cel, and it would be for the jury to consider how far this fact again connected the prisoner with the parcel and showed that he made it up. They should remember that the prisoner was not to be convicted on suspicion only, nor could any number of circumstances of mere suspicion suffice to sustain the case against him. Upon the whole case, did the evidence lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the prisoner was guilty? In the words of Lord Tenterden, did it bring to their minds that firm persuasion, that degree of conviction, upon which people would act in their own important concerns? If so, it was their duty to act upon this persuasion. It was to the interest of the public that no innocent man should suffer, and it was also to their interest that the guilty should not escape. In forming a judgment upon such a case, it would be idle to estimate the chances of acquitting the guilty or of convicting the innocent. No such calculation could be attempted. Were the jury of opinion, upon the whole evidence, that the prisoner was guilty? If so, the duty of returning that verdict must, however painful, be discharged. If not, the prisoner was entitled to be set free. But the doubt of which the prisoner was to have the benefit must not be a mere surmise that the case might have been otherwise; that the check might have come properly into his possession, and so forth. The question was what, in their opinion, really did happen, and did they believe it with that degree of certainty upon which they acted in their own important affairs? This question they must now prepare to answer, and they would answer it in such a way as would do justice to the prisoner and satisfy their own consciences. The jury, after deliberating upwards of three hours, returned a verdict of "Guilty." On being asked, in the usual manner, whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, the prisoner made a vehement protestation of his innocence, declaring that the evidence called on his behalf was true. The Lord Chief Baron then said:-James Mullins, you have been convicted of the crime of wilful murder upon the person of Mary Emsley on the 13th of August last. You have yourself, I think very properly, commended the patience of the jury and the propriety of conduct shown by the counsel concerned in the case, even by those retained against you. The jury after a trial of two days, and after patient deliberation, have found you guilty. You have addressed the Court upon the evidence against you. It would have been more satisfactory to me if you had addressed your observations to some parts of the case which were considered by me as really bearing against you. Instead of that, you have confined your remarks entirely to those parts of the case which I pointedly in some measure warned the jury to pay very little regard to:-not that these matters so proved by some of the witnesses were untrue, but because it appeared to me that they were not of a nature justly to prove the crime contained in the indictment. They might form reasonable grounds of suspicion; but it appeared to me that they did not furnish any pregnant proofs against you. Had you been desirous, in your address to the Court, to meet what I considered to be the really grave part of the evidence against you, you would have told us whether you were in possession of the check or not, and whether your accusation against Emm was true or false. If you were in possession of the check, you would have told us how you came by it. I mention these points to show that the remarks you have made appear to me entirely beside the case which has been proved against you. The jury have found you guilty, and without some explanation of your conduct-an explanation which you have not furnished-without some evidence, of which there does not appear to be any in existence-I own that I do not see how any reasonable person can come to any other conclusion than that your charge against Emm was altogether false, and that you were responsible for the possession of those marks of guilt contained in the parcel. The murder of this helpless old woman was a wicked, cruel, and aggravated crime. The unhappy sufferer may have felt little, as she was probably deprived of sensation by the first blow. But it is manifest that whoever committed the murder took good care there should be no possibility of recovery, and that life should be utterly extinct. I endeavoured to leave the case entirely for the consideration of the jury. I am still of opinion that some of the circumstances urged against you, instead of increasing the weight of evidence for the prosecution, only tended to embarrass the jury in coming to a conclusion. But with that conclusion I am bound to state I am perfectly satisfied; and with the evidence before them, uncontradicted as it was, and unexplained, as part of it might have been, I do not see how they could come to any other. It only remains for me now to entreat you to make the best use of the time which may be spared to you before the execution of the sentence. It is my duty to pass the judgment which the law provides for the punishment of so awful a crime. I do not think that I am either called upon or should be justified in adding anything to the precise terms of the sentence. If you can even now make it manifest that you are innocent of the charge, I do not doubt that every attention will be paid to any cogent proof laid before those with whom it rests to carry the sentence of the law into execution. That duty, however, does not belong to me; and I have only now to order that you be taken to the place from whence you came, and thence to the place of execution, there to be hung until you shall be dead, and that your body be buried within the precincts of the prison where you shall last have been confined prior to your execution. Although the sufficiency of the evidence on which the jury had arrived at the verdict of guilty was much canvassed by the legal profession, the public were universally satisfied that the prisoner was really the murderer, and the callous wickedness of his attempt to compass the death of Emm, deprived him of the slightest sympathy. Even the advocates for the abolition of death-punishment were silent, and Mullins was executed on the 19th November. He left a written “statement,” in which he re-asserted his innocence, with many protestations. The most note-worthy expression of this paper is this:-"I be lieve Emm to be innocent of the murder of Mrs. Emsley." But though this admission is damnatory as to his own concealment of the parcel, he makes no attempt to account for his possession of the cheque or the other articles. Considering also his own conduct and motives, the following passage is not a little singular:-"I make this statement in order to let the public know that my life has been taken away by the most gross and most false-swearing evidence that was ever given in a court of justice, all through the hopes of getting money. I say that they have no right to any part of the reward, and I hope they will get none of it." When the antecedents of this great criminal's life became known, there was the less surprise that he should have planned so atrocious a scheme as that directed against Emm. He had, as formerly stated, been in both the Irish and English police. While in the former force, he is said to have been employed as a detective or "spy" upon the movements of certain political conspirators, in which he rendered good service, and in tracing the secret instigators of certain agrarian crimes. He was afterwards a serjeant in the K division of the Metropolitan police, from which he was superannuated on a pension of 351. per annum. He then became an officer on the South-Eastern Railway, where he was detected in a serious robbery, for which he was convicted and sentenced to six years' penal servitude. While undergoing this sentence in Leicester gaol, his conduct was so bad that he was removed, in 1854, with another to the Dartmoor prison, as incurable. While on their way thither, these desperate men made a bold attempt to escape, and nearly murdered a warder in so doing. On this conviction he forfeited his pension. He is also reported to have been concerned in the great gold-dust robberies. The complicated criminality of Mullins is not without a parallel in our records, and its ante-type is to be found no further back than 1844. In that year an old woman was found murdered in her cottage at Yarmouth. Four men named Yarham, Royal, Mapes, and Hall, were suspected and apprehended. Before the trial Yarham volunteered to give evidence towards the conviction of his accomplices. His offer was accepted, he received a pardon, and was made a witness. His statement was conclusive as to the guilt of the three men, and only implicated himself so far that he admitted an after knowledge of the deed. The effect of his evidence was not, however, such as he anticipated: the jury disbelieved him, and acquitted the accused. Yarham conceived that by his share in these proceedings, he had secured impunity for himself; and being thus rendered incautious, he made statements which, taken in connection with corroborating circumstances, were conclusive as to his own guilt. He was apprehended, tried, convicted, and executed on the 4th April, 1846. Royal and Mapes stood at the foot of the scaffold, and manifested unequivocal satisfaction at witnessing Yarham undergo the fate he had destined for themselves. The whole of this curious case will be found in the ANNUAL REGISTER for the year 1846. PATENTS Sealed. From January 1st to December 31st, 1860. It is frequently difficult to make an abstract of the lengthy descriptions given by the patentees of their inventions, sufficiently short for the purposes of this list, and yet sufficiently accurate to indicate exactly the nature of the invention. It is hoped, however, that sufficient is given to afford to an inquirer the means of making more accurate researches in the official records. Abbott, fire-arms, Feb. 10 Armour, measuring substances, April 20 Aspell, power-looms, Sept. 19 Auchincloss, washing fabrics, Feb. 21 Barker, fermenting apparatus, Nov. 16 Barlow, screw-cutting machines, June 8 Barnsley, welded iron tubes, Dec. 7 Barre, steam-boilers, July 31 Barthelemy, motive power, Sept. 27 Bell, sulphate of magnesia, May 22 Birkbeck, floating docks, June 12 Birkbeck, printing apparatus, Sept. 19 Birkbeck, lamp-chimneys, Dec. 18 Birkbeck, weaving-looms, Dec. 28 Bragge, railway-wheel tyres, Sept. 12 Braynard, ordnance, Dec. 28 Brearley, raising naps, Feb. 14 Breckon, coke ovens, March 30 Breese, metal bedsteads, Dec. 4 Breithmayer, printing cylinders, July 27 |