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.