The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-05-15 00:00:00

STAFFORDSHIRE ASSIZES.

OUTRAGE ON A WOMAN. At the Stafforishire I
Assizes. on Thursday, before Mr. Justice Stephen,
David Wilson (22), boatman, was indicted for
felonicusly assaulting Mary Ann Rowley on the
220 d April at Kingswinford. Mr. Kettle appeared
for the proseenton. and Mr. Cranstoun defended
the prii.ouer.—Protecutrix is a married woman, and
was proceeding in the directioa of Kingawinferd
when it- was alleged that prisoner pa:4,od her.
Shortly afterwards he returned and assaulted her
Fo: th defence a plea of mistaken identity was set
up —The jury, however, found the prisoner guilty
at a tempted rape, and his Lordship sentenced him
.o eighteen months' hard labour, remarking that
hs case was a very bad one.
CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST A POLICZISIAN•—
James Winfield (on bail), a policeman, was indicted
j for perjury at Old Hill on the 18th June, 1885.
, Mr James and Mr. Pearson prosecuted; Mr. Young
1 and Mr. Kettle defended the accused. The alleged
perjury consisted in the prisoner swearing before •
the magistrates that three men, named Evans,
Bright, and Barratt, were present at a cock fight.—
Mr. Young took a preliminary objection under the
Vexatious Indictments Act.—Mr. James said it up.
peered the three men could all give an account of
themselves on the date named, and if the case went
on he was prepared with ad i ional testimony to
corroborate their statements. The officer admitted
that he wos ne nearer to the fight than IGO yards,
and that ho had not known Evans before that day.
fie therefore thought if the efence was thht he had
made a mistake, he was willing to say on behalf of
the men —His Lordship here observed that on read-
ing the depositions he thought it might have been
it mistake. If the matter was a mistake the prose-
cwien could not say that they would offer no evi-
dence, bet that they couLi not disprove that prisoner
!lad made a mi,;take, lie thought there was nothing
inconsistent with its being a mistake. Mr. James
said if that was his lordship's view he would at once
withdraw from the prosecution.—The Judge: You
do not impute any personal spi7e to this man 7—Mr.
Ta:nes : No, my lord.—His lordship remarked that
Mr. James was quite right, as there seemed no evi-
dence of such a thing. Prisoner had simply done
wlett he considered his dny. The evidence went a
lung way to show that they were not at the cock-
fight, and it seemed to him the most natural sup-
posi:ien that the policeman had made a mistake.
Everyo te would agree that the officer had sworn
ineorrectly. if the men had been guilty they would
not have very sager in coining forward, and they
mid "TiT)ee behaved honourably. Prisoner then
pleaded no: guilty to the charge, and no evidence
be rig offered, a formal verdict of not guilty w.s
taken —His Lordship said that perjury by a police-
man to secure a conviction was a most terrible
‘,f:::.e.c-, and oue deserving an exemplary punish.
meet. Nobody deserved support more than police-
men, and nobody deserved punishment more when
they violated their duty. He was glad to bear
teztiin: ny to the general excellence of policemen in
thie respect.—Yrisoner was then discharged.