The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-04-01 00:00:00

TUESDA Y.

His Lordship took his seat on the Beneh at nine
o'clock, and the case against the "navvies" was pro-
ceeded with. One of the jurymen first asked whether,
when Hubbard and Penny went down the bill, they ex-
pected to meet P.S. Keates.—P.C. Hubbard was re-
called, and said they did not —Mr. Ffookes, for the
prisoners, said he was much obliged to the juryman for
asking that question, because on his defence he would
have to allude to that fact. He contended that in a
case where all the witnesses, who might be called pro-
fessional witnesses, their evidence should be doubted
unless corroborated. The question was whether there
was an affray. If there was not then there was no legal
arrest, and the constables were acting contrary to their
duties, in attempting to make such a capture. No one
more than himself, and through him the prisoners at
the bar, regretted the sad termination of the affair. He
then adverted to the evidence of P.C. Hubbard, as to
the number of stones thrown. The constable did not
mention until yesterday that there were ten or twelve
thrown. Before the coroner's inquest he said four or
five. Did thy think that a tall, powerful man like
Handsford, only 15 yards distant from Hubbard, could
not have hit or goes close to him? Yet the policeman
said they truckled on the road before him. Was the
act not one of pitching the stones, all the prisoners hav-
ing some fun among themselves? Was there any other
evidence to show that stones were thrown eith the in-
tention of injuring the policeinan? The prosecution had
called the boy Rowe, but though in close proximity to
the prisoners, he could not speak to any stones being
thrown. Tbe boy said he was in company of a man
named Vincent, and if he (Vincent) had seen any stones
thrown, the prosecution would have produced him there,
and he only thought it was fair to the prisoners, seeing
that Vincent lived in a village near Yeovil, that he
should have been called. He, did not intend to charge
the policemen with swearing falsely, but they had
grossly exaggerated the facts. He thought that if P.S.
Kestee had heard the whole of the facts of the ease, he
would not have attempted to interfere with the prisoners,
nor would the unfortunate man about whose death they
were inquiring, have interfered. P.C. Hubbard was
the sole cause of their moving in the matter. He then
alluded to the circumstances of putting the handcuffs
on Handsford when no felony bad been committed, and
the three policemen rushing in and catching hold of him.
The words used by Chant as to his saying if they took
Handsford into custody, he would go into
Yeovil and be a witness, was an expression he thought
would elucidate the case favourably to the prisoners.
He maintained that there was no determination to
assault the policemen on the part of the men, and it
was not until they were set upon that they assaulted
him. As to Chant, lie maintained that he never
assaulted any one, and his statement next morning bore
out that view of the case, and if they returned a verdibt
inculpating Chant, it would not meet with the sanction
of others. They, the jury, had an onerous duty to
Perform, and by their verdict to teach policemen that
they were not to act in a ferocious manner. His Lord-
ship said lie did not regret sitting till a late hour on the
previous evening. It was a most serious question they
had to consider, and not one to be summarily dispatched
at the end of a laborious day. He was more satisfied
with the adjournment, because himself and time learned
counsel had an opportunity of consider ng the point
raised en the part of the prisoners. The facts of the
evidence were then laid before the jury, and his Lord-
ship said it was an important question whether there
was an arrest the top of the hill, and whether the
putting of Penny's hand upon Handsford was an arrest?
If so, lie was guilty of a misdemeanor in breaking his
arrest. He did not quite agree with the observation of
the learned counsel for the erisoners, and he thought
there was a case tube laid before them of win' murder.
There were many nice distinctions as to arrest in cases
of felony; but in the case of misdemeanor, a
police-constable has no power except in specified
cases to make an arrest. He had not the power
to take into custody a person for an assault unless
be saw the blow struck. There might be a question
whether there was an assault, and whether the arrest
took place in fresh pursuit. It was to be regretted that
Hubbard did not go before a magistrate and get a war-
rant instead of taking the case into his own hands. Had
there been a sufficient dumber of policemen present it
would have been a different affair. If they thought
there was an assault, and the men were taken into cus-
tody in fresh pursuit, then the prisoners would be guilty
of the higher offence. If they did not take that view,
that would not relieve them of the charge of manslaugh-
ter. The jury then retired, lest after an absence of
about half an hour returned and asked his lordship
whether there was any evidence to show that deceased
rose after he once faIL—P.S. Keates said that when lie
saw him he was about sixteen or seventeen yards off.—
The jury, after seine further deliberation, returned
into Court and said that they found Handsford guilty of
manslaughter, but recommended him to mercy. Etagere
and Chant they found not guilty.—Rogers and Chant
were then arraigned for assaulting the police, but no
evidence was offered, and the jury found them not
guilty. —Certificates as to character was handed in on
behalf of Handsford, and his lordship said as he was
anxious to give due effect to the recommendation of the
jury, he would defer passing sentence. Later in the
day Handsforl was brought up and sentenced to four
years' penal servitude.
Matthew Doyle, 29, coach trimmer, an inoffensive
looking person, was indicted for the manslaughter of
Moses Antimony, at Bridgwater, on lot February. —Mr.
Lopes prosecuted, andiMr.Prideaux defended.—William
Moore, a carpenter of Bridgwater, said I lodged in the
same bouseas the prisoner. Was at the*Golden Lion on
the evening of the Ist February. Prisoner came in
about 9 o'clock. I asked him to drink. He said,
"Whet, out of a lousy half-pint?" We remained there
an hour. Prisoner wept home before me. Deceased
and I went together afterwards, and we had passed his
house when prisoner came behind us and called out
"There—you take it out of this." ( putting himself in
fighting attitude.) We took off our coats and prisoner's
wife came out, and I bad him in. Deceased went back
and kicked the door. Next I heard the report of a
gun, and saw the flash of it come through the door.
The deceased was close to me. He staggered and said,
"Take me home."—Cross-examined: The deceased was
a true Welehinan—very peppery. Deceased was pretty
fierce in his kicking the door, and very violent in his
language. The people appeared to be alarmed.—Joeeph
Holyoake, a carpenter of Bridgwater, said: I recollect
the prisoner coming home. He asked me to go out and
give those who were at the door a thrashing. They said
"Come out, you b-- Irish b--." The prisoner
said, "If you do not get away I will get my gun, and
give you the contents in your legs. Next I heard the
report of fire-arms, and saw a gun in prisoner's
hands. After a few minutes I examined the door, and
found that some gun shots had gone through it three
feet nine inches from the bottom. The hole was nine
inches in diameter. —Mr. Prideaux then addressed
the jury, and called Mr. Bridges, manager of the
Bristol and Exeter Carriage Works. at Bridgwater, who
stated that prisoner had been in his emjloy. His
general character was very good. His lordship having
summed up, the jury found him guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy on account of provocation. Sen-
tenced to three calendar months' imprisonment.
William West, 50, coal miner, was indicted for a
felonious assault upon Sarah Ashman, aged under ten
years, at Poulton, on 23rd February.--Mr. Timing pro-
secuted, Mr. Eden defended.—Prisoner was acquitted.
William Coarnbes (on bail) was indicted for a
felonious assault on Elizabeth Scrofield, • girl under 10
years of age, at Burnham, m 2nd March.—Mr. Thring
appeared for the prosecutiem—No evidence being
offered, prisoner was discharged.
Henry Ford, 38, labourer, was charged with a rape
On Alice Dare, at Jompton Martin, on 19th December.
—Mr. Timing for the prosecution, and Mr. Saunders for
the defence. —Ac the judge was summing up to the jury,
the mother was seized with hysterics, and for a time in-
terfered with his lordship's proceeding. She was taken
ant of Court screaming to an alarming extent. The jury
found him guilty, and he was sentenced to six years'
penal servitude.

Jonathan Gould, 18, coahniner, was charged
with indeoently assaulting Elizsbeth Brimble at
Midsutnmer Norton, on 9112 February, 1862. Mr.
Thring prosecuted, Mr. Saunders defended.--Santenced
to two months' hard labour.