kitchen to give directions for his supper, where he related, to several persons present, his having been robbed; to which he added this peculiar circumstance, that when he traveled he always gave his gold a particular mark; that every guinea in the purse he was robbed of, was so particularly marked, and that, most probably, the robber, by that means, would be detected. Supper being ready, he retired. He had not long finished his supper, before Brunell came into the parlor. After the usual inquiries of landlords, "Sir," says he, "I understand that you have been robbed, not far from hence, this evening."-"I have, sir."—"And that your money was all marked?" "It was." "A circumstance has arisen which leads me to think that I can point out the robber."-"Indeed!"—"Pray, sir, what time in the evening was it?" "It was just setting in to be dark." "The time confirms my suspicions!" Brunell then informed the gentleman that he had a waiter, one John Jennings, who had, of late, been so very full of money, at times, and so very extravagant, that he had had many words with him about it, and had determined to part with him on account of his conduct being so very suspicious; that, long before dark, that day, he had sent him out to change a guinea for him, and that he had only come back since he (the gentleman) was in the house, saying, he could not get change; and that Jennings being in liquor, he had sent him to bed, resolving to discharge him in the morning. That, at the time he returned him the guinea, he (Brunell) did not think it was the same which he had given him to get silver for, having perceived a mark upon this, which he was very clear was not upon the other; but that, nevertheless, he should have thought no more of the matter, as Jennings had so frequently gold of his own in his pocket, had he not afterwards heard (for he was not

present when the gentleman was in his kitchen relating it) the particulars of the robbery, and that the guineas which the highwayman had taken, were all marked; that. however, a few minutes previously to his having heard this, he had unluckily paid away the guinea which Jennings returned him, to a man who lived some distance off, and was gone; but the circumstance of it struck him so very strongly, that he could not, as an honest man, refrain from giving this information.

Brunell was thanked for his attention. There was the strongest reason for suspecting Jennings; and if, on searching him, any of the marked guineas should be found, as the gentleman could swear to them, there would then remain no doubt. It was now agreed to go softly up to his room: Jennings was fast asleep; his pockets were searched, and from one of them was drawn forth a purse, containing exactly nineteen guineas. Suspicion now became demonstration, for the gentleman declared them to be identically those of which he had been robbed! Assistance was called, Jennings was awaked, dragged out of bed, and charged with the robbery. He denied it firmly, but circumstances were too strong to gain him belief. He was secured that night, and the next day carried before a neighboring justice of the peace. The gentleman and Brunell deposed the facts on oath; and Jennings having no proofs, nothing but mere assertions of innocence to oppose them, which could not be credited, he was committed to take his trial at the next assizes.

So strong were the circumstances known to be against him, that several of his friends advised him to plead guilty on his trial, and to throw himself on the mercy of the court. This advice he rejected, and, when arraigned, pleaded not guilty. The prosecutor swore to

the being robbed; but that, it being nearly dark, the highwayman in a mask, and himself greatly terrified, he could not swear to the prisoner's person, though he thought him of much the same stature as the man who robbed him. To the purse and guineas, which were produced in court, he swore, as to the purse, positively, and as to the marked guineas, to the best of his belief, and that they were found in the prisoner's pocket.

The prisoner's master, Brunell, deposed to the fact of the sending of the prisoner to change a guinea, and of his having brought him back a marked one, in the room of the one he gave him unmarked. He also gave evidence as to the finding of the purse, and the nineteen marked guineas, in the prisoner's pocket. And, what consummated the proof, the man to whom Brunell paid the guinea, produced the same, and gave testimony to the having taken it, that night, in payment, of the prisoner's master. Brunell gave evidence of his having received of the prisoner that guinea, which he afterwards paid to this last witness. And the prosecutor comparing it with the other nineteen, found in the pocket of the prisoner, swore to its being, to the best of his belief, one of the twenty guineas of which he was robbed by the highway

claring his innocence to the very moment he was turned off.

Within a twelvemonth after, lo! Brunell, Jennings's master, was himself taken up for a robbery done on a guest in his own house; and, the fact being proved on his trial, he was convicted, and ordered for execution. The approach of death brought on repentance, and repentance confession. Brunell not only acknowledged the committing of many highway robberies, for some years past, but the very one for which poor Jennings suffered!

The account he gave was, that he arrived at home, some time before the gentleman got in who had been robbed. That he found a man at home waiting, to whom he owed a little bill, and that, not having quite enough loose money in his pocket, he took out of the purse one guinea, from the twenty he had just got possession of, to make up the sum; which he paid, and the man went his way. Presently came in the robbed gentleman, who, whilst Brunell was gone into the stables, and not knowing of his arrival, told his tale, as before related, in the kitchen. The gentleman had scarcely left the kitchen, before Brunell entered it; and being there informed, amongst other circumstances, of the marked guineas, he was thunderstruck! Having paid one of them away, and not daring to apply for it again, as the affair of the robbery and marked guineas would soon become publicly known, - detection, disgrace, and ruin appeared inevitable. Turning in his mind every way to escape, the thought of accusing and sacrificing poor Jennings at last struck him. The rest the reader knows.

(N. W. SIBLEY. Criminal Appeal

lived by himself in Norfolk Street, with only two female servants and his valet, was found brutally murdered in his bedroom, his throat

being cut, and the bone at the back of the neck being cut through, at one desperate blow. The hypothesis of suicide was quite untenable; it was not only opposed to medical evidence, but no instrument was found, at or near the spot, by which suicide could have been committed. Suspicion early attached to Courvoisier, but it has always been recognized that the evidence was entirely circumstantial. TINDAL, C. J., in his charge to the jury, observed that "the case was one of circumstantial evidence. No eye saw the act committed."

The question really at issue, according to the summing up of the Chief Justice, was, whether the house was entered from without or whether the robbery was committed by some of the inmates, who also committed the murder. Was it a genuine robbery, or were valuable articles secreted in the pantry and scullery, and marks made on the back area door, with the view of diverting the attention of the officers of justice, so that the guilty party or parties might escape detection? The hypothesis of burglary derived some prima-facie support from the fact that the back area door was found open and certain marks were found on it, and also from the fact that there was a ladder in the yard that would have enabled the burglars to scale the wall of the area yard. The hypothesis of burglary was, however, negatived on what seems very conclusive evidence. Assuming it, it became. also necessary to assume that the burglars deliberately selected a difficult mode of access and broke open a door which required considerable force to break through, when they had a much easier access through a glass door. There were also no marks on the walls or leads, over which, according to the hypothesis of burglary, the burglars must have passed. Yet these leads were covered with dust, which was undisturbed. Finally, the Chief Justice

asked: "Was it possible to believe, if thieves had entered the house for purposes of plunder, they would have made their exit, leaving so many small but valuable articles behind them, which might so easily have been disposed of about their persons?" The hypothesis of burglary and constructive murder seemed highly improbable; but when it was once dismissed, it became essential to conclude, that either Courvoisier, or the two female servants, must have murdered Lord William Russell. TINDAL, C. J., directed the jury that no one except the prisoner, the two female servants, and Lord William Russell were there that night in the house. The hypothesis that any one might have concealed themselves on the premises seems to have not been adverted to, as, presumably, there was not the slightest evidence of it.

The circumstantial evidence against Courvoisier comprised some five facts: (1) He had observed to the female servants, "I wish I had old Billy's money, I would not be long in this country." (2) His agitation and contradictory statements to the police. (3) The discovery of gloves and handkerchiefs in his Own portmanteau slightly stained with blood. (4) The secreting of certain valuable articles, including a ten-pound note, all belonging to Lord Russell, in the scullery and pantry (no stranger, TINDAL, C. J., observed to the jury, could think of putting these articles where they were found). (5) About the date of the murder, Courvoisier called at a place of entertainment (also used as a hotel) in Leicester Square, where he had previously been employed as a waiter, under the name of John, and deposited a brown-paper parcel for safekeeping with a Mrs. Piolane, the wife of the master of the establishment. As Courvoisier was not known in the establishment in Leicester Square under his proper name, at the time the parcel

was left, he was not suspected. There seems a conflict of evidence whether the parcel was left before or after the murder. It may be assumed that it was left before, this being so, according to Mrs. Piolane's evidence, while her servant, who failed to identify Courvoisier, thought it had been left after the date of the murder. Some six weeks afterwards, during the first day of Courvoisier's trial, Mrs. Piolane was attracted by the suggestion in a paragraph in a French newspaper, in which the crime was discussed, to the effect that the articles taken from Lord William Russell's house, for which a reward of £50 had been offered, might have been deposited in some foreign hotel in London by Courvoisier. The parcel was opened with some ceremony in the presence of three persons, including a solicitor, and an inventory was taken. It was found to contain silver spoons and forks marked with Lord Russell's arms, two pairs of new stockings, a pair of gold auricles, a pair of dirty socks, and an old flannel waitcoat. A jacket and tow were wrapped round the things to prevent them rattling. Thomas Davis, formerly in the service of Mr. Webster, an optician, gave evidence at the trial of Courvoisier that he made a pair of gold auricles for Lord William Russell similar to those found in the parcel left by the prisoner at the hotel in Leicester Square. John Ellis, his lordship's former valet, recollected that Lord William Russell wore such "ear-instruments." Mr. Molteno, a printseller in Pall Mall, identified the brown paper in which the spoons and forks were wrapped up as the covering of a print sent from his

shop, and he believed to Lord William Russell; he knew the brown paper was sent from his shop; his own stamped label was on it, and he was in the habit of selling prints to Lord William Russell. Finally, Lydia Banks, a washerwoman, identified the socks as Courvoisier's.

It may be doubted if a more dramatic moment was ever reached in a trial for murder than this discovery of Lord Russell's plate and the identification of Courvoisier as the mysterious bearer of the parcel to the depositary, Mrs. Piolane. The Times observed that "the fact of the plate having been discovered, and the identity of the prisoner proved, a communication to that effect was made to the prisoner, and on hearing a piece of intelligence so astounding and unexpected he turned deadly pale and became extremely agitated, and before the time arrived for his being again. placed at the bar he sent for Mr. C. Phillips, his counsel, and disclosed his guilt to him." On the night of the fatal occurrence he was in the lower part of the house in the act of secreting the different valuable articles described at the trial in the scullery and pantry, where they were found by the police. Lord William Russell, being taken suddenly ill, came downstairs unexpectedly while he was so employed and caught him in the act and told him he would discharge him from his service. This roused him to a state of madness and he cut his throat with a carving knife. . . . It seems impossible to doubt that Courvoisier was a guilty man; his confession to his counsel on the second day appears to conclude the question.

of coal cars on a track in its mine, was thrown from a car and injured. This is an appeal from a judgment in his favor because of such injuries.

The declaration contained three counts, the gravamen of the charge in each being that the appellant company negligently suffered a portion of the track of its road in the mine to become and remain in bad and unsafe repair and condition, and that by reason thereof the car upon which appellee was riding and driving left the track, causing the injuries complained of. . . .

The injury was received at a point where the track passed upon a somewhat descending grade through a rather dark entry. The appellee was driving a mule attached to a train of three cars, upon the front one of which he was riding. He came down the track at a rather rapid rate, the mule, according to the testimony, being in a "lope," when the car "jumped" the track and threw him against one of the props of the mine. He had been employed as a driver in this mine for some ten months and had been driving through the entry in which he was hurt for three weeks, during which time he passed and repassed frequently over the place where he was hurt, often passing there, as he testified, fifteen to twenty times per day. On the day that he was hurt he began work at 7.30 in the morning, passed the place in question seven times, and was passing it for the eighth time when the accident occurred. His testimony is that he observed nothing wrong with the track during any of the trips prior to the last one, and he thinks there was nothing wrong before that; that the car jumped the track because the end of one of the rails of the track was turned in at the joint; that it could not have been in that condition when he passed there on the preceding trips, nor when another driver passed down over it in advance of him or that driver would have been thrown off. . . . The appellee contends that the tie, upon which the rail rested and to which it ought to have been securely nailed, was defective and

insufficient to hold the nails or the rail, and for that reason the rail was moved from its place at the end where it should join with the next rail.

To support this contention and as the only evidence in its support, the appellee sought to show that, immediately after he was injured and before the cars from which he fell were moved, a new tie was. placed in the track. From this, if true, it might reasonably be inferred that the track was unsafe with the ties already there, and that another tie was necessary to put the track in good and safe condition for use. Upon this point, in behalf of the appellee, J. R. Burns testified that he saw Michael Lynch, appellant's roadmaster, putting a tie in the track immediately in the rear of the car that left the track, before such car was moved after the accident; and Michael Laudregan, also a witness for the appellee, testified that he saw Lynch there at the time with a tie in his hands and that he seemed to be working at the track. This was all the testimony favorable to the appellee on this point.

Lynch testified that he went at once to the place of the accident, found two cars off the track, replaced them, examined the track and the iron rails carefully to see that they were safe for use, and found them in good condition; that he had a wooden gauge used for ascertaining whether the track is level, and that he and Michael Hickey, who was assisting him, placed this gauge upon the track to see that it was level; that he had no tie there; did not find it necessary to use one; and did not use one; that the rail was not bent nor turned in at the joint, but that the track was in good and safe condition for use, and they began at once and continued hauling cars over it after the accident as before. John Hickey, a coal miner, stated, as a witness, that he was with Lynch,