The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-03-25 00:00:00

TRIAL OF PRISONERS.

Mary Ann Furber, 19, servant, was charged with
stealing • hair brush and other articles, the property of
Louisa Perin and Joseph Bacon, her employers, at
Burnham, on 9th March. She pleaded guilty, and was
sentenced to one month'• imprisonment with hard
labour.

James Batton, 22, labourer, was charged with steal-
ing a coat, value 155., the property of James Yesbury,
at Frome, on 21st February. Prisoner pleaded not
guilty. It appears that he was a lodger at prosecutor's
house, and took advantage of his position to steal the
coat, and immediately afterwards to sell it. Having
been previously convicted, be was sentenced to six
months' imprisonment with hard labour.
George Knapton, 40, cheesemonger, was charged with
forging and altering a cheque for payment of £3O, with
intent to defraud, at Bath, on 20th Febrnary. Prisoner
pleaded Not Guilty.—Mr. T. W. Saunders, with Mr.
Murch, prosecuted, and Mr. Edlen defended.—From
the evidence it would appear that on the 19th February
prisoner sent • young woman, named Rebecca Wilkins,
to a neighbouring tradesman with a request that he
would oblige • Mr. Harding with a cheque for £2 in
exchange for cash. A cheque on the National Pro-
vincial Bank was given to the female and handed to
the prisoner.—ln cross-examination Rebecca Wilkins
admitted that prisoner accosted her for the first time in
then street, and that she accompanied him to the
Chequers Inn. She had been a servant, but had not
been in a situation for some time.—To bring the charge
home to the prisoner Esther Gay was called to prove
that the prisoner asked her to take a cheque for rx to
the hank to get it cashed, the same cheque as obtained
from Mr. Smith, only the words and figures altered
from two to thirty. That it had been so altered a
cashier of the bank was called to depose the presentation
of the cheque for £3O by Esther Gay, as well as Mr.
Smith to prove that the amount for which he gave a
cheque was £2—The defence set up by Mr. Edlin was
that the evidence of Esther Gay was open to great
doubt, as the prisoner appeared not to be the only
gentleman whom she was acquainted with.—His Lord-
ship pointed out to the jury, having the assistance of a
magnifying f$ lass, the alterations that appeared to have
been made in the cheque.—The jury found him guilty
of uttering. A previous conviction for a similar offence
at New Sarum, Wilts, in 1854, was proved, when he
was sentenced to six years penal servitude. Prisoner
was now awarded seven years penal servitude
John Parish, 35, labourer, was charged with stealing
6 pecks of wheat, valued at 95., and a bag of the value
of is., the property of his master, Richard Hodge, at
Thorne Falcon, on 11th February.—Mary Parish, wife
of the prisoner, was also indicted for participating in
the offence, but the counsel for the prosecution, Mr.
Greaves, having stated it was not the intention of the
prosecutor to offer any evidence against her, she was
found Not Guilty, and discharged.—The husband
pleaded Guilty, and received two months' hard labour.

Slizabeeli Coombe*, a midwife, was indicted, on the
coroner's inquisition, for the manslaughter of George
Govier, at Taunton, on the 15th October. The jury
found her guilty, but recommended her to mercy. The
learned judge said he should not, under the eircutn-
stenoes of the cane, pass any sentence upon her, but
should discharge her on recognisance to come up for
judgment when called upon,
The bill against William Merchant, Edward Smith,
Henry Musty, end Giles Broad, for stealing a quantity
of lead and other metal fixed in the church of the parish
of Freshford, the property of the churchwardens of the
pariah, on or about the 12th September, 1859, was
thrown out by the grand jury.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YRIDAY:
(Before Mr. Judice BLACKBURN.)

The oause list contained the monies of twelve civil
oontests, four of which were put down to be held by
special juries.

ERUCT{ OF PROMISE OF MARRIAOII.
Webber v. Wills.—This was an action to recover
damages for a breach of promise of marriage.—Mr. H.
T. Cole And Mr. Lopes appeared for plaintiff, and Mr.
P' rideaux for defendant. —Plaintiff is the daughter of •
retired farmer, and defendant • fanner residing in the
parish of North Petherton, near Bridgwater. The
plaintiff, who is 33 years of age, rents about • dozen
acres of land, and keeps cows. The defendant, who is
about 35, rents a farm of his father's, the latter residing
with him. The parties had known each other from
childhood, and defendant had paid his addresses to
plaintiff for several years. In 1860 they were formally
engaged, and were to have been married. The de-
fendant subsequently seduced her, and she became
exciente. On her condition being known to her parents
they communicated with the defendant, and he pro-
mised to " make all right ;" the girl should have a
husband and the child a father. He also wrote the
following letter:—
_ _

May 19th, 1861,
Dear Miss,--Since the noise have been I shall forsake
Creech altogether, hut you will find me as I :lel I you.
You will not be left like Mina liembrow was, and I
shall see you in the course of a week or fortnight, so

make yourself happy, and not trouble till you are
forced. I promised to seed_ you a letter before tbis
week was out, but I could not mike it convenient.
Please to send hack a note by the boy.—l aim
yours, &es, E. WI U.&
He subsequently promised to marry her, and obtainad
a license, but put it off rintil a later date, on some
frivolous excuse. Every preparation was made, but oft
the morning fixed for the wedding the defendant sent
the following letter :
June 19, 1961.
Dear Eliza,—l am very sorry that this should happen
has it has, but I cannot be no otherwise than I have all
wise told you. There ii no more marriage love hi me
than when I was six years old, so do not think anything
about me marrying no more. I would sooner sacrifice
any reasonable thing than think anything about marry-
ing. If I was to marry you my happiness would b•
lost, and if I did not marry you, your happiness would be
lost. There ix not one thing that my mind thinks on,
no do consider and think on future happiness, not
because I love another better, or for the love of money,
for I have often told you that riches would not tempt
me nor poverty keep me from it, but my mind do not
lead me to a marriage life, and I am very sorry that it
should happen, and the reason that I have kept it on es
long has praying to God to change my mind, but the
nearer it comes the more I was against it. I may have
reason to curse the day that I was not married, but if I
Was to die a vagabond I could not help it, so do write
and let me know your mind as soon RS possible.
I am, yours, fee.,
EDWARD Wiwi.
The defendant dial not marry her, and the occurrence
had a serious effect on her. She gave birth to a still.
born child in September' 1881. The defendant had
placed a plea on the record that the promise had not
been made, but the learned judge expressed an opinion
that the promise was proved by the evidence of the
plaintiff's witnesses. Mr. Prideaux addressed the ivy
in mitigation of damages, and the jury returned •
verdict for £6O damages.