The Express.
London, England, 1867-09-07 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(Before Mr. Serjeant Dowling, Deputy-Assistant Judge.)
Jowl)h Thomas Gunn was indicted for unlawfully as-
saulting Thomas Mott, ► police-constable belonging to the
metropolitan police force, in the execution of his duty.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted ; Mr. Montagu Williams de
fended the prisoner, who surrendered in discharge of his
bail.

Thomas Mott said—l am a police-constable, No. 345 K,
and at about 2 o'clock in the morning of the 25th of July
I was on duty in Ashwell-road, Bow-road, and there I saw
two females. I turned m' lamp upon them, and the
light fell upon the prisoners face as he came along with
a female. He came up to me and struck me on the
mouth, and afterwards called me by a variety of filthy
and offensive names. I asked him what he did that for,
and he said because I was a thief, repeating
some other vulgar names. I told him that I should take
him into custody for assaulting me. He proceeded as far
as the front of Aberdeen-terrace, Globe-road, where be
put his foot on the iron railings, tried to throw me down,
and knocked off my helmet. He also called out " Police !"
and " Murder!" upon which two volunteers, one a ser-
geant and the other a corporal, came running up and as-
sisted me in conveying the prisoner to the station-house.
I was several yards from the prisoner when my light fell
on him.

Cross-examined—l only threw my light once on the pri-
soner's face. I did not know the prisoner. I did not lay
hold of the prisoner and push him against a wall till be
hit me twice and knocked off my helmet. I was talking
to a female, as the woman asked me where she could ob-
tain a lodging. I did not ask two volunteers at the
station-house to swear that I was assaulted. They did not
tell me that they would not say what was untrue. I did
not ask the volunteers to look at my mouth and see how
it was swollen.

James Taylor, police-sergeant, 51 K, said I was at the
Bow station when police•constable 345 K came there
and charged the prisoner with assaulting him. The
wife of the prisoner, who was in the station-house, said
that constable 345 drew his truncheon, and was about to
strike her husband, but she prevented him. I asked the
constable if he drew his truncheon, and ho said no, and
the volunteer sergeant said he had seen no unnecessary
violence, nor had he seen the assault. A girl named
Nichols was brought in, and she said she was standing
talking to the police-constable, asking him if he could tell
her where to get a lodging, when she saw him turn his
light on, and the prisoner, who was there, turned and
struck the constable. The prisoner then asked the con-
stable if he did not call his wife a —, and the constable
said he never said anything until be was struck.
Joseph Goodson, polies-constable 727 K, corroborated
this evidence.

Mr. M. Williams then addressed the jury for the pri-
soner and contended that he had been very ruthlessly
treated by the policeman, who had twice offensively turned
his bull's-eye upon him and called his wife by a most
offensive name. He was naturally incensed at such an
epithet being applied to his wife, by whom he wee accom-
panied, and if he had committed any offence the police-
man was the Srst aggressor.
Several witnesses were called for the defence, amongst
them a sergeant and corporal of volunteers, who said they
did not witness the assault, but bearing cries they ran up
to the place, and when they got to the station-house
the prisoner said it was not likely that be should nand
quietly by when his wife had been called by the policeman
a most offensive name.

About a dozen witnesses were called who gave the pri.
eoner a very high character as a quiet and inoffensive man,
having known him for years as a licensed victualler.
The Judge summed up the evidence, and, after consult.
ing some time in the box, the jury expressed a desire to
retire to consider their verdict. After being absent for
nearly two hours they came into court, and the foreman
said there was not the slightest probability of their agree-
ing, as they were nearly balanced in numbers. There
were seven for an acquittal, and five for a verdict of guilty.
The Judge said, if there was no likelihood of their agree-
ing, be had no other course to pursue than to discharge
them without giving a verdict.
The foreman said there was no chance whatever of their
agreeing. . .

The Jury were then discharged, and the prisoner was
liberated on the same amount of bail as before taken—
viz., himself in 401. and one surety in the sum of 201.

THE POLICE COURTS.