to other subjects. He quoted the passage, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord;" and he added--"What I mean to say is, that God has perhaps raised you up to fire these buildings (alluding to the houses round about), and perhaps even that venerable church, which our forefathers have erected." He advised the people to take away their families from church, and to save their pennies to buy pikes, and guns, and pistols. At night there was another meeting by torch-light, at which Stevens again spoke in the same strain as that which he had employed in the morning. He spoke about the soldiers and officers, and said that there was nothing to fear in that quarter, for that the officers had admitted his writings into their mess-rooms, and that the soldiers had listened to his preaching, and loved to hear him. He spoke of the hardships which the people underwent, and declared that if he lived at Leigh, he would collect the people in parties of from six to twelve, and go to the poor law guardians and bring out one of their number; then he would take his coat and waistcoat and shirt off, and, having got a barrel of tar, he would cover him with it, and he would give him a pillow of feathers, and feather him, and then he would say, "Go to roost, thou devil!" At this meeting the same system of pistol-firing was kept up which had been maintained in the morning, and there were pikes to be seen, and many of the people carried torches. The witness added, that he had since seen between one and two hundred pikes in the cottages of the poor people, which had doubtless been procured at the instigation of Mr. Stevens's speech. The inhabitants of Leigh and its neighbourhood were much alarmed at the occurrences of the meetings. The witness declared his regret at being compelled to give evidence against a person whom he had known so long as Mr. Stevens, because he had been acquainted with him when he was esteemed a highly respectable member of the body of Wesleyans; but he felt bound to state what he had seen, for he was convinced that since Mr. Stevens had been in the habit of going to Leigh, there was more irritation among the people than he had ever known before. Arms had been collected, and he knew one or two smithies which were wholly employed in making pikes. These were made principally of steel, and they were fourteen or fifteen inches long; at one end was a screw, so that they might be fixed into a staff, and at the other the point was exceedingly sharp. Gentlemen in the neighbourhood had been threatened to have a pike or a ball through their bodies; and the people, on going to various shops to buy bread, had declared that they would "fetch the next at the point of the pike." The witness further stated, that there were banners at the meeting, on one of which was the inscription, "The murders of Peterloo shall never be forgot."