all bound ourselves by these conditions to one another; that the plaintiff has taken certain vows; that she has sworn to assent to certain rules, and you cannot now complain of it. If, therefore, you should be of opinion in the result that what is alleged under this plea is true, it must be an answer to a considerable portion, but not to the whole, of the matters in detail. For instance, there is nothing that I can gather from the rules and customs of the association that will warrant any personal violence, or the restraint of the person against the will of the individual; nor is there any thing to warrant the conspiracy such as is set forth in the declaration. Therefore if, by and by, you should be of opinion that the conspiracy is made out, and that the acts complained of have been done in furtherance of that plea, it may be no answer to the acts otherwise without justification in point of law, if you should be of opinion that these acts have been done under the power given to the Superior by the voluntary association of the plaintiff with them, and to compel the obedience which it was beforehand promised to observe.

With regard to the count in the declaration which complains of property having been taken away, two considerations present themselves in the first place, nuns lost all rights of property whatever, and therefore she is not in a position to complain of any thing taken from her for the benefit of the community. And here the defendants are rather in a difficulty. They allege that by her expulsion she ceased to be a member of the community, and a legal difficulty must here arise, whether after the expulsion rights of property might not revive. To meet that count the defendants have brought into court (and I heard with much satisfaction from the Solicitor-General that it was not to be contended that the sum paid into court was not enough) a certain sum of money, and therefore we may put entirely out of consideration all matters of complaint with regard to these articles.

As regarded the assault, the learned Judge said he owned he was very pained to hear that that part of the case was to be insisted on, because if the plaintiff failed to get a verdict on the great matter of complaint which she had brought, the verdict for the assault, perhaps a shilling, would not obtain for her what she desired. His Lordship said, What in point of law constitutes the assault no doubt relates to the so-called stripping on the 30th of May, 1865. She alleges that on that occasion the articles of dress, which she did not take off with sufficient alacrity, were rudely torn from her by Mrs. Star. The evidence on this point is conflicting, but if you believe the plaintiff's representation, it will be matter upon which to sustain the count for assault. It is, however, the only part of the case in which it seems to me there is the slightest shadow for saying there is any assault.

As to the imprisonment there was conflicting evidence, but the real ground for substantial damages, if proved, was the count alleging conspiracy. In directing the jury on this matter, the Lord Chief Justice said that to bear it out the jury must be satisfied that Mrs. Star combined with Mrs. Kennedy to drive this woman out of the convent by ill-treatment. He said, You may think the Superior acted unwisely and harshly, but that is not enough; you must be satisfied that whatever she did was done by her, in conjunction with the other defendant acting in combination with her, for the purpose of the common object. You must consider whether, when coupled with the explanations which have been offered, the statements made by the defendants have the offensive character which they had

first brought into court; and even if you think they were too strong, you

must look at the motives and feelings in which they originated, and whether they might not have arisen from an honest desire to maintain the conventual discipline. If so, and provided the acts done were within the scope of the Superior's authority, there would be a good defence. As I have already told you, what a person voluntarily submits to cannot be matter of complaint. What, then, was the authority to which the plaintiff had voluntarily submitted? What is the constitution of the convent, and what is the power the Mother Superior was entitled to exercise? There are three vows entered into, but we have only to deal with two of them, poverty and obedience. What is the meaning of the vow of poverty ? It is the renunciation of all rights of property, of all capacity for acquiring any, so that any which is acquired is for the benefit of the community, and to be administered at the will of the Superior; so that what is done in the honest exercise of that authority cannot be complained of. It is important, again, to observe the scope of that authority. The vow is that of obedience to this unlimited extent, that the voice of the Superior is as the voice of God. A form more emphatic could not be used, nor to my mind one more shocking, though by that (as I have already said) we must not allow ourselves to be influenced. But we . have to consider the extent to which this authority can be considered as legitimately going, and whatever is included under it a sister has sworn on all occasions to submit to. I take it to be clear that it must be reasonably exercised, and must be restrained within reasonable limits. There must be nothing contrary to the laws of God or man; and, further, what it meant by obedience is obedience to the rules or customs, whether written or traditional, established or exercised in the community. For example, suppose it had occurred to the Superior that the discipline of flagellation would be salutary for the soul of Sister Scholastica, and the sister protested against it as contrary to the rules and customs, and it was forcibly inflicted upon her, I do not doubt that an action would be maintainable for it. But if the sister had voluntarily submitted herself to it, I think (however painful it might be considered) she would not have had cause to come into court to complain of it. So here, if the Superior has committed an assault, I should hold it not within the scope of her authority. But as to other matters within the scope of her authority, there would be no legal cause of complaint, unless you thought that they were vexatiously committed. You must judge for yourselves upon the whole of the evidence whether that brings the case within the count for conspiracy.

His lordship said it was a misfortune for the plaintiff that, in these matters, she stood alone, whereas eight or nine witnesses-whose manner of giving evidence his lordship commended-had sworn against her; but she was not on that account to be disbelieved that question, like others, was one for the consideration of the jury, Referring to the second head of the charge of conspiracy-the alleged combination to get the plaintiff expelled by means of false accusations to the Bishop-the learned Judge said the statement about the alleged familiarity with the priest— assuming that it meant no more than what those ladies declared it meantcertainly was too strong.

The Lord Chief Justice, in conclusion, again warned the jury not to be prejudiced against the defendant's witnesses because they came from a convent. On the subject of damages, if they believed, whatever might have been the provocation given by the plaintiff, the defendants had combined for the purpose of getting rid of her by undue severity, and to procure her expulsion by charges not founded on justice or honesty, that the plaintiff had lost the benefit of dower, and

had been deprived of the opportunity of continuing the life she had entered upon, it was all nonsense to say that she could resume it in another community. In the event he had stated, she would be entitled to substantial damages. On the other hand, if they were of opinion that her conduct was calculated to provoke honest and just resentment-that she had given great occasion of provocation-then, if they still thought that she was entitled to a verdict, the amount of the damages should be regulated by their view of her conduct.

The jury, who had been furnished at their request with the principal documents, retired to consider their verdict. In about two hours and a half they returned into court.

The Foreman then handed his lordship a paper, and he said, The jury find for the defendants on the counts for assault and imprisonment; they find for the plaintiff on the counts for libel and conspiracy, damages 500l., including the dowry, if it be returned.

The Lord Chief Justice.-I understand that the Baggot-street convent is ready to give back the 3007.

The Foreman. In that case the damages are to be 2007.

II.

THE NORWICH MURDER.

TRIAL OF WILLIAM SHEWARD.

In this case the prisoner, William Sheward, was indicted on his own confession for the murder of his wife, committed nearly eighteen years ago.

It appeared from inquiries made that previously to 1838 Sheward resided in London, where he met with his deceased wife, whose maiden-name was Martha Francis. She was a native of Wymondham, Norfolk, and was considerably his senior. She seemed to have lived with Sheward as his housekeeper at Greenwich, where it was believed they were married, but it was not exactly known in what year. In 1838 Sheward and his wife came to Norwich, and resided for some time in Bar-street, where he worked as a tailor. He next removed to White Lion-street, where he failed for a considerable sum. He next removed to Upper St. Giles-street, Norwich, and thence to St. Martin's-at-Palace, where he was living in 1851. A person who was then a neighbour of Sheward's remembered missing Mrs. Sheward in about the middle of that year, at a time when considerable excitement prevailed in Norwich in consequence of the finding of a woman's remains. This affair excited great attention at the time, and every exertion was made to solve the mystery, but without result. The first discovery was made on Saturday, June 21, 1851, when a young man found a hand in a road leading to Lakenham, a suburb of Norwich. About 200 or 300 yards from the spot where the hand was discovered a foot was picked up. The discovery provoked so much horror and excitement that diligent further researches were made in the neighbourhood of Norwich, and pieces of flesh, bones, &c., were discovered at Hellesdon (another suburb of Norwich) and elsewhere on Sunday, June 22; Monday, June 23; Tuesday, June 24; Wednesday, June 25; and Thursday,

June 26. The hand first found was clinched and much discoloured, and on the remains being collected the medical men consulted expressed their opinion that they were those of a young adult female. The remains were placed in spirits of wine, and were kept for some time at the Guildhall, Norwich. The search for further remains was continued after June 26, 1851, and a piece of skin and muscle was discovered on Saturday, June 28, some intestines on Sunday, June 29, and a hard substance, supposed to be a thigh-bone, and part of a female breast on Monday, June 30. The last discovery was made on Wednesday, July 2, 1851, when some bones were found. A shirt smeared with blood was also picked up on Mousehold-heath, near Norwich. After the first week in July, 1851, the interest felt in the matter gradually subsided, and the occurrence of another murder at Holkham, Norfolk, about the middle of July, 1851, also served to distract the attention of the local public from the circumstances. A great many theories were ventilated in attempted explanation of the discoveries made, and further confusion was created by sensational misstatements in the local newspapers.

Sheward passed among his neighbours for a quiet, inoffensive man, and he explained this disappearance of his wife by stating that she had left home on a long journey. The next heard of Sheward was that he resided in King-street, near St. Peter-per-Mountergate Church, where he carried on business as a pawnbroker, lending money on goods and plate. While living in this neighbourhood it was remarked that he began to drink. On the 13th of February, 1862, Sheward married a woman with whom he had previously cohabited, and by whom he had two or three children. The marriage was at the Registrar's office in King-street, Norwich. In about August last, Sheward, who appeared not to have been very prosperous in his pawnbroking business, disposed of his stock principally to Mr. Boston, another pawnbroker, of Orford-hill, Norwich, and removed to the Key and Castle Tavern, at St. Martin's-at-Oak. He left home at the end of December last year, and it was remarked before he left that he was somewhat depressed in spirits. He had stated his intention to go to London in order to see his sister, and he had fixed the Monday after Christmas for his journey. When the day in question arrived he did not start, on the plea that he did not feel well, but early on the following morning (Tuesday, December 28), after passing a somewhat restless night, he started for the metropolis.

On the first of January this year he made a confession to Inspector Davis of the P Division of the Metropolitan Police, who communicated with the Norwich authorities, in consequence of which Sheward was brought before them and duly committed for trial.

The prisoner afterwards retracted his confession, and pleaded "Not guilty." The trial came on at the Norfolk Assizes, before Mr. Baron Pigott.

Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., opened the case for the prosecution, and the first witness was Mr. Davis, inspector of police of one of the metropolitan divisions. He said, I was on duty at Walworth Station on January 1. The prisoner came to me and said, "I want to speak to you. I have a charge to make against myself." I said, "What is it? explain yourself." He hesitated; and then said, " For the wilful murder of my first wife at Norwich." I said, "Have you given due consideration to the very serious nature of the charge?" He said, "I have; I have kept it for years, but can keep it no longer. I left home on December 29, intending to destroy my life with the razor I have in my pocket." I asked him for the razor; he gave it to me. He then said, "I have been to Chelsea by the

66

steamboat, intending to destroy my life, but the Almighty would not let me do it." He began to sob, and spoke in broken sentences, and at intervals. I said, "Let us hope it will all turn out a delusion." He said, “You can take my charge in writing." I did so from his dictation, and he signed it. "I, William Sheward, of Norwich, charge myself with the wilful murder of my first wife. (Signed) W. S." He was then placed in one of the cells at the station. He was in a very distressed state of mind, but was quite sober, and knew what he was saying. The next morning I went to his cell. On coming out I said, "Do you recollect what you said last night?" He said, "Yes, perfectly well." I said, Will you give any particulars as to when and how it was done ?" He said, “Yes, I will. It was on the 15th of June, 1851." I said, "How could that be? how was it the body was not discovered?" He said, "The body was cut up, and I believe a portion of it is still preserved with spirits of wine at the Guildhall, Norwich. You will find it is quite true; they know all about it at Norwich." I asked him how or where the body was found. He said, "Oh, don't say any more; it is too horrible to talk about." He also said, "I went last night to a house in Richmond-street, Walworth, where I first saw my first wife; that brought it so forcibly to my mind that I was obliged to come to you and give myself up." He said he kept the Key and Castle public-house, St. Martin's-at-Oak, Norwich, and that he had kept a pawnbroker's shop for fourteen years, and was living at St. Martin's-at-Palace at the time of the murder. I placed myself in communication with the Norwich police. On the second examination on Thursday, the 7th of January, he asked if he had made use of the word wilful. I said, "Yes, he had.” He said, "That is all I have to ask."

Cross-examined. I asked him if any thing had occurred, and said that perhaps he was labouring under some delusion in consequence of the statement he had made. This was just before he had produced the razor. He said he had had no food for two days, and that he could not eat. I offered him some food and some coffee. He drank the coffee, but would not eat. He seemed very much depressed in spirits, and after he was in the cell moaned and sobbed. He came to me at half-past ten. I have been an inspector for two years. I have heard that it is a very common thing for men to give themselves up on charges, but I have had no experience either personally or at my station.

Charles Johnson.-I am a wood-dealer, thirty-four years of age. I lived at Trowse in 1851. In the summer of that year my dog found a human hand in Lakenham-lane, also called Miss Martineau's-lane. The dog found it in a small plantation just off the road at Bracondale. It is about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street, Norwich (where the prisoner lived at the time). I showed the hand to my father, he took it to the police-station. It had finger-nails upon it. I went afterwards in the following week to the police-station and saw it. I made search in different parts. My dog found two other pieces of flesh in the Hellesdon-road, about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street in the other direction. I was with the police at the time, and they took possession of them.

Daniel Johnson.-I am the father of the last witness. I remember a portion of a human body being found in the way described, and noticed that it was a hand. I gave it to the police at the Guildhall.

Richard Fryer, station-master at Sevenoaks station, in Kent.-I was living in Norwich in 1851. I knew a young man named Robert Field, since dead. At that time he was clerk to Mr. Merry. He lived on the road from Bracondale to Carrow-bridge. I remember, Sunday afternoon in July of that year, I went to