+ ~ -
Please report pronunciation problems here. Select and sample other voices. Options Pause Play
Report an Error

a door. This hut was pulled down about a year ago,
and the whole family subsequently moved inside the
brick kiln, where they built up a rude place, about
seven feet square, with loose bricks, and a roof of boards.
The rain and the snow came in, and the old man had no
bedding; nothing under him, in fact, but a few rags.
He had only a bit of woolsey over him; he was cut
with lying on the floor, and had a raw place on his body
as big as two hands. The old man's daughter stated
that on the 16th of January she applied to Mr. Cowley,
the overseer, for relief for her father, who said he would
see the constable about it. Subsequently the overseer,
constable, clergyman, and medical officer's assistant
saw the deceased, but neither medicine nor relief was
administered, and her father was left to die, none of the
parish officials seeing him the day of his death. It
snowed that day and the day before, and the weather
was very cold. One of the witnesses, in describing the
place where the deceased and his family lived said he
never in his life saw such a place; "the mud hut they
had previously was a palace in comparison to it." Mr.
Hays, constable, and owner of the field, said he saw
a month ago that the deceased was starving to death, and
made representations to the parish authorities. Told
the relieving officer the state and place the deceased was
in, and the number of his family. The relieving officer
told him he could do nothing unless the man applied
himself for relief, for if he went to seek out paupers he
would have nothing else to do. The jury returned the
following verdict—"Died from exhaustion," and that
death was accelerated by the inclemency of the weather,
the improper place where the deceased lived (being an
open brick-kiln), and the want of efficient attention on
the part of the poor-law officers.

In the Central Criminal Court on the 1st instant,
Alexander Macdonald was tried for Uttering a Bill for
£160 knowing an Indorsement on it to be Forged. The
bill was drawn in California, on the Agua Fria Company
in London; it was sent to Donald Ross, at Walworth,
by his brother; before it came Ross had died of cholera:
before its arriving at maturity, Ross's wife also died of
the epidemic, leaving a child ten years of age. Macdonald
appeared as the friend of the family, took charge
of the child, arranged for the burial of the mother, and
took possession of what effects there were. Subsequently
he presented the bill in question at the Agua Fria
Company's office, indorsed "Donald Ross"; and the money
was paid. Macdonald immediately plunged into a
course of dissipation. When arrested, he denied that
he had written the indorsementMrs. Ross wrote it;
and he pretended that he was acting as administrator
for the child. The Jury believed that the indorsement was
by Mrs. Ross, but convicted the accused for uttering the
instrument knowing the signature to be forged. Sentence
four years' penal servitude.

On the 3rd instant, Mr. Richard Nunn was tried for
Transposing an old Hall-mark of the Goldsmiths'
Company to a New Gold Ring. The chief witness, who
ordered the ring, was an Irishman named Austin: in
cross-examination he gave such an indifferent account of
himself and his antecedents, that it was evident his
evidence could not be relied on; the Lord Chief Justice
interposed, and the counsel for the Goldsmiths' Company
withdrew from the prosecution. Mr. Nunn was
acquitted, amid general cheering.

On the 4th, Emanuel Barthélemy was tried for the
Murder in Warren-Street. (See Household Narrative
for last month, p. 273.) He was tried, not as might
have been supposed for the murder of Mr. Moore, who
was first killed, but of Charles Collard, whom he shot
in resisting Collard's attempt to arrest him. Nothing
new transpired, and no clue whatever was afforded to
the mystery of the prisoner's conduct. The prisoner's
counsel complained that his client was tried first for
killing Collard: had he been tried for killing Moore,
it might have been shown that his crime was only
manslaughter; that Moore and the prisoner had quarrelled
and scuffled, and in the struggle the homicide had been
committed. As to the death of Collard, might he not
have been accidentally shot in the confusion caused by
a number of persons attempting to arrest the Frenchman,
who was armed like most foreigners? The Lord Chief
Justice instructed the jury that the crime charged in
the indictment was equally a murder as if the trial had
been taken on the case of Moore. The jury after a short
absence returned a verdict of "guilty," but with a
strong recommendation to the mercy of the court and
the Sovereign. The Lord Chief Justice pronounced
sentence of death. He held out no hopes of a
commutation of the punishment, though the jury's
recommendation should be forwarded to the proper quarter:
he knew not upon what ground the jury recommended
mercy, as he could not find a single circumstance of
mitigation. Barthélemy, whe is said to be a ferocious,
repulsive-looking man, exhibited no emotion from first
to last. He was executed on the 22nd inst.

A dreadful Murder was committed in Foley-place on
Sunday morning the 7th instant, by an Italian named
Baranelli. The following particulars have transpired
respecting the parties concerned. Some time since,
a person calling himself Lambert, whose real name was
Latham, took the house No. 5, Foley-place. He was
accompanied by a "Mrs. Lambert," not his wife, a Mrs.
Jane Williamson, a milliner living apart from her
husband, and Luigi Baranelli, an Italian valet. Mr.
Latham was the son of an eminent stockbroker, and he
formerly occupied the post of storekeeper at Greenwich
Hospital. He married a lady of property; on his
father's death property was left him; and when he
retired from his office some years ago, it was on a
pension of £250 per annum. Subsequently he separated
from his wife, each taking a share of the property; he
assumed the name of "Lambert," and formed a
connexion with the woman now called "Mrs. Lambert."
Urged by his friends to quit her, he gave out that before
doing so he should set her up in a business. For this
purpose, it appears, the house in Foley-place was taken;
and Mrs. Jane Williamson was associated with Mrs.
Lambert in partnership as wardrobe-dealers. Baranelli,
being intimate with the Lamberts, was invited to lodge
in their house. He says he had an illicit connexion with
Mrs. Williamson, who was with child by him, but that
Mrs. Lambert proposed by drugs to prevent the birth of
the child. On the other hand, Mrs. Lambert states
that Mrs. Williamson complained of the importunities
of the Italian, and that in consequence he was ordered
to quit the house. On Saturday night he bought
pistols, powder, and ball; sat up nearly all night
writing wild love letters to Mrs. Williamson; and on
Sunday morning he went to the house in Foley-place.
A charwoman who attended opened the door; Baranelli
gave her a great-coat and packet to take down-stairs.
Then he entered the bedroom of the Lamberts, and
shot Mr. Lambert through the head as he lay, and fired
at Mrs. Lambert, as she sprang towards him. Rushing
up the stairs, he vainly tried to obtain an interview with
Mrs. Williamson; and finding a policeman, who had
been called by the half-murdered woman and the servant,
was coming up the stairs, he dashed into a garret,
loaded a pistol a second time, and shot himself. The
door was broken open, and he was found yet alive.
Mr. Lambert was dead; Mrs. Lambert, though badly
wounded, is expected to recover; and Baranelli likewise
is recovering. An inquest on the body of the
murdered man has begun, but has not yet been proceeded
with, in consequence of the condition of Baranelli and
Mrs. Lambert. Baranelli is said to have formerly been
a valet to Mr. Stewart of Perth, who allowed him
a pension of £20 a year on account of his faithful

The commission appointed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury to inquire into the Allegations made against
Archdeacon Denison, with a view to depriving him of
his preferments in the church, commenced their sittings
on the 3rd inst., at Clevedon, near Bristol. The
commissioners were Bishop Carr, rector of Bath; the
Rev. C. Langdon, vicar of Queen Camel, near Langport;
the Rev. R. Pole, rector of Yeovilton, near Ilchester;
the Rev. R. C. Philips, rector of Cucklington, near
Wincanton; and the Rev. H. Parr, of Shipston-on-
Stour. Dr. Bayford appeared on behalf of the
promoters of the suit, and Dr. Rt. Phillimore on the part
of the Archdeacon. The commission closed their sittings
on the 10th, when the chairman, Bishop Carr, read the
following document.—"The commissioners, after due
consideration of the depositions taken before them, and